Last week, I participated in a “church trial” at Island Church in Tierra Verde, Florida. The church heard evidence from Will McRaney (Plaintiff) against the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board (NAMB) and its CEO, Kevin Ezell (Defendant). 

The jury of five found that Dr. Ezell failed Scripture’s standard for leadership in the case. It found McRaney personally harmed by Ezell’s dishonesty—$10 million in damages—and concluded that $70 million in punitive damages would be required to deter a repeat from the giant NAMB.

NAMB and Ezell were invited to participate in the tribunal. They declined, saying biblical remedies had been “exhausted” in prior litigation. You can read both the invitation sent to NAMB and Kevin Ezell from Will McRaney and his church, and their reply, below (if you’re on your phone, you will need to click the links).

The trial was livestreamed on the Island Church Tierra Verde’s YouTube, which you can find here. Bobby Gilstrap summarized the events in a conversation with Warren Gilpin here. And my breakdown of the proceedings on the Center for Baptist Leadership podcast will be released tomorrow, which you will be able to find here.

I’ve also written about this case before, both here and here.

Even though this case has been a topic of discussion in the SBC for nearly a decade, the tribunal and its result have raised questions. One Southern Baptist pastor from Ohio, John Michael LaRue, raised some of these questions, which I responded to on X.

But because others will continue to have questions, here are some answers.

1. Why is a church hearing legal claims?

First, because NAMB repeatedly made it clear during their civil court arguments that, in their view of the dispute between McRaney and Ezell, only a church can.

McRaney originally filed a lawsuit in 2016. He alleged that NAMB used false claims to engineer his firing, threatened to withhold funding from the Baptist Convention of Maryland & Delaware until he was terminated, refused to reconcile, and blackballed him across the SBC.

Evidence from discovery in the civil cases certainly supports his claims, like this email from Steve Davis to Kevin Ezell, suggesting that the “funding” will revert “back” once McRaney has been “removed”.

But in 2025, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the case under the church autonomy doctrine. It said this is an internal ecclesiastical dispute to be resolved by Baptist methods, not by civil courts.

The courts never ruled on the merits; they only said McRaney should pursue a church resolution. So he did.

Second, because only a church should.

Baptist polity vests authority in the local church. In Matthew 18, Jesus commands believers to take sin “to the church.” In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul rebukes Christians for hauling some disputes into civil courts. No church binds all—but each may judge.

NAMB insisted this belonged in the church. McRaney obliged. NAMB may have thought of itself as some kind of church. But under Baptist polity, NAMB is not a church empowered to judge its own disputes with outsiders. And because of Baptist polity, it’s important that NAMB does not have spiritual authority apart from local churches.

2. Was this process unfair to NAMB?

Any unfairness was chosen by NAMB.

Had NAMB appeared, it would have found a process at least as fair as commercial arbitration.

Island Church appointed a neutral presider—a local attorney who does not attend McRaney’s church and is an SBC layman. It secured a court reporter. It adopted detailed procedural rules, evidence standards, and court-style jury instructions. Jurors were not selected by McRaney and were sequestered during breaks. They were instructed to be impartial and to rule against him if he failed on any element.

After the close of evidence, the jury heard a summary of NAMB’s defenses drawn from the litigation record.

By the standards of church discipline, this was meticulous. If this is unfair, most church trials in history were indefensible.

3. Was it fair for the jurors to be from McRaney’s congregation?

Critics say no. They suggest alternatives: his former church, Ezell’s church, or some neutral forum.

But church discipline is never conducted on neutral ground. In disputes between members, the decision-makers know the parties. But that’s exactly what Paul tells believers to choose over government courts.

Local churches cannot outsource their authority to associations or sister churches. Associations might serve as a kind of “court of appeals,” but they can’t decide matters for their churches. Ministers are often central to discipline, as accusers or accused. That does not taint the process; that’s what the Bible says we are to do.

Here, McRaney essentially asked his church to consider if NAMB’s public claims about him were true or false.

So if the New Testament forbids partiality, it seems to require the familiarity of congregations. It never commands us to find strangers or neutrals to decide the facts or determine the law.

Where disputes cross church lines, the pattern is cumulative: one church examines the evidence and renders judgment; others consider and respond. Appeals spread outward, and a consensus builds. Every Baptist judgment starts small. 

Those mocking the “little trial” both misunderstand how Baptist authority works and display contempt for the local church.

4. Is the decision enforceable?

Not by civil force.

No sheriff will collect $80 million. Nor should he. The damages are an opinion of the value of harm, just like normal juries. They said it would take $10 million to compensate McRaney for actual harm—lost income, reputational damage, and distress—and $70 million to deter NAMB from doing it again.

But lack of immediate coercion is not a lack of power.

Church judgments carry spiritual authority. “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them” (Matthew 18:20). It is up to Southern Baptists if they will treat church judgments as somehow less real than court judgments. Baptist enforcement comes through persuasion, not the police.

And there is historical evidence for restitution in the church discipline process, some of which I have shared in another thread on X.

5. What happens next?

This trial was always the beginning, not the final say.

Historically, the next step is presentation to the parties. It may require action by SBC messengers in Orlando. It may require other churches to review the evidence and render their own judgments. It may require involving the churches of NAMB’s leaders and trustees.

At a minimum, a church has heard McRaney and said, “You were wronged.” It did so not merely for him, but for the good of NAMB—because Christian institutions should proclaim the gospel and reflect Christian character. If NAMB justifies bad behavior because it has the important job of evangelism, it will fail.

At a higher level, a cooperating SBC church has declared that SBC leadership acted outside those bounds. If ignored, that judgment will not remain isolated.

Those who dismiss this “little church trial” as meaningless miss the point—and prove the old Baptists right. Discipline is not a threat to be avoided but a tool to be used.

Godly people will respond and be made better. Others will scoff. And in doing so, reveal more than they intend.