First, the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee got the cart before the horse by filing an amicus brief opposing Will McRaney’ defamation case against the SBC North American Mission Board. Then the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied the Executive Committee’s right to file a brief in the case at all.
That has left the legal team of the Executive Committee exposed not only for failing to follow court protocol but also for publicizing their argument that has been roundly criticized by other Southern Baptist leaders.
Will McRaney
On Dec. 15, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Dana M. Douglas issued a one-sentence ruling denying the Executive Committee’s attempt to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that concerns McRaney’s firing as executive director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland and Delaware at the behest of NAMB and NAMB President Kevin Ezell. McRaney contends NAMB and Ezell defamed him to his employer and to other potential employers, driven by Ezell’s personal vendetta against McRaney.
This case has been winding through the courts for seven years, and now its latest dismissal is on appeal by McRaney to the Firth Circuit Court.
Executive Committee joins the fray
Amid that backdrop, on Dec. 4, lawyers for the SBC Executive Committee on the same day filed both a request to file an amicus brief and filed the brief itself — breaking court protocol that requires those filing briefs to be accepted by the court in advance.
Soon after, McRaney filed a formal opposition to the Executive Committee brief, arguing it should not be allowed because the Executive Committee and NAMB are essentially the same organization.
The Executive Committee and NAMB “are closely related affiliates from the same organization — the Southern Baptist Convention,” McRaney’s Dec. 6 opposition brief states.
“NAMB is an agency of the SBC, and the SBC is the sole member of NAMB and appoints NAMB’s directors,” the argument continues. “Thus, NAMB and (the Executive Committee) are not sufficiently separate entities for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.”
“Beyond the election of trustees, the SBC does not claim and is expressly prohibited from ever attempting to exercise any authority over NAMB.”
The Executive Committee filed a response saying McRaney “misrepresents the relationship” between the SBC, the Executive Committee and NAMB: “The SBC’s role as the sole member of NAMB is limited to electing trustees. Beyond the election of trustees, the SBC does not claim and is expressly prohibited from ever attempting to exercise any authority over NAMB.”
The motion further says the Executive Committee “has no legal or governance authority over NAMB to direct any action of NAMB, and neither the SBC nor the (Executive Committee) control the finances or expenditures of any funds by NAMB. NAMB is governed by its trustees.”
Kevin Ezell
The federal appeals court did not buy the Executive Committee’s argument and, while not explaining its decision, sided with McRaney’s objection and denied the Executive Committee permission to file its already public brief.
That brief, which sided with NAMB and Ezell, raised alarms with some Southern Baptist leaders because of its interpretation of Baptist polity, namely that solemnized partnership agreements between SBC entities supersede the norms of Baptist autonomy.
In early November, Morris Chapman, a former president of the SBC Executive Committee joined 60 other signers in an amicus brief siding with McRaney against NAMB and Ezell. Those signers said NAMB has misrepresented Baptist polity.
ERLC was planning on a brief
Meanwhile, the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission reportedly was planning to join an amicus brief filed by a coalition led by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and including the National Association of Evangelicals; the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod; the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists; Catholic Diocese of Biloxi; Catholic Diocese of Jackson; Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty; and the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute.
However, when McRaney and his counsel objected to the ERLC’s participation in that brief the ERLC withdrew and the other petitioners proceeded.
The ERLC already has one enormous gaffe to its credit in the McRaney case when it earlier filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court claiming the SBC operates in a hierarchical structure, which is not true. That brief had to be amended but caused months of havoc for the agency that is housed in the same building as the Executive Committee in Nashville, Tenn.
“His suit inescapably involves religious matters that the First Amendment jealously guards.”
The LDS brief sides with NAMB and says: “The Constitution guarantees churches and other religious organizations the freedom to remove religious leaders without judicial oversight or interference. Will McRaney asks this court to ignore that well-established principle by pursuing tort claims against (NAMB) for its role in his dismissal. His suit inescapably involves religious matters that the First Amendment jealously guards.”
A unique legal question
What makes McRaney’s case unique is that he did not sue his former employer, the Baptist Convention of Maryland and Delaware. That case most certainly would have gone nowhere because his employment with the state convention was, in fact, a matter of internal religious practice.
Instead, he sued NAMB and Ezell for defaming his character to the BCMD and other potential employers. That charge should be allowed, he says, because NAMB was not his employer, Ezell was not his supervisor and their interference with the personnel decisions of an autonomous Baptist body cannot be construed as an internal doctrinal matter.
The last judge to deny McRaney his day in court dismissed the case by saying, in part, that determining what really went on — even if it was outside religious doctrine — would inevitably require investigating religious doctrine. McRaney contends no such barrier need be crossed to see the simple act of outside bullying and intimidation carried out by NAMB and Ezell.
This case has enormous implications for religious employers nationwide if McRaney prevails in distinguishing a line between religiously protected personnel decisions and unprotected personnel decisions in church-related organizations.
His case has direct correlation to a decision handed down earlier this month by another judge against World Vision, a global Christian social welfare ministry that rescinded an employment offer for a woman once she acknowledged she is married to another woman. World Vision contends it has the right to enforce its moral requirements on all employees, but the judge said that right is not absolute and does not extend to employees who do not function as ministers.
Thus, other faith-based employers have been paying close attention to McRaney’s case. In addition to the LDS brief, an amicus brief has been filed by Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a conservative evangelical advocacy group.
“Religious leaders fighting with their own faith groups over leadership decisions should not be allowed to entangle the federal courts in the dispute, even if their chosen defendant isn’t their ‘employer,’ the Beckett brief states.
It adds: “The First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine — and its component protecting religious leadership decisions, the ministerial exception — should have led to the dismissal of this case at the threshold. Religious leadership decisions are no business of civil courts. Once the ecclesiastical subject of this case became clear, it should have been dismissed with prejudice.
“Pastor McRaney asserts that his case is special because Baptists in the United States do not organize themselves under a central hierarchy. But Baptists are not the only faith community in the United States that eschew centralized hierarchies. Many others also organize themselves in a non-hierarchical fashion.”
Related articles:
Judge rules against World Vision, saying not all employees are ‘ministerial’ in nature
SBC Executive Committee files amicus brief supporting NAMB against Will McRaney
McRaney to file appeal and keep his case against NAMB alive
Morris Chapman joins 60 signers of court brief arguing against Kevin Ezell and NAMB