News broke this week that the lawsuit filed against the North American Mission Board by Will McRaney, former executive of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware, was dismissed on Monday. Senior Judge Glen Davidson of the U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi ruled that the lawsuit would require the court to determine religious elements in the case which “the court cannot do.”
Baptist Press posted an article yesterday about the dismissal which you can find here.
ABERDEEN, Miss. (BP) — First Amendment legal precedent has been cited in a federal court’s dismissal of a lawsuit against the North American Mission Board by a former executive of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware.
The court declined to get involved in an ecclesiastical matter.
SBC This Week posted a picture of the dismissal order on Twitter Wednesday.
BREAKING: The @willmcraney lawsuit against @NAMB_SBC has been dismissed in full. pic.twitter.com/FeByKUdyG9
— SBC This Week (@SBCthisWeek) April 24, 2019
The whole case was ridiculous from the beginning. The decision to sue Southern Baptists by filing a lawsuit against the North American Mission Board was not helpful to the cause of Christ and we can all be glad it’s over now.
This is good news. Let’s move on with the Lord’s work.
Good news, good news indeed.
I only wish he’d had to pay court costs and reimburse NAMB’s lawyer fees for filing and pursuing this ridiculousness.
This is the best news I’ve heard all morning!
It is worth noting that no one ruled FOR the NAMB. The court basically said “this is a religious matter, you two work it out.” I only know what I have read. I wish I could believe that Christian groups like the NAMB do not mistreat people who become “undesired” anymore, but a glance at the SBU treatment of the fired professor shows that, no matter what you think of the details, Southern Baptist organizations are willing to tear people they no longer wish to support in an effort to shield themselves.
Let’s hope that some reconciliation… true reconciliation… can happen here.
It’s worth noting that it is a rank presumption to conclude that there was any “mistreatment” in this. The state should absolutely say that they aren’t getting into ecclesiastical matters.
There is no connection between this and the SBU matter. We’re not going back into this here. If the plaintiff refiles the suit or something like that we will make note of it.
Connection between NAMB treatment of McRaney and SBU of the professor there? No. Parallel? Yes.
I didn’t know there was a lawsuit.
What was it about?
NAMB was the defendant. The plaintiff was a former state convention executive who claimed NAMB wronged him. It’s old news but if you want more you can search for details, easily found. We are not going back into the thing. I gavea brief treatment of this back in 2017.
Not a valid point. The state has no business in ecclesiastical decisions. I would expect first amendment protections to apply to seminaries, state conventions, mission boards, etc., as well as local churches.
You are all messed up on this Alan and don’t know what you are talking about. Has to do with the constitution, not how the SBC defines a church. You need to get informed before you start talking about anyone lying.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-553
Ok, so you got your stuff from a popular antisbc site. We will pass on that.
What are you talking about?….I got it from bp…and a valid news site. And what happened to my other comments and your other comments William???
Sorry. I should have realized where you got the stuff. I deleted all that. Move on, my friend. That won’t work here. Feel free to email me. Not interested in that discussion. Perhaps you can have it where you got it.
I call your junk on this….I got it on Baptist press and a law site from VA. If you say otherwise you are sadly mistaken. ….maybe more
SBC Voices: April 25th In the article “Some Assorted SBC News…” “I’m not linking anything anything because the last thing that needs to be done is give the sorry matter more exposure but the dismissal is good news for Southern Baptists”
Also SBC Voices: April 26th “McRaney Lawsuit Against NAMB Dismissed”
I could not help myself. I know it’s two different authors, but it is a little comedic when you say in one post that you do not want to give this matter more exposure and then publish a post solely dedicated to it the very next day and promote it on social media.
Well, have a laugh on us. Fact is I don’t decide what may be posted or not. It’s a collaborative effort.
Adam: I read the complaint. It was a well-drafted legal document that did not insinuate any theological or doctrinal issues at all. It is a straight claim that NAMB, through its president, interfered with McRaney’s ability to earn a living (among other non-theological claims). Frankly, the Judge’s decision to dismiss has significant legal problems. First, McRaney was not a NAMB employee, so the allegations of interference with contract are legally sound in principle. Second, nothing in the complaint alleges any theological or doctrinal dispute. There is a problem arguing the ministerial exception found in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012). The unanimous Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor stated ” The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church’s alone.” Bottom line: the courts won’t interfere with decisions by churches about who can act as its ministers and won’t interfere regarding theological and doctrinal decisions in the area of employing ministers. The Court specifically withheld judgment on other possible issues (which I believe would include this kind of complaint).
I’m not arguing here that McRaney’s case does or does not have merit because I don’t know the details. I am, however, suggesting that your joy in its resolution may be short-lived. The Judge ruled he lacked subject matter jurisdiction, which means he was claiming he had no ability to hear the case at all. This is a debatable proposition. I suspect McRaney’s attorney may well appeal and may well prevail.
I would not assume this over until the appeal period expires and no appeal is taken.
Thx for posting William.
For a moment let us consider that McRaney had the high ground and was the victim for the reason claimed. Would Jesus, if He had been where McRaney is at… sued the NAMB? Would Jesus have said that NAMB is the one responsible for Him to make a living if he were being railroaded?
I just don’t get why it all happened (the lawsuit) in the first place if we are living trusting God.
“Would Jesus…?”
“Suppose one of you wants to bring a charge against another believer. Should you take it to ungodly people to be judged? Why not take it to the Lord’s people?”