Baptist Press file photo / Brandon Porter
NASHVILLE (BP) – The legacy of a just-resolved case involving the North American Mission Board may be … nothing.
The Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear Will McRaney’s case against the North American Mission Board, and thus leaving in place the decision of an appeals court in NAMB’s favor, led to assertions from critics that it placed Baptist principles such as church autonomy in jeopardy. Matthew Martens, NAMB’s private counsel who partnered with First Liberty Institute in this case, and Daniel Blomberg, a Becket attorney who filed an amicus brief supporting NAMB, disagree.
“Churches are better off now that this lawsuit is over,” said Blomberg. “For over a century, courts have recognized that pastors can’t sue churches for defamation over religious disagreements. Those longstanding protections are still safe today.”
A ruling in McRaney’s favor, he added, would have led to “a new wave of lawsuits” that thrust the state “into the sacred space of the Church.”
“Historically, Baptists are the last faith group that should want that. They’ve seen pervasive church-state intrusion before, and it went badly. That hard-earned experience is why some of the leading founding-era proponents for keeping the government out of churches were Baptists.”
Martens echoed the importance of retaining long-treasured separations between government and the free exercise of religion.
“These constitutional protections against government interference protect the biblical autonomy practiced in local churches and other ministries as they independently obey Scripture and carry out their ministry strategies,” he said.
Critics of the ruling have also said it creates a hierarchical power structure in the SBC.
“That gets things backwards,” said Blomberg. “The ruling protects the ability of Southern Baptists to organize their faith group as they sincerely believe God desires, not how government dictates.”
Martens pointed out that “The McRaney v. NAMB decision simply says that an SBC entity’s decision not to cooperate with a state convention or a church or any other religious organization for whatever reason is no different [than a church’s decision].
“Voluntary cooperation goes both ways. An SBC entity’s desire to cooperate with a state convention doesn’t obligate the state convention to cooperate with the SBC entity, and vice versa.”
A NAMB spokesperson issued a statement of appreciation for Martens’ work.
“NAMB is grateful for the generosity of both First Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s leading legal organizations dedicated to defending religious liberty, and attorney Matt Martens, a prominent advocate with the law firm WilmerHale, seminary graduate, and long-time Southern Baptist church member, as they worked together to represent NAMB on a pro bono basis,” it said.
Both Martens and Blomberg told Baptist Press that the ruling only supports long-held Baptist beliefs and gives no new power to falsely attack a pastor’s reputation.
This ruling doesn’t break new ground on defamation,” said Blomberg. “It protects time-honored rights to religious freedom against mistaken attacks that would have hurt all churches. Churches never could just publicly lie about people willy-nilly, and that’s still true. And pastors have never been allowed to turn religious disagreements with churches into federal lawsuits – and that’s fortunately still true too.”
“No one has ever argued that SBC leaders or anyone else is free to defame,” Martens said. “The Ninth Commandment is still in the Bible. God is still on the throne and our final judge.
“The real issue here is what to do when someone claims to be defamed: Go to the other party directly or to pastors of the alleged slanderer’s church and seek accountability, or go to secular courts and have the issue resolved by unbelievers (1 Corinthians 6:1-6).”
This story was originally published by Baptist Press.
