NAMB Claims it legally can interfere in State Conventions and Force out Leaders
Is NAMB allowed to interfere in state conventions and force out leaders? That is what NAMB’s defense attorneys are saying in its legal case with Dr. Will McRaney.
On November 2nd NAMB filed a 3rd motion for dismissal, arguing a legal defense that makes claims that are in direct opposition to over a century of SBC cooperative mission partnerships and polity.
If SBC leaders want to preserve and grow the partnership between State Conventions and the SBC, they must call for NAMB to abandon its pursuit of their latest legal argument that would threaten our historic partnership.
Why does this pose a threat?
After two previously failed attempts to get the case dismissed, NAMB’s latest argument claims that they are legally a “Supporting Organization” to the BCMD, and consequently all State Conventions, which would give them the “legal right to interfere” in State Conventions to “protect its own economic or other interests.
In simple terms, State Conventions would lose their autonomy because NAMB could interfere at any point to protect its own interests, including economic interests.
However, that is not the only threat. Based on the same legal claim, this could dismantle the current legal ascending and descending liability protections for all State Conventions and SBC entities, give NAMB absolute privilege and qualified privilege over all State Convention employees, and apply all separations clauses State Convention employees have signed with their state to NAMB. These can be found in defense number 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 16 of their document.
Why has NAMB not legally been considered a “Supporting Organization” for the past century?
NAMB may provide support to State Conventions, but for over the past century NAMB and State Conventions have been considered separate autonomous organizations that voluntarily partner to see the mission of Christ be more effectively advanced. One of the key reasons that NAMB has never been a "Supporting Organization" in the past was that it would immediately dismantle the autonomy of the State Conventions because it would allow for NAMB to interfere. Second, and perhaps legally the most important, typically for NAMB to legally be considered a “Supporting Organization” it would require that the BCMD (established in 1836) was created to support a purpose of NAMB (established 1997).
However, even if we did not consider the second point, SBC leaders should reject this claim as it would compromise the autonomy of the conventions.
What would this look like for State Conventions, their leaders, and their members?
What Can You Do?
If NAMB’s legal claim is granted, that would mark the end of the cooperation of our conventions and enter into an era of domination by NAMB over the state conventions.
This cannot and should not be allowed.
Leadership in the SBC must call for NAMB's attorneys to abandon this dangerous legal claim.