Secretly taping church members

[Pergamum]

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.

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.

 

[Cheryl Watson]

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.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

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.

 

[Username3000]

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.

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]

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.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Edward]

"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)

 

[Edward]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[jwright82]

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

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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

OK, deal.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

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.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

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.

 

[Cheryl Watson]

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.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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.

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.

 

[A.Joseph]

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.