Leaders work on rules to allow firearms in state facilities
In late February, after nearly a decade of trying to pass legislation to repeal the state's gun-free zones, lawmakers passed Enrolled Act 24, 'Wyoming Repeal Gun Free Zones Act.' The new law, which will go into effect this summer, repeals gun-free zones at public schools, community colleges, the University of Wyoming and state-owned government buildings. Gov. Mark Gordon let the new law go into effect without his signature, calling it a 'legislative power grab.'
The State Building Commission must promulgate rules around firearms in public buildings to match state statute, and in early April, had a wide-ranging discussion on amending rules that covered not only firearms, but also public demonstrations at the Capitol. On Thursday, leaders shifted to a more targeted approach.
'Our direction was simply to reflect as simply as possible the legislation that passed' repealing Wyoming's gun-free zones, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder told her colleagues on the SBC of the latest rule draft.
'There is nothing in the rules that covers those other things discussed, as pertaining to surety bonds or public gatherings,' Degenfelder said. 'We simply looked at how we include the codified language into our rules.'
The commission, which includes Degenfelder, Gordon, Secretary of State Chuck Gray, State Auditor Kristi Racines and State Treasurer Curt Meier, must pass rules to govern firearm carry provisions in the public spaces, implementing the new state law, before the new state statutes become effective July 1.
'I think (the rules) do an excellent job following the enrolled act,' Sen. Ogden Driskill, R-Devils Tower, told the commission Thursday via Zoom. In January, the executive branch adopted similar amended rules that applied only to the Capitol and the Capitol Complex in Cheyenne. The new rules will apply to all buildings owned by the state of Wyoming.
'These rules will apply much more broadly,' Racines said Thursday.
The rules will not apply to facilities exempted under statute, or buildings the state leases under general services' leasing authority. It also excludes spaces in publicly owned buildings that are subject to a lease to a private party.
Rules must be in place by July, and while the board discussed embarking on an emergency rulemaking process to meet that timeline, only Gray advocated for an expedited process. Instead, the commission voted to start the regular rulemaking with an additional meeting planned for June, if necessary, to meet the July deadline.
'Today, I do not believe we meet the threshold to pass emergency rules,' Racines said.
Gray referenced what he called a 'fear of firearms' in 'letters from the Governor's office' and said that he would prefer to start the emergency rulemaking process immediately.
'I am a little bit concerned, because we do have a bill that is going into effect as the law of the land on July 1,' Gray said. 'I think it would be better to start this process now.'
Gordon responded that, 'From my standpoint, we have carry here (in the Capitol), and it is great we are going to expand that.'
'I want to assure people there is no attempt to try to roll back or walk away from what we have here,' Gordon said.
Leases and insurance rates
Leaders discussed how to handle facilities that are privately owned, but leased by state agencies, and whether the new rules should stipulate that lease negotiations prioritize carrying of firearms.
'When you have a lease, what is (the Wyoming Department of Administration and Information) going to do to try and negotiate carry into the buildings?' Gray asked. 'I think that A&I should be asked as a default, as a first method, to try to negotiate that.'
Racines responded that lease negotiations could be handled under A&I leasing rules, rather than proposed SBC rule changes. Acknowledging private property rights, the commissioners discussed the possibility that building owners who enter into state leases may not want to allow firearms into their facilities, because such a practice could mean rising insurance costs.
Gray argued the new law will actually make those facilities safer.
'Removing these gun-free zones and allowing for carry protects these areas,' he said. 'I still see a lot of (people) struggling with this concept, but it should lower our liability.
'This increases safety, and while it might not fit this CNN-style worldview that schools across our country have tried to build, the research shows that this increases safety,' Gray said. 'If it did increase insurance rates, I think that is something A&I would need to move forward to the insurance commissioner because I think it would be consistent with predatory behavior.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
15-07-2025
- Atlantic
I Left My Church—And Found Christianity
A decade after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Southern Baptist Convention wants to roll it back. In June, the SBC overwhelmingly voted to pass a resolution, 'On Restoring Moral Clarity Through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,' which defines marriage as an exclusively heterosexual covenant and calls for the overturning of Obergefell. For many Americans, gay marriage feels like a settled issue. For Southern Baptists and others who share their theology, the question of the legality of gay marriage is still open. In their view, political and theological opposition is the only possible Christian response to gay marriage, and continuing to challenge marriage equality is a moral duty. The Church they have shaped has no room for the alternative path that many gay Christians have found: not leaving our religion, but embracing our sexuality alongside our faith. I grew up in conservative, evangelical churches. For my undergraduate degree, I attended Union University, a Southern Baptist school in Jackson, Tennessee. I graduated in 2013, and in the years leading up to Obergefell I saw how the growing cultural acceptance of same-sex relationships was haunting Southern Baptist leaders, who viewed it as an existential threat. Their idea of Christian faithfulness in America became synonymous with fighting for a narrow, biblically literalist sexual ethic to be the law of the land. The resolution from the Southern Baptist Convention echoes the arguments I heard as a student: Secular laws are meant to reflect God's moral order, and calling a same-sex partnership a marriage is flatly lying. In one of my ethics classes at Union, the professor insisted that Christians should strongly oppose the legalization of gay marriage as a matter of love for our neighbor. We should not let others enter into something we knew would be destructive, no matter how much they might think they wanted it. One of my classmates suggested that people might be born gay. Would this require a more compassionate response? The professor was unfazed. 'I'm sure there is a biological component, and that doesn't change my view. You can have cancer that is not your fault, and some people are born with cancer of the soul.' David A. Graham: New, ominous signs for gay rights keep emerging The threat Southern Baptists perceived was not just to the social order at large. I heard dire warnings that the legalization of gay marriage would become the catalyst for renewed Christian persecution in America. I heard sermons describing a future where our Church would be dismantled because we refused to perform same-sex marriages. Gay marriage was not a matter of individual freedom; the real freedom at stake was our religious liberty. These predictions have not come to fruition in the 10 years since Obergefell, but the fears persist. In 'On Restoring Moral Clarity,' it crops up in references to laws compelling people to 'speak falsehoods about sex and gender' and the right of each person to 'speak the truth without fear or coercion.' Though churches still have the freedom to refuse to perform gay marriages, ordain openly gay people, or serve Communion to those in same-sex relationships, the idea that Christians are legally forced to accept LGBTQ identities remains a powerful rhetorical tool. My alma mater also benefits from religious exemptions to nondiscrimination laws: In 2020, Union University rescinded its admission of a student entering its nursing program after learning that he was gay. As it did then, the current student handbook at Union prohibits 'homosexual activities' and the 'promotion, advocacy, defense, or ongoing practice of a homosexual lifestyle.' Despite national reporting and a flood of stories from gay alumni about the damage these policies caused, the university continues to exclude LGBTQ students. When I was a student at Union, I did not know I was a lesbian. Maybe it is more accurate to say that I could not know. I believed in and yearned for the God the Church had taught me about. I could not reconcile what I had been raised to believe God wanted from me with the truth of my sexuality. When I finally realized I was gay, I was no longer in the Southern Baptist Church. After graduating from Union, I joined a congregation in the Anglican Church of North America, a conservative denomination formed in a split from the Episcopal Church over women's ordination and the inclusion of gay members. My new church's leaders felt no need to lament Obergefell when it passed, but they still taught that same-sex relationships were antithetical to Christianity. When I came out to them in 2018, the choice set before me was either lifelong celibacy or leaving my beloved community behind. According to my Southern Baptist education, I was also choosing whether to leave God behind. The evangelical voices in my life framed my dilemma as a choice between faithfulness to God and weakness—a capitulation to secular logic and a selfish desire for pleasure. In Matthew 16:24, Jesus calls on his disciples to 'deny themselves and take up their cross.' Gay Christians are all too familiar with these words as weapons. Everyone has a cross, we are told, and it just so happens that ours is living without the romantic partnership we are built to flourish within. Pastors and mentors assured me that I was following God's design, so my sacrifice would eventually lead me to 'have life … abundantly,' which Jesus promises in John 10:10, no matter how painful the interim. The final sentence of 'On Restoring Moral Clarity' says that Christians proceed 'trusting that' God's 'ways lead to human flourishing.' No amount of despair, suffering, and death (most literally reflected in increased suicidality among LGBTQ people of faith) experienced by gay Christians has managed to challenge this presupposition. It is a matter of faith that our suffering is godly. We continue to receive counsel to take up our cross in the hope of a distant resurrection. I spent years telling myself that I could love my Church enough to make up for all the love I would never have. I hoped that the emptiness that burned in my chest could be transformed. It was only one rule. Could I really not follow just one rule? But that one rule was not one simple sacrifice. It was the total subjugation of my ability to give and receive love, an all-encompassing demand of fealty to the authority of my Church. The ground shifted under me as I fought to stay in the Church. By the summer of 2020, I was in a deep crisis of faith. I saw gay Christians happily married while retaining their commitment to faith, and I could not in good conscience deny the Holy Spirit I saw at work in these relationships. I realized that the choice was not between God and my desire for a relationship. It was between my church community and my own integrity. My decision to leave was agonizing. I sobbed through conversations where a pastor recited our Church's theology of marriage. I prayed for a way forward. In the end, the only way forward was out. Today I work for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), at a congregation that fully affirms all LGBTQ people. I am effectively estranged from the communities that I grew up in and committed to as an adult. At first, I worried that embracing my sexuality alongside my faith meant choosing a less serious, less disciplined form of Christianity. Instead, I have found that in leaving my Church, I found only deeper love for God. The cross I took up did not turn out to be forgoing romantic partnership for the rest of my life. Instead, it was listening to the voice of the Spirit within me even when it cost me more than I knew I had. I was not surprised to lose friendships and the network of support that I had had in the evangelical Church. What took longer to accept was the unmooring of my identity, the need to find a new center for my spirituality once I let go of the theology that shaped me. To affirm the goodness of my sexuality, I had to find a new home. Stephanie Burt: A strange time to be trans In my Southern Baptist university and the evangelical Churches I grew up attending, I often heard that opposition to gay marriage was a sincerely held religious belief that Christians should be allowed to practice. I never heard this same language extended to Christians who affirmed the goodness of same-sex relationships. I heard only that theological affirmation of LGBTQ identities was a weak attempt to appease secular culture. For many Christians, affirmation of queer identities is an equally sincere religious conviction. The churches that embrace LGBTQ people as beloved members of the community are motivated by Christian love for God and neighbor. We see the beauty of God's design in our real, embodied lives, and we seek human flourishing that is more than an abstract promise of finding meaning in the pain. The gay and trans Christians I know are the most committed people of faith I have ever met. We had every reason to leave, and yet we are still here. We are here because we still believe in Jesus, and we still believe the Spirit works through this beloved, holy, and achingly human Church. Historically, the Church has seen marriage as a vocation, a calling from God to be formed by a particular way of life. When gay Christians seek to commit their life to their partner through marriage in the eyes of God and the law, they are asking for the religious liberty to act on their sincerely held convictions. For 10 years, Obergefell has protected our right to practice our faith as our conscience dictates. May we continue to have the freedom to love as God leads us to for many generations.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Southern Baptists' call for the US Supreme Court to overturn its same-sex marriage decision is part of a long history of opposing women's and LGBTQ+ people's rights
The Southern Baptist Convention has lost 3.6 million members over the past two decades and faces an ongoing sexual abuse crisis. At its June 2025 annual meeting, however, neither of those issues took up as much time as controversial social issues, including the denomination's stance on same-sex marriage. The group called for the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges – the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage – and the creation of laws that 'affirm marriage between one man and one woman.' Messengers – Southern Baptists' word for delegates from local churches – also asked for laws that would 'reflect the moral order revealed in Scripture and nature.' They also decried declining fertility rates, commercial surrogacy, Planned Parenthood, 'willful childlessness,' the normalization of 'transgender ideology,' and gender-affirming medical care. This detailed list targeting women's and LGBTQ+ rights was justified by an appeal to a God-ordained created order, as defined by Southern Baptists' interpretation of the Bible. In this created order, sex and gender are synonymous and are irrevocably defined by biology. The heterosexual nuclear family is the foundational institution of this order, with the father dominant over his wife and children – and children are a necessity if husbands and wives are to be faithful to God's design for the family. The resolution, On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family, passed easily in a denomination that was taken over from more moderate Southern Baptists by fundamentalists in the early 1990s, largely in response to women's progress in society and in the denomination. Southern Baptists were always conservative on issues of gender and sexuality. As I was entering a Southern Baptist seminary in the early 1980s, the denomination seemed poised to embrace social progress. I watched the takeover firsthand as a student and then as a professor of women and gender studies who studies Southern Baptists. This new resolution is the latest in a long history of Southern Baptist opposition to the progress of women and LGBTQ+ people. Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, many Southern Baptists began to embrace the women's movement. Women started to attend Southern Baptist seminaries in record numbers, many claiming a call to serve as pastors. While Southern Baptist acceptance of LGBTQ+ people lagged far behind its nascent embrace of women's rights, progress did seem possible. Then in 1979, a group of Southern Baptist fundamentalists organized to wrest control of the denomination from the moderates who had led it for decades. Any hope for progress on changes regarding LGBTQ+ rights in the denomination quickly died. Across the next two decades, advances made by women, such as being ordained and serving as senior pastors, eroded and disappeared. The SBC had passed anti-gay resolutions in the 1970s defining homosexuality as 'deviant' and a 'sin.' But under the new fundamentalist rule, the SBC became even more vehemently anti-gay and anti-trans. In 1988, the SBC called homosexuality a 'perversion of divine standards,' 'a violation of nature and natural affections,' 'not a normal lifestyle,' and 'an abomination in the eyes of God.' In 1991, they decried government funding for the National Lesbian and Gay Health Conference as a violation of 'the proper role and responsibility of government' because of its encouragement of 'sexual immorality.' Predictably, across the years, the convention spoke out against every effort to advance LGBTQ+ rights. This included supporting the Boy Scouts' ban of gay scouts, opposing military service by LGBTQ+ people, boycotting Disney for its support of LGBTQ+ people, calling on businesses to deny LGBTQ+ people domestic partner benefits and employment nondiscrimination to protect LGBTQ+ people, and supporting the Defense of Marriage Act that limited marriage to a woman and a man. The gender and sexuality topic, however, that has received the most attention from the convention has been marriage equality. Since 1980, the SBC has passed 22 resolutions that touch on same-sex marriage. The SBC passed its first resolution against same-sex marriage in 1996 after the Hawaii Supreme Court indicated the possibility it could rule in favor of same-sex marriage. The court never decided the issue because Hawaii's Legislature passed a bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In 1998, the convention amended its faith statement, the Baptist Faith and Message, to define marriage as 'the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment.' The denomination passed its next resolution in 2003 in response to the Vermont General Assembly's establishment of civil unions. The resolution opposed any efforts to validate same-sex marriages or partnerships, whether legislative, judicial or religious. In 2004, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages in that state, the convention called for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It reiterated this call in 2006. When the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the SBC passed another resolution in 2008 warning of the dire consequences of allowing lesbians and gay men to marry, as people from other states would marry in California and return home to challenge their states' marriage bans. In 2011, the convention offered its support for the Defense of Marriage Act, followed in 2012 by a denunciation of the use of civil rights language to argue for marriage equality. The resolution argues that homosexuality 'does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender.' When Obergefell was before the Supreme Court, the SBC called on the court to deny marriage equality. After Obergefell was decided in favor of same-sex marriage, the convention asked for Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act, which would have prohibited the federal government from discriminating against people based on their opposition to same-sex marriage. That same resolution also offers its support to state attorneys general challenging transgender rights. This was not the first time the SBC had spoken about transgender issues. As early as 2007, the denomination expressed its opposition to allowing transgender people to constitute a protected class in hate crimes legislation. In 2014, the convention stated its belief that gender is fixed and binary and subsequently that trans people should not be allowed gender-affirming care and that government officials should not validate transgender identity. In 2016, the denomination opposed access for transgender people to bathrooms matching their gender identities. In 2021, the convention invoked women's rights – in a denomination famous for its resistance to women's equality – as a reason to undermine trans rights. In its resolution opposing the proposed Equality Act, which would have added sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications, the SBC argued, 'The Equality Act would undermine decades of hard-fought civil rights protections for women and girls by threatening competition in sports and disregarding the privacy concerns women rightly have about sharing sleeping quarters and intimate facilities with members of the opposite sex.' This most recent resolution from June 2025 returns to the themes of fixed and binary gender, a divinely sanctioned hierarchical ordering of gender, and marriage as an institution limited to one woman and one man. While claiming these beliefs are 'universal truths,' the resolution argues that Obergefell is a 'legal fiction' because it denies the biological reality of male and female. Going further, this resolution claims that U.S. law on gender and sexuality should be based on the Bible. The duty of lawmakers, it states, is to 'pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law – about marriage, sex, human life, and family – and to oppose any law that denies or undermines what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.' By taking no action on sexual abuse while focusing its efforts on issues of gender and sexuality, the convention affirmed its decades-long conservative trajectory. It also underlined its willingness to encourage lawmakers to impose these standards on the rest of the nation. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Susan M. Shaw, Oregon State University Read more: Data on sexual orientation and gender is critical to public health – without it, health crises continue unnoticed Southern Baptist Convention votes to expel two churches with female pastors – a religion scholar explains how far back these battles go How women in the Southern Baptist Convention have fought for decades to be ordained Susan M. Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
What a pastor's fight over financial transparency in SBC achieved despite his latest loss
DALLAS — South Carolina pastor Rhett Burns set out to change how the Southern Baptist Convention thinks about financial transparency, and the denomination's top policymaking body defeated many of his hopes. But Burns' advocacy didn't fall on deaf ears, as his congregation at First Baptist Church (FBC) Travelers Rest can attest to. 'It's God's money and we want to have an open hand and be up front with everybody,' Ron Tweedy, a deacon at FBC Travelers Rest, said in an interview. 'And at the end of the day, I just have the same expectation for our denomination as I do for our church.' Tweedy was one of five parishioners to accompany their pastor to Dallas this week as delegates, called messengers, on behalf of FBC Travelers Rest, a congregation of no more than 100. The FBC Travelers Rest delegation cheered on their pastor at the SBC annual meeting as Burns called for stronger requirements for SBC-affiliated agencies to publicly disclose more details about spending, including the salaries of top executives. Burns advocated for the same basic SBC policy changes at the 2023 and 2024 SBC annual meetings, and this year he yet again he faced resistance. Almost none of the legislative proposals that Burns and his allies pushed for moved forward in any meaningful way, and a June 11 floor debate highlighted the differing views among Southern Baptists about how to strengthen financial accountability. Though divided, messengers at the Dallas meeting displayed a greater interest in the denomination's financial health and how to best monitor that health going forward. These differing sentiments emerged when Burns brought a proposed measure that dealt with reporting requirements about executive pay. Burns argues that requiring SBC-affiliated agencies, called entities, to publish detailed financial information like executive pay helps promote trust between those entities and everyday Southern Baptists. The Nashville-based denomination's collective budget, called the Cooperative Program, receives income from church giving and supports 10 major entities. 'I wish we could get back to a point where we trust one another more,' Burns said in an interview. Burns believes having the right guardrails in place instills more confidence in Southern Baptists that entities are responsibly spending that income received from church giving. But a legislative debate dealing with one of Burns' proposals faced fierce opposition from other messengers. 'Is there anything significant to be gained by simply knowing how much money certain people make?" John Piwetz, pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, said during a June 11 debate on the floor of the convention. "It would inevitably generate disagreements, envy and division.' 'I've learned that what matters more than transparency is integrity," Piwetz said. "Publishing salaries is not a solution, it only causes more issues.' Piwetz was speaking against a proposal from Burns to amend a new SBC Business and Financial Plan. The SBC Executive Committee, which is the denomination's administrative arm, put forward a new Business and Financial Plan this year for messengers to adopt. Executive Committee staff said this new version is a step toward greater transparency. But Burns saw the plan as a farce, and he tried to amend it. 'They did it in such a way to try to … take the bullet out of the chamber of those who are pushing for more transparency," Burns said in an interview prior to the June 11 floor debate. Ultimately, messengers strongly rejected Burns' proposed change and adopted the new Business and Financial Plan as presented by the Executive Committee. "I'm disappointed, but this isn't the end of the world," Burns said. "What I'm excited about is going back to Travelers Rest. … We have a lot of work to do at our church." Burns' motivation for his advocacy across the SBC started with his experience at his small-town church. Burns became the pastor at FBC Travelers Rest in 2023 after a ministry career that included seven years serving as a missionary in central Asia. But he long knew of FBC Travelers Rest from his grandparents, who had been longtime members there. There are two members at FBC Travelers Rest who have been there for 70 years, since their baptisms in May 1955. Other members are descendants of the forbearers who founded the church in 1913. 'They have been faithfully giving to this church and faithfully giving to the Cooperative Program,' Burns said. 'There's a gravity there for responsibility with our money. As pastor, I feel a sense of responsibility.' Since Burns' appointment and the addition at around the same time of members like Tweedy, the congregation has been more engaged with SBC news and governance concerns. For this year's convention in Dallas and last year's in Indianapolis, FBC Travelers Rest has sent more messengers than it typically has. Meanwhile, the same virtues have guided the congregation to re-examine its own financial practices. 'Some of the newer members were thinking, 'Hey, we need to be better stewards of what we're actually giving to the Cooperative Program, and making sure that money is being used properly,'' Tweedy said. The church formed a study group to review potential changes to the church's giving to national Southern Baptist ministries. That study group gave a report in April, and the congregation waited to make any final decisions until Burns and Tweedy report back from Dallas. Historically, 10% of FBC Travelers Rest's budget has gone toward the Cooperative Program, which in 2024 totaled $11,508. Now, the church is considering separating out that 10% share and selectively giving to some SBC entities and withholding from others. This model of targeted giving to certain entities is gaining popularity, and recent policy changes at the state level are allowing more churches to do that. There has been growing distrust toward certain entities in the wake of different controversies, causing churches to carefully consider whether their giving is consistent with their values. One example is that more churches are withholding giving to the SBC Executive Committee due to legal fees the committee is paying for abuse-related court battles. 'We're living in this moment where authority is being decentralized in some ways,' Burns said. 'The gatekeepers aren't gatekeeping in the same ways.' Related: What Southern Baptist budget debate says about denomination's precarious funding Elements of these deliberations in Dallas echo those of the 2019 and 2021 SBC annual meetings following a recommendation for financial accountability introduced by Morris Chapman, former chief executive for the SBC Executive Committee. 'It is our desire that we who are administrators and executives … be just as trustworthy and as honest as those serving in the field giving a report to us,' Chapman said at the 2019 meeting in Birmingham, Alabama. 'This year, the light has shined on our cooperative work in ways that revealed our need for reform.' Two years later, the SBC Executive Committee proposed changes to the Business and Financial Plan but faced fierce opposition, including from prominent Southern Baptists who today are top executives at SBC entities. Many were concerned that the proposal gave the SBC Executive Committee too much authority over other entities and their compliance with financial guidelines. The merit of that proposal aside, the fundamental concerns behind it are more prescient than ever. Cooperative Program giving has decreased by 6%, or $12.9 million, since the 2021-22 fiscal year, and many entities have reduced staffing totals since then. Also, the SBC Executive Committee, North American Mission Board, and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary have faced scrutiny for separation agreements between those entities and former executives who resigned, some in scandal. Southern Baptists have often wondered in those cases how much severance the entities paid those ousted executives. Amid this turmoil, Burns' congregation at FBC Travelers Rest has responded differently. Tweedy said some of his fellow parishioners think it's simplest for the church to leave the SBC altogether. Though sympathetic to that unease, Tweedy and Burns support a more balanced strategy. For example, the church can potentially change its giving practices to the national convention without jeopardizing its ability to send messengers to the SBC annual meetings and to continue to advocate for policy changes. To Tweedy, the best way to honor the church's legacy of financial support for the SBC is not to give up. 'Our folks have been giving faithfully for decades,' Tweedy said, 'and it would be irresponsible of us just to take our ball and go home.' Liam Adams covers religion for The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at ladams@ or on social media @liamsadams. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Southern Baptist Convention: Pastor fights for financial accountability
