New amicus brief takes aim at Fifth Circuit’s McRaney v. NAMB decision, warns SBC’s legal position could create a ‘no‑recourse zone’ for ministers

Mar 16, 2026

News Analysis

A newly filed amicus brief in Garner v. Southern Baptist Convention is sharpening a growing debate over how far the SBC may extend the church‑autonomy doctrine—and whether doing so risks reshaping Baptist identity itself.

Filed March 13 by pastors and leaders from Tennessee and neighboring states, the brief warns that the SBC’s legal position could create a “no‑recourse zone” in which Baptist ministers may be defamed or harmed by denominational entities with no avenue for redress. The concerns echo those long raised by former state convention leader Will McRaney, who argues that SBC leaders are seeking constitutional protection for conduct that Baptists have historically rejected.

The Tennessee Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 8 in Preston Garner’s defamation case, which centers on a 2023 letter from the SBC Credentials Committee to Everett Hills Baptist Church. The letter informed the church that the committee had “received a concern” involving Garner and warned that its standing in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC could be affected. Garner says the allegation—submitted anonymously to the SBC’s abuse‑reporting hotline—was false and uninvestigated, and that the letter directly cost him two ministry positions.

A Direct Challenge to the Fifth Circuit’s McRaney Decision

The amicus brief takes aim at the Fifth Circuit’s 2025 ruling in McRaney v. North American Mission Board, which expanded the ministerial‑exception strand of church autonomy to shield religious entities even when they had no ecclesiastical authority over the minister allegedly harmed. The brief argues that the ruling was “wrongly decided” and should not guide Tennessee’s high court.

According to the pastors, the Fifth Circuit’s approach severs church‑autonomy protections from their historic grounding in ecclesiastical authority. Instead, it treats voluntary cooperation among Baptist bodies as if it were hierarchical oversight. As the brief puts it: “Voluntary cooperation does not create ecclesiastical authority… There is no ‘Baptist Church.’”

Because Baptist polity is built on local‑church autonomy and the absence of hierarchy, the amici argue that the SBC cannot claim the same internal‑governance protections that hierarchical denominations possess. In their view, the SBC’s argument would effectively impose a denominational structure that Baptists have always rejected.

McRaney: ‘Will SBC Leaders Continue to Deceive?’

McRaney—whose own lawsuit against NAMB was dismissed under the Fifth Circuit’s ruling—has issued some of the sharpest warnings about the SBC’s legal strategy. In written comments to The Baptist Report, he argues that the amicus brief “shows the faults in the 5th Circuit decision vs NAMB and the dangers of that 2‑1 decision.”

McRaney poses a series of pointed questions:

“Will SBC leaders continue to deceive, make false claims about Baptists, and misstate facts to the courts in order to win even though God said He detests it?”

He warns that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling effectively gives SBC leaders “the right to defame (lie with damages) and tortiously interfere with the employment” of pastors and state leaders—“while those pastors and churches fund the entire mission effort.”

McRaney also questions whether state conventions and SBC boards will “remain silent as they are called employees of SBC entities,” and whether churches will begin escrowing mission gifts until SBC leaders “speak truth to the courts and seek to make restitution.”

For McRaney, the issue is not merely legal but moral: “The very integrity of SBC and Baptist organizations and leaders is at stake before people, the courts and our holy God. Will Baptists tolerate bullying and ungodly behaviors? Let’s pray not.”

What the Amicus Brief Adds

The pastors’ brief reinforces McRaney’s concerns with constitutional, historical, and ecclesiological arguments:

Internal church‑autonomy protections apply only within a body’s own ecclesiastical authority. The SBC has no authority over local churches or their ministers.
Voluntary cooperation is not a hierarchy. Baptist churches, associations, and conventions remain “independent and sovereign in [their] own sphere,” as the SBC’s constitution states.
Without ecclesiastical courts, Baptists rely on civil courts. If the SBC’s position prevails, Baptist ministers would have fewer legal protections than clergy in hierarchical traditions.
Defamation is not doctrine. Adjudicating allegedly false statements does not require courts to interpret theology or church discipline.

A Case with Broad Implications

During oral arguments, the Tennessee Supreme Court pressed both sides. Justice Sarah Campbell noted that ruling for Garner might require courts to compare governance structures—something the U.S. Supreme Court has warned against. SBC attorneys argued that communications about a church’s “friendly cooperation” are inherently religious and thus constitutionally protected.

But the amici counter that the SBC’s argument would give denominational bodies sweeping immunity even when their actions have real‑world consequences for pastors who are not under their authority.

A Turning Point for Baptist Identity

The Garner case sits at the intersection of abuse‑prevention reforms, denominational accountability, and historic Baptist polity. If the court adopts the SBC’s position, it could redefine the relationship between the SBC and local churches—granting de facto authority that the SBC insists it does not possess. If it rejects the SBC’s argument, it may limit how denominational bodies communicate about abuse concerns.

Either way, the ruling will shape how Baptists understand autonomy, cooperation, and responsibility in the years ahead.

Related:

Thanks for reading! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

The Baptist Report

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?