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.
Click here to download email correspondence with Dave Hasz and click here for Heath Stoner. (Note: in Dave’s emails, his comments are in blue and mine are in red.)
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 dialogue and reaching out portrayed by Ron’s email?
3) And finally, we come to the comments on the blog left by 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, a lot 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 disingenuous. But you can decide for yourself.
In the next post, I will comment on the rest of Ron’s email.
46 comments:
Ben said…
It’s good to see that there was some active dialogue with Dave in the emails. They do carry some of the rhetoric that always made me feel like something was off… though trying to pick it apart is like wading through a swamp. To his credit, he did apologize for some specific things, though that certainly shouldn’t be the end of it considering the damage those things did. He always said that he was accountable for what he taught. It should be of utmost concern to him that many are saying his teachings were instrumental (even primary) in either damaging them and their relationship to God enough to require counseling and years of recovery, or even driving them away from God completely.
If he wants to address concerns one-by-one, perhaps you could send him some blog posts, since he doesn’t seem to want to come and read all of them.
March 17, 2010 7:31 AM
Anonymous said…
Just a heads up, Heath is actually on the leadership team at the HA and is the director of operations for the HA I believe. I think he just moved into those roles in the last 2 years because Dave moved into a COO role.
March 17, 2010 7:55 AM
Shannon said…
I was encouraged by Dave’s first email, but then quickly disappointed by his following emails. Heath’s emails were very direct and seemed as if they were trying to hide something. Personally, if you have something so great, like these classes, etc, why not share them with the world. Or would that cause you to lose money? Heath makes a lot of demands and doesn’t seem to want to actually resolve anything but do damage control.
March 17, 2010 8:12 AM
Josiah class of 03 said…
I agree with Ben. RA what if you put together a list of anyone willing that would like contact from Dave or Ron to hear an apology or something. you could send this list of people and their contact info over to Dave & Ron and see just how long it would take for them to respond, if they respond at all. Could be a good step in the recovery process for those that are hurting…..thoughts?
March 17, 2010 8:20 AM
Eric P. said…
As I may have said before, I formed my (outsider) opinion of the Honor Academy based mostly on the positive things that interns and leaders have said about it. The subtext– or even the text itself– of the positive remarks clearly reveals the nature of Honor Academy. It’s straight-up, undiluted spiritual abuse.
In other words, we have two choices: we can read the multiple and well-documented allegations of interns here and elsewhere claiming that they were spiritually abused– or we can read the words of the Honor Academy leadership for a classic, textbook example of what spiritual abuse looks like in action!
Someone with more patience than myself would do well to compare the messages in the Hasz/Luce/Stoner emails with some of the generally-recognized objective characteristics of spiritual abuse, e.g. here.
RA, you deserve a high five for your fantastic job in calling a spade a spade, or in this case, letting a spade say “I’m not a spade; I’m a metal tool used for digging up gardens.” Keep up the fantastic and necessary work! As they say in my business (or at least one of my businesses), any publicity is good publicity.
I only wish this blog had been around a few years ago when I was trying to research HA for myself. May it help the many, many others whom I know are hurting right now because of this un-christlike attitude from Christian leaders.
March 17, 2010 9:52 AM
Anonymous said…
Maybe just cause I worked with the guy I got some love for Heath Stoner. He really is amazing. I’m sure most of the internship knows who he is because he has been there for like 17 years or so.
Reading his emails, he didn’t seem too jerk-ish. Actually he sounded more curious to me. Also, just trying to put out flames. I don’t know how you got the video’s R.A., I’m assuming it was legal, but without their permission so it shocked ‘um. I can imagine the conversations that took place after they first saw the future disaster that was coming.
But for the most part, he just seems like the middle-man. Not taking a stance on anything. That’s kind of how he is. He’s a peace-maker.
Just had to throw in the defense for Heath.
March 17, 2010 10:36 AM
Cesna said…
Anon- but trying to make peace in this situation when there is no peace is just as bad as causing the damage in the first place.
It reminds me of Jeremiah 6:13-15 to a heartbreaking degree. “Peace, Peace!” When really, they are unashamed of the damage they’ve caused, and anyone unwilling to submit blindly is the rebel.
On another note, good on ya RA. We’re behind you, in spite of the muck slingers.
March 17, 2010 10:47 AM
Shannon said…
Josiah, While I think an apology would be nice, I don’t see it happening. As well, an apology doesn’t heal wounds or bring about restitution or recovery from what some of us have experienced.
March 17, 2010 11:01 AM
Anonymous said…
I’m confused Shannon, what type of “restitution” are you looking for?
March 17, 2010 11:16 AM
Anonymous said…
It’s awesome how they accuse RA of emailing all alumni – yet I never got the first message – so it’s so ironic that TM did one better and promoted this thing to everyone. This is the hottest TM news since the ministry was begging for money to keep them in business. I really liked TM a long time ago. Maybe it was that little spirit boy in me that wanted to go to Neverland and never grow up. Then bit by bit evidence of exploitation of passionate, fiery, teenagers and the seemingly dark side of Christian business began to wake me up fast. If you’ve seen the movie Saved! – Teen Mania to me is one big representation of Hillary Faye – Mandy Moore’s character. Classic.
March 17, 2010 11:19 AM
Layen said…
I had less of an issue with DH and RL than with the staff whom I worked directly with and/or fell under their leadership. Oh, and my peers (most of the issues I have with HA are peer related…or maybe, as I look closer, enviornment related).
Dave always seemed to be very aware of what he was teaching, and pushed us (at least during the time I was there) to research said teachings on our own. The pressure I felt almost always came from my peers, who would defend the lessons as though I were personally attacking the teachers themselves (and I am very aware that I wasn’t always correct in my arguments, but it’s hard to come to that conclusion when no one will talk about it with you). There wasn’t any room for discussion among other interns (ok, that’s not entirely true..I eventually found others who were very willing to discuss and debate) and a whole heck of a lot of peer pressure. If you disagreed with a point (or all points) that had been made in class, you were no longer submitting to leadership and therefor were one of the bad kind of mavericks…the rebel.
I don’t believe that DH had intended for that sort of enviornment, but he created non-the-less.
March 17, 2010 11:36 AM
Dan Gross said…
Anyone who’s read my comments should already know that I’m a huge supporter of RA and this site. I believe fully that having the right to speak out about these things is healthy.
I will say that having read the correspondence between RA and TM staff, knowing both of these men personally (Heath more so than Dave, actually), I think that they were sincere and well-composed in their responses. As I’ve stated before, I think these are two wonderful people with the best of intentions.
The problem is, RA has also acknowledged this. Even in this correspondence. Even on this site. Yet she’s still “accused” (probably a strong word…) of being a gossip and slander monger. Again, if any of TM staff read this, or any other supporters of TM/the HA, read this blog with an open heart and mind. Some commenters have commented emotionally, yes. But wouldn’t you too? I’d be willing to bet in private conversations, due to the hurt you feel over this, you’ve used equally emotional words.
The people on this site feel hurt by TM, and yes, I’m sorry, but it’s a consistent pattern that many of us have observed for years. And you (HA/TM staff) feel hurt by the claims made here. Everyone’s hurt. It’s like a mini Palestinian conflict.
Jesus (Love) is the answer, and guess what? We ALL agree on that. Ron, Dave, RA, me, and the vast majority of the people commenting here.
TM staff, I think that RA made a wise suggestion…why not do a more in-depth polling of HA participants over the years to see how people feel? Maybe do so cooperatively with this site so the results are trusted by all? I for one still to this day speak very positively about my time with Teen Mania and the internship program, yet I share many of RA’s concerns.
And please, everyone, this “conversation” is at a critical point, where it could very easily (not at RA’s fault) slip into a “us vs. them” mud slinging contest. Nobody wants that. Hopefully not TM, and my guess is definitely not RA.
Okay, I’m pretty terrible at brevity. 😉 I’ll stop now.
March 17, 2010 11:47 AM
Anonymous said…
Honestly, any Christian environment or any environment where people are passionate about what they do has the element of human nature. Human nature doesn’t want others to have an opposing view point, can be very defensive, and often grows judgmental. Does this mean everything is evil. No, just human nature. I agree with Layen, my issue isn’t with the top leaders, they didn’t “create” anything. Its with the natural peer pressure and class systems associated with people. From what I can remember, Dave Hasz repeatedly taught on going to Jesus verses going to performance. We add the performance part just like people have all through history.
March 17, 2010 11:57 AM
Anonymous said…
I realize this site has explained its purpose, but if so many have labeled it “bashing” maybe that’s something to look into? You can explain your purpose and then go a whole new direction.
March 17, 2010 11:58 AM
Carol said…
I completely agree with Dan, especially when he said: “I for one still to this day speak very positively about my time with Teen Mania and the internship program, yet I share many of RA’s concerns.”
I think quite a few of us share this position and only want to see positive change. This is the very reason we are a part of this blogging community – to participate in change. I greatly respect RA, and the leaders at TM (Dave Hasz, Ron Luce, etc….), but would really like to see some change happen.
It has been brought up that a lot of the inconsistencies happen when some of the younger folks at TM are in leadership. I think this is correct. A lot of the ‘interesting’ things that happened at TM during my internship year were because of some of the non-staff appointed leaders (i.e. second year interns, etc…). The pressure that a lot of us faced, the judgment and the like was not handed down directly from D.H. or R.L., but from the interns around us. The environment fosters these issues, and I think that is what needs to be addressed.
In D.H.’s first email, it is clear that he wants restitution and healing. He also wants to the Honor Academy to improve. But I think the issue is FOLLOW THROUGH! The emails stopped and D.H. did not follow up with RA for whatever reason. This has been my experience with TM time and time and time again. The follow through is not there, and that in itself is part of what is hurting people.
I contacted D.H. a number of years back ‘just to check in’ and mentioned in my email that I was struggling because my father had just committed suicide. I never heard back from D.H. I DO UNDERSTAND THOUGH that he is extremely busy and has hundreds of people under his leadership and thousands that had previously been under his leadership. I do not hold it against him at all, but at the time, the lack of follow through hurt me quite a bit.
If we, as alumni, could promote and environment where there is FOLLOW THROUGH and change, this blog would be worth it.
I can give example after example where there is not follow through – inconsistent postings of wedding announcements and baby announcements on the alumni website, inconsistent alumni news letters, inconsistent programs that do not come to fruition, inconsistent contact with staff members, inconsistent teachings and behavior from ‘elected intern leaders’, etc…. I can go on and on. The ball is being dropped and consistency needs to be dealt with.
March 17, 2010 12:13 PM
Anonymous said…
Well. On the topic of young leaders being the people that effect it. I was dealing with the Intern Director (cough. Heath Stoner) and the Graduate Director – (John Bushnel) And on a smaller level but often enough- Dave Hasz.
We new each other by name and I was in their offices constantly. The three of them were my direct leadership. Conclusion – It is not just the youth that were causing the problems…
I was often confronted for little issues in my life, and was torn apart. so much so I left in tears.
March 17, 2010 12:22 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Carol – I think the point about consistency is well made. I think what is hurtful about Ron’s email is he acts like I am the one who has not made attempts at communication – and that is clearly not the case. Beyond that, he says they have tried “repeatedly” to help me “work through my struggles.” So, yes they are inconsistent (at best) yet claim otherwise. They need to be held accountable for this.
March 17, 2010 12:22 PM
Carol said…
RA – I completely agree. I have noticed the lack of consistency since I first stepped onto campus back in ’97. I’m glad that you are continuing to post about inconsistencies, because I think that’s one of the things that folks at TM really need to work on.
Anonymous – I’m sure there are many folks who were dealing directly with the leadership. I, for one, did not for the majority of my internship. So, I noticed a completely different aspect of confrontation and odd ideas. I’m so sorry that you had to deal with being confronted by leadership. When I was 19 and an intern, I probably wouldn’t have been able to handle that because I looked up to those folks so much. My heart goes out to you.
March 17, 2010 1:14 PM
Eric P. said…
For those who could use a good laugh right about now (me!), I’m here to serve. I had this Gilbert and Sullivan song stuck in my head all morning, and I wondered where I’d heard it from. Then I realized….
“The Disagreeable Man.”
A bit on the nose, yes?
March 17, 2010 1:15 PM
LisaMarie said…
RA- The link to your email correspondence with Dave Hasz was very confusing to me. Could you please lay it out exactly as each email was sent and received instead of with the blue and red text? Thanks.
March 17, 2010 2:16 PM
Former Pres said…
Carol,
What your saying is a pretty common thing it seems but you hit on an interesting point and thats the alumni association (or lack thereof). Until recently I was on the alumni board and i know that they are looking for new members, why not jump on board and see change and consistancy actually happen from within?
I really believe that the association has the potential to be something that is a great tool once interns leave and for the people that have been out for so long as it is not regulated by TM. Part of the problem with the board is that you will typically have a solid team of people at first that really want to see change happen but the follow through from them becomes non-existant because their life is no longer TM but instead family and work….it has nothing to do with TM…..it is run by people that are out and have been out for a while so what better people to be a light to those just leaving the program or to those that really need help? I think if there was a solid alumni board that were actually committed to not just bringing change but to really help alumni in whatever area, you could see a lot of positive change as they would be the team that are really helping all alumni and holding the HA accountable to the standards in “the line”.
In reality, its one thing to talk about your struggles with each other and request change from people you don’t trust but when you jump in and try to make it happen yourself in an outlet that you can help control in a positive way you can either see things change or see them for what they really are know what I mean?
If anyone is interested, let me know and I can help you get plugged in.
just a thought I would share….
Nate
March 17, 2010 2:34 PM
Anonymous said…
I’m an intern alumni and I did not receive your email nor the email sent directly from TM. I know of at least 3 other intern alumni that did not receive either correspondence. Maybe what they were saying was accurate, they do not have a comprehensive email list to contact all intern alumni. I know my email & contact info has changed several times since I graduated the Honor Academy.
March 17, 2010 3:19 PM
Anonymous said…
maybe you should try emailing Ron directly versus DH….every time I have sent Ron L. an email, he has responded…I’m not so certain that Ron is the one to actually take up issue with….because it seems as though he has the right heart about things….albeit he IS human…I think it may be some of the other leadership present at the HA including DH that may possibly be disillusioned and causing more issues overall….
March 17, 2010 3:25 PM
Anonymous said…
RA – I read the emails between you and Dave. It seems Dave was open to change and advice. He admitted there were hurtful things going on and expressed some disagreement with you. On the other hand, you completely rebutted or denied everything he had to say. I have one question for you: have you considered the hurt and harm this site might foster?
March 17, 2010 4:19 PM
Anonymous said…
Does TM have all of our emails? Are they spying on us? If they are, how can I tell what they are driving? That is the thing that scared me the most about HA: all of the spies and the hidden cameras and microphones.
March 17, 2010 5:42 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
LisaMarie – I’m sorry for the confusion, but that actually is the exact copy of our emails – blue and red text included.
Anon at 4:19pm – Yes, I rebutted his argument. ITS CALLED DIALOGUE. Something, Ron said they wanted to engage in. But apparently not. Who quit dialoguing? Dave or me? Your comment implies that you prefer empty words to cold, hard facts.
March 17, 2010 5:53 PM
TruthInLoveSucksSometimes said…
Anon: I think if anything/one was hurt from this site it would be Pride.
It would be foolish to think that any organization [Christian or not] does not have the capacity to cause a negative impact on others. People are flawed and they make mistakes. I’m not saying all mistakes/offenses were made by direct leadership because to be quite honest my roomates did enough. LOL
The fact that measures are not put in place to help correct these issues concerns me. I think if the HA did reviews that focused on the positive environment and personal impact that someone contributed to those around them mixed with results instead of just results (as was my experience), then a things would be diffrent. I never had a review where my superior asked how I was doing personally, they only asked “Can you make these numbers higher?” “What exactly do you do around here anyways?”
When a leader of an organization that sends out an email causing an “us vs. them” mentality this concerns me. Dialog is healthy, promoting separation and pressure to those who do not agree on someones REAL life experience, I just don’t understand.
I applaude RA. I know now that I was not an insane weakling of a Christian. I was just tired, hurt, and most definitly not alone. This site was a breath of fresh air.
I say that in the most sincere voice possible.
If you don’t like it, then don’t read it.
If you are not one seeking healing, comfort, or dialog with others in the same situation, don’t read it.
If you actually had a 100% positive experience and don’t agree, don’t read it.
If you have the ability to cause change within the HA or to help insure that people have an awesome year with God at TM…why not read it?
March 17, 2010 5:56 PM
TruthInLoveSucksSometimes said…
ps. I know I spelled ‘dialogue’ wrong.
Don’t crucify me. 🙂
March 17, 2010 5:57 PM
Shiloh said…
Oh dear. Let’s please not crucify anyone. Goodness.
March 17, 2010 6:29 PM
Philip Estigoy said…
RA,
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the email that Ron sent. Reading your response to Heath’s first email certainly reads as you saying that you want nothing to do with him and don’t care that he wants to talk to you, and that you think he abuses people. That kind of closes that avenue of dialogue don’t you think?
I don’t see the dialogue that you had with Dave as him ignoring you. Should he have written more and sooner? Possibly. However, I think it’s clear that he at least addressed the current intern class that he was listening.
That said, after hearing from alumni after your mass email message, Ron would have heard from both Dave and Heath that they’ve contacted you, and in the case of Heath, that you blew him off. If I were to hear those reports, I would come to the same conclusion that Ron has.
As to your second point, how can you say with any certainty that Dave was specifically talking about your blog in those blurbs? There are a number of anti TM blogs out there, and he doesn’t mention that it’s run by a former intern or anything of that sort that would make me think that it was this specific site.
As to your point that they aren’t addressing the people who are questioning them on this site. Many of the people who are questioning things on this site are airing legitimate concerns, and hurts. However, others on this site seem to just be pissed off at life and wanting a target. If there is an angry mob, it doesn’t matter what is said, it will only enrage them further.
If I were the target of hate campaign(which to them, this would certainly seem to be), I would not respond on their site either.
One of the responses to Ron was certainly in this category. It’s obvious that for some on this site, it doesn’t matter what they say, it’s going to be torn apart and painted in a way to make Ron and Dave look like horrible people.
I would also say that I fail to see how sending a message to alumni in response to a mass email that you sent forces you to make public some corresponence that you say will remain private in that correspondence.
I will also say that certain posts on this site are nothing but slander. I fail to see how “The Gospel According to TM” posts are intended to do anything except make people angry.
I am all for showing things that were wrong during the Internship. It was not perfect, and there were flaws. I disagree with some of TM’s teaching as well.
You make a claim that this site is about healing, but this letter you sent out and then your posts about their response look more like baiting the leadership at TM into saying something that you can attack, rather than actual concern about healing.
Please note that I am not saying that I see your heart. I am simply saying how I would hear the responses from both sides and see how and why those specific responses happened.
March 17, 2010 7:20 PM
Anonymous said…
“I will also say that certain posts on this site are nothing but slander. I fail to see how “The Gospel According to TM” posts are intended to do anything except make people angry. “
I see where you are coming from on most of your comment Phil. But on THIS one I just got to say – Those posts actually helped me a lot. I guess I may have gone through a more ridiculous situation than most, but often it helped me really see what the truth was. Breaking off a lot of legalism. I don’t see anything with those post’s because –
A) They are OBVIOUSLY sarcastic, and not ‘twisting scripture.’
B) They show the truth.
I think that is a BRILLIANT idea on R.A.’s behalf for sure. I’m not exactly seeing why they offend people.
March 17, 2010 9:12 PM
Anonymous said…
well put Phillip, well put. Not sayin I absolutely 100% agree, but definitely well put
March 17, 2010 9:18 PM
Philip Estigoy said…
It offends people because it is saying that Dave Hasz/TM are saying things that they are not, in fact, saying.
I suppose my main problem is in the specific wording. If one were to present scripture and then show where and how they think that TM deviates from that scripture, whether I agree or disagree with the assessment, I would have no problem with that.
To me, those posts are unnecessarily inflammatory.
March 17, 2010 9:38 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Philip,
First off, Heath was not an influencing factor in my internship. I know little to nothing about him, except that he appears to be Dave’s lackey. Why would I want to speak to someone I don’t know who is not actually a decision maker but a middle man between me and Dave?
Second, I would have been happy to dialogue over email, what I refused was a phone call which is nebulous communication at best where he could claim I said things I did not (and vice versa). I prefer written communication. On top of that, its no secret the he and Dave are excellent at verbal sparring and double speak. Disagree if you want, but I know too many stories…
I did not say Dave was completely ignoring me – just that it is false to call his correspondence with me a “repeated attempt to work through the struggles.” They portrayed me as totally indifferent to their communication and unwilling to talk, which is not the case, as you can see. Which is why I uploaded the correspondence. To prove that they portrayed me in a false light.
And please point me to other anti-TM blogs that Dave could be referring to. I am not aware of them.
As for the rest of your email, I’ve addressed those thoughts already. Look in the recovery category.
March 17, 2010 10:19 PM
Phil Boltz said…
Hey Phil, Phil Boltz here. It’s been a while, but welcome to the discussion. Speaking only toward the issue of “the Bible According to Teen Mania” strain I think that RA is pretty on target. It’s certainly sarcastic, but as one thing that DH and I fully agree on…if you want to talk to me about sarcasm, you should confront the apostle Paul first. But that wasn’t your problem with the post.
It seems like RA is approaching scripture and performing a pretty on target albeit pithy juxtaposition of what I would argue are competing ideas: The Grace and Gospel of Jesus and the Economy and Culture of the HA. It’s certainly inflammatory, but it’s a parody satire that drives home a critical message. Instead of pages and pages of important but arguably redundant hermeneutics, RA simply adjusts what scripture says and replaces it with what it would seem the HA believes.
In that statement it is a challenge to HA or HA minded thinkers to question their ideas about scripture. Take for instance Matt. 18:12-24 – Here the argument is that the HA doesn’t care for people the way that our shepherd does and we are called to do as the Body of Christ. I’m not going into my soapbox about how the HA is a poorly performing Church, but that’s where this goes.
The Isaiah 42:3 is a similar statement. Instead of what is being painted as a terse approach to behavior modification, the HA could consider handling people more carefully.
In Mark 10:43-45 the challenge to the Aura of a Statesman is made by contrast with Jesus’ words about what makes a man great.
I think these are all in a similar vein. With wit and parody, RA brings a contrast of what I would argue are two ways of seeing our spiritual walk. The way we learned at the HA and the way we’ve come to understand Christ’s message of Grace.
I think inflammatory is a constant tactic of Paul, Jesus, OT Prophets, and great spiritual leaders. I’m not drawing strong connections here, but I think I see some clear patterns of relating that we are wise to use.
Phil
March 17, 2010 10:26 PM
Anonymous said…
thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for this site, RA. i was an intern and GI from 03-05, and if it weren’t for my amazingly supportive manager, i would have lost my mind. i am still working through many things from my time there… just my opinion and experience: i personally don’t think that TM/HA knows how to work with people/interns who have struggled with various forms of abuse… whether that be physical, sexual, emotional, or spiritual prior to becoming an intern. ‘just pray about it’ cannot simply ‘fix’ a lifetime of abuse.
March 17, 2010 10:37 PM
The Queen said…
wow, its exciting to watch people be so interested in this blog!! Its like watching a real life cartoon . . . WHO WILL WIN?! Everyone waits in suspense, soaking up every word and every phrase and then dissecting them to pieces and fragments that they can re-arrange or discard, chew up, spit out or use as new bait. Its pretty intense at times but fascinating on many levels. . As a recoveree, my natural tendency is to side with those who share my negative feelings about Teen Mania. However, I have also relished every word written by those with a more favorable outlook on the organization, for it gives me a chance to empathize with them, a chance to hear them out and suspend judgement, an opportunity to recognize and accept that there are two strongly opposing viewpoints that have surfaced in this blog, and that they are both real, both valid, and both meaningful to their perspective owners! Truly. Fascinating.
For me, salvation lies in the idea that one day, we won’t have to fight so hard to understand each other. our empathetic gifts will be so strong that we will be able to completely understand the perspective of our neighbors. This goes not just for Teen Mania, but for all of the worlds and sub-worlds that we come into contact daily that are outside of our own limited experience.
God Save the Queen!
The Queen
March 17, 2010 10:42 PM
Carrie said…
I am still in total shock as to how completely dismissive and condescending RL’s email to the Alumni was. It is beyond infuriating. I have been corresponding with RA for several months now, have shared my story, AND submitted it to the Board of Directors and have had no response from anyone at TM about it. I also know that they have not really “reached out” to RA, nor have they offered any of us the forum to be heard, validated, and reconciled.
I would like to also say that this sort of behavior is also on par for those who chronically abuse. Don’t believe me? Look it up. RA has several good links, but you can google this stuff and it shows up. The narcissism and condescension and just out-right LIES in the email from RL make me want to weep for those who still believe that TM is harmless. They are wolves. Charming, narcissistic, mentally-ill wolves. I would advise you all to not believe the disguise.
RA, excellent job on getting your facts straight, backing up your word with evidence, and being so methodical. Very well done.
March 17, 2010 11:41 PM
Philip Estigoy said…
Phil,
My problem isn’t with sarcasm. I am a very, very sarcastic person, myself.
I just do not think that saying TM reads from a different Bible with zero evidence on those posts is a good thing to do. If you are going to say that it seems like they are reading from a different Bible, at least provide a link to a post that supports it.
March 18, 2010 2:12 AM
Recovering Alumni said…
Phil,
I never said TM literally “reads from a different Bible.” That would be silly. That series of posts is meant to show how they intrepret the Bible. Phil’s analysis was spot-on.
March 18, 2010 2:15 AM
Anonymous said…
I personally am glad that someone is taking a stand to address instances such as this. During my time at Teen Mania I saw the leadership do so much to CYA. And you were challenged if you stood up to the things that you didn’t see them being honest about or keeping their commitment about. (not every time, but there were a lot) There was an incident during my Gideon’s road experience. One where a fellow CA was critically injured and had to be rushed to the ICU due to head and neck injuries. I was at the hospital when Dave questioned someone who had managed the ropes course before this incident. Dave asked the facilitator if it was possible for the equipment to have malfunctioned and if it could have been the cause of the incident. The facilitator kept telling Dave that if the equipment had been used properly then it wouldn’t have failed. I know there had just been an inspection of the ropes course within the month before the incident and that the equipment that was used that night had passed the inspection. I found out later that Teen Mania said the equipment had failed and it was an accident. I know they did it to avoid being sued. I know that they weren’t honest about what really happened out on the course. I know that there were a lot of steps that were not taken to ensure the equipment was being used properly and that the facilitators were aware of the dangers of what they were doing. It was negligence on Teen Mania’s part. I also know that there were a lot of other facilitators that didn’t feel right about how it was all handled. So many other staff jumped on board to say it was due to equipment failure. It frustrated me so much that we are taught about integrity and honor yet when it comes to moments like this the leadership just does what they can to CYA.
March 18, 2010 2:43 AM
Philip Estigoy said…
RA,
I wasn’t insinuating that you were saying it literally.
The way that it comes across to me is that you are saying that their interpretation is so bizarre, they may as well be reading from a different Bible. Otherwise, you would not say that the Bible according to TM has passages scratched out and replaced.
As stated, I don’t really have a problem with that viewpoint if there is actually some evidence linked with the statements, but there isn’t one link to a post referencing it. There is no logical progression of “the Bible says this, and TM’s teaches this, so TM’s version of the Bible would be this.”
It isn’t the sarcasm that I’m against, it’s the accusation with no reference. That is what makes it slander, in my opinion.
I’ve said it before, that I don’t think this site is, by and large, a slander site, but that specific part, I think is slander(other people disagree on that point).
PS. I like how almost every comment in this thread starts with Phil,
March 18, 2010 2:48 AM
Philip Estigoy said…
RA,
The point in what I was writing was to step in Ron’s shoes as he wrote that email. If I were in an organization and I knew that two people who were in leadership had both made attempts to contact you, and that you had straight up blown one of them off, I would consider that repeated attempts.
In this regard, it doesn’t matter what your reasons for not talking with Heath are. He made an attempt to contact you, and your closing statement to Heath does not sound like you are open to any dialogue with him.
There is no mention of you being more comfortable in written dialogue.
I just don’t see anything in Ron’s response that is so outrageous that you think the correct response is to publicly publish correspondence that you insinuated would not be publicly posted.
March 18, 2010 3:29 AM
Dan Gross said…
Okay, I think you guys are having a great discussion here, Phil’s and RA (though Phil B: wit, parody, metaphor, satire, and most literary devices are lost on most Christians…just sayin. 😉
Commercial break though…Queen, your post made me laugh. I see where you were coming from, but surely you were being ironic with your tone, which at least seemed to insinuate that it’s silly to care about this, all the while as you participate – anonymously, I might add – in the conversation?
Anyway, I got a laugh out of it.
March 18, 2010 11:13 AM
Ex-Intern Aug 07 said…
I’m reading Dave’s emails from the link you posted, and it’s nice to see that he is jumping to conclusions about Jeff’s story when he says this:
“There was a blog a few weeks ago where the person wrote, to the effect, “I got promoted and
then got to work with the line cooks, everyone knows they are the best of the best” Something
like that (it was clear that the writer was sarcastically saying the line cooks were NOT the best of
the best), when I read it, I was saddened for the line cooks, this guy was frustrated by his
perception that he was judged as inferior and in the very blog he was making that point he did to
the line cooks what he was wounded by. If the line cooks had read that blog, they may need to
start a blog about recovering from your blog. See what I mean – of course they would not do
that, but the point is that this person while blogging about his frustration was slandering the line
cooks on your blog. So you have to be careful.”
I know “Jeff” and I know that he is not being patronising or bitter towards the line cooks! I just want to clarify that for anyone who is also reading the emails 🙂
March 19, 2010 9:04 AM
Shiloh said…
Yeah! That’s what I was thinking too!!!
I totally got the impression that Jeff was stoked to be a line cook! And I -again- am so board with the excuses – “but the point is that this person while blogging about his frustration was slandering the line cooks on your blog so you have to be careful.”
#1- he wasn’t slandering them.
#2- Dave was WRONG about the situation
#3- who is Dave Hasz to tell R.A. how to run their own blog?! Especially in THIS situation! He’s actually going to go write a sentance like, “You have to be careful.” oooooooooooooooooooo…. that makes me SO mad.
#4- It sounds like Dave is more scared than anything else.
I think he’s Yeller’
March 19, 2010 9:36 AM
Pingback: Ron Luce Responds to Cult Accusations on MSNBC – Recovering Alumni