Last week, I argued that it would be better for SBC churches if their leaders lost their legal and polity arguments in two court cases: McRaney v. NAMB and SBC v. Garner.

That has proven controversial. I’ve encountered several hyperbolic, “end of the world”-type responses this week.  I discuss these cases in more depth on a recent podcast (starting around the 50-minute mark).

But allow me to quickly address a few of these incorrect claims in print here.

First, some have suggested I’m rejecting the idea of “church autonomy.” I’m not. 

I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, where a church school fired a teacher. She said it was unlawful disability discrimination or retaliation, not a religion-based termination. The Supreme Court said you can’t challenge a church’s decision to remove someone from their “ministerial” role teaching the faith, even if it was discriminatory. “Freedom to select the clergy, where no improper methods of choice are proven,” is “part of the free exercise of religion.”

Not only do I agree with Hosanna-Tabor, but I’ve defended a Catholic diocese’s right to internal governance. When a parish officeholder said she could not be fired based on her LGBT status, I told a judge that the church’s decision cannot be second-guessed. My view hasn’t changed.

Second, others have suggested I’m calling for courts to second-guess church decisions about “religious questions.” I am not. 

Courts cannot decide matters of religious faith or doctrine. This rule holds true outside church internal governance, in disputes involving individuals, Christian businesses, parachurch groups, and the state itself.

And third, some have suggested that I said, “You should be able to sue in a secular court if the reasons given for firing a minister are ‘false.’” That’s not what I argued, either. The doorway isn’t quite so wide.

I agree that a pastor cannot sue a church for separating from them, even if the pastor could prove it was a false ground. That’s still under the rule of Hosanna-Tabor, which I agree with.

A member cannot sue a church for revoking their membership through a proper internal process, even if the church lies internally. Courts have stepped in, however, when someone ignores the governing documents that form the covenant agreement among members. For example, when leaders “remove” members without following established procedures, as in the Faith Baptist and McLean Bible cases.¹

The general rule is that courts cannot compel churches, conventions, or individual Baptists to cooperate for religious purposes with those they reject. Will McRaney cannot sue the BCMD to get his job back, even if BCMD had false, non-religious premises in his firing. Preston Garner can’t sue his old church to get his pastorate or membership back, even if he was fired as a result of a false allegation of abuse.

Why? Watson v. Jones says that secular courts can’t interfere with the “internal governance” of churches because churches consist of people who consent to a religious governance relationship with one another. The First Amendment allows every competent person to enter those relationships as part of their free exercise of religion.

But this consent works both ways. If a pastor leaves First Baptist Church, the Church can’t decide he left for false reasons and then require him to keep pastoring.²  And when a Baptist convention fires an employee, or a Baptist church separates from a member, it’s an internal decision among the individuals who consented to that group’s decisions, too.³

Watson correctly notes that the alternative is a world in which people can’t have their expectations upheld in their religious agreements. If civil courts imposed civil law whenever someone asked, every agreement to be judged by religious rules could be upended by the first person to turn to the law. There are probably limits on what this implied consent allows; FBC can’t sentence you to 30 days in a basement Church Jail, or decide the Pastor can give consent to your doctor for a vaccination.  But Watson says there’s at least some zone in which people can decide to agree in advance to use religious principles and decision-making systems.   

Watson (and the cases flowing from it) carefully protect the autonomy of individuals to covenant as a church. They carefully avoid granting churches any special legal privileges beyond those who consent to be in the flock. It respects the autonomy of every individual to join a flock, and for the flock to make decisions on religious principles. You can leave at any time, but you can’t make them accept you. And vice versa.

This secular rationale is not based on the Baptist Faith and Message’s spiritual reasoning. But it aligns with it. What is the source of spiritual authority? Christ the Lord. To whom does He grant the keys of spiritual authority on earth? Local churches. What makes a local church? “Baptized believers associated by covenant [agreement or contract] in the faith and fellowship of the gospel.” (BFM Art. VI.)

But Baptists believe that, in order to have spiritual authority on earth, a church must remain autonomous and local. While they can cooperate (Art. XIV), local churches cannot transfer their spiritual authority to Presbyteries, Conventions, or any other human outside their fellowship, without violating Scripture.

Thus, when they cooperate, Baptist churches refuse any implication of authority over each other at all, beyond the power to give advice. See BFM Art. XIV. The SBC applied these teachings to “Baptist general bodies” (conventions and associations) in its 1928 statement on the Relation of Southern Baptist Convention to Other Baptist Bodies:

“Each church is autonomous or self-determining in all matters pertaining to its own life and activities. It is not subject to any other church or organization of any kind whatsoever, but only to Christ and his authority. All Baptist general bodies are voluntary organizations, established by individuals who wish to cooperate for some common end or ends in the kingdom of God. This Convention is not an ecclesiastical body composed of churches, nor a federal body composed of state conventions. Churches may seek to fulfill their obligation to extend Christ’s kingdom by cooperating with these general organizations, but always on a purely voluntary basis, and without surrendering in any way or degree their right of self-determination.”

So, to be precise about what my argument does not claim: it’s not about whether churches can separate from pastors or members. It’s not about whether Conventions can fire employees. And it’s not about whether Conventions can separate from churches outside the Baptist Faith & Message. All of these things were protected by the First Amendment under the doctrine of “internal church governance” before McRaney and Garner – and will remain so, regardless of the decisions in those cases.

Baptist bodies can fire or separate from whoever they want. Baptists can quit whatever body they want. By joining a local church or accepting their employment, you agree that the other side might decide to separate from you. They accept that you might leave them. That’s “internal church governance.” No one can be sued to overturn the decision to separate.

What I do say is that Baptist cooperation beyond the local church is “internecine” in character, not “intranecine.” Our theology says we cannot give “internal governance” rights even to other Baptist churches.  A congregation that grants “internal governance” to a parachurch convention is not a biblical church, according to Baptists.  And so there is no implication of consent by the members of one Baptist body to the “internal governance” of the other.

Does this prevent Southern Baptists from having the conversations they need to have on ministerial issues? No. There are other First Amendment rules that protect proper communications between autonomous religious groups, made for religious purposes. 

But more about that later.

1. There are even cases where members (often the deacons) “removed” pastors without the right process. Same result. ↩︎
2. I would argue that a church can keep discussing a member internally, even after they quit, for good religious reasons. Sometimes members try to quit when their sin is found out, to frustrate a pending proceeding. Reaching the conclusion of the disciplinary process is still “internal” governance. Most courts agree. ↩︎
3. At least, unless there’s a written contract to the contrary, which might complicate things. ↩︎