NAMB, as most SBCers know, has had this long-running lawsuit going. They are being sued by a former state convention head and strident NAMB critic.
Here’s a sensible and straightforward article by two attorneys with Becket, a religious liberty specialist law firm.
The Fifth Circuit will soon decide whether to reconsider a case over whether religious groups control their own internal religious matters, or if — in the words of the plaintiff — “Caesar must enter the temple to have a look around.” Under the First Amendment, that’s an easy question to answer. It’s even easier after this summer’s Supreme Court decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru.
Authors: Daniel Blomberg is Senior Counsel and Christopher Mills is Constitutional Law Fellow at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
In our SBC circles, there is a lot of chicken little declarations and hypercriticism over the lawsuit. I’ve always been confused as to how anyone or any SBC advocacy segment that values the Bible as our rule for faith and practice can go roaring off to sue our entities or fellow believers who lead entities.
It’s seems to be a given that those who are calling for a new-CR will support anything critical of the current ERLC and NAMB. Conflict is in our SBC DNA. Lawsuits aren’t and shouldn’t be.
The article presents arguments in NAMB’s favor. Good.
Six current state convention leaders are displeased with NAMB, but over a more prosaic intra-SBC policy disagreement. More on that later.
And, although we wish all of our fellow believers well, we will not give voice to anyone who is suing an SBC entity.