The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Will McRaney’s final effort to hold the Southern Baptist Convention North American Mission Board responsible for his 2015 firing as executive director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland and Delaware.
In a legal battle that has stretched across eight years, the high court Feb. 23 denied McRaney’s request for a writ of certiorari, a formal request to review a decision from a lower court.
Will McRaney
In McRaney’s case, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the “church autonomy doctrine” — also known as the ecclesial abstention doctrine — precludes the court from considering whether McRaney was wrongfully terminated by outside influence from NAMB.
McRaney and others have warned this appeals court ruling sets a dangerous precedent that sees Baptist polity as hierarchical rather than autonomous.
NAMB leaders issued a statement about the Monday morning court decision: “The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision brings closure to a long and difficult legal dispute filed against our ministry nearly nine years ago. The outcome in this matter — the opinion of the Fifth Circuit — now stands as a landmark protection of religious liberty for all Southern Baptists and other people of faith.”
While a host of Baptist leaders warned the Fifth Circuit’s decision endangered religious liberty for Baptists, NAMB officials see the opposite.
“The Fifth Circuit recognized and respected doctrinal autonomy and voluntary cooperation among Baptist churches and ministries, while also carefully applying longstanding First Amendment principles that protect religious organizations from having internal ministry matters scrutinized by civil courts. We are grateful,” the statement says.
In its earlier ruling, the Fifth Circuit wrote: “Baptist ecclesiology is non-hierarchical, and each Baptist church is autonomous. Nevertheless, Baptist churches have long voluntarily cooperated in fellowship with one another and pooled resources for missions, evangelism and church planting.”
It is the “nevertheless” that gives pause to McRaney’s allies but is seen as a proper ruling by NAMB.
Kevin Ezell
“While NAMB has consistently disputed any claims of wrongdoing in this matter, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling reflects a more important principle: Civil courts may not decide disputes when doing so would require them to evaluate faith-based judgments, religious doctrine or internal religious governance. We respect the right of others to express differing views, but civil courts are not the proper forum for resolving disagreements like this among churches, ministries, or ministry leaders. The Constitution rightly protects against such government entanglement.”
McRaney’s court filing characterized the lower court ruling as saying the ecclesial abstention doctrine “provides a defendant immunity from claims by a plaintiff who never worked for the defendant, never served as a minister for the defendant and never submitted to the authority of the defendant with respect to any ecclesiastical or secular matter.”
Therefore, McRaney said, the question to the Supreme Court is this: “Does the church autonomy doctrine apply to, and foreclose, civil law claims which are not disputes about the internal affairs or self-governance of a religious institution?”
At the Fifth Circuit, two of the three judges reviewing his case said the nonhierarchical structure of Baptist churches has no bearing on whether the court can accept McRaney’s case. The very nature of an employment dispute within a religious context triggers the abstention doctrine, they said.
McRaney and his attorney, Scott Gant, vehemently disagreed. If the president of a mission board can threaten to withhold funding from an autonomous organization for not heeding his request on firing an employee, no employee at any such institution is safe, they said.
While the facts of NAMB and its president, Kevin Ezell, applying pressure to BCMD to fire McRaney are not disputed, NAMB continues to insist this was not improper.
In response to the ruling, McRaney said: “Sandy and I are grateful for the prayers and support as we have sought to defend the rights of Baptists. While we are disappointed the Supreme Court did not choose to grant certiorari in this particular case, we trust that in time justice will be done and the rights of Baptist people and partners restored. This decision will have an impact on millions of Baptists and other religious groups.”
McRaney claimed NAMB “secured their right to do what God forbids, to defame and interfere with Baptist ministers, partners and financial supporters. Over time, their victory will be seen as a historic loss in multiple ways.”
Related articles:
Fifth Circuit panel rules 2-1 in favor of NAMB and against McRaney
McRaney hearing explores whether there are any times courts may decide ‘religious’ matters
U.S. district judge dismisses McRaney’s case against NAMB
Seven years later, Will McRaney might get his day in court against NAMB — maybe
Key witness offers damning testimony against Ezell as NAMB gets McRaney trial delayed two months
McRaney warns dismissal of his case against NAMB raises urgent threat to Baptist autonomy