http://www.newbbcopenforum.blogspot.comTuesday, February 06, 2007
NewBBCOpenForum Link
For those of you who would like to follow are participate in discussion of the events at Bellevue Baptist Church, the following link will take you to the NewBBCOpenForum. Book mark it or copy it down so that you will be able to visit it in the future.
Jefferson and the Bellevue Crisis
Today I had the incredible honor of sitting in a class taught by William Kristol. If you don't know Kristol's name right off, you can tune in to Foxnews Sunday and often Special Report with Britt Hume to catch Kristol in a panel debate. One of the powerhouse minds behind the neocon movement, he's teaching a class that I've the pleasure of taking this semester.
Kristol kicked the class off by taking a look at the Declaration of Independence. It's been a couple of years since I read it, and as Kristol noted, this would probably be the only class we'd have here that would require reading the Declaration (the sadder since I'm at a school of government). A couple of things struck me during his lecture:
Noting human nature, Jefferson tosses out the line, "that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
If that line isn't an apt description of the nature of the beast at Bellevue, then I don't know what is. Penned 231 years ago, Jefferson's ink still glistens in my mind's eye. Men, given their nature, are disposed to suffer, suffer, and suffer more, if the price for such suffering's abolition is the sacrifice of the familiar. That is Bellevue. People know there is a problem. Lots of problems in fact. People know something isn't right, that things should change. That all grievances, allegations, and explanations should be heard. But this would require a change in the congregation's spiritually affluent lives--a sacrifice too great. Indeed, such is the hallmark of civilizational decline as Mark Steyn has noted in America Alone: the abandonment of self-determination to apathy.
Bellevue is declining just as civilizations do when they refuse to confront their internal rot and external threats. Bellevue, like the US, has both. Internally, BBC has corruption, sin, and hardheartedness. Many at the core of the church have sacrificed Right for expedience, choosing to run the church as a business without accountability to the shareholders (members) or transparency to the world. In the same way, Bellevue has external threats from seeker-friendliness, trendy spiritual fluff, and simple secularism. There are also many enjoying the unseemly mess that the BBC administration is exacerbating.
Many would argue that those dissenting are the real problem. This is only true if the dissenters are wrong. But if they are right, then there are huge problems at BBC which should be solved. Those concerned have tried to address the problems within the framework of the church via Matthew 18 and have been told to leave. This then raises the question: Is it better to leave a corrupt church to prey on innocents, or is it preferable to expose such corruption (vis a vis Matthew 18--which as an aside says nothing about excluding the World from knowledge of the conflict) so that pressure from the Christian world and the secular world may force a cleanup? Obviously the latter is the answer. For there are no downsides to showing the world our willingness to 1) admit sin, and 2) repent of it, and 3) restore fellowship.
Jefferson follows up saying, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
We have been abused by a pastorate intent on obfuscating (to know laughable levels), using church largess for personal gains (to be paid back purportedly, but at what cost to Cesar both locally and nationally), intimidating those who would question its actions (the dream, Mark Sharpe, other staff members who shall remain nameless here), cloaking itself in secrecy (vis a vis confidentiality agreements for multiple ministers, no business meetings or access to church documents and policy), harboring a child molester (after the molester purportedly offered to resign no less!), lawbreaking (both by trespassing (and from all signs falsely calling such trespassing an errand of reconciliation) and refusing to release documents as required under TCA 48-66-102).
One must ask what is so important that a CHURCH administration would break the law to conceal its actions.
Folks, Jefferson was right. We will suffer until we feel we can suffer no more. It shouldn't be that way. We can be free. We can be restored. We do not have to tolerate this dictatorial administration which removes deacons at will, attempts to coerce non-disclosure signature, and simply lies.
There have been "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same Object . . . a design to reduce [us] under absolute despotism."
Now the question is, will you do your duty and change our church, providing "new Guards for [our] future?" Will you? Will you force to an end this administration that does not comply with Matthew 18, refuses to open the administration to transparency, and refuses to obey the law? Will you force the administration to be accountable to the people themselves? Will you force the church to operate transparently, like Focus on the Family, such that anyone from anywhere can examine our books and non-confidential records to keep us honest?
If you will not, then I must ask, why?
Kristol kicked the class off by taking a look at the Declaration of Independence. It's been a couple of years since I read it, and as Kristol noted, this would probably be the only class we'd have here that would require reading the Declaration (the sadder since I'm at a school of government). A couple of things struck me during his lecture:
Noting human nature, Jefferson tosses out the line, "that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
If that line isn't an apt description of the nature of the beast at Bellevue, then I don't know what is. Penned 231 years ago, Jefferson's ink still glistens in my mind's eye. Men, given their nature, are disposed to suffer, suffer, and suffer more, if the price for such suffering's abolition is the sacrifice of the familiar. That is Bellevue. People know there is a problem. Lots of problems in fact. People know something isn't right, that things should change. That all grievances, allegations, and explanations should be heard. But this would require a change in the congregation's spiritually affluent lives--a sacrifice too great. Indeed, such is the hallmark of civilizational decline as Mark Steyn has noted in America Alone: the abandonment of self-determination to apathy.
Bellevue is declining just as civilizations do when they refuse to confront their internal rot and external threats. Bellevue, like the US, has both. Internally, BBC has corruption, sin, and hardheartedness. Many at the core of the church have sacrificed Right for expedience, choosing to run the church as a business without accountability to the shareholders (members) or transparency to the world. In the same way, Bellevue has external threats from seeker-friendliness, trendy spiritual fluff, and simple secularism. There are also many enjoying the unseemly mess that the BBC administration is exacerbating.
Many would argue that those dissenting are the real problem. This is only true if the dissenters are wrong. But if they are right, then there are huge problems at BBC which should be solved. Those concerned have tried to address the problems within the framework of the church via Matthew 18 and have been told to leave. This then raises the question: Is it better to leave a corrupt church to prey on innocents, or is it preferable to expose such corruption (vis a vis Matthew 18--which as an aside says nothing about excluding the World from knowledge of the conflict) so that pressure from the Christian world and the secular world may force a cleanup? Obviously the latter is the answer. For there are no downsides to showing the world our willingness to 1) admit sin, and 2) repent of it, and 3) restore fellowship.
Jefferson follows up saying, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
We have been abused by a pastorate intent on obfuscating (to know laughable levels), using church largess for personal gains (to be paid back purportedly, but at what cost to Cesar both locally and nationally), intimidating those who would question its actions (the dream, Mark Sharpe, other staff members who shall remain nameless here), cloaking itself in secrecy (vis a vis confidentiality agreements for multiple ministers, no business meetings or access to church documents and policy), harboring a child molester (after the molester purportedly offered to resign no less!), lawbreaking (both by trespassing (and from all signs falsely calling such trespassing an errand of reconciliation) and refusing to release documents as required under TCA 48-66-102).
One must ask what is so important that a CHURCH administration would break the law to conceal its actions.
Folks, Jefferson was right. We will suffer until we feel we can suffer no more. It shouldn't be that way. We can be free. We can be restored. We do not have to tolerate this dictatorial administration which removes deacons at will, attempts to coerce non-disclosure signature, and simply lies.
There have been "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same Object . . . a design to reduce [us] under absolute despotism."
Now the question is, will you do your duty and change our church, providing "new Guards for [our] future?" Will you? Will you force to an end this administration that does not comply with Matthew 18, refuses to open the administration to transparency, and refuses to obey the law? Will you force the administration to be accountable to the people themselves? Will you force the church to operate transparently, like Focus on the Family, such that anyone from anywhere can examine our books and non-confidential records to keep us honest?
If you will not, then I must ask, why?
Monday, February 05, 2007
Regarding the Morality of Recording Conversations
Some have said that my recording of the conversation between myself and David Coombs demonstrates a lack of character or integrity. Let's break the arguments against recording down and see what we come up with.
Let's break it down. 1) I recorded to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. Certainly nothing wrong since Mark Sharpe's meeting with Dr Gaines was so misconstrued to the deacons later. Indeed, I had considered using video tape but was afraid I wouldn’t be allowed in. That is the main reason I opted for the smaller recorder. Can any fault that after Jim Haywood’s experience while trying to record church announcements?
2) I recorded also to get exactly what David Coombs said. Nothing wrong there either. One of the most beneficial things in this entire broader debate would be to have key conversations and statements recorded so that we could be absolutely sure of what happened.
3) The point of contention seems to be the fact that I didn't tell David I was recording him. Well, I won't concede any moral high-ground on that point, and my reasoning for that is in the paragraphs that follow. But before I explain, I’ve got to ask just on face value how in heaven's name is it wrong to keep a perfect record in a situation when you think it likely someone will break the law? What moral authority can one appeal to condemn that?
And there’s the rub: Does natural or God’s law condemn that sort of recording? Does Man's law?
Regarding natural law and God’s law, I can think of three grounds on which my actions might be objected to: A) Breaking the Golden Rule, B) gossiping, and C) causing someone to stumble.
As far as A) goes, appealing to the Golden Rule seems to fall short in circumstances where people do wrong or give us reason to believe they will do wrong. For instance, if we see a fellow doing something immoral, say robbing a bank, we don’t say to ourselves, “Now if I were robbing that bank, I sure wouldn’t want someone to stop me. Guess that means I shouldn’t call the police.” Of course not. We realize that we must do what is right and prevent the man as best we can from committing the crime.
Now say we have a legitimate reason to believe that someone will do a wrong, do we not act accordingly? An example may help. I remember watching Dateline NBC ten or fifteen years ago and seeing one of their correspondents walk into a jewelry shop with a hidden camera. Under normal circumstances that might seem bit cheeky, but you see the correspondent had reason to believe that the store was going to cheat her because others had reported to her that the story was switching diamonds for worthless stones. And indeed, she caught them red-handed, switching out customers’ precious diamonds for cubic zirconia or some such. No one condemned the correspondent because she had reason to believe the jewelers would do wrong and she wanted to record the encounter to verify the customers’ claims. This is very similar to what we’ve dealt with at BBC. They have demonstrated time and again disregard for what is right from lies, to intimidation, to law breaking, to disregard for Matthew 18. This combined with the fact that they had in the past denied requests for the church’s bylaws gave me more than enough reason to suspect that they might well do the wrong thing. That being the case, conscience, reason, and Scripture all validate an action that at first glance doesn’t comport with the Golden Rule.
As for B) Gossiping, it is hard to condemn one for allowing others to know of a leader’s (or really anyone’s) transgression when the transgression affects all. If we are to condemn as gossips those who shed light on sins, then we must also condemn the prophets, the Lord, Paul when he spoke of the fornicator or Demas, John when he reported Jesus’ conversation with Peter, and when he talked of Diotrephes. Indeed, we should probably note that most of the Old Testament is riddled with “gossip.” And this is just in reference to the Bible. What about the sex offender registry? That notes people’s transgressions. Should that be taken down? Of course not. It let’s people know that certain people are not to be trusted. The same can be said of those who, for legitimate reasons, note sin.
Further complicating the gossip argument is the fact that one can rarely hold anyone, especially leaders, accountable without noting to the masses the nature of a transgression. If this is agreed, then the only counter-recording argument left under this line of thinking is that the recorder is too accurate, and as such does not present the other a fair chance. Most would consider that a dubious proposition.
Speaking to C) Causing Someone to Stumble, I would argue that simply silently noting exactly what happened in any circumstance does not cause anyone to stumble. The argument that says otherwise is akin to saying darkness is what makes people sin. This is obviously untrue because darkness simply provides the necessary shroud for our true character to be revealed. Indeed, the idea that we can act without accountability is exactly the problem here. Not the imposition of accountability! Darkness doesn’t force sin, it simply doesn’t resist it. And you can’t argue that I should have tried to stop Coombs from sinning. I did try. I told him what the law said. I just didn’t say there could be consequences.
Those are the arguments, as far as I can see them, from Moral Law.
Regarding the arguments from Man's Law, we need to look at four things: A) Tennessee State Law, B) Federal Law, C) 12 Other State’s Laws, D) the Right to Privacy.
Pertaining to A) Tennessee State Law and B) Federal Law, my actions were completely in compliance with TCA 39-13-601(a)(1)(C&D), 39-13-601(c)(5), and 18 USC 2510 (the state and federal statutes on recording conversations).
Pertaining to C) Other State’s Law, I really hadn’t thought about this until someone emailed me arguing that my lack of character (and presumably commitment of sin as well) is proved since 12 other states forbid the sort of recording I engaged in. This is one of those arguments that feels right and wrong at the same time. It feels right because it tries to appeal to natural or universal law (Rom 2) which we as Christians are trained to obey above man’s law (so we’re always trying to be at attentive to it), but the argument also feels wrong because we can’t figure out quiet where it fits into natural law except possibly at the Golden Rule (which overlaps with God’s law) which we’ve already seen doesn’t work here.
Let’s take the argument and break it down. The argument implies that since 12 other states forbid my actions, my actions are condemnable. But where does law derive from? we define things as condemnable since the law forbids them or do we forbid things by law because those things are condemnable? The answer is obvious. So we can break the law down into two types: i) Law that derives from moral wrongs, and ii) law that derives from the whims of the people (like school zones, tax rates, zoning laws, etc).
What the 12 Other States argument implies is this: An action is wrong because it is outlawed. Well, one problem with that is that recording isn’t outlawed universally (or even in majority). The other problem is that there’s nothing in God’s law or natural law that comes anywhere near forbidding it.
With that said, we have to acknowledge that the 12 states which do outlaw recordings do so out of preference. Before you dismiss that argument, note that this happens in realms other than recording. Those of you reading the blog in Tennessee, do you pay personal income taxes? You don’t? Well, under the 12 States argument you’re sinning because other states have said that people in their states must pay income taxes. Is the picture clearer? You see, income taxes, like recordings, can’t find any acknowledgment in either natural or moral law, except to the extent that they are to be obeyed if they are legislated. Since Tennessee has neither made recording nor not paying personal income tax (because there is no personal income tax) crimes, then you do not commit a sin when you record or refuse to pay a tax that isn’t levied on you.
Similarly, some states have higher speed limits than others. If Minnesota has an interstate speed limit of 55 mph and you choose to go 70 mph in a 70 mph zone in Tennessee are you breaking the law? Again, under the 12 States Argument you are. But again this argument fails so obviously because the speed limit, like income taxes, recording laws, and a multitude of other topics which can’t seem to find their basis in natural or moral law, come down to public preference as reflected in law. Not very satisfying I know, but that’s what it really amounts to. Tennesseans don’t pay income taxes because they prefer not to and the legislation reflects that. They can drive 70 mph because their legislators prefer it to be that way. They can record conversations they are a part of without other parties knowing since their legislators (and federal legislators) prefer it that way.
Finally, addressing D) The Right to Privacy. A few may appeal to that as a defense against unwanted recordings. First, if you appeal to this, please note that this is the exact idea that Justice William Douglas used in the case (Griswold v. Connecticut) that allowed Roe v. Wade to fall the way it did. But that aside, the argument for a right to privacy comes from what Douglas called the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution. What Douglas meant is that while the Constitution doesn’t expressly say there is a right to privacy, but if we take a little bit from this amendment, a little bit from that one, and a pinch of another one; then suddenly boom! we’ve got ourselves an implied right to privacy. Now this may seem plausible to some, but most of us tend to interpret the Scriptures and the Constitution literally. If you want to accept the Right to Privacy argument go for it, but if you do, you’ll also be accepting that gay marriage is protected under the Massachusetts Constitution and the idea that Genesis may just be a mythological account with moral lessons but no firm basis in reality.
Addendum:
It's interesting that some are appealing to an Argument from Contradiction: they say I violated my own principle because my actions didn't comport with the definition of "transparency."
Unfortunately that argument is a straw man. I say this because it fails to make a certain distinction--namely that the "transparency" I and others are working for is transparency required under man's law (§48-66-102), God's law (Rom 12:17), and reason.
The "transparency" I allegedly transgressed does not actually exist under man's law, God's law, or reason (as seen above)--except for the use of the Golden Rule which is subject to obvious exceptions. I pointed out some of those exceptions before, but here's another set of examples for the skeptical out there:
I Kings 20:35-43: where one of the Sons of the Prophets had himself beaten, then using the emotion that that false beating elicited from the King, the Son of the Prophets allowed the king to condemn himself; 2 Kings 6:13-23: Where Elisha completely misled the Syrians, telling them that they were not in fact at Dothan where Elisha was staying (of course he was staying there), he then indicated he would lead them to where Elisha was staying and of course did not; 2 Kings, 5:25-27: Elisha’s allowing his servant to condemn himself when Elisha already knew the servant was guilt and said nothing; and 2 Samuel 12: Nathan’s allowing David to condemn himself when Nathan already knew he was guilty but said nothing.
In each of these cases the protagonists knew something that would be damning to someone else, and chose not to be transparent about it (usually to further catch the person breaking his own code or lying). It is difficult to conclude two things from the above examples:
1) That the protagonists would condemn their own actions and simultaneously approve a refusal to release documents as obligated by man's law, God's law, and reason.
2) That the protagonists would accept their own actions and simultaneously approve a refusal to release documents as required by man's law, God's law, and reason.
Most of you objectors fall into one of those two camps. You might want to think about deserting.
In summary, it would be difficult to argue that the men at the center of the above examples would EVER think their actions were condemnable like the actions of those who refuse to release financial information as required under law. That dog just won't hunt.
Some have also noted that recording and releasing such information through the press amounts to, or results in, self-aggrandizement. But of course such an assertion about one can only be based on what the one has chosen to reveal to the other about himself, or on the other's opinion of the one's purportedly self-aggrandizement. I have certainly never in the least said or intimated that my actions were in any way designed to bring glory to myself, so those who say otherwise are left with their opinions or inferences as the basis for their criticism. To that, all I can say is that their inferences are incorrect entirely.
But another problem with the self-aggrandizement argument is that it automatically condemns any who would do good in the public eye. Take for example, Adrian Rogers. One could just as easily argue that he was self-aggrandizing when he stood up for Truth at the SBC, when he appeared in the media to defend us, and when he stood publicly against gay marriage. One could level the same accusations at James Dobson.
The problem is that the self-aggrandizement argument potentially condemns any who do good in public, implying that anyone who does good or what is right publicly only does it publicly for his own benefit. This is obviously false. Some do. Many do not. Further complicating things is the fact that this same argument logically results in the idea that one CANNOT do good if he is doing it publicly. This is obviously false.
A more interesting take on that, however, is Paul's note about motivations in Philippians 1. He notes that whether people preach the gospel from envy or love, he doesn't care as long as it gets preached. I can't help but think that this idea is applicable here. Whether one does good from a desire to look awesome, or out of a desire to simply do what is right, isn't the important thing to others the fact that he simply did right? Certainly his pride is sin, but that is between himself and God, and the good he does perhaps should not be thrown out on the basis of his less-than-altruistic motivation.
But of course, I could be wrong. As for my motivations, you have only my word that they are from a pure desire to see the truth realized, not out of any desire to bring honor to myself. I believe any who have talked with me directly could attest to this. As for what is on the inside that you cannot see, I assure you it is altruistic, but if you choose to judge that anyway, I'll say what Paul said, "It's a small thing that you judge me."
Let's break it down. 1) I recorded to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. Certainly nothing wrong since Mark Sharpe's meeting with Dr Gaines was so misconstrued to the deacons later. Indeed, I had considered using video tape but was afraid I wouldn’t be allowed in. That is the main reason I opted for the smaller recorder. Can any fault that after Jim Haywood’s experience while trying to record church announcements?
2) I recorded also to get exactly what David Coombs said. Nothing wrong there either. One of the most beneficial things in this entire broader debate would be to have key conversations and statements recorded so that we could be absolutely sure of what happened.
3) The point of contention seems to be the fact that I didn't tell David I was recording him. Well, I won't concede any moral high-ground on that point, and my reasoning for that is in the paragraphs that follow. But before I explain, I’ve got to ask just on face value how in heaven's name is it wrong to keep a perfect record in a situation when you think it likely someone will break the law? What moral authority can one appeal to condemn that?
And there’s the rub: Does natural or God’s law condemn that sort of recording? Does Man's law?
Regarding natural law and God’s law, I can think of three grounds on which my actions might be objected to: A) Breaking the Golden Rule, B) gossiping, and C) causing someone to stumble.
As far as A) goes, appealing to the Golden Rule seems to fall short in circumstances where people do wrong or give us reason to believe they will do wrong. For instance, if we see a fellow doing something immoral, say robbing a bank, we don’t say to ourselves, “Now if I were robbing that bank, I sure wouldn’t want someone to stop me. Guess that means I shouldn’t call the police.” Of course not. We realize that we must do what is right and prevent the man as best we can from committing the crime.
Now say we have a legitimate reason to believe that someone will do a wrong, do we not act accordingly? An example may help. I remember watching Dateline NBC ten or fifteen years ago and seeing one of their correspondents walk into a jewelry shop with a hidden camera. Under normal circumstances that might seem bit cheeky, but you see the correspondent had reason to believe that the store was going to cheat her because others had reported to her that the story was switching diamonds for worthless stones. And indeed, she caught them red-handed, switching out customers’ precious diamonds for cubic zirconia or some such. No one condemned the correspondent because she had reason to believe the jewelers would do wrong and she wanted to record the encounter to verify the customers’ claims. This is very similar to what we’ve dealt with at BBC. They have demonstrated time and again disregard for what is right from lies, to intimidation, to law breaking, to disregard for Matthew 18. This combined with the fact that they had in the past denied requests for the church’s bylaws gave me more than enough reason to suspect that they might well do the wrong thing. That being the case, conscience, reason, and Scripture all validate an action that at first glance doesn’t comport with the Golden Rule.
As for B) Gossiping, it is hard to condemn one for allowing others to know of a leader’s (or really anyone’s) transgression when the transgression affects all. If we are to condemn as gossips those who shed light on sins, then we must also condemn the prophets, the Lord, Paul when he spoke of the fornicator or Demas, John when he reported Jesus’ conversation with Peter, and when he talked of Diotrephes. Indeed, we should probably note that most of the Old Testament is riddled with “gossip.” And this is just in reference to the Bible. What about the sex offender registry? That notes people’s transgressions. Should that be taken down? Of course not. It let’s people know that certain people are not to be trusted. The same can be said of those who, for legitimate reasons, note sin.
Further complicating the gossip argument is the fact that one can rarely hold anyone, especially leaders, accountable without noting to the masses the nature of a transgression. If this is agreed, then the only counter-recording argument left under this line of thinking is that the recorder is too accurate, and as such does not present the other a fair chance. Most would consider that a dubious proposition.
Speaking to C) Causing Someone to Stumble, I would argue that simply silently noting exactly what happened in any circumstance does not cause anyone to stumble. The argument that says otherwise is akin to saying darkness is what makes people sin. This is obviously untrue because darkness simply provides the necessary shroud for our true character to be revealed. Indeed, the idea that we can act without accountability is exactly the problem here. Not the imposition of accountability! Darkness doesn’t force sin, it simply doesn’t resist it. And you can’t argue that I should have tried to stop Coombs from sinning. I did try. I told him what the law said. I just didn’t say there could be consequences.
Those are the arguments, as far as I can see them, from Moral Law.
Regarding the arguments from Man's Law, we need to look at four things: A) Tennessee State Law, B) Federal Law, C) 12 Other State’s Laws, D) the Right to Privacy.
Pertaining to A) Tennessee State Law and B) Federal Law, my actions were completely in compliance with TCA 39-13-601(a)(1)(C&D), 39-13-601(c)(5), and 18 USC 2510 (the state and federal statutes on recording conversations).
Pertaining to C) Other State’s Law, I really hadn’t thought about this until someone emailed me arguing that my lack of character (and presumably commitment of sin as well) is proved since 12 other states forbid the sort of recording I engaged in. This is one of those arguments that feels right and wrong at the same time. It feels right because it tries to appeal to natural or universal law (Rom 2) which we as Christians are trained to obey above man’s law (so we’re always trying to be at attentive to it), but the argument also feels wrong because we can’t figure out quiet where it fits into natural law except possibly at the Golden Rule (which overlaps with God’s law) which we’ve already seen doesn’t work here.
Let’s take the argument and break it down. The argument implies that since 12 other states forbid my actions, my actions are condemnable. But where does law derive from? we define things as condemnable since the law forbids them or do we forbid things by law because those things are condemnable? The answer is obvious. So we can break the law down into two types: i) Law that derives from moral wrongs, and ii) law that derives from the whims of the people (like school zones, tax rates, zoning laws, etc).
What the 12 Other States argument implies is this: An action is wrong because it is outlawed. Well, one problem with that is that recording isn’t outlawed universally (or even in majority). The other problem is that there’s nothing in God’s law or natural law that comes anywhere near forbidding it.
With that said, we have to acknowledge that the 12 states which do outlaw recordings do so out of preference. Before you dismiss that argument, note that this happens in realms other than recording. Those of you reading the blog in Tennessee, do you pay personal income taxes? You don’t? Well, under the 12 States argument you’re sinning because other states have said that people in their states must pay income taxes. Is the picture clearer? You see, income taxes, like recordings, can’t find any acknowledgment in either natural or moral law, except to the extent that they are to be obeyed if they are legislated. Since Tennessee has neither made recording nor not paying personal income tax (because there is no personal income tax) crimes, then you do not commit a sin when you record or refuse to pay a tax that isn’t levied on you.
Similarly, some states have higher speed limits than others. If Minnesota has an interstate speed limit of 55 mph and you choose to go 70 mph in a 70 mph zone in Tennessee are you breaking the law? Again, under the 12 States Argument you are. But again this argument fails so obviously because the speed limit, like income taxes, recording laws, and a multitude of other topics which can’t seem to find their basis in natural or moral law, come down to public preference as reflected in law. Not very satisfying I know, but that’s what it really amounts to. Tennesseans don’t pay income taxes because they prefer not to and the legislation reflects that. They can drive 70 mph because their legislators prefer it to be that way. They can record conversations they are a part of without other parties knowing since their legislators (and federal legislators) prefer it that way.
Finally, addressing D) The Right to Privacy. A few may appeal to that as a defense against unwanted recordings. First, if you appeal to this, please note that this is the exact idea that Justice William Douglas used in the case (Griswold v. Connecticut) that allowed Roe v. Wade to fall the way it did. But that aside, the argument for a right to privacy comes from what Douglas called the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution. What Douglas meant is that while the Constitution doesn’t expressly say there is a right to privacy, but if we take a little bit from this amendment, a little bit from that one, and a pinch of another one; then suddenly boom! we’ve got ourselves an implied right to privacy. Now this may seem plausible to some, but most of us tend to interpret the Scriptures and the Constitution literally. If you want to accept the Right to Privacy argument go for it, but if you do, you’ll also be accepting that gay marriage is protected under the Massachusetts Constitution and the idea that Genesis may just be a mythological account with moral lessons but no firm basis in reality.
Addendum:
It's interesting that some are appealing to an Argument from Contradiction: they say I violated my own principle because my actions didn't comport with the definition of "transparency."
Unfortunately that argument is a straw man. I say this because it fails to make a certain distinction--namely that the "transparency" I and others are working for is transparency required under man's law (§48-66-102), God's law (Rom 12:17), and reason.
The "transparency" I allegedly transgressed does not actually exist under man's law, God's law, or reason (as seen above)--except for the use of the Golden Rule which is subject to obvious exceptions. I pointed out some of those exceptions before, but here's another set of examples for the skeptical out there:
I Kings 20:35-43: where one of the Sons of the Prophets had himself beaten, then using the emotion that that false beating elicited from the King, the Son of the Prophets allowed the king to condemn himself; 2 Kings 6:13-23: Where Elisha completely misled the Syrians, telling them that they were not in fact at Dothan where Elisha was staying (of course he was staying there), he then indicated he would lead them to where Elisha was staying and of course did not; 2 Kings, 5:25-27: Elisha’s allowing his servant to condemn himself when Elisha already knew the servant was guilt and said nothing; and 2 Samuel 12: Nathan’s allowing David to condemn himself when Nathan already knew he was guilty but said nothing.
In each of these cases the protagonists knew something that would be damning to someone else, and chose not to be transparent about it (usually to further catch the person breaking his own code or lying). It is difficult to conclude two things from the above examples:
1) That the protagonists would condemn their own actions and simultaneously approve a refusal to release documents as obligated by man's law, God's law, and reason.
2) That the protagonists would accept their own actions and simultaneously approve a refusal to release documents as required by man's law, God's law, and reason.
Most of you objectors fall into one of those two camps. You might want to think about deserting.
In summary, it would be difficult to argue that the men at the center of the above examples would EVER think their actions were condemnable like the actions of those who refuse to release financial information as required under law. That dog just won't hunt.
Some have also noted that recording and releasing such information through the press amounts to, or results in, self-aggrandizement. But of course such an assertion about one can only be based on what the one has chosen to reveal to the other about himself, or on the other's opinion of the one's purportedly self-aggrandizement. I have certainly never in the least said or intimated that my actions were in any way designed to bring glory to myself, so those who say otherwise are left with their opinions or inferences as the basis for their criticism. To that, all I can say is that their inferences are incorrect entirely.
But another problem with the self-aggrandizement argument is that it automatically condemns any who would do good in the public eye. Take for example, Adrian Rogers. One could just as easily argue that he was self-aggrandizing when he stood up for Truth at the SBC, when he appeared in the media to defend us, and when he stood publicly against gay marriage. One could level the same accusations at James Dobson.
The problem is that the self-aggrandizement argument potentially condemns any who do good in public, implying that anyone who does good or what is right publicly only does it publicly for his own benefit. This is obviously false. Some do. Many do not. Further complicating things is the fact that this same argument logically results in the idea that one CANNOT do good if he is doing it publicly. This is obviously false.
A more interesting take on that, however, is Paul's note about motivations in Philippians 1. He notes that whether people preach the gospel from envy or love, he doesn't care as long as it gets preached. I can't help but think that this idea is applicable here. Whether one does good from a desire to look awesome, or out of a desire to simply do what is right, isn't the important thing to others the fact that he simply did right? Certainly his pride is sin, but that is between himself and God, and the good he does perhaps should not be thrown out on the basis of his less-than-altruistic motivation.
But of course, I could be wrong. As for my motivations, you have only my word that they are from a pure desire to see the truth realized, not out of any desire to bring honor to myself. I believe any who have talked with me directly could attest to this. As for what is on the inside that you cannot see, I assure you it is altruistic, but if you choose to judge that anyway, I'll say what Paul said, "It's a small thing that you judge me."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
