An Innocent Man
How I Was Railroaded Out Of My Own Church
Here’s what I said about the legal threats in my letter to the church:
-
The church did not pay for the site, the design elements, hosting, etc.
There seems to be some impression that the pastor’s housing allowance was somehow a salary for website building and hosting and design services. That’s not true. The housing allowance was a housing allowance—allotted to help pay my housing, which in turn enabled me to spend more time at the church than I’d be able to without it.
Nowhere is there any document with any language that says I will build you a website in return for pay. I know this because I would never have signed any such document because I never would have ever charged the church for anything. Ever. For any reason. Part of my pastoral ministry was coordinating specific areas of ministry, regardless of who performed those tasks. But that was not a service contract or a performance guarantee and there was certainly no transfer of copyright or ownership implied or inferred:
Job Description
Christopher Priest
Co-Pastor
Pastor Priest will concentrate his efforts in the areas of
communications. This means, the areas concerning how the church
organizes and presents its message of hope to the world. This
includes all broadcasts, publishing, Internet activities, studio
or live recording, all press releases, banners, signs,
stationery and printed matter. This also includes supervision of
the music ministry, music and sound equipment and sound
ministry. Priest’s goal is for the church to speak with a
uniform and consistent voice that is clear and effective, and to
put a professional face on the work of the ministry.
There is not one word about money in that description, and not one word about transfer of ownership. There are no fees set forth, and no specific details of what I would or would not do and how much the church would pay me for specific tasks. I have never charged the church a dime for anything. I did what I did for the church, and the church helped to meet my needs as it was able. I did not do these things BECAUSE the church was helping me and the church wasn’t helping me BECAUSE I was doing these things. There was absolutely no quid-pro-quo connection between the housing allowance and the tasks I performed at the church. There exists no menu of services, no price list, no installment plan, no tit-for-tat money exchange. Whatever the church did for me, it did out of love, the allowance enabling me to spend more time there than I could without it. As Pastor Scott himself has said many, many times: the pastor’s housing allowance is not value-based. It is not salary. It went directly—do not pass Go—to my housing.
When Pastor Scott informed me, well after the fact, that my housing allowance had ended, I proposed to the Pastor’s Group that I submit that general description of what I do at the church—which had not materially changed from when my title was Co-Pastor—to the Finance Committee and let them come up with a number. I would accept whatever allowance the Finance Committee came back with—even if it was ZERO. I told all three pastors, “I don’t talk about this stuff, I do not negotiate salary.” I was content to trust the church and the pastors to do what they could—my intent was to continue regardless.
My service with the church has never, ever, been about money. I am deeply wounded by the church’s demand letter that “all monies paid” be returned. I am wounded all the more by leadership who know, for certain, that money played no role in my service at the church, yet continue to allow this body to think that it did.
-
“We weren’t paying you to do any of those things.”
This was Pastor Scott’s justification for ending my housing allowance, without notice, telling me in August that my allowance had ended in June. I pointed out that I played 5 Sunday services in July, designed a sign, designed new PowerPoints, designed door hangers, re-dressed the website and more. And Pastor Scott said, and I quote, “Yeah, but we weren’t paying you to do any of those things. We were paying you to be our pastor and you quit.”
First of all, I didn’t quit. I was still there, still doing exactly what I had always done. The only change was I was no longer part of the Pastors’ Group. And I didn’t “quit,” I stepped back from the Group because of inherent conflicts between Scott’s process and my own. Stepping back was painful and tough for me, but it was the right thing to do so that the ministry would move forward. I object to the cheapening of my sacrifice by cavalierly throwing around, “Well, you quit.” I can’t imagine how that disparaging of a complex and painful decision in any way honors God.
Second: you cannot claim to not be paying me for something and then claim ownership of it. -
The website and logos pre-date my pastoral service
I was installed as co-pastor in October. The website went online in August. The domain names were purchased by me, using my credit card, on August 6th and September 5th respectively (these dates are part of the public record). The logo was created by me in August. I was not paid to create any of those things and they are my copyright and intellectual property.
Please be clear: the church is certainly welcome to use the design stuff as much as it likes. I am NOT demanding the church stop using the logo or other design elements. I’m just pointing out roughing me up for things I created from my heart and presented in love is legally, ethically, morally and biblically wrong. -
Pastoral supervision of creative areas does not transactionally convey ownership
First: we should not be bringing rules of the corporate world into the church. Our rules ought to be to love one another and to meet one another’s needs, not bash each other over the head with contracts and legal definitions. We shouldn’t be hanging each other over legal technicalities.
The legal concept the pastors are proposing simply does not apply here: the notion that anything an employee creates during the term of his employment belongs to the employer. First, I was not a full-time employee. Second, U.S. copyright law stipulates that any such transfer of authorship must be done under what is called a work-for-hire agreement which must be an instrument of conveyance (document) duly signed by the parties concerned. Lastly, this concept applies to employees using company resources and company time to create intellectual properties and who were hired for that express purpose. If the church were a website development company, maybe this *might* make more sense. But the church is not a web development company.
This point is particularly moot because both the website and logos were created before any official pastoral “employment” began and before any job descriptions were placed into effect.
Everything I created was created by me, using my own resources, paid for out of my own pocket. It was not created on “company time,” pre-dating my pastoral obligations or acceptance of any job description, and thus did not involve, in any way, “company resources.” It was emphatically not a work-made-for-hire, which would require a signed, written agreement.
Prior to my leaving, there was no discussion—none—in any room, at any place or between any parties—EVER—about transfer of copyrights and ownership of the websites. It was never discussed, ever. Additionally, there is no signed document or even verbal agreement under which I agreed everything I create would automatically belong to the church.
U.S. copyright law stipulates the author of a creative work is the copyright owner. That ownership cannot be de-facto transferred on any basis without a signed agreement in place. For example: if you hire a photographer to take your picture, that image is not owned by you, it is owned by the photographer and the photographer will have their copyright notice on it. You can buy prints and use rights, but you do not own the image. Conversely, however, the photographer cannot use your image for any commercial purpose without a signed release for from you.
§ 201. Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under
this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.
The authors of a joint work are coowner of copyright in the
work.
§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation
of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a
note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by
the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized
agent.
Commercial web builders will usually not provide you with the
code from a website they build for you. The code is their
proprietary trade tools and is not usually given out when the
relationship ends. You can’t walk into Colonel Saunders and
demand the seven herbs and spices formula just because you
bought some chicken. You paid for the meal, not the recipe.
Weeks after the
meeting, I received a scathing phone message
from one of the sisters at the church. A sister I dearly
loved. Hearing her voice, I was so happy—finally, someone
calling to see about me. Instead, she launched into a rebuke,
criticizing me for having taken the website down because there
were these spreadsheets on the site the ministry used for
important community outreach. She hung up loudly.
I cried.
I’m not a guy who cries, but this sister’s call cut me to the
bone. And it told the whole story: these folks were completely
lost; brainwashed and,. yes, lied to by Scott. This was his
pattern. Worse, I am convinced these folks knew they were being
lied to, that this narrative Scott was laying out did not hold
up. But that's what brainwashed people do: cling to their
loyalties and pretend to not see the obvious. I was the third
minister Scott had driven out of the church doors in 12 months.
We couldn't all be liars and thieves.
I did not call her back. I do not respond to people who show me
hate. I do not return calls from people screaming at me and
calling me names. Search the Gospels all you like: you will not
find Jesus helping people who spit at Him. Yes, He prayed for
the lynch mob’s forgiveness (“They know not what they do,”) but
there’s no record of Christ performing specific miracles for
them. In fact, He had to leave Nazareth because He said He could
do no miracles there, because a prophet has no honor at home
[Mark 6]. Hanging on the cross, one thief mocked Jesus, one
thief believed in Him. Which one did Jesus save?
No, I don’t return phone calls like that. If you call my house,
keep a civil tongue in your head. I wanted to talk to her, I
missed her so much. I also wanted to tell her those spreadsheets
she was chastising me about were still online. I never took them
down. I never would deliberately harm that ministry. Her
impression was mistaken, likely because either she or Scott
simply didn't pay very close attention when I was training them
on those tools. Those spreadsheets were never part of the
church’s website. They were Google Spreadsheets, which I had
explained to her a minimum of two times and to Scott a minimum
of three times. Neither were particularly computer-savvy, and
both had a kind of hand-waving dismissal of the innovations I
brought to the church—since, after all, I was there to deal with
it and explain how those things worked over and over and over
again. Moreover, those spreadsheets were spreadsheets—simple
documents any marginally competent person could easily and
quickly re-create. Villanizing me over them was simply gross,
more of the smear campaign.
But I didn’t call her back. Because she hadn’t bothered, for one
second, to simply ask me how I was doing. If I was okay, to tell
me she was praying for me. To behave, in any way, like a
Christian. Which spoke volumes about Scott's leadership and the
church's Christian walk.
Around that time, Scott (or someone posing as Scott) apparently
committed a crime. I cannot discuss this apparent crime because
it has been documented and is now part of a possible criminal
investigation by law enforcement. But it seemed to be part of an
overall pattern of harassment that a supervising police officer
likened to domestic violence; the officer concluding that if
action wasn’t taken, things were likely to spiral out of
control. I asked the supervisor what I should do.
The supervisor said, as a police officer, he could only
recommend that I press charges. A crime had likely been
committed. However, as a Christian, the officer believes in the
power of God’s forgiveness. He believed it was shameful for
Christians to ever have their conflicts escalate to the point
where the state needs be involved. He recommended—as a
Christian, not a cop—that I send a neutral party, another
pastor, to Scott. Explain to him if he doesn’t knock it off,
things will become very much worse. The case is sitting in a
file in a drawer someplace; any further harassment will lead to
serious consequences.
I took the officer’s advice, sending word to Scott through
neutral parties. It’s been a couple of months now, and all’s
quiet on the Western front. Which might mean something or it
might not. I have no idea what Scott or the church’s next move
might be and, as such, communications between us are
nonexistent. At the end of the day, I am simply devastated that
things had to come to threats of legal action and criminal
prosecution. I’ve gone over this and gone over this and prayed
and sought God and turned it over again and again, and I
continue to arrive at the same place:
All I did was go home. The rest was all him.
What Am I Doing Here?
Being wrongly accused really hurts. Being around people, alleged friends, who aren’t friend
enough to pick up a phone and find out what’s going on with you,
who aren’t brave enough to even consider the possibility their
pastor might be misleading them—that’s just as bad. These folks
are Christians. Adults. They ought to be smart enough to know
when they’re being misled. In our church tradition, we have a
peculiarly outsized sense of loyalty to the pastor. Showing
respect to the pastor is about honoring God, not honoring the
man. Taken too far, pastoral respect becomes pastoral adulation
becomes pastoral albescence. Becomes a cult.
I did not post this essay to attack Scott, rebuke the church or
win any arguments. I posted it because God said post it. This is
what’s so utterly troubling about the entire affair: I told them
I left because God said “go.” But they refused to receive that,
creating instead all manner of dark motives and unfair
accusations without considering I might be telling the truth. It
is my prayer that someone, going through an identical trial,
might be helped by my experience. Or that my friends, my family
from that church, might glean some insight into what happened.
My most fervent prayer, however, is that Scott might be
convicted—either through this essay or through the church family
having read it—and might realize he himself is the cause of my
leaving, and all the subsequent opera was—all of it—generated by
him. That he had so succumbed to his own brand of righteousness
that he’d gone terribly astray from God and from the leading of
The Holy Spirit—Who could never inspire Scott to these extremes.
There is so very much good there, so very many things that are
right and noble and Christ-like about him. His strength, his
intelligence, his unbridled passion for ministry and
evangelism—these are rare qualities. However, much like an
alcoholic, Scott must turn some part of himself over to someone
he trusts to protect him from himself. Otherwise, the pattern
simply repeats, people coming and going out of his life, Scott’s
defense reflex making them all extremists and nuts and enemies
of the church in order to protect himself.
My greatest joy would be to see him find his way home.
Postscript: 2014
Usually when I re-read essays I’ve written years before, I tend to
cringe. The more you do something, like writing, the better you get at
it so looking back can be painful. Additionally, I tended to be even
angrier and more hostile, years back, than I am now (which may be hard
to believe). I’ve mellowed a bit with age and perspective, and I worried
about this piece and wondered what changes I’d want to make to it in
review, in the perspective of seven years.
Here’s what I wanted to change: nothing. Not a sentence. The report is
honest, accurate and true. My co-pastor, Scott, was a deeply disturbed
individual; a manipulative liar and bully who routinely exploited the
love his people had for him by throwing faithful friends under the
wheels of the bus in order to protect himself. This was a man who could
never admit he’d been wrong or even mistaken. A man whose emotional
scars, from the black church, ran deep and went unhealed at least to
that reporting. I have spoken to him only once since my departure, on
the occasion of our dear friend Dr. Henry Johnson’s passing, at which
occasion Scott was mercurial, distant and hateful. I have spoken with
church members, past and present, and nothing they have said has changed
my view of this powerfully gifted yet deeply troubled man of God and the
epic dysfunction at the heart of his psyche.
If any of the church’s members, past or present, were to read this, what
I would say to them—beyond wishing them love, grace, and peace—would be
to urge them to stop fueling Scott’s megalomania with your silence. You
know, full well, he is lying, has lied. You know, full well, something’s
wrong. You hear it with your own ears and see it with your own eyes. Yet
you remain silent because, as most Church folk, you believe the pastor
is some kind of leprechaun—some voodoo priest or shaman, some magic man,
God’s anointed, and that it’s not your place to deal with him. None of
that is true: it is the church that calls the pastor, not the other way
around, and you are failing Scott and failing God by not confronting the
demonic forces at work in his life and ministry. He is not your friend,
and he will sell you out without hesitation to protect himself. This is
not God at work but Satan, and your silence only enables this nonsense
to continue.
If Scott has repented and changed and made a serious turn in his life, I
believe I would know because mine would be one of the first phones to
ring were he man enough to admit his sin and turn from it. Given the
absence of that phone call, I am left to believe that Scoot trudges on
in his pettiness and vapidity, supported by his family who know full
well every word I’ve written here is absolutely true, but choosing to
believe instead that I have some ulterior motive for lying and stealing
from the church. So far as I can tell, it won’t matter how many
ministers Scott discredits and assassinates or how many members leave,
the faithful core will continue to steadfastly hypnotize themselves into
not believing their lying eyes. Church Folk who choose the lie over the
truth do not belong to God. They are lost in self-deception, which is a
fitting and accurate summary of my dear, lost brother.
I will, therefore, not change a single word of this record, hoping it
serves as a cautionary tale to anyone who finds themselves in a similar
situation. It is my most sincere hope that you will turn to God and away
from man, and never, ever follow anyone whom you know, full well, is a
self-absorbed liar. Choosing to stay under that tent is choosing the lie
over truth, and choosing Satan over Christ.
Christopher J. Priest
9 December 2007
editor@praisenet.org
TOP OF PAGE
