# Secretly taping church members



## Pergamum (Jan 8, 2020)

There has been a recent case of a reformed megachurch secretly taping meetings and phone conversations with members of the church, and others. Multiple parties. Sometimes the tapes are then used later as evidence against the member for disciplinary reasons. In some cases it was a non-member that was taped and their confession then played on the internet via Youtube. The pastor confesses he did it, so this is not gossip. 


In some states this is illegal without consent. 

What is the ethics of this, and is this anywhere near a normal practice in the pastoral ministry? This is the first time I've ever heard of this ever happening at a church and I am pretty incensed at the news. Is this practice taught or advised anywhere in any bible school?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 8, 2020)

Many people today have good doctrine, but poor morals. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/166298/honesty-ethics-rating-clergy-slides-new-low.aspx

"Americans' rating of the honesty and ethics of the clergy has fallen to 47%, the first time this rating has dropped below 50% since Gallup first asked about the clergy in 1977. Clergy have historically ranked near the top among professions on this measure, hitting a high rating of 67% in 1985."

The problem is not bad doctrine; but bad men.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 8, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> There has been a recent case of a reformed megachurch



This particular church has maybe 200 members, so hardly a megachurch. One of the marks of the strange times are in is that it’s possible to have only 200 people listen to your sermon in person, and yet have 10,000 listen online. 

As far as your question, it strikes me as being very unethical, paranoid, and a bit cultish.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Jan 8, 2020)

I remember that a few decades ago, an Episcopal priest in Mississippi got a woman to admit to infidelity in a counseling session. The husband arranged to record her admission so that he could use it as evidence in a custody fight in the divorce. My recollection is that the pastor lost his job, but that detail isn't included in the 2002 story in the New York Times.


----------



## Edward (Jan 8, 2020)

Bill The Baptist said:


> it strikes me as being very unethical, paranoid, and a bit cultish.



If Nixon hadn't recorded his conversations, he would still be President.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 8, 2020)

Edward said:


> If Nixon hadn't recorded his conversations, he would still be President.



Really? 

Think he could have overcome the 22nd Amendment_ and_ death?

Reactions: Funny 9


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2020)

VictorBravo said:


> Really?
> 
> Think he could have overcome the 22nd Amendment_ and_ death?



If anyone could, it would be him.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Edward (Jan 8, 2020)

VictorBravo said:


> _and_ death



Seems to work for a certain Supreme Court justice. A terminal cancer for which there is never any hope? Not a problem. Complete cure. 

As for the Constitution? Whatever a certain 5 folks in Washington agree to.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 8, 2020)

Edward said:


> I remember that a few decades ago, an Episcopal priest in Mississippi got a woman to admit to infidelity in a counseling session. The husband arranged to record her admission so that he could use it as evidence in a custody fight in the divorce. My recollection is that the pastor lost his job, but that detail isn't included in the 2002 story in the New York Times.



I actually had a case sort of like this. For reasons I won't specify, a former pastor threatened to release emails of a former church member. There were admissions of sin--nothing criminal.

A quick review of Idaho law (where it was happening) allowed me to send a nastygram to the former pastor with threats of civil and criminal liability. We had pretty good grounds supporting the threats. I imagine other states are similar.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 8, 2020)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This particular church has maybe 200 members, so hardly a megachurch. One of the marks of the strange times are in is that it’s possible to have only 200 people listen to your sermon in person, and yet have 10,000 listen online.
> 
> As far as your question, it strikes me as being very unethical, paranoid, and a bit cultish.



Yes, they have a wide influence.

Many are young and tech-savvy such as the Mars Hill people were. This seems to be a trend, the older and wiser folks who we SHOULD be hearing are not getting broadcast while the younger hipsters all have podcasts because they know how to work the gadgetry but don't really deserve to have their voices heard. Oh, to have my tried-and-true 70-year old pastor's voice influencing the internet far and wide, the church would be the better for it. Instead we get some hipster pastor who self-promotes the best while the old and wise guys are still using cassette tape sermons.

And, I admit they do very well on issues such as abortion. And the Gospel is preached from what I gather.

And yet heavy-shepherding is followed. They simply don't treat other people well. Perhaps this starts with receiving online detractors. Or because they deal with polemics and thus develop "polemical personalities" - I don't really know the dynamic of how such abuse gets started, but it reeks. Pastoral power plays and maneuverings.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 8, 2020)

I'm personally acquainted with the people of whom you speak, and although I am fond of them as people, I was very disappointed when I found out about the practice of recording.

So much so that I don't really trust them anymore.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 3 | Sad 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I'm personally acquainted with the people of whom you speak, and although I am fond of them as people, I was very disappointed when I found out about the practice of recording.
> 
> So much so that I don't really trust them anymore.



Me neither.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> The pastor confesses he did it, so this is not gossip.


What was the nature of this "confession"? Did he apologize? Repent? Or was he defending his conduct?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 9, 2020)

Edward said:


> I remember that a few decades ago, an Episcopal priest in Mississippi got a woman to admit to infidelity in a counseling session. The husband arranged to record her admission so that he could use it as evidence in a custody fight in the divorce. My recollection is that the pastor lost his job, but that detail isn't included in the 2002 story in the New York Times.



Did the husband win the custody fight though?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 9, 2020)

Edward said:


> If Nixon hadn't recorded his conversations, he would still be President.



Wish he were.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, they have a wide influence.
> 
> Many are young and tech-savvy such as the Mars Hill people were. This seems to be a trend, the older and wiser folks who we SHOULD be hearing are not getting broadcast while the younger hipsters all have podcasts because they know how to work the gadgetry but don't really deserve to have their voices heard. Oh, to have my tried-and-true 70-year old pastor's voice influencing the internet far and wide, the church would be the better for it. Instead we get some hipster pastor who self-promotes the best while the old and wise guys are still using cassette tape sermons.
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you say here. I didn't want to be the one to bring up Mars Hill but unfortunately I see some similarities.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I agree with everything you say here. I didn't want to be the one to bring up Mars Hill but unfortunately I see some similarities.



There does seem to be some similarities:

(1) Neo-Reformed folks,

(2) that give off an aura of coolness (even at the expense of looking like libertines to some perhaps as yourself with the tats and the beer at church functions. That doesn't bother me, but I know it upsets you, and I admit that there could be element in glorying in their freedom in a "show-offy" way..."look at our Christian freedom" sort of thing).

(3) The heavy-shepherding and the model of the pastor as tyrant or big-boss mentality instead of the pastor as humble servant.

(4) Maneuverings and devices to protect one's fame or authority (whether that means using church funds to buy up books so your book makes the bestseller list, like Driscoll, or secretly taping congregants).

The similarities seem to stem from a certain worldly style of leadership and philosophy of authority and control. Quite simply, I see many authoritarians creating little kingdoms, rather than folks willing to die and be forgotten for the kingdom of God. As Lutherans sometimes put it, they are indulging in a "theology of glory" rather than a "theology of the cross" and this reflect in how they obtain and protect their power.

I have been very troubled to hear about these practices and I do not blame non-church goers for distrusting the clergy.

It is time we return to the model of Christ. We've become much too wise in the ways of the world and its methods of power.


p.s. I'll just give this additional info. The pastor involved is an 18-day military boot-camp drop-out that couldn't make it through basic training and claimed there was a conspiracy/threats against him. He had to be removed from training for his own safety, he claims. I worked on an army psych floor for 3 years and I dealt with many basic trainee failures all the time, and it was almost always some major mental deficiency to be found in the basic trainee drop-out, the drill sergeants all being rough but good for the men involved. They cared about their men (with tough love) and wanted them to succeed. I respected and admired my DIs (even when they playfully called us names or threatened to hurt us). We grew even to love some of these men, because they cared for us enough to be rough on us and demand excellence. It was only the nut-jobs who claimed a conspiracy or believed the Drill Instructors were actually going to kill them, and who could not make it through the far from rigorous regimen of training. That such men can fail so miserably in the armed forced and succeed so well in churches says a lot about the gullibility of parishioners.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald (Jan 9, 2020)

If the reported story is true (and without hard evidence do we really know?), it concerns me greatly. The fact that a well-known Christian apologist is affiliated with this church also concerns me. Privacy is becoming rarer and rarer. Anything we put on the Internet is virtually impossible to erase. Everyone has a smartphone that can photograph or video anything they want and broadcast it for the world to see. It's no wonder that we have a paranoid culture. If a pastor or elder is secretly recording member's phone calls, how does that foster trust? It's a dishonest and despicable practice. Do we really want the church to turn into an ecclesiastical CSI?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 9, 2020)

Edward said:


> Seems to work for a certain Supreme Court justice. A terminal cancer for which there is never any hope? Not a problem. Complete cure.



That’s because there is a cure for cancer. They just reserve it for the special people while they profit off of the slow death of the rest of us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Many are young and tech-savvy such as the Mars Hill people were. This seems to be a trend, the older and wiser folks who we SHOULD be hearing are not getting broadcast while the younger hipsters all have podcasts because they know how to work the gadgetry but don't really deserve to have their voices heard.



One of the elders has a long running podcast but is a fairly recent addition to the session (or whatever Baptist call it), that has said that they haven't updated their church website to show he is added BUT their media website has been updated. My point in this, is it strikes me as odd that you would let your church website be stale but have the time and resources to produce other content. It troubles me that it seems there is misplaced priorities.

Grant that I can only see this from a distant, but the appearance is not necessarily great, and that at least is somewhat important. Elders have it as a qualification.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 9, 2020)

Kinghezy said:


> One of the elders has a long running podcast but is a fairly recent addition to the session (or whatever Baptist call it), that has said that they haven't updated their church website to show he is added BUT their media website has been updated. My point in this, is it strikes me as odd that you would let your church website be stale but have the time and resources to produce other content. It troubles me that it seems there is misplaced priorities.
> 
> Grant that I can only see this from a distant, but the appearance is not necessarily great, and that at least is somewhat important. Elders have it as a qualification.



That’s because the actual church is small and not really the main focus of their ministry. The main focus is on podcasts and other internet based ministries. The physical church is really just a prop to lend legitimacy to their bigger ministry.

Reactions: Like 4 | Sad 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 9, 2020)

A lot of worrying things happening around this group it seems.


----------



## gjensen (Jan 9, 2020)

I have noticed that an authoritarian pastor can develop out of his own insecure paranoia. Some deal with an awful amount of opposition and subversion. They begin to build inner circle safe spaces. And they strengthen and tighten their grip on the rest with these followers. These churches become more like a game of Survivor than church.

I am growing more and more concerned with the online personalities and their online ministries. Who reigns and rules and gathers a following in these settings is not who I would want Shepherding any of my family members. This is not what the church looks like.

I do want to push back on one (to me) important point. The man's prior service as a kid has nothing to do with this. I admit that I have had concerns, but I will not hold his distant past as a kid against him.
I served, have two sons that are serving, and have an "almost son" that graduates Ft. Benning next week.
But ... Some of these kids that do not make it come from less than ideal circumstances. I have worked with these too.
Lets not condemn these as deficient and unrecoverable. People grow and mature beyond their past.
I want to pray for them, hope for them, and not hold it against them. I am not their accuser.

Reactions: Like 3 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## usernamecrtamil (Jan 9, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> What was the nature of this "confession"? Did he apologize? Repent? Or was he defending his conduct?



He did not repent or confess to sin. He justified (the particular/specific circumstance under which it was discovered) the conduct on the basis of who he was recording and why.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jan 9, 2020)

Since so many seem to know the situation under consideration, would it be a problem if someone told the rest of us what we are talking about? Is there a link to this story that anyone is willing to share?


----------



## usernamecrtamil (Jan 9, 2020)

kainos01 said:


> Since so many seem to know the situation under consideration, would it be a problem if someone told the rest of us what we are talking about? Is there a link to this story that anyone is willing to share?



I in NO WAY condone or commend the source/ministry via this link, but this will at least provide a gist of what happened.

https://pulpitandpen.org/2020/01/07...ngs-and-apologia-church-delete-after-reading/

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 9, 2020)

kainos01 said:


> Since so many seem to know the situation under consideration, would it be a problem if someone told the rest of us what we are talking about? Is there a link to this story that anyone is willing to share?


There was a previous thread that touched this topic, and that was shut down. Some are aiming to avoid that, I suppose.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jan 9, 2020)

Thanks


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

gjensen said:


> I have noticed that an authoritarian pastor can develop out of his own insecure paranoia. Some deal with an awful amount of opposition and subversion. They begin to build inner circle safe spaces. And they strengthen and tighten their grip on the rest with these followers. These churches become more like a game of Survivor than church.
> 
> I am growing more and more concerned with the online personalities and their online ministries. Who reigns and rules and gathers a following in these settings is not who I would want Shepherding any of my family members. This is not what the church looks like.
> 
> ...



Fair enough point about his past military failure. I only mention it as an evidence that he deflects criticism instead of believing the problem may be himself. Immaturity is one thing, but to manufacture conspiracies and threats against his life is another. Also, having worked on the psych ward at a basic training unit, I've seen this type of person before. They take their dysfunctions home with them.

Yes, I want them to self-correct and continue their productive anti-abortion ministries.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

jnslance said:


> I in NO WAY condone or commend the source/ministry via this link, but this will at least provide a gist of what happened.
> 
> https://pulpitandpen.org/2020/01/07...ngs-and-apologia-church-delete-after-reading/



I was trying not to mention specific people, nor to link the Pulpit and Pen article since P&P takes a lot of heat. But they also report a lot of needful things as well. A watch-dog sometimes barks when there is not a need, but sometimes barks true, as well. 

I am trying to keep the thread from shutting down and even move it to the move generic topic of the topic of taping congregants in general. 

I've never heard it done before and it was highly troubling to hear and I am trying to find out where this pastor might have learned this strange practice. Is this is a common practice of self-defense among those who engage in a lot of polemics? These guys are often very polemical and engage in a lot of controversy as well (a lot of it needless and against other believers, as well, which is sad). I am wondering if he was advised by others or if a school or set of people recommend taping all phone calls as a defensive maneuver? Are there courses in pastoral ethics out there that covers pastor-congregant confidentiality?


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jan 9, 2020)

Wait, we’re taking Pulpit and Pen and BTWN seriously now? But not when they talk about Rachel Denhollander’s questionable actions or statements for example? Or given their blatant dishonesty about Rosaria Butterfield? That honestly reeks to me like Unjust weights and measures.

If there’s a recording of a certain individual “repenting” on his own volition after slandering your ministry for a decent amount of time and refusing to provide any sort of information for accountability purposes who then goes back to slandering your ministry, if you don’t save any of that communication and publish it upon his continued slander (when it’s legal in your state) in an attempt to make the situation known to your members and other interested parties, I’d say you’re honestly being a little foolish. Who says that this person won’t go on to make up more serious slander?

I think we should take internet discernment ministries attacks on reputable ministries with a grain of salt. Especially if they have the reputation that P&P and BTWN have.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Wait, we’re taking Pulpit and Pen and BTWN seriously now?



Only insofar as they are saying things that are true. (Which I will begrudgingly admit they do from time to time).

Besides, I don't see anything in this thread that _*relies upon*_ P&P / BTWN. The Ministry in question doesn't even remotely deny that they record confidential conversations with people that they counsel.

That's dirty pool and cult-like. Ironic, considering some of the focus of this ministry.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Cheryl Watson (Jan 9, 2020)

Finally, an advantage to living in CA ;-) Here it's illegal to record anyone without their knowledge.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Wait, we’re taking Pulpit and Pen and BTWN seriously now? But not when they talk about Rachel Denhollander’s questionable actions or statements for example? Or given their blatant dishonesty about Rosaria Butterfield? That honestly reeks to me like Unjust weights and measures.
> 
> If there’s a recording of a certain individual “repenting” on his own volition after slandering your ministry for a decent amount of time and refusing to provide any sort of information for accountability purposes who then goes back to slandering your ministry, if you don’t save any of that communication and publish it upon his continued slander (when it’s legal in your state) in an attempt to make the situation known to your members and other interested parties, I’d say you’re honestly being a little foolish. Who says that this person won’t go on to make up more serious slander?
> 
> I think we should take internet discernment ministries attacks on reputable ministries with a grain of salt. Especially if they have the reputation that P&P and BTWN have.



The pastor in question admits to secretly taping conversations. It isn't just P&P and BTWN mentioning it. The pastor himself put out a defense video (of almost 3 hours) where he admits to taping the conversation (illegal in many states). The word slander often gets used to mean, "I disagree with you" by the way and is often a useless term wielded by those trying to get the theological high-ground. The pastor engaged in unethical and (in many states) illegal acts. 

You seriously believe it's ok to secretly tape phone calls and play them before the church? I'll think twice before I ever talk to you.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

Cheryl Watson said:


> Finally, an advantage to living in CA ;-) Here it's illegal to record anyone without their knowledge.


That is a good law.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> The pastor in question admits to secretly taping conversations. It isn't just P&P and BTWN mentioning it. The pastor himself put out a defense video (of almost 3 hours) where he admits to taping the conversation (illegal in many states). The word slander often gets used to mean, "I disagree with you" by the way and is often a useless term wielded by those trying to get the theological high-ground. The pastor engaged in unethical and (in many states) illegal acts.
> 
> You seriously believe it's ok to secretly tape phone calls and play them before the church? I'll think twice before I ever talk to you.



If you’re engaged in multiple years of slander against me and then you publish an attack against me after supposed repentance with no accountability by an elder and refusing to provide such a mechanism to hash it out with elders as the scripture commands? Yeah. I would.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> If you’re engaged in multiple years of slander against me and then you publish an attack against me after supposed repentance with no accountability by an elder and refusing to provide such a mechanism to hash it out with elders as the scripture commands? Yeah. I would.



Ok, I will mark and avoid you if you ever try to lead a church.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Ok, I will mark and avoid you if you ever try to lead a church.



Feel free to, that’s your prerogative. I won’t deny you help when you’re slandered by the same folks. Take care you’re not devoured.

I don’t think pastors owe anything to slanderers who run internet discernment sites who refuse to provide their eldership contact information when called to give an account in a biblical manner for speaking falsely. This board has a 9th Commandment statement for exactly that reason.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Feel free to, that’s your prerogative. I won’t deny you help when you’re slandered by the same folks. Take care you’re not devoured.
> 
> I don’t think pastors owe anything to slanderers who run internet discernment sites who refuse to provide their eldership contact information when called to give an account in a biblical manner for speaking falsely. This board has a 9th Commandment statement for a reason.



I have hate websites devoted to me in the country where I normally serve (I am a spy sent by the CIA to stir up dissent, they claim). I've traced their IPs to military bases and army leaders involved in illegal mining (hence their reason to oppose me, bc I have reported their illegal activities) and reported it to the media. So I am not against defending one's honor.

All discernment sites are not bad. They exist for a reason and some do their job poorly and some do their job well. Often the very pastors who vociferously oppose those discernment sites put out worse info than those very sites they condemn.

P and P has done a good job on several issues, and flubbed it on several others. You are throwing out the words slanderer and 9th commandment a lot, but again these labels are largely meaningless and an attempt to jockey for the theological high-ground. I see these men at Apologia as slandering others regularly as well (eg. one of their apologists often lumps TR text advocates in with KJV-Onlyism and does not honestly engage their arguments. That, too, is a form of slander). They've made polemics their main game, and so if they live by that sword they will die by that sword, especially when they engage in Muslims and atheists in the same manner as they engage other Christian brothers. They seem to go into the same attack-dog mode towards differing Christians as they do when they engage unbelievers, and this is distasteful.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> P and P has done a good job on several issues, and flubbed it on several others. You are throwing out the words slanderer and 9th commandment a lot, but again these labels are largely meaningless and an attempt to jockey for the theological high-ground. I see these men at Apologia as slandering others regularly as well (eg. one of their apologists often lumps TR text advocates in with KJV-Onlyism and does not honestly engage their arguments. That, too, is a form of slander). They've made polemics their main game, and so if they live by that sword they will die by that sword, especially when they engage in Muslims and atheists in the same manner as they engage other Christian brothers. They seem to go into the same attack-dog mode towards differing Christians as they do when they engage unbelievers, and this is distasteful.


This does sound cult like. A little truth to blind the followers. Just saying. I consider P&P to be more like a market check out isle tabloid. Avoid them and lend them very little credence if any at all. There is no accountability and they should be ashamed. It appears they don't know how to blush at their wrong doing like the tabloids. So yeah, I agree with the slander and 9th commandment accusations. That should be something we should be bothered by.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> I have hate websites devoted to me in the country where I normally serve (I am a spy sent by the CIA to stir up dissent, they claim). I've traced their IPs to military bases and army leaders involved in illegal mining (hence their reason to oppose me, bc I have reported their illegal activities) and reported it to the media. So I am not against defending one's honor.
> 
> All discernment sites are not bad. They exist for a reason and some do their job poorly and some do their job well. Often the very pastors who vociferously oppose those discernment sites put out worse info than those very sites they condemn.
> 
> P and P has done a good job on several issues, and flubbed it on several others. You are throwing out the words slanderer and 9th commandment a lot, but again these labels are largely meaningless and an attempt to jockey for the theological high-ground. I see these men at Apologia as slandering others regularly as well (eg. one of their apologists often lumps TR text advocates in with KJV-Onlyism and does not honestly engage their arguments. That, too, is a form of slander). They've made polemics their main game, and so if they live by that sword they will die by that sword, especially when they engage in Muslims and atheists in the same manner as they engage other Christian brothers.



With love brother Perg, 
P and P and BTWN seriously slander these people in a serious way that blatantly violates the Standards guidance on the 9C. It isn’t a mere theological dispute. 

They’ve attacked said well known apologist and elder personally by mockery, reviling his daughter, and in other flat out unconscionable ways after he defended Rosaria Butterfield from their outright misrepresentation. 

They’ve lied about his outreaches to Muslims. They’ve lied about said church having a “tattoo and beer” fundraiser and spread it to a news outlet. Said BTWN commentator at issue openly admitted that he slandered this group out of jealousy. 

They hired PI’s to follow said apologists producer to dig up dirt reportedly.

All of this from supposed Christian brothers. Who refuse to be corrected in these ungodly acts.

Yet we’re supposed to take all these facts and throw them out the window because *gasp* they recorded slanderers who refused to be biblically confronted and then had the gall to defend themselves on their platforms? 

I don’t buy it. 

I don’t oppose discernment sites per say. Some do it well. But this group? Not so much.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> With love brother Perg,
> P and P and BTWN seriously slander these people in a serious way that blatantly violates the Standards guidance on the 9C. It isn’t a mere theological dispute.
> 
> They’ve attacked said well known apologist and elder personally by mockery, reviling his daughter, and in other flat out unconscionable ways after he defended Rosaria Butterfield from their outright misrepresentation.
> ...



Apologia has admitted to secretly taping their members. Despite your dislike for P and P, Apologia themselves have admitted the practice, and have played back the taped phone conversation on youtube. NO matter if P&P has a vendetta against the man or not, an unethical practice was committed, and that on more than one occasion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergy, I just think we should be careful to make sure there isn't a double standard here and that we should require P&P to be on the up and up also. Especially if we are going to refer to them. Call them out too. I am uncomfortable with the PB becoming a checkout isle tabloid looking Forum on the internet without any accountability for what is posted here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> With love brother Perg,
> P and P and BTWN seriously slander these people in a serious way that blatantly violates the Standards guidance on the 9C. It isn’t a mere theological dispute.
> 
> They’ve attacked said well known apologist and elder personally by mockery, reviling his daughter, and in other flat out unconscionable ways after he defended Rosaria Butterfield from their outright misrepresentation.
> ...



I get what you're saying about P&P and BTWN. You're dead on. Totally right.

But let's move on from the Apologia vs. P&P / BWTN issue.

Let's talk about the fact that Apologia has a practice of secretly recording confidential meetings _with their own members.
_
Isn't THAT worthy of discussion apart from whatever merit you might see in Apologia defending themselves from BTWN?

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Pergy, I just think we should be careful to make sure there isn't a double standard here and that we should require P&P to be on the up and up also. Especially if we are going to refer to them. Call them out too. I am uncomfortable with the PB becoming a checkout isle tabloid looking Forum on the internet without any accountability for what is posted here.



The issue is being deflected. See Sean's wise reply above to get the conversation back on course. Apologia themselves have admitted the practice. Let's talk about that. It seems a detestable and indefensible practice.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Isn't THAT worthy of discussion apart from whatever merit you might see in Apologia defending themselves from BTWN?



Are there other reliable resources that can give us the facts without using a poor resource?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

Durbin admits his unethical and (illegal in many states) actions here (the horse's mouth). 








Facts he admits: 1. private phone conversations were secretly taped. 2. Those were released as punishment later during conflict. 3. Private info about 3rd persons were also released in the tape. 

Things reported by others: (4) This practice has also occurred several times with Apologia church members. (5) Edited tape segments have been released to the church in a way that benefits/defends Durbin. (6) The church members were not informed they were being recorded.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> The issue is being deflected.


I am not trying to deflect anything. And P&P is not the same as a corrupt military comrade trying to subvert you. The topic at hand can be discussed. The Source matters as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Apologia has admitted to secretly taping their members. Despite your dislike for P and P, Apologia themselves have admitted the practice, and have played back the taped phone conversation on youtube. NO matter if P&P has a vendetta against the man or not, an unethical practice was committed, and that on more than one occasion.





SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I get what you're saying about P&P and BTWN. You're dead on. Totally right.
> 
> But let's move on from the Apologia vs. P&P / BWTN issue.
> 
> ...



Let’s do a quick thought exercise. Say a young woman meets with two elders from Apologia church. Then says that they gang raped her and goes to the Phoenix news with this or even the Washington Post.

Would you still be against them recording their meetings? Without recordings what would you do? Especially in this time of #MeToo? 

I also am not particularly moved if a confirmed slanderer, who makes a habit of slandering faithful men, who admitted his slander against a faithful ministry was motivated by his own hatred and jealousy is aghast that his conversations were posted publicly when he refused to be confronted biblically with elders about his blatant ongoing violation of the Decalogue. It’s manipulative and I don’t buy it.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Let’s do a quick thought exercise. Say a young woman meets with two elders from Apologia church. Then says that they gang raped her and goes to the Phoenix news with this or even the Washington Post.
> 
> Would you still be against them recording their meetings? Without recordings what would you do? Especially in this time of #MeToo?



In the year 2020 I would be astonished at two male ministers meeting a young woman alone without another neutral woman present.

Ministers _secretly_ recording confidential meetings with _church members_ is 100% sketchy.



> I also am not particularly moved if a confirmed slanderer, who makes a habit of slandering faithful men, who admitted his slander against a faithful ministry was motivated by his own hatred and jealousy is aghast that his conversations were posted publicly when he refused to be confronted biblically with elders about his blatant ongoing violation of the Decalogue. It’s manipulative and I don’t buy it.



Literally don't care about the P&P / BWTN angle of this issue.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

"Under the federal Wiretap Act, it is *illegal* for any person to secretly *record* an oral, telephonic, or electronic communication that other parties to the communication reasonably expect to be private. (18 U.S.C. § 2511.)"

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## kodos (Jan 9, 2020)

Removing the specifics of this particular case (of which I have no interest in entertaining) and returning to the original question - there is no reason to record a meeting with a church member without their assent. It is the sort of thing even pagans are against. The Church ought to be better than that. It is a poor witness to the world.

We should not minister out of fear. Be wise about matters, yes - but do things in the light and in the open. If you want to let someone know that they are being recorded, that's fine and well if they consent, I suppose. But it will likely put most people on edge. If you are seeking to minister to someone, that doesn't seem right/healthy.

If you are worried, perhaps remind all parties that God is listening and interested in every word that is said before the meeting begins. We don't record any conversations in our church.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Literally don't care about the P&P / BWTN angle of this issue.


I understand. But as a Moderator and someone who cares about the board I feel obligated to make sure resources are good and have a level of good character. That is why this is the PB. I could link to all kinds of things to prove my points concerning R2K and other stuff. I don't because of the sources. I find reputable sources for my posts the best I can.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> "Under the federal Wiretap Act, it is *illegal* for any person to secretly *record* an oral, telephonic, or electronic communication that other parties to the communication reasonably expect to be private. (18 U.S.C. § 2511.)"



That's not the end of the story, though.

(d)
*It shall not be unlawful under this chapter* for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication *where such person is a party to the communication* or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I understand. But as a Moderator and someone who cares about the board I feel obligated to make sure resources are good and have a level of good character. That is why this is the PB. I could link to all kinds of things to prove my points concerning R2K and other stuff. I don't because of the sources. I find reputable sources for my posts the best I can.



That's not my point. My point is that I am not interested in talking about the Apologia vs. P&P / BWTN saga. I am interested in talking about the propriety of Shepherds secretly recording conversations _*with their*_ own sheep.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That's not the end of the story, though.
> 
> (d)
> *It shall not be unlawful under this chapter* for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication *where such person is a party to the communication* or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.



Can you parse that out? What does that mean? Prior consent is mentioned. And criminal and tortious acts (whatever those are) are mentioned. Can you explain?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That's not my point. My point is that I am not interested in talking about the Apologia vs. P&P / BWTN sage. I am interested in talking about the propriety of Shephers secretly recording conversations _*with their*_ own sheep.


Well, then find good references and resources. Yes, this is a terrible thing.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That's not my point. My point is that I am not interested in talking about the Apologia vs. P&P / BWTN sage. I am interested in talking about the propriety of Shephers secretly recording conversations _*with their*_ own sheep.



This is why I tried not to name names in my OP, but to keep the subject general. If one church is doing this sort of thing, perhaps others are doing it as well. I'd like to talk about the general ethics of it, and if it happens more than in this isolated case?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Can you parse that out? What does that mean? Prior consent is mentioned. And criminal and tortious acts (whatever those are) are mentioned. Can you explain?



It means, in simple, that at the Federal level, it's NOT illegal for a person to record a conversation between themselves and another party.

This is also the law in the State of Arizona.

So, it's not _*illegal*_ for the Pastors in question to record the private conversations they have, since the Pastor in question is a party to the conversation and gives consent to the recording. 

I would argue that although legal, it is most certainly immoral and unethical.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> In the year 2020 I would be astonished at two male ministers meeting a young woman alone without another neutral woman present.
> 
> Ministers _secretly_ recording confidential meetings with _church members_ is 100% sketchy.
> 
> ...



Given the ministries Apologia is involved in, and the stances they have taken, do you really think pagan society and even the Survivor bloggers would judge a woman witness as reliable and accept Apologia’s version of events? I am not inclined to think so.

The people you mention who bring forth this testimony are not neutral either, they are members _under discipline_. I would say this colors their perspective a bit.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> It means, in simple, that at the Federal level, it's NOT illegal for a person to record a conversation between themselves and another party.
> 
> This is also the law in the State of Arizona.
> 
> ...



Many states have a two-party consent law, as opposed to this one-party consent law, where both parties must be made aware. So, Apologia may be in a 1-party consent state. The phone call crossed state lines, so I don't know how this effects legality. But yes, whether illegal or not, I find this practice unethical.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Cheryl Watson (Jan 9, 2020)

I am all for recording private meetings as long as all the parties present know, consent, agree upon distribution restrictions, and have a copy of the recording. It prevents things being said in private that can be later denied in public. It should never be done secretly by either shepherd or sheep.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Many states have a two-party consent law, as opposed to this one-party consent law, where both parties must be made aware. So, Apologia may be in a 1-party consent state. The phone call crossed state lines, so I don't know how this effects legality. But yes, whether illegal or not, I find this practice unethical.



Well, again, I am not talking about the P&P / BWTN thing.

Arizona is a one-party state. Apologia, and presumably all its members, are in Arizona. So that's the law.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Given the ministries Apologia is involved in, and the stances they have taken, do you really think pagan society and even the Survivor bloggers would judge a woman witness as reliable and accept Apologia’s version of events? I am not inclined to think so.
> 
> The people you mention who bring forth this testimony are not neutral either, they are members _under discipline_. I would say this colors their perspective a bit.


There are NO neutral parties. Not even Apologia. Each has an agenda and a perspective. Everybody's perspective is colored.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Given the ministries Apologia is involved in, and the stances they have taken, do you really think pagan society and even the Survivor bloggers would judge a woman witness as reliable and accept Apologia’s version of events? I am not inclined to think so.
> 
> The people you mention who bring forth this testimony are not neutral either, they are members _under discipline_. I would say this colors their perspective a bit.



So just come out and say it:

"Yes, it's ethical for a Pastor to secretly record confidential meetings with members of their own church."

*** OR ***

"I am skeptical that this church in question is actually secretly recording confidential meetings with members of their own church."

If you don't hold to one of those two positions, then I don't know what your point is here.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> So just come out and say it:
> 
> "Yes, it's ethical for a Pastor to secretly record confidential meetings with members of their own church."
> 
> ...



I haven’t thought through the issue enough to answer with regards to the ethics. 

But I will offer an anecdote:

Several years ago when my church went through a terrible split, replete with a church-wide circulated letter attacking the pastor’s character and fitness to lead the church, and accusation after accusation against the pastor with no tangible evidence for the average man in the pew to judge by; and when the nature of the attacks were such that if the pastor tried to defend himself against them, the cries would be, “See! See!”; and the whole thing was creating great division that carried away many, and created much bitterness, *I wish there was some mechanism to know the truth* of these supposed behind-closed-doors events.

But again, I haven’t come to a decision on the ethics of this particular case. I don’t know enough about it to decide at this point. 

I will say that I respect James White greatly, and to just drag decades of faithful ministry through the mud for something as murky and Pulpit & Pen-y as his involvement in this is pure bollocks. 


*For the record, to this day there has been no evidence of the charges against my pastor, and the ones who stuck by him feel fully vindicated in doing so. Also, God has been very gracious to us in replacing those who weren’t of us, with those who are.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I will say that I respect James White greatly, and to just drag decades of faithful ministry through the mud for something as murky and Pulpit & Pen-y as his involvement in this is pure bollocks.



I should point out that to the very best of my knowledge, Dr. White didn't have anything to do with Apologia and the conversation recording fiasco. He's been a Pastor at Apologia church for barely nine months so far.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> So just come out and say it:
> 
> "Yes, it's ethical for a Pastor to secretly record confidential meetings with members of their own church."
> 
> ...



I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you are putting it.

See Rutherglen’s post above. I think recording ALL meetings can be a valuable mechanism to protect against exactly what his church experienced and produce transparency. 

It can be a valuable tool to protect against the type of stuff Apologia is facing with BTWN. Especially the way our society is going and how attacks against the church are being formed.

Used rightly of course. There are and can be abuses but they don’t negate the good. 

Real life example of this, the case of Beaverton Grace Bible Church as pastored by Rev. Chuck O’Neil. 

A now well known twitter personality in the Survivor blog circle, together with a small group that included the church secretary ( an elders wife) and the elder himself slandered him and attempted to divide the church. 

He and the rest of the elder board ended up firing the secretary and disciplining all involved. This precipitated harassment via CPS and other vexatious ways. Having proof of a vendetta gave him some valuable evidence to help refute such allegations publicly to his church and the magistrate.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 9, 2020)

https://recordinglaw.com/ Not vouching for the current accuracy. Check out your state on the right column.

If you are going to record, pastor or counselor, just tell the other party. And if they will talk so on the record (so to speak), well and good. If not, what have you lost? Record the consent statement and that the purpose of this recording is for record keeping and accuracy, and is not being created for the purpose of publication.

How many of our bank-calls, customer service calls, etc. do we hear that notification? Doesn't stop most of us from talking, or even speaking our minds.

Secret recordings made by pastors for "self-protection" seems like a page from the playbook of state-operatives or criminals; the former not always with honorable intentions, I might add. Secret recordings made by victims of crimes strikes me as of a different kind. Pastors, elders, counselors of other kinds, are typically people in positions of authority. Theirs may be a "vulnerable" position in some sense, however they are free to declare such recording for their protection against slander.

To me, this seems simple and obvious. Why the secrecy? People won't open up otherwise? Well, why do you want them on record without their knowledge? Secrecy has its place, privacy has its value; but knowledge is also power, and blackmail is a detestable practice.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Edward (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> "Under the federal Wiretap Act, it is *illegal* for any person to secretly *record* an oral, telephonic, or electronic communication that other parties to the communication reasonably expect to be private. (18 U.S.C. § 2511.)"



No, bad lawyering, and I call on you to retract and repent. 

"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State. "18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(d)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> The phone call crossed state lines, so I don't know how this effects legality.



Going back many decades into the last century: 

Georgia was a one party state. Florida was a two party state. Tallahassee cops had to drive up to south Georgia to make phone callas to entrap the drug dealers. We picked up a nice possession with intent case when the meet was set for a roadside park in the corner of our rural county. 

To make a short story long, the dealer had borrowed the car from his girlfriend. Since the Florida cop had heard her in the background during the phone call, I wanted to forfeit the car. But when her daddy called wanting his car back, the DA let him have it after strongly suggesting that he have a serious talk with his daughter about her taste in men. It was a good while before she had a chance to spend quality time with that boyfriend.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I should point out that to the very best of my knowledge, Dr. White didn't have anything to do with Apologia and the conversation recording fiasco. He's been a Pastor at Apologia church for barely nine months so far.


White listened to the secretly recorded phone call from Tim Hurd and then attacked Seth Dunn who wrote an article about the secret recordings via Twitter. There appears to be knowledge and at least tacit consent of these practices.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Can't a pastor in a denomination lose their licence for such activity?+


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Can't a pastor in a denomination lose their licence for such activity?+



Probably. Baptist churches aren’t in any denomination though so there’s no one to revoke the license.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 9, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> White listened to the secretly recorded phone call from Tim Hurd and then attacked Seth Dunn who wrote an article about the secret recordings via Twitter. There appears to be knowledge and at least tacit consent of these practices.



I have it on good authority that he wasn’t aware of the secret recording of church members. Could my information be faulty? Sure. But I trust it at the moment. 

After the history with Tim Hurd I would have recorded any conversation with him too.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 10, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> There has been a recent case of a reformed megachurch secretly taping meetings and phone conversations with members of the church, and others.



This conversation is very interesting, but _PLEASE_ don't use the word "Reformed" in reference to the pastor or church question.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> This conversation is very interesting, but _PLEASE_ don't use the word "Reformed" in reference to the pastor or church question.



OK, deal.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I have it on good authority that he wasn’t aware of the secret recording of church members. Could my information be faulty? Sure. But I trust it at the moment.
> 
> After the history with Tim Hurd I would have recorded any conversation with him too.



It seems to be a dog eat dog world out there on the blogosphere and Twitter. Folks eatin' each other for dinner. I am sure pastors want to put measures of self-protection into place.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 10, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Wait, we’re taking Pulpit and Pen and BTWN seriously now? But not when they talk about Rachel Denhollander’s questionable actions or statements for example? Or given their blatant dishonesty about Rosaria Butterfield? That honestly reeks to me like Unjust weights and measures.
> 
> If there’s a recording of a certain individual “repenting” on his own volition after slandering your ministry for a decent amount of time and refusing to provide any sort of information for accountability purposes who then goes back to slandering your ministry, if you don’t save any of that communication and publish it upon his continued slander (when it’s legal in your state) in an attempt to make the situation known to your members and other interested parties, I’d say you’re honestly being a little foolish. Who says that this person won’t go on to make up more serious slander?
> 
> I think we should take internet discernment ministries attacks on reputable ministries with a grain of salt. Especially if they have the reputation that P&P and BTWN have.



It seems anything is justified when it's done to neutralise people we don't like. "It's legal so it's fine." I didn't realise the Law of God could be reduced to whatever is legal in a particular US state in 2019.

I would also add that no evidence has actually been offered to invalidate the accusations made by P&P in the matters here mentioned. Merely the tired old "oh this was on Pulpit and Pen? Not interested."


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 10, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> The pastor in question admits to secretly taping conversations. It isn't just P&P and BTWN mentioning it. The pastor himself put out a defense video (of almost 3 hours) where he admits to taping the conversation (illegal in many states). The word slander often gets used to mean, "I disagree with you" by the way and is often a useless term wielded by those trying to get the theological high-ground. The pastor engaged in unethical and (in many states) illegal acts.
> 
> You seriously believe it's ok to secretly tape phone calls and play them before the church? I'll think twice before I ever talk to you.



Clearly he does so you would be very wise to take such caution.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 10, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Well, then find good references and resources. Yes, this is a terrible thing.



To be fair as has been pointed out numerous times Apologia Church have admitted to doing it, are unrepentant about it and have posted their defence of it on their website. This video is also linked in the said article so at least in this case it would be unfair to accuse said source of being dishonest. It is unfortunate that the issue of the people who reported the story initially has been allowed to distract from the fact that Apologia Church have themselves admitted to doing this.

Perhaps your post was merely meaning "in general find good references and resources" and you accept that in this case the accusation has been proven. But it seems some in this discussion are refusing to even engage with what was done because of who initially reported it. Whatever legitimacy there might be in that position if that was _all_ that had been said on the matter the fact Apologia has since- in response- admitted they did it, should settle the matter of whether it happened or not and the discussion should be about the propriety of what they themselves have admitted to doing.

As to the issue more generally. I'm very much in favour of ministers and office bearers taking appropriate precautions, such as not meeting women on their own &c. But in these cases there is no deception involved. Indeed it is the opposite. It is one thing to record interactions when one might need to use said recording to exonerate oneself, for instance in interactions with police officers who use dirty tricks to entrap people. But for an elder to do so when speaking with another individual is something quite different. I'm willing to concede, as someone did earlier, that in certain circumstances it might be necessary to have records of interactions with people but as was also said that should be made clear at the outset.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 10, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> To be fair as has been pointed out numerous times Apologia Church have admitted to doing it, are unrepentant about it and have posted their defence of it on their website. This video is also linked in the said article so at least in this case it would be unfair to accuse said source of being dishonest. It is unfortunate that the issue of the people who reported the story initially has been allowed to distract from the fact that Apologia Church have themselves admitted to doing this.


I don't have a problem with posting the You Tube as evidence. It should just be announced what kind of site this is and what their character is like in reference to who and what their site is. As noted the reputation of this site is very low. 

I would like to point out here that Ecclesiology plays a big part in this. There is no accountability. The violations reported here have no recourse for any victim on either side. That is one of the problems with Congregationalism / Independents.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't have a problem with posting the You Tube as evidence. It should just be announced what kind of site this is and what their character is like in reference to who and what their site is. As noted the reputation of this site is very low.
> 
> I would like to point out here that Ecclesiology plays a big part in this. There is no accountability. The violations reported here have no recourse for any victim on either side. That is one of the problems with Congregationalism / Independents.



Yours is a fair point about ecclesiology. 

I will admit that this point about accountability and wider church courts to hold such parties responsible has caused me to reconsider my baptist ecclesiology several times. At present, if a popular church goes overboard (such as in this case) there really is no recourse to bring them down or demand repentance except through the pressure of public opinion. That is why some discernment blogs exist, an imperfect attempt at rectifying abuses. It may be that someday I will switch over to Presbyterianism due to these reasons, in all honesty, because I've grown cynical of churches such as this that yield too much power.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jan 10, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> It seems anything is justified when it's done to neutralise people we don't like. "It's legal so it's fine." I didn't realise the Law of God could be reduced to whatever is legal in a particular US state in 2019.
> 
> I would also add that no evidence has actually been offered to invalidate the accusations made by P&P in the matters here mentioned. Merely the tired old "oh this was on Pulpit and Pen? Not interested."



Mr. Dunn wrote his article against Dr. White and Apologia after Tim Hurd whined that he had been exposed for his slanderous ways If I recall correctly. BTWN and P&P are two peas in a pod with a lot of cross pollination between the two. 

Given Mr. Hurd’s predilection for slander motivated by jealousy and hatred of this ministry (self-admitted mind you) and a history of such actions against this ministry for an extended amount of time, I’d record the phone call too. Given P&P’s predilection for slander I’d record any interaction with them as well. 

The Standards guidance on the 9C are important here too, given P&P’s history of slander against faithful men we should be 
“Eager to receive a favorable report” of our neighbor in keeping with 1 Timothy’s prescription on accusations against elders and we should hold P&P and BTWN to a much stricter standard given how many times and against how many people they’ve cried wolf about. 


As stated before, I’m in favor of recording of ALL meetings. GA, Presbytery, Session, on down and I see no problem with the practice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 10, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Mr. Dunn wrote his article against Dr. White and Apologia after Tim Hurd whined that he had been exposed for his slanderous ways If I recall correctly. BTWN and P&P are two peas in a pod with a lot of cross pollination between the two.
> 
> Given Mr. Hurd’s predilection for slander motivated by jealousy and hatred of this ministry (self-admitted mind you) and a history of such actions against this ministry for an extended amount of time, I’d record the phone call too. Given P&P’s predilection for slander I’d record any interaction with them as well.
> 
> ...



I think everyone here understands that there might be times when recording a conversation between a minister and another individual would be warranted if, for example, the said individual had a history of making false accusations. However as has already been said there *must* be the declaration at the beginning of any such interaction that it is being recorded. _Secret_ recordings are unconscionable for a minister to conduct and to then _publish_ it is astounding. And it was published as punishment. 

From what I understand the chronology is:

-Years ago Hurd made comments about Durbin
-Hurd phoned Durbin to apologise. This was recorded by Durbin. The conversation also made reference to sins committed by other persons
-Some time later (a couple/few years) Hurd made other comments about Durbin
-Durbin released the recording (anonymously).

So the recording wasn't released to "clear up" any misunderstanding or to rebut the specific comments Hurd had made immediately prior to the release of the auio. It was released to punish him because he decided to criticise Durbin again. Are we never allowed to criticise someone just because we might have made a mistake in criticising them in the past? And I believe it was the manner in which Hurd criticised Durbin in the past that he apologised for, not necessarily the substance of the criticism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Cheryl Watson (Jan 10, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I think everyone here understands that there might be times when recording a conversation between a minister and another individual would be warranted if, for example, the said individual had a history of making false accusations. However as has already been said there *must* be the declaration at the beginning of any such interaction that it is being recorded. _Secret_ recordings are unconscionable for a minister to conduct and to then _publish_ it is astounding. And it was published as punishment.



Agreed. There are also times that it is warranted for the protection of sheep. I never thought that would be the true, which I suppose was naive on my part. Now I think recording meetings is a safeguard for all involved, and if someone does not want to go on record (shepherd or sheep) it would give me pause. I am speaking in generalities, not to the specific case mentioned.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 10, 2020)

I find the whole thing very odd but not surprising. For some time I have thought there was something about this gentleman that made me uncomfortable. I couldn't point to anything specific. I guess it was more his personality and interactions. He is very charismatic and flashy. He has a knack for finding himself in the middle of drama and controversy. He seems to spend more time and energy cultivating his online persona than shepherding his people. And now, this three hour video and the whole dispute that occasioned it is to me just very weird and troubling. 

@Pergamum I share your concern about these kinds of people being unaccountable for their teaching and conduct. But in most cases, these kinds of people purposefully set themselves up to free from any outside accountability. Ecclesiology is not the issue as much as a desire to build their own kingdom.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I find the whole thing very odd but not surprising. For some time I have thought there was something about this gentleman that made me uncomfortable. I couldn't point to anything specific. I guess it was more his personality and interactions. He is very charismatic and flashy. He has a knack for finding himself in the middle of drama and controversy. He seems to spend more time and energy cultivating his online persona than shepherding his people. And now, this three hour video and the whole dispute that occasioned it is to me just very weird and troubling.
> 
> @Pergamum I share your concern about these kinds of people being unaccountable for their teaching and conduct. But in most cases, these kinds of people purposefully set themselves up to free from any outside accountability. Ecclesiology is not the issue as much as a desire to build their own kingdom.



Thanks for that, I agree.

Some people become professional polemicists or controversialists. This has dangers inherent to it. I grant that some are called into apologetics or even debate. I don't think my own personality is a good fit for it, for example, it would cultivate the unhealthy parts of my psyche that like to fight. I think few people can handle these types of ministry well, and many professional polemicists see everybody as a target and become polemical in nature and abrasive in personality. Maybe they develop an "embattled personality" and need to do so because they gain opposition and always feel attacked and so they invent more efficient methods of fighting their theological opponents that help to silence them (such as secretly taping people).

I can imagine how such behavior can grow like a cancer in the human soul, even when the intention is to use polemics for the sake of the gospel. It is an area I try not to engage in because I am not gentle enough for it, or else I am only now growing in gentlenesss after many illnesses and much weaknesses (perhaps this is the purpose of my afflictions, to make me gentler and less of a fighter).

This sort of polemicism and controversy gets clicks online. It fuels the ministries of some. Controversy sells. I can certainly understand getting into controversy once in a while, since the gospel is controversial. But some folks seem to chase stunts and excel in this type of thing. You used the word "flashy" and I think this is a good way to describe some of these men.

I don't believe it is wrong to promote the gospel even in video form, men such as Voddie Baucham are online a lot, after all, and even on tv sometimes. And Voddie deserves to be; he has good stuff that needs to be said.

But some men's videos seem more self-promotional than others. Perhaps I am turned away by the late night Christian talk show their church did where they reviewed the news and made sodomy jokes as part of the monologue (perhaps as an effort to stay relevant. I am always turned away by blatant efforts to be relevant, after all). Some pastors seems altogether too "hip" for me (or hipster, which is even worse).

But, my purpose is not to critique the man as a whole, but I have remained cautious of him for some time now, but I thought it was only my own prejudices against hipster Christians that prejudiced me against him. I have heard his preaching (and some clips outside of abortion clinics) and the gospel was clearly presented, and so must count him a brother. Of course I do ask why folks who street preach or do abortion clinic ministry can never seem to do so without a camera (self-protection, perhaps in case they are unlawfully detained perhaps, being one answer).

I have a friend who is a street-preacher and while I value him, I often question why he edits his videos to show the arguments or to show certain sound-bites and highlight when folks throw stuff at him. He is doing gospel work, and yet this sort of video-clip often turns me off and makes me question his motives. He seems to feed on it for a sense of approval (but of course, we should approve men who preach the gospel..yet again, I wonder why there always must be a camera). And yet he feels alone and isolated and wants to share his experiences, so I try not to judge. And of course, I also shoot occasional videos of my own ministry (and just posted one here on the PB last week) since I need to report my activities to supporters. I do know missionaries that do much work and very little videoing and wonder if they are properly showing supporters back home the full scope of their work. Supporters would be blessed if they were a bit more tech-savvy and filmed a bit more of their ministries. So these are not always cut-and-dry issues of right and wrong and I don't know the right answer. All video-taping is not self-promotion; some video-taping is a well-intentioned effort to spread the gospel. 

My critique here lies more narrowly in the philosophy of leadership of some men. It seems abusive or tyrannical. At least overly dominant. And in their methods of dealing with opponents they don't seem to play nice. Some pastors simply don't treat other people well. Especially this narrow topic of secretly taping conversations has truly incensed me. It is angering. I was shocked to hear of it, and even more incensed to hear the man defend his actions in an unrepentant video.

For some time now, the area of pastoral and clergy abuse has bothered me. I admit to being fixated on the issue of authoritarian pastors, because I feel that many of the calvinistic baptists fall into this trap. They secretly tape others, but then are quick to cry "slander" or "9th Commandment" when they themselves are critiqued. They speak of others, but when others speak about them they charge the church member with gossip or divisiveness. They levy church discipline against those who disagree. They send out church-wide letters warning members against any person who has crossed them. It all seems like dirty politics to me, even while pious language is being used.

I was with an evangelical missionary organization for 8 years, and I remember a particular meeting where a leader shared a private email from somebody to the leadership team (which I was on at that time...I was not invited back), and the email contained a private file where a man confessed to a minor past private sin. The file was supposed to be confidential and yet the leadership shared it with all of us. I remember being very shocked by this and expressing my opposition.

I am not sure most seminaries or bible schools have a class on pastoral ethics, but I believe this is probably a need.


----------



## Andrew35 (Jan 10, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Thanks for that, I agree.
> 
> Some people become professional polemicists or controversialists. This has dangers inherent to it. I grant that some are called into apologetics or even debate. I don't think my own personality is a good fit for it, for example, it would cultivate the unhealthy parts of my psyche that like to fight. I think few people can handle these types of ministry well, and many professional polemicists see everybody as a target and become polemical in nature and abrasive in personality. Maybe they develop an "embattled personality" and need to do so because they gain opposition and always feel attacked and so they invent more efficient methods of fighting their theological opponents that help to silence them (such as secretly taping people).
> 
> ...


I recall an anecdote about Van Til where he was asked why he did apologetics. His response (paraphrased from memory): "Why, to protect Christ's little ones."

I don't agree with Van Til on everything, but always thought that answer spoke very well of him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 10, 2020)

The issue is these people are first and foremost public figures and brands. Even James White to some degree. If you start looking at it that way, none of this is surprising. It was the same for guys like Driscoll. What they do seems more like a career built on a high profile celebrity model. Its the same for mega churches, like Driscoll and his multi-sites with his simulcasted preaching. It’s a whole different world.

For the YouTube apologist and discernment personality it’s almost as if the straight espousing of the gospel is shoehorned in, or a backdrop for theological and cultural disputes. I’m not as hard on this Durbin guy since that’s how I view him. He’s a public figure and his instinct served him well if he’s been repeatedly slandered. If he was in my denomination and pulled that, he’d have to go. But i view his type of ministry as almost a different animal entirely.

I can’t stomach JD Hall anymore.... get a life already.


----------



## Susan777 (Jan 10, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Mr. Dunn wrote his article against Dr. White and Apologia after Tim Hurd whined that he had been exposed for his slanderous ways If I recall correctly. BTWN and P&P are two peas in a pod with a lot of cross pollination between the two.
> 
> Given Mr. Hurd’s predilection for slander motivated by jealousy and hatred of this ministry (self-admitted mind you) and a history of such actions against this ministry for an extended amount of time, I’d record the phone call too. Given P&P’s predilection for slander I’d record any interaction with them as well.
> 
> ...


But surely not in favor of secretive recording?


----------

