The Southern Baptist Convention will appeal a defamation ruling in favor of a former worship pastor accused of abuse before the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The nation’s largest Protestant denomination is challenging a lower court decision in favor of Preston Garner, who argued that the convention defamed him when reaching out to affiliated entities where Garner was employed, reports Baptist Press, the SBC news service.
At issue is a complaint filed by Garner over an anonymous online allegation given to the SBC sexual abuse hotline maintained by Guidepost Solutions in 2022. A woman accused Garner of abusing her in 2010 while he was serving as interim pastor at Englewood Baptist Church in Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
The convention seeks to dismiss the complaint under “the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine,” a legal principle that prevents courts from ruling on cases of religious doctrine. Furthermore, the convention contends that the Tennessee Public Participation Act protects organizations “based on, relates to, or is in response to that party’s exercise of the right to free speech, right to petition, or right of association.”
According to court documents, Garner was serving as a worship pastor at Everett Hills Baptist Church when, in January 2023, a representative of the SBC Executive Committee sent a letter to the congregation leadership alleging that Garner had a credible allegation of abuse leveled against him.
The letter in question was also sent to the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board President Randy Davis, who later forwarded it to The King’s Academy, a Baptist-affiliated school where Garner was working at the time.
As a result, the academy suspended and later fired Garner, while a church that Garner had just accepted a position with after leaving Everett Hills withdrew its offer of employment.
In May 2023, Garner and his wife sued the SBC Executive Committee, the SBC Credentials Committee, Guidepost Solutions, and SBC EC Committee Relations Manager Christy Peters.
An amended complaint filed a month later accused the defendants of defamation, defamation by implication, false light invasion of privacy and loss of consortium.
A trial court entered an order in January 2024, partly denying the requests of the SBC to dismiss the complaint based on the matter supposedly being ecclesiastical in nature.
Last September, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville ruled in favor of Garner, with Judge Kristi Davis authoring the unanimous opinion.
“Appellants in this case have not raised any argument that their conduct resulted from the application or interpretation of any religious canon,” wrote Davis. “Ultimately, whether Everett Hills was in friendly cooperation with the SBC has no bearing on the Garners’ claims.”
“Accordingly, considering the Garners’ claims will not require the trial court to resolve any religious disputes or to rely on religious doctrine. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply to this case, and the trial court did not err in denying the Appellants’ Rule 12 motions.”
The SBC argued that their actions addressed a matter of public concern and safety, as it was part of their efforts to respond to allegations of abuse within member churches.
“The Appellants argue that the Garners cannot satisfy the second element of their defamation claim because the statements in the Letter — specifically, that an anonymous online complaint about Mr. Garner was made to Guidepost — are true,” she added.
“The statements in the Letter as published ‘would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which’ a full explanation of the facts known to the Appellants at the time the Letter was sent would have produced. … Accordingly, truth is not available as an absolute defense to the Appellants in this case.”
The panel concluded that the trial court “erred in finding that the TPPA does not apply to this case” and remanded that part of the judgment for further proceedings while affirming other findings of the trial court.
