Missouri attorney warns SBC legal strategy could create ‘chilling effect’ on pastors’ free speech
Jon Whitehead argues that SBC leaders are “fighting for the religious freedom to defame Baptist pastors,” using the First Amendment’s church‑autonomy doctrine as a shield against civil accountability.
A Missouri attorney is sounding alarms over how Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leaders are framing their legal arguments in two major defamation cases now before the courts, warning that the denomination is seeking constitutional protections so broad they could silence pastors and church leaders across the country.
In a recent analysis published by the Center for Baptist Leadership, Jon Whitehead argues that SBC leaders are “fighting for the religious freedom to defame Baptist pastors,” using the First Amendment’s church‑autonomy doctrine as a shield against civil accountability. If courts accept these arguments, the attorney writes, it would create a “chilling effect”—discouraging pastors, staff members, and even congregations from speaking openly for fear that denominational entities could make damaging statements about them without consequence.
The warning comes as two high‑profile cases test the limits of church autonomy: McRaney v. North American Mission Board (NAMB) and Garner v. Southern Baptist Convention.
In McRaney, a former state convention executive claims NAMB leaders interfered with his employment and damaged his reputation. After years of procedural battles, the case has become a national bellwether for how far courts will go in deferring to religious organizations. NAMB has argued that its internal communications and decisions are protected by the First Amendment—even though the SBC is a non‑hierarchical body with no authority over state conventions. The Missouri attorney notes that if NAMB prevails on such sweeping grounds, denominational agencies could act with near‑total immunity, even when their actions affect individuals outside their organizational structure. Fifty-two current and former Southern Baptist leaders filed an amicus brief Feb. 9, arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in the McRaney case stretches the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” far beyond its constitutional purpose.
The Garner case, now before the Tennessee Supreme Court, raises similar concerns. Preston Garner alleges he lost two jobs after the SBC Credentials Committee sent a letter to his church referencing concerns raised through the denomination’s abuse‑reporting hotline. SBC attorneys argue the letter was part of an internal religious process and, therefore, shielded from defamation claims. Whitehead counters that the SBC is attempting to redefine “internal” so broadly that any communication between denominational bodies and local churches would be untouchable by civil law.
According to the attorney, these arguments—if accepted—would not only contradict the SBC’s own stated commitment to local‑church autonomy but also create a climate in which pastors fear speaking up about denominational decisions, misconduct, or theological disputes. A “chilling effect” would arise from the knowledge that denominational leaders could publicly criticize or undermine a pastor while claiming constitutional immunity from legal challenge.
Both cases are being closely watched because they sit at the intersection of religious liberty, accountability, and abuse‑prevention efforts. Supporters of the SBC’s position say religious bodies must be free to communicate with affiliated churches without fear of litigation. Critics warn that granting such broad immunity would erode transparency and silence those who depend on the courts as a last resort when internal systems fail.
Rulings in the McRaney and Garner cases are expected to shape how religious organizations nationwide navigate the balance between autonomy and responsibility.
Related:
I grew up in the old Roman Catholic Church and was saved in an independent Bible church. I chose to be a Southern Baptist at the age of 20. I admired the great organization and how it got work done through the Cooperative Program. I have seen the changes since 1971 and sadly, those days are gone. More and more of SBC agencies are sounding like corporate boards and the smaller churches, once the backbone of the SBC, are no longer respected. A few years ago at an associational meeting, the DOM presented a pyramid depicting the organization of the SBC. On the bottom was the SBC, then the state convention, followed by the local association, and, on top, the local church. Before the meeting started, I spoke to the DOM and convinced him to flip the chart, inverting the triangle. Let’s remember our history and remember WHY the associations, state conventions, and SBC exist in the first place… to assist the ONE institution He loved and gave His life for… the church! ~ Dr. Kermit P. Soileau, BA, MDiv, DMin; ALL earned and accredited in & by SBC institutions!