Secretly taping church members

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top