March 17, 2010
If you are an Honor Academy alumni, you probably received an email from Ron Luce yesterday in response to an email I sent out to the alumni body. In it, Ron makes some claims about me which portray me as unwilling to dialogue or reconcile. It pains me to say that these are outright lies.
Because Ron Luce insists that they have repeatedly tried to dialogue with me, I now feel compelled to make public all of my correspondence with Teen Mania leadership, specifically Dave Hasz and Heath Stoner. I had hoped to keep this correspondence confidential in order to build dialogue and trust with them, but by accusing me falsely I believe they have given me no choice but to bring all the facts into the light.
1) Dave Hasz has sent me a total of 3 emails. As you will see in the pdf, Dave Hasz first contacted me by email on November 3, 2009. After we exchanged a pair of emails, he never replied back to me to answer my questions or comment on my thoughts.
Does 3 emails in the span of one week constitute a “repeated” attempt?
Ron says that I “do not seem to really want to dialog in a personal manner to resolve conflict.” Yet, it is Dave Hasz who has not responded to my email, dated November 4th. So, who is unwilling to dialogue here?
You be the judge. Read the emails and form your opinion based on the facts.
I challenge Dave Hasz, Ron Luce or anyone else at Teen Mania to prove my records of these emails is wrong, insufficient or misleading in any way.
(Because I don’t really know Heath and he is not the main decision maker at the HA, it is possible I may have deleted some of his earlier emails. If that is the case, I invite Teen Mania to publicly post the content of any emails I have missed or forward them to me and I will add them here.)
(You also may notice in Dave’s last email he says, “I don’t really have an avenue to email all alumni.” Gee, then how did Ron do it?)
2) Dave discusses my blog in two different Ethics and Leadership classes. Both of these videos are dated before he ever tries to contact me over email.
In the first video, dated September 28th, at 51:25 he says:
“Well, you guys down there at Teen Mania, you are such a bunch of legalists, you know you are always talking about integrity, you’ve got these checklists and its all legalism, legalism, legalism, legalism.
I don’t know if you guys have heard any of this, but I’ve heard it. You can go read the slam sites – people that call me a heretic and a legalist and you know all these different things. Listen, people who are saying that, I personally believe just have a twisted theology that allows them to live a life that lacks integrity.”
So, here he is calling me a “slam site.” As you will see below, Dave Hasz thinks he does not need to answer to people that are “attacking” him (also known as accountability).
And in this video, at 32:30 he says:
“I’ve had certain people come to me, “Did you see what they wrote about you? They took what you said out of context.” I’m like, “No, I didn’t actually see that.” “Well, you should read this.” I’m like, “I really don’t need to.” No, You need to respond to this.” No I don’t need to respond to it.
Here’s the deal, if God doesn’t want me to be the director of the Honor Academy, I don’t want to be the director of the Honor Academy….But,if He wants me to, then He can defend me and He can take care of that.
Now, at times I’ll read it and then call the person up and see what I can do to minister to them and correct misunderstandings or maybe I truly have offended them and I can ask for forgiveness, because I certainly make mistakes. I certainly do things at times that offend people and that’s wrong and I need to admit that and say, “I am so sorry, I did not mean to offend you.”
You know what? I’ve had people come to me and say, “Dave, you really offended me when you said this, this and this.” And, I thought you know what, that is not at all what I intended to say but I totally understand how that is exactly the way you heard it. And that’s my fault because I need to be responsible for what I say. And I can understand that and I will repent and we can fix that. But if they are just attacking, its not your responsibility to defend.
So, he is openly admitting that he doesn’t read the blog, and doesn’t care to because he has no responsibility to “defend” himself. To me, its not about defending yourself, its about accountability. Does this sound like the kind of attitude of diaogue and reaching out portrayed by Ron’s email?
3) And finally, we come to the comments on the blog left my Dave, Ron and Heath. Do these qualify as dialogue and reaching out? I’ll arrange these first to last.
June 23, 2009 – On what is only my 5th post, Dave Hasz makes his first appearance. He is the first commenter on this thread.
Back then, all comments were approved before posting. Since I don’t sit at my computer 24/7, I did not see Dave’s comment right away. So, Heath first appeared on the scene later that afternoon to make sure I was letting Dave’s comments through.
I thought Dave posted another comment in the early days of this blog, but I’m not seeing it…so we’ll move on to Heath.
On October 30th, Heath jumped back into the comment thread here.
The last time Heath commented, alot of alumni had questions for him. All of which went unanswered. So, I responded:
Its amazing that Heath is upset when I don’t answer him, and yet….look at all these unanswered questions…
February 11th, 2010 – Ron Luce comments 3 times (beginning at 7:04pm), but does not address any of the points I’ve made in the post. And when others chime in with questions, he does not return to answer them.
So, who refuses to answer questions asked not only by me, but by several other alumni? How is that repeatedly trying to help “him/her work through the struggles and challenges that he/she’s facing?”
I feel that the way they have portrayed me is dishonest and disingenous. But you can decide for yourself.
In the next post, I will comment on the rest of Ron’s email.