to bargain whenever you're ready babs theological seminary service a professor here for many years he's worked as entire professional life within the umbrella of the southern baptist convention now this case is about whether or not a religious entity can commit acts which is committed by a non religious into t would result in a  and then that religious entity hide behind you please the ethical abstention doctrine said no you can't touch us because we're a church now we know that not every civil court decision  jeopardizes the st amendment in fact the constitution is designed to protect the freedom of religion that's a great thing but there's been many exceptions and bobbing that some even within  the southern baptist convention is unlike most other denominations most other denominations have a top down powerful structure where there is always an appellate process up to the head of  that nomination the pope and you take case in the catholic church or some other religious person who oversees the entire the nomination the southern baptists is not like that each part of that's going to be talked about here today is that a separate autonomous d and independent entity in fact it's somewhat miraculous you might say that forty seven thousand dollars independent southern baptist church voluntarily come together in an arm's length transaction to comprise the southern baptist convention the north american mission board it's merely a separate entity it is not a church as we understand that definition it is an entity i'm asked you just this direction of discussion does go into religious structures it may be a highly unusual one but it is asking a court to begin to inquire into the religious structure and then overlay on that very sort of difficult constitutional questions i have a few threshold questions was your client fired or did he  executive director of maryland baptist convention but he would have been fired nonetheless but i mean is that is that is that that i'm not sure what i'm wondering is are we really facing this very large constitutional crisis and trying to distinguish as to what points of inquiry we can make as to religious structures or did this man resign and therefore there really was no termination yes sir but you see when when the north american mission board as a separate entity orchestrated or his terminations but i thought in this negotiated departure he also waived his right to sue them yes or no as a supporting organization and that and that is a question for another day based on two doctrines ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention then discovery occurs correct me if i'm wrong and your opposing counsel renew renew their summary judgment just on jurisdictional grounds the court never at any time was an employee of the north america that's asking us to decide that difficult question whether it is only employer employee relationship government i thought the ministerial exception the court narrowest point that is correct because dr mcdreamy has no where else to which he can appeal this decision because there's no how article formation within the dock and so what a lot of circuits have wrestled with this especially since the supreme court's decision resolving the ministerial exception as not jurisdictional what circuit do you think we should follow well in terms of saying that the ecclesiastical extension abstention doctrine case in the united states supreme court says that the fundamental qualification for protection based on the st amendment paul is that you st must disestablish whether whe agreed with you exactly on that theory at the outset denying summary judgment then it got discovery and it appeared that it really would be looking into whether he your client was fit as a matter to be part of the clergy or the ministry or whatever they're called right what what happened was when discovery started when discovery started the north american mission board issued a subpoena do th specific well placed a compliant in which i tracked exactly what had happened but you say it wasn't so much when he was tom unaided from maryland delaware that this is this problem is about it's after he was terminated in the north american mission board bother power and influence continued to interfere with his business and his appears bill to make a living within the confines of the southern baptist convention but exercising that power and influence making speeches in that way you're referring to making speeches and making presentations and they wouldn't allow him to do that i'm starting to get what i'm after he was far his complaint was that they wouldn't allow him to make officers and then is understand that there are fifty trustees that are appointed from the various churches that comprise the southern baptist convention and these trustees com to gether to help control the hundreds of millions of dollars of valuable to the north american mission board for funding of mission projects in the united states and the fifty truste ministers yes meant to the l m say that to the best of my knowledge each of them are ministers they may possibly be serving in some executive director ship at the time but most of them all of them to the best of my knowledge are ministers is that of these answers in the record or is this just your understanding of how the baptist world works of the fifty trustees excel that would not be in the record that something that odd there are things that i know that are not in the record because the facts of never been developed for example i know that the trustees as we staked like the nail are in a conference in puerto rico  what i guess my back to my same question you would contend that what circuit would say these claims all of them defamation etc are subject to a secular court's ability to apply neutral principles of there is there certainly mississippi law the smith case which would allow an inquiry into situations like that but i'm sorry that i i've got i've got every jurisdiction that i can think of off the top my head except assert  which all these motions were developed del arden there's a couple that the bad bits so what are the facts you need to prove the full complete orbit to prove your defamation claim i will show what i will show is that what happened is d pushed back against nam when they wanted to change the strategic partnership agreement they wanted they wanted to say we want to come in to each day and control where the money so if the doctrine has expanded from disputes over beliefs and who's a fit clergyman to church finances and management you'd be in trouble you're saying it hasn't made that joe the north american mission  not a church they they are an entity that controls money this ad is very source is a dispute about power and money that's what this is about there's no church doctrine there's no church papa he's not denying church doctrine is not denying the birth of christ or the virgin birth or the resurrection is none of that it's about who's going to be in control and that's dead has nothing to do between separate autonomous it to tease you've got you've got the north american mission board who bribed threatened coursed intimidated and brod the maryland down where dish trick to  but he ended up working out of a negotiated departure with a waiver of a right to sue to sue for that toy but what happened is the north american mission board committed additional torts following that they started picking up the of dr mccoy need on their front office in alpharetta georgia for all to see all fifty trustees all the staff all of this research about them since there is no religious doctrine for them putting off it please the court donna jacobs for the north and the american mission board and southern baptist convention i wanted to st address on mr barton's opening remarks and the characterization of our defense in this case i believe he said that the north american mission board has taken the position that the courts can't touch us because we're a church and that is not at all the position of the north american mission board in this case the jurisdictional issue here is a relatively narrow one is driven by the particular circumstances of reverend the kinds claims and quite honestly mr barton championed his well planned complaint and we're going to talk about the will play complaint too because we think on its face it shows that these are simply ecclesiastical disputes and so we shouldn't the record doesn't allow us to and we shouldn't get into whether the church is a church or whether it was his employer i don't think it's necessary to get into whether the to me and difficult for me to understand you preserved here are you were just ministerial exception originally then that in back in january or february the court denies that you tried to appeal it that was denied then the discovery comes in show cause order and all that's before us is the in the abstention doctrine question correct that's correct surely a jurisdictional we can't reach the merits and affirmative defense at this point at this point no and this is strictly a jurisdictiona because of the withholding of money in other words if it was a finance based decision whether you agree with that or not do you believe that if it was a finance based decision it could possibly be it's outside and the bab's convention of maryland delaware who was reverend mcclain is direct employer is one of forty two state conventions that cooperate and that's the word that she used to cooperate with the southern baptist convention each entity has its own board and is self governing but all of these groups choose to voluntarily cooperate for a particular reason and that is for mission strategy and specifically to grow the southern baptist church through church planting the creation of new churches the ministry statement for the north american mission board is approved by the southern baptist convention and it clarifies that the north american mission board exists for the purpose of working with churches associations and state conventions in mobilizing southern baptists as a mission of force to impact north america with the gospel of jesus christ through evangelism and church planting the mission for partners with these churches associations and state conventions according to its ministry principles and those principles include planting healthy multiplying evangelistic southern baptist convention churches assisting in the ministries it demonstrates you are the things are while autonomous within the meaning of the southern baptist convention into teams that are working together for an inherently religious purpose they exist to grow the southern baptist faith and to create new southern baptist churches and the maryland delaware baptist convention has its own mission statement of purpose and that statement clarifies that it exists to intentionally assist in the starting in strengthening of congregations so that together we can accomplish the great commission is given to us by our lord so while it is technically correct that the north american mission morn is not a church in that they don't hold services the north american mission board and the back page in the maryland delaware both are part of and cooperating with the southern baptist convention and i don't think anyone would argue that southern baptist is not a faith a religion it's not a cooperative of religious organizations is for legal purposes for purposes of your argument the same as as a church it is your and that i do not think that the ecclesiastical extension doctrine is so narrow that you must have a church we have a number of bodies self governing and autonomous yes but mission board about how mission strategy was going to be done between these two cooperating entities that's very clear from every count in the complaint but it but it it would seem like his dispute was over how money should be raised and who gets it i didn't see anything in the complaint saying that the reason he ended up leaving was because he had a belief difference and i think perhaps the most telling paragraph in the complaint appears on page four it's actually this nd roman numeral teahen in the complaint and they are reverent granted pleads that he viewed the proposed strategic partnership agreement as a weakening of the autonomy of the bab's convention in maryland delaware and the relinquishment of all control to the north american mission board in the specific area of starting new churches including the selection assessing and training and supporting of church planters your honor is that that sounds pretty pretty inherently religious to me and doctrine the craney had a different view of the mission strategy from the direction in which the north american mission board was going in fact the very religious dispute about the direction of mission strategy between two entities and you heard me ask him what's the best case that draws that line because in this day and age where suits against churches i think everyone will be are vital as to grave forms and yet the supreme court has said you're right when it's purely but that's the word they use purely an issue of doctrine and belief then courts should stay out the issue will maybe never be resolved to maybe a church that doesn't have a tribunals that the dispute is just ignored by everyone what's the circuit authority that tells us what's doctrinal purely doctrinal versus the whole set of disputes that people would think have to be someone's got to be held accountable manipulation in short power to decide for themselves free from state interference matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine ok and you seem sort of insistent question because circuits have really wrestled with this all over the country who are a lot of time and state highest court what's your best circuit or state highest court case rather than that we all agree with that endorsement of free exercise of religion what's your best case that says no power to  fact the very facts they were asked to us ascertain that were refused so they couldn't have been found out we just don't know and then his sort of the final remark is who what what is putting a picture up have to do with strategies we do know what we need to know and for the district court to make that determination the plaintiffs who point makes clear that all these claims sprang from his disagreement with proposed changes in mission strategy by the north american mission acknowledged in response to the original motion to dismiss that this cause of action had its roots in church policy and revenue say the defamation came or is reduced as i said with regard to mission strategy and the the church planting in evangelism that these two entities were engaged in and frankly for which reverend the grainy up until his term a nation was the public face of that mission strategy jurek correct count two alleges that he was libeled by statements that he refused to meet with the mission board officials and that that caused him to be terminated the employment relationship and specifically maryland delaware's assessment of his continued s statements at issue they are worse secular they did not relate to church church issues or in the suitability for ministry what we have here is a clear dispute about the direction and mission strategy and how that was going to be shaped and these entities right to choose who is going to be the public face of those beliefs and who is going to shape that mission strategy moving forward what was the message that was posted with the photo there was no message posted with the photo and i'm glad you brought that out on the district court's opinion certainly can be read as saying that there were words on the picture that is not what is claimed in the complaint if you read count five and there is it states that the photo communicates that he's not to be trusted and is public enemy number one it's the purpose of putting photo op if he's public enemy number one or if that was not the tent of it clearly he's persona non grata at this point so why would they put a picture of him up when in fact they are reducing or eliminating him from the participation in what the organizations trying to do how is that communicated well there there is and there's nothing in the record that would tell us why it was done that but you you you've touched on something judging a part in that is that these religious organizations do have a right to choose with him they cooperate in who they don't as you said he might have been persona non grata and perhaps that was the reason but that is not in the  record but there's nothing intrinsically tortious about displaying a photo but river mcraney alleges that it communicates all of these things that the picture communicates that he's not to be trusted in his public enemy number one  the words that complain are meanings ascribed by reverend nick rainey to the fact that his photo was at the reception there was and his thinking that his photo conveyed these messages illustrates his understanding that he was in a is that it was at the north american mission board home office ok ok and how had it been up for a while before i didn't go up at about the time that this controversy erupted and i don't believe that there is anything in the record about that the complaint alleges that someone who was visiting the north american mission board office saw the picture and took a picture of the picture and provided it to quran but it's just it's ridiculous that you can identify why it was put up there what was that indication was it under some some banner saying former priest read head or something  then why was it even there i don't know why you don't know that answer well i do know it your honor but it is not in the record and so if if we're dealing with just the record i think we have to look at what river says about it and that is that he understood it to be communicating that he was public enemy number one of the north american mission board and that that necessarily arises out of his dispute with them about the new strategic partnership agreement and have and who was going to shake the mission strategy that was shared by the baptist convention in maryland delaware his employer and the north american mission board wouldn't wouldn't this doctrine which has immense importance but subtly be require more factual development for us to know if it was beliefs versus defamation public enemy you know facts that seem highly relevant as to whether it's on the belief side of the equation or the tort secular or neutral principle side well as the the district court noted i'm even getting into some of those determinations would be matter too fine even if we accept your characterization directions that a financial entity and its partnership will go an ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to matters of in internal church guess a church tribunals but here we don't have a tribe you know once adjudicated this we don't know if it's belief or related it's early it may well be but let me turn that into a question you know the supreme court's  na decision i did and that clearly stated that the ministerial exception is not a jurisdictional correct that is an affirmative as far as any court since that decision said that the my guess work about facts to determine if its belief is be precisely because the court stopped before looking at all but it doctrine isn't jurisdictional then both doctrines may still be there for you to prevail on ministerial exception abstention but not at this point it's premature and i don't think we have to speculate and imagine about the facts because i do think it is clear from the complaint that reverend mcraney was in a dispute about the direction and mission strategy that his employer and a cooperating into t were and were engaging in and those in today's determine that because of his disagreement with that mission strategy he was not the appropriate person to continue to be the public face of that mission stra factually was he even terminated which seems to be the predicate for all its claims my understanding is that he there was a vote to terminate him and then he was offered the option of entering into the separation agreement he was going to be f i want to touch on when thing is my time expires i'm mr barton pointed out southern baptist convention is unlike other religions because nobody overseas there's there's not this hierarchical structure  this case does not present questions of deference to church courts and north american mission board is not asserting that an interest church dispute has been decided by a higher church authority and it certainly does not claim to be that higher authority but an argument that because the southern baptist convention is congregational and doesn't have church courts means that the state it's ok for the state to intervene would provide less constitutional protection to congregational religions like the southern baptist convention than it does to hierarchical religions like the roman catholic church and that would violate the principle of neutrality that the st amendment man mandates neutrality between religion and religion as well as religion and non religious thank you  of before us tonight would you tell us about the photograph and was there anything you know you make the allegation was anything written under to posted or had the photograph been up before this dispute that she is correct in my complaint i said it only communicated the idea ok there was no words that were associated with it a friend of dr mcreynolds did take a picture of it and give it to him but certainly he was not listed his photo was other than the the photo was placed up there after he was terminated as far as we know after he was terminated from maryland delaware if you're using the word communicated so what what's the basis for your well word just practically speaking if if i'm leaving pastor within the southern baptist convention walks up and to there to the offices of the north american mission board in africa georgia and sees the picture of bochum a coin on the table in the front desk of the foyer and says oh i'm dr mcraney he used to be a professor at new on similary and he used to be over marilyn that what's his picture up there for they're going to tell you because he thought back against us not agree with it but but here's where we are and thank you for your watch the preparation and of course asking questions that i don't know the answer to the younger case did cite this is not shielded by the st amendment for all i built it for fraud if the statements involved here do not concern the religious beliefs and practices of the religious organization the free exercise clause provides no defense when the church acts like the charge then i agree the st amendment is set up to protect the churches from from intrusion by civil courts and by the government i agree with that one hundred percent but when the church stops acting like the church and at slike the world and acts like any other corporate entity that is out there threatening intimidating coercing and browbeat other individual it to tease in a torturous interference to an affair with somebody is the bill to make a living in this world the civil are ten while it took into the temple and determine whether the dispute is religious in nature or not without violating the st amendment and that's all we're asking for here is the right to go in and start looking into the facts of this case if it comes back and it's and he was fired because of religious doctrinal differences we loose but that's not what this case is about it's about power and control by one entity over another and now it's by a major entity you want to add a biblical scenario to it go a lot versus versus david a small individual who's fighting back who who pushed back and the north american mission board defense and a case you're familiar with you heard my question just to the very end do you know of any court state or federal that has applied the  we're just asking for the right to continue with discovery in this case to prove that it's not a matter of religious doctrine it is as we say it is it's a it's a case of power and control by one into t over another that has no religious overtones whatsoever and we can do that without bolli the constitutional principles