Transcript of Manning

A mp3 audio file will be loading in background. it will take several minutes please wait.

Some browsers will not support mp3 audio make certain audio is up and un muted

Transcript of Manning – Coombs meeting re: 1/13/07, 1/17/07, and 1/18/07 requests for Bellevue Baptist Church mailing list, business meeting and financial committee meeting minutes, and group meeting location. Recorded at Bellevue Baptist Church, 2:35pm Thursday, January 25, 2007. Meeting in Coombs’ office.

Josh Manning: I am here . . . we sent a letter I think you got a copy of it, some other people did too, requesting the mailing list, the business meeting minutes for the last couple of years, and the finance committee meeting minutes for the last couple of years; and I was just swinging by to pick those up.

David Coombs: Well the answer is no, no, no no.

JM: Ok, well why is that?

DC: huh?

JM: Why is that?

DC: Because we’re not prepared to release those to you.

JM: Ok, the Tennessee Code says that within five days of a written request . . .

DC: [Speaking over JM] I’m not interested in what the Tennessee Code says.

JM: So you’re willing for Bellevue Baptist Church to violate state law?

DC: We’re willing to provide what information we’re required to by state law.

JM: You are by state law under the second . . . I’ve got the statue right here if you’d like to see it.

DC: I understand the statute. I’m very well versed in it.

JM: Let’s see here.

DC: You don’t need to read it to me. I know it.

JM: Ok, so you know it, and you know it says that meeting minutes are required, yet you’re not going to provide those.

DC: [Over JM] I know what it says. I know what it says.

JM: Do you . . . do you . . . would you admit that that’s a violation of Tennessee state law?

DC: I’m not admitting anything.

JM: Ok where’s the policy that says that you . . . could I see the policy that says you won’t do this?

DC: No.

JM: I’m a church member. Surely I should be allowed to see church policy.

DC: No.

JM: Why is that?

DC: You give me a good reason for it and I’ll . . . uh . . .

JM: Well, the reasons were noted in my letter, let’s see here. We requested the mailing list so that “we as members [. . .] may communicate in an open, civil, and transparent manner with fellow members regarding [recent matters in the Church’s life] . . . um . . . that comports . . .

DC: I will give you a complete written response.

JM: Ok, will that include the list?

DC: I will give you a complete written response.

JM: Ok, the law requires that you provide the list.

DC: I will give you a complete written response.

JM: So you’re willing to not provide what the law requires?

DC: I will give you a complete written response.

JM: Ok, when did this policy go into effect?

DC: I will give you a complete written response.

JM: Ok, you don’t have an answer for that?

DC: I will give you a complete written response.

JM: Ok, is there anything I can say that would get a response other that from you?

DC: No, I will give you a complete written response.

JM: May I take it from your not giving me the materials I’m requesting, that you’re ignoring Tennessee State Code section 48-66-101 and sequential?

DC: [over JM] No, you may not.

JM: I may not?

DC: No.

JM: May I take it from this that you’re complying with the Tennessee code? Do you claim to be complying with it?

DC: I will give you a complete response.

JM: You don’t claim to be complying with it?

DC: I will give you a complete response.

JM: Alright. Very good. I appreciate you. Seriously. Thank you. I hope you have a nice day.

DC: Thank you

JM: Thank you

I attest that the above transcript is true and accurate.

________________________________

Joshua H. Manning

____01.25.07____________________________

Date

First off, I have to extend my most heartfelt thanks to those who defended me in reference to the Coombs Recordings. I’m in your debt for trying to protect my name. Thank you dear friends. Now down to business:

Regarding the Morality of Recording Conversations

For the record, it is amazingly amusing that some of you think recording a conversation demonstrates a lack of integrity.

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.