The Supreme Court declined to hear McRaney v. North American Mission Board, leaving the Fifth Circuit’s ruling intact. The result – despite the claims by the North American Mission Board (NAMB) – may signal the death of the Southern Baptist Convention’s primary funding mechanism – the Cooperative Program – with even more churches ceasing cooperation or further designating their giving.
The Court’s refusal to intervene leaves standing a legal framework that fundamentally alters how Baptist churches are treated under civil law whenever they cooperate with denominational entities.
And contrary to celebratory messaging coming from denominational leadership, this outcome represents a victory purchased at the expense of the very churches the Southern Baptist Convention claims to serve.
Note: to catch up on the particulars, read The McRaney Case is a Disaster for Baptists and Many Still Don’t See It.
What the Supreme Court Actually Did
The Supreme Court did not affirm NAMB’s arguments. It simply declined review. But legally, the effect is the same: the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning now stands as controlling precedent within its jurisdiction and persuasive authority elsewhere.
That reasoning establishes something profoundly new in Baptist life:
Courts may treat disputes between a local church pastor and a cooperating SBC entity as an internal ecclesiastical matter, even when the entities are legally separate organizations.
This is the crucial shift many Baptists still do not grasp.
Historically, Baptist polity depended on a clear distinction:
- Local churches are autonomous.
- Convention entities are separate ministries.
- Cooperation does not equal control.
The Fifth Circuit effectively blurred that distinction.
The New Legal Reality: Cooperation Equals Entanglement
Under the logic left intact by the Supreme Court’s refusal, cooperation through SBC structures such as the Cooperative Program can functionally merge ministries for purposes of judicial abstention. In plain English, if a dispute arises, courts may refuse to hear the case because they now view the conflict as an internal ministry disagreement, even when:
- the church is independent,
- the pastor is not employed by the SBC,
- and the entities are legally distinct nonprofits.
The result is startling. A local church can lose access to ordinary legal remedies simply by partnering with denominational ministries. That means cooperation now carries unspoken legal consequences.
Pastors and churches were never told this. They never voted on this. Yet it may now govern their legal rights.
NAMB “Won.” But Who Lost?
NAMB’s public statement celebrates the ruling as a victory for religious liberty and ministry autonomy. But notice what had to be sacrificed to achieve that outcome. To secure dismissal, NAMB argued successfully that courts could not adjudicate the dispute without intruding into ecclesiastical decision-making.
The problem is obvious: Baptists have historically insisted that SBC entities possess no ecclesiastical authority over local churches. Yet the legal defense required courts to treat the relationship as sufficiently ecclesiastical to bar judicial review.
In other words, the SBC claims autonomy theologically but relies on ecclesiastical interdependence legally. That contradiction now sits embedded in federal precedent.
And it is churches rather than denominational agencies that bear the long-term risk (although, ironically, a local church can apparently defame any SBC leader it wants, and the worst result would be the SBC refusing to cash its check).
The Cooperative Program Just Became Legally Complicated
For generations, the Cooperative Program has been presented as simple voluntary cooperation: Churches give. Entities serve. No hierarchy exists.
But after McRaney, cooperation may carry legal implications that pastors must now consider carefully. If a partnership with a convention entity can transform disputes into protected internal religious matters, then churches must ask:
- Does cooperation limit our legal recourse?
- Does partnership expose pastors to reputational harm without remedy?
- Does denominational alignment create legal entanglement we cannot escape?
These are not theoretical concerns anymore. They are now grounded in federal appellate precedent left untouched by the Supreme Court.
Why This Should Alarm Baptist Pastors
The practical incentive structure has changed. A risk-averse pastor charged with protecting his congregation must now weigh two realities:
- Cooperation increases denominational influence and access.
- Cooperation may simultaneously reduce the church’s ability to defend itself legally.
That creates a chilling question: Why would a shepherd voluntarily place his church in a position where ordinary legal protections may disappear? The very system designed to encourage voluntary cooperation may now discourage it. Ironically, the ruling celebrated as protecting Baptist ministry could accelerate distrust in denominational structures.
Dissecting NAMB’s “Victory” Statement
NAMB’s statement frames the outcome as protecting religious freedom from government intrusion. But this framing depends on a category shift.
Religious liberty protections exist to shield church governance from state interference, not to insulate parachurch organizations from accountability in disputes with legally independent parties.
The statement repeatedly emphasizes ministry autonomy while avoiding the central implication: The ruling expands ecclesiastical immunity beyond churches themselves into cooperative networks.
That is not traditional Baptist doctrine. It is a legal innovation born from a litigation strategy. And once created, it cannot easily be confined.
Courts now possess precedent allowing them to treat cooperative Baptist relationships as ecclesiastical structures, whether Baptists themselves agree with that characterization or not.
The Long-Term Consequence
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case freezes this tension in place. No clarification. No narrowing. No correction. Just precedent.
Southern Baptists now face a paradox:
The more closely churches cooperate with denominational ministries, the more courts may treat them as part of a single religious enterprise, even as Baptist polity and SBC policy insist no such hierarchy exists.
That contradiction will not remain theoretical. It will shape future litigation, insurance risk assessments, pastoral decisions, and denominational trust.
The Real Disaster
The tragedy of McRaney is not merely that one brother lost his case. It is that Baptist polity itself was implicitly redefined in federal court, and denominational leaders are celebrating the outcome.
NAMB won dismissal. But the price may be a generation of pastors quietly reconsidering whether denominational partnership is worth the legal uncertainty it now carries. And if cooperation begins to erode because churches no longer feel legally safe participating, the institution most threatened will not be a mission board. It will be the Cooperative Program and eventually the SBC itself.
