Texas Baptist blogger Spiritual Samurai is no longer almost alone in bringing to light a lawsuit filed by a pastor named in a 2006 Texas church-starting scandal.

Details have been published by the N.C. Biblical Recorder and others (1, 2, 3).

The suit was filed on June 20 in Hidalgo County (Texas) District Court by Otto Arango, one of three pastors at the center of an in-house Baptist General Convention of Texas. It alleges libel, slander and defamation over allegations that Arango misappropriated church funds.

The suit is against the Texas Baptist Standard; Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT); David Montoya (Spiritual Samurai); Calvary Baptist Church in Mineral Wells, Texas; the Palo Pinto Association; David Tamez; Dexton Shores; Roberto Rodriguez; Primera Iglesia Bautista; and Eloy Hernandez. Moreover, the suit specifically accuses the Baptist Standard, the state convention's official newspaper, of publishing allegations against Arango "with malice and lack of good faith."

In a May 25, 2007 story headlined No lawsuits planned; too costly & complex, lawyer suggests, the Standard wrote:

Last year, a five-month independent investigation uncovered evidence that 98 percent of the 258 new churches reported by three church planters in the Rio Grande Valley between 1999 and 2005 no longer exist, and some never existed--except on paper. Those churches received more than $1.3 million from the BGCT. The investigative team faulted the BGCT Executive Board staff for poor oversight, uneven management, failure to abide by internal guidelines and misplaced trust.

Arango says in the suit that success for his innovative strategy for planting new Hispanic Baptist churches was foreclosed when the BGCT hired lawyers to investigate rumors that he was using BGCT funds for personal gain. Arango argues the state convention exhibited "extreme callousness and reckless disregard" for his reputation," causing him to suffer "tremendous loss not only in the United States, but also in Latin American countries.

The "five-month independent investigation" and subsequent inaction laid the foundation for this lawsuit. The investigative report [.pdf] documented inadequacies in BGCT record-keeping and recorded allegations against Arango. Yet the BGCT failed to move on to attempt to prove wrongdoing, thus leaving the door open to counteraction.

They reasoned that further action would be unjustifiably expensive, and this lawsuit is the test of that judgment.