Update to Dakotas Story

I published a piece two days ago on a Q&A document that was published on the Dakotas Annual Conference website, associated with a webinar they did. The way I reported it, someone on the conference staff with permissions to edit the document had actually offered some honest assessments rather than the party line. It was refreshing and fun to read, and I did a good deal of analysis and commentary on the issues at hand.

The conference is now claiming that this was an “internet crime” in which someone got access to the document in a way that was “outside the bounds of human decency.” I have been contacted by Rev. David Livingston, who says that conference reps told him an “Anonymous” accessed the Google Document and made edits without their knowledge.

Without access to their private records, I have no way to verify that this is true. I find it very difficult to believe that they created a document that could be accessed by anyone who accessed it. Rather, I think it is probably more realistic that they gave access to a couple of people to craft it, and one of those found a way to share it anonymously with one who could offer some honest answers without breadcrumbs being left behind.

In the letter from Bishop Plambeck quoted above, she claims: “The Dakotas Conference has in place very secure processes that protect files, financial matters, and personal information.” This statement cannot be reconciled with the “fraud” that she is now claiming took place. It is not hard to control permissions on Google Documents. It is easy to control permissions, as well as to proofread documents as they are published to a conference website. The page had been up for several hours before I was notified about it.

Anyone working with digital media nowadays has to learn these lessons. I remember once, over ten years ago now, I sent out an email to the membership of one of my churches, but I neglected to BCC everyone addressed. Someone got ahold of the whole list, and a drama unfolded for several weeks with unpleasant emails being sent around to everyone. I learned my lesson. Managing permissions and access is vital to leading a modern ministry. It isn’t what we went to seminary for, but it is an essential part of the job.

It isn’t quite right, though, to say that the conference somehow deserved to get coopted because it had lax behaviors around document creation and distribution. Livingston and Plambeck are crying foul and alleging gross moral failure on the part of the perpetrator, and maybe, by inference, on me for legitimating it. I have a hard time validating that level of drama. But they are right that the path of right is paved with honesty. Whether it was done by a conference employee who was given access or by some smart troll who took advantage at the right moment, it was surreptitious. It wasn’t exactly trolling, because it was giving truth where it wasn’t supposed to be. It wasn’t mindless hateful pablum like trolling is known for. It was surreptitious truth-telling.

I would say it was funny, except the content and delivery wasn’t really funny. It is enjoyable when those controlling the narrative lose control. It is cathartic when the party line is exposed as false. It is great when the cracks in the edifice begin to form. Even so, Christian virtue is supposed to be uncompromising.

I don’t want my enemies searching for chinks in my online media storage, changing information I have posted about myself. The Golden Rule is an important cornerstone moral guide for believers. Reluctantly, I should acknowledge that what was done should not have been done, and it would not be a good standard for future conduct. I’m going to let my coverage of it stand, as I am clear throughout the segment that the document almost certainly does not reflect the position of the conference leadership. Moreover, the emphasis is on the substance of the arguments, rather than the internal political situation of the conference headquarters.

In general, my exhortation to those who see the truth is to proclaim it publicly in the light. Stand up, associate your face and your name with a refusal to participate in the lies, and let yourself be hurt by those who hate the truth. It is what I have tried to model, and it is the standard I hope many others can meet. So while ‘disavow’ is a strong word that I don’t really care for, I’ll say that I would rather folks who are with me choose the bold and public route of correcting what I perceive to be a corrupt and coercive institution. As fun as it would be to cover more surreptitious actions, I would rather my side continue to be associated with comparatively-boring public truth-telling.

Below is the text of an email sent out by Bishop Plambeck yesterday:

Update: I initially chose to unpublish my work on the Dakotas because they asked me to and I wanted to focus on other things. But now Mark Holland, Jeremy Smith, and Bishop Plambeck are all dramatically accusing the WCA, GMC, and conservatives in general of fraud, hacking, and criminal activity. I decided to republish my content because there is a much larger chance that this work was done from within the Dakotas Conference. They had full control over sharing permissions. You can’t really “hack” a Google Doc. Responsibility for that document was 100% with the conference. Projecting this onto the people they don’t like is irresponsible and immature.