NOTE: The original version of this post asked a question that several commentors found unfair or inflammatory. Since the word choice in the question was not my intended subject, I’ve deleted it.
I just read a blog post by a pastor who announced in the middle of the sermon a dark secret about his past. He confessed to being a recovering sex addict. He meant it to be a “you are not alone” kind of moment. The congregation, however, reacted poorly to the announcement, and he found himself in short order being hauled before a committee for some close questioning. The pastor deemed the church to have failed him in this instance. He was removed from his pulpit about a month later over other issues. (Edited to correct a mistake on my part.)
The people commenting on his blog praised his courage and condemned the congregation for their reaction to his revelation about his sex addiction.
But I can’t help but wonder if the pastor bears some responsibility for the bad reaction.
As a preacher I am probably too careful and cautious with my sermons, but it strikes me that part of — to use Fred Craddock’s term — exegeting the congregation is finding the line between challenging them and shocking them. If I think I’m getting close to going somewhere they are not ready to go, I’d want to engage the church leadership on the topic first. If I had a story like this pastor, I’d want to share it with people in the congregation before I announced it from the pulpit.
I share the pastor’s feeling that the church is too silent on the topic of sex addiction and pornography. I absolutely agree the culture swims in sex and the church’s silence is harmful to those who needs its help.
But as a pastoral issue, it is precisely the explosive issues that need the most thoughtful and prayerful and respectful handling.
Isn’t it?
Very interesting question.
I’m really not sure how the church engages in spiritual healing without honesty and we don’t know how to deal with honesty or handle it.
I’m not so sure about suddenly announcing from the pulpit that one had been a sex addict, however. How does a congregation even begin to process that?
Is there a connection, though, between Chad’s addiction and not believing in hell or thinking that gay people are not greater sinners than heterosexual people? I don’t believe in hell and I don’t believe that gay monogamy is sinful and I’m not a sex addict.
I did not mean to imply a connection between the doctrinal positions.
It seemed appropriate to mention his current status with the church – or non-status – and did not want to suggest he was removed for this issue, so I mentioned what he has said were the causes of his removal.
Why would you even begin to make that connection??? Do you know Chad personally?
Daddy, on this one, I’m going to vehemently disagree with you. If we truly believe that water is thicker than blood, than we can speak as comfortably about our secrets with the congregation as with our own families. If my congregation can’t accept my dirty laundry, then its love is conditional.
It is not a matter of “accepting” the dirty laundry. It has to do with processing it. In small intimate groups where there is a practice of sharing and vulnerability and trust, people are prepared to deal with such revelations.
A congregation at worship may not be spiritually or emotionally prepared to do so. Getting to a place where such truth can be shared is certainly what we hope and work toward with God’s grace.
In this case the pastor either did not know the spiritual maturity of his congregation or misjudged it. In the end, though, I’m not convinced blaming the congregation – saying they failed him – is a pastoral response.
How do you KNOW if this was a bad/wrong decision on Chad’s part? Are you a part of the congregation? Do yo have personal knowledge of this church and its relationship with Chad? If not, then you are just speculating….which is a dangerous proposition.
In February some folks from our congregation went to visit a physician in Philadelphia. His name is Dr. John Rich – a thoughtful person of faith who has done remarkable work in low income urban communities (really this is getting to the issue you raise)…He won the MacArthur Genius Grant for looking at young African-American men who came into his emergency room shot and stabbed as beloved children of God and resources (he hired them to be “community health advocates” for the Health Cru). When we talked with him he spent most of his time talking about healing. At one point he said, “The Church is not very good at handling trauma and shame.” Amen.
Absolutely it is not. So, how do pastors best lead churches in ways that lead them to becoming more capable of handling trauma and shame?
Dude, you’re theaupposed pastor, figure it out!!
Rocco, that is part of what this conversation is for.
Exhibitionalism? Seriously, John?
And let me correct you: I was not dismissed for “preaching” from the pulpit anything to do with sexuality or hell.
Since your comment on my blog I have been thinking a lot about the option of getting permission to preach what God lays on one’s heart. I can’t find a single example of a “sermon” in Scripture where anyone did as you suggest. Jesus did not pull aside the scribes and Pharisees before his sermon in Luke 4 to warn them of possible bad reactions.
In fact, every sermon I see in Scripture gets one stoned, crucified or run out of town.
Perhaps we have dumbed down our preaching so much that we think any bad reaction like the one I got is a sign of the pastor’s fault. I refuse to add to the stigma or addiction (sex or otherwise) and will instead continue to expose it and speak out against it. Call it exhibitionalism if you think that is appropriate. No wonder the UMC is dying on the vine.
I need to add, that a pastor being real and transparent before a congregation he has spent FOUR years with being compared to “exhibitionalism” is perhaps indicative of everything that is sick and abusive in our churches.
It is why the vast majority of comments and emails I am getting from the people churches SHOULD be ministering to are saying things like “thank you for giving us a voice.”
I don’t doubt there are places where we need timid preachers. In others we need vocal prophets. But to call the latter exhibitionalism is not only an insult but an affront to anyone who has ever shared hard truths with their churches and gotten the left heel of fellowship for it.
And talk about furthering the stigma and alienating the addict even further. Can we get a list of the “dirty secrets” that must be confessed in the dark with a small group before we share them to our “family” of “brothers and sisters in Christ” at Church?
Do you not see why I say 12 Step groups are light years ahead of the church when it comes to dealing with real issues?
The very title of this post brings the church under judgment: When is honest too honest?? Honestly?
Why not call it: The Church of Liars. To Self, Each Other and God.
Chad,
My apologies for the mistake about the conditions of your removal from the pulpit. (I’ll edit the post.)
The question that opens my post is a question not a claim. I’m a curious where the line is between being “honest” about ourselves and an unhealthy – for us and for the congregation – exhibitionism. It is a real question. I do not know what the answer is in your case, but your case does raise the question in my mind.
I understand you object to the question, but your objection does not really help me answer it.
You are absolutely correct that I do not scold the church in my post. I’m sure they probably do fall short of the glory of God and need more grace and love. Don’t we all?
My issue here is with the pastoral role and how as pastors we deal with people where they are and aid in moving to where they should be, while at the same time taking on the hard and important issues.
I agree, small groups of people who are experienced and have been led in the ways of discernment and supportive accountability are going to be better at “dealing with” painful and sensitive topics than the general congregation in a worship service. This is hardly news. I’m a bit surprised this comes as news to you. John Wesley knew this in the 18th century, which is why he formed small groups where people could watch over each other in love and confess their sins to one another.
And as to getting permission to preach something, again, I did not suggest that. I said prudence and even respect for the church leadership would lead me to bring up the conversation with them before I talked about it with the church as a whole.
Before I brought it up with the church, I would have talked with my clergy mentor and/or DS about it. I would have sought advice about how to handle it. I would have explained why I thought it was so important to talk about it. I would have sought out the wisdom of more experienced people who I trust.
My entire issue is about process. Contrary to many of the people on your blog and some who are migrating here now (thanks for the readership bump), I do not think this is an issue we should cover up or hide or refuse to talk about.
The church is full of sinners, no doubt about that. I’m not sure what kind of judgement you want me to bring down on them. Should they have been more loving? Sure. Should they have had no questions at all about what you said to them? Do you really expect that?
And if you anticipate questions, then why not do something to make the process as productive of grace as possible?
This is what led to my first post on your blog. This is what led to my question in this post. It is a question I will continue to try to work out.
Your original post did not “sound” this pastoral. It sounded accusatory and questioning of Chad. We, as pastors, have to continuously deal with our humanity publically and privately. As a therapist and a pastor, this is my 2 cents: it is important that the “confession” is shared as a way to help the congregation better understand the role of addiction/handicap/sin (whatever is difficult to share)in relationship to God’s grace. If it is not used to “help” the pastor do private therapeutic work, then it is very good for church folk to experience us as human beings who need God for healing of our own pain. If we waited for church folk to “be ready” for such confessions, they would never happen. We have to prayerfully be ready to share.
Thanks for the comments, Melanie. The original post was a discussion starter. This is why I ended it with a question.
I had hoped that talking about a specific case would have led to a discussion on the topic I’m interested in – when does pastoral honesty become counterproductive.
I know there is a line, just as every pastor everywhere knows. They don’t get up in the pulpit and tell the congregation everything that is going on in their life all the time. In Chad’s follow up post, he speaks of knowing a year earlier that the time was not right to confess his problem. So, he knew there is a time and place for this and a time and place where it is not productive.
My read – from a distance – is he misread the situation a second time. Chad disagrees rather strongly with that view. I believe there was probably a way to engage his congregation in an important conversation on an important topic without dropping it in the middle of a sermon.
He disagrees and finds the reaction of the church unreasonable. Given the world we are in today, I do not see how a PPRC could avoid calling him in and ask him some pointed questions. Safe Sanctuaries policies and clergy abuse news stories would make it irresponsible not to ask such questions.
Chad writes on his blog that he was asked those questions and experienced it as judgment rather than support. My question back is whether it might be possible that the pastor could have done some things in advance to mitigate that problem.
The answer very clearly is yes. Maybe he didn’t want to mitigate the fall out. That is a choice.
I do disagree with the notion that church folks will never be ready for confession. Of course some are and will be. In the middle of a worship service with no prior groundwork being laid? Probably not.
I have to agree with Mr. Holtz here, Mr. Meunier – your gross misrepresentation (through over-simplification and incorrect facts) is only the beginning of the problem with this piece.
Calling what Mr. Holtz did from the pulpit ‘exhibitionism’ is yet another gross misrepresentation. And frankly, it reeks of disrespect and fear.
What are we afraid of within our churches and congregations? I’ll tell you that it’s been my experience that this fear of truth is the very thing tearing her apart. And it is a sad day when a man of God tries to admonish another man of God for being honest and for trying to build bridges with others.
Tana,
I asked a question about where the line is. You may read into my question fear if you wish, but I do not feel the slightest shred of fear about this.
The role of pastor is to lead the congregation into great faithfulness and discipleship. That requires truth, love, grace, and care.
I’m trying to find the line and balance point. Chad suggests the congregation failed him. As the leader of the congregation, I wonder what he might have done to avoid this. Maybe nothing. But it is an important question to me. So, I ask it.
Okay, I hear your question. I suppose I wish you hadn’t even hinted at the possibility that how Mr. Holtz decided to deal with this was in any was exhibitionism.
I guess all I can say is that I deeply appreciate it when my pastoral leadership is honest with the congregation. I also don’t look at any sin as greater than or less than any other and in that way, we are all in the same boat – no matter what our titles might be.
“Chad suggests the congregation failed him. As the leader of the congregation, I wonder what he might have done to avoid this.” Mr. Meunier, I believe you are confusing the archetypes of victim and oppressor.
Tana,
I hear your point. I understand that you think I am wrong to raise the issue.
I don’t interpret this through the lens of “victim” and “oppressor” but as “sinner” to “sinner” and “pastor” to “congregation.”
I see the pastor – as one set aside by the church for special functions and roles – as having a responsibility to be reflective about issues in a way that is different than a person sitting in a small group or 12-step program. That may seem unfair or inauthentic, but it is how I understand it.
Thank you for your comments.
Good on you Chad.
I believe that if one person was able to gain some comfort and strength in the message that Chad shared then it was worth being shared.
Too many people believe that subjects should be kept in the closet…sex, drugs, abuse, addiction etc. It is people sharing their weaknesses that helps to raise others and know that they are not alone instead of feeling that they are not good enough. As for Hell….Hell is living in a world where people are ridculed and judged for the how God made them and when they are made to believe that there is something wrong with them.
Maybe those people who took offence need to look at why they were offended and what is going on their own lives.
What Chad did took courage and the world needs more corageous people for those whose voices have been silenced by those who believe they have all the answers. You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time…
I quite agree with your last point, Mel.
You are quite right about everyone in the congregation needing to look at their role in this. I believe the pastor needs to as well. The situation went bad. A bunch of sinners got together and had a hard time with an important and difficult issue. No doubt everyone could have done better and could learn from it.
As a pastor, though, I don’t see how I could escape some responsibility for the disruption if I were in Chad’s shoes. I think there have to be ways to bring this topic into open conversation and also meet the congregation where it actually is right now.
We talk a great deal in the church about meeting people outside the church where they are. Doesn’t that apply to those inside the church as well.
Romans 14 seems to be the perfect text here. Do not judge, it says in the first half. Do not intentionally do things that will cause someone to stumble it says in the second half.
Let’s talk about all these issues in church. By all means. But let’s do it in ways that actually accomplish our goal of bringing more people to a better understanding of the nature of sin, salvation, grace, and love.
That is what I want to learn from this. I gather I am not part of a big crowd here. But this is what I am trying to learn.
This post is what I would say IS the major problem with the UMC and churches like it. We want pulpiteers who stand up there every Sunday morning and regurgitate something they’ve heard Bishop Goodpastor say… or, if that fails, the Saturday morning comics will alway bring a good laugh! Let’s toe a certain line and definitely stir up no one, and DON’T be too honest. Pastor’s who follow your logic will continue to nurse dieing congregations on the same old stuff that’s been killing them to begin with. Congregants don’t know what’s best for them. If they did, God wouldn’t raise up pastors and prophets.
I sat and listened to a sermon this morning and marveled that the man delivering it had been a UMC pastor for over 30 years, attended several seminaries and has a “DR” after his name. I am sure his speech made the Admin council members happy, but it was the most non-committed ridiculous message I’ve heard in a long time. AND, his text was Act 2. How can you f&*k that up??? The staus quo will never produce anything more than the staus quo.
How is being thoughtful about the way we engage difficult issues a bad idea?
I did not say hard and real issues should not be brought up in church. Of course they should.
I agree with everything you write, just about, except the objection to my raising these questions.
I’m always of the opinion that this sort of thing is entirely the pastor’s fault. He either needs to be wise enough to know what to say in view of the congregations’ reaction, or he needs to be wise enough to know how to form the congregation so that they will react properly. BTW, it’s not clear in your post whether the sex addiction was current or past. If it was in the past, it does seem like an overreaction. But on the other hand there are obviously more issues involved.
The way you’ve described the congregation is that of sheep who have no responsibility at all in the relationship between pastor and congregant.
I don’t want to be in that kind of dysfunctional relationship and I would hope that the leadership within my church wouldn’t choose to see me as someone who needed to be either coddled or formed. The forming comes from Christ. And we help one another on that journey toward wholeness.
That means we, the congregation, helps leadership too.
Sometimes, these reactions are exactly what need to happen in order to shake things up a bit. You, like so many other pastors and church members, probably don’t want any feathers to be ruffled or serious issues to be faced. Congregants should be held accountable for the many ways they fail their pastors and the larger church.
You, like so many other pastors and church members, probably don’t want any feathers to be ruffled or serious issues to be faced.
On what basis do you conclude Rob doesn’t want feathers ruffled?
There is an interesting presumption running through many threads that everyone who raises questions about Chad’s approach – his congregation, his superiors in the church, and bloggers and commentors here – are somehow afraid, timid, or otherwise against the gospel. Where does that come from?
It’s an emotional response. People have projected their thoughts, feelings and experiences onto the circumstance and are responding to those.
Sadly, I fear that is not a point at which discussion will lead to something more.
The Gospel should is outrageous, but shouldn’t be made unnecessarily so or without great care.
Thanks for raising the issue.
Throughout this Easter Season, the first reading from Scripture for Sundays and weekdays in the RC Church are taken from the Acts of the Apostles. After reading your post and reflecting on Peter, Stephen, Paul and all the rest, I’m just glad that the apostles did not follow the path of preaching you suggest. If they had, I am not sure the Good News of Jesus Christ would have reached any of us yet.
Who is “you”?
He’s writing about me, Melanie.
Pingback: Chad Holtz responds « John Meunier
John,
I believe the bulk of the problem here, from my perspective and perhaps others, is not so much that you are asking how pastors can best move a congregation from point A to B (that in itself is a worthy question and discussion) but the way you have characterized honesty as “exhibitionism” and/or suggesting that congregations are not places to be honest as opposed to a small group setting.
You didn’t hear the sermon and you have no idea the process leading up to my confession (which AGAIN, was NO BIG DEAL. I was preaching on idolatry and named porn as one of many things that are idols and it just happened to be one I had first hand experience with and knew freedom from).
Yes, my D.S. knew about this long before I ever mentioned it. Yes, close pastor friends knew and knew I was going to share that that morning – I didn’t ask their advice on whether I should share it but asked for their prayers that the Spirit would use it.
And yes, I agree that bleeding like this on week one in a new parish would be unwise. You forget I’d been bleeding alongside these people for four years. And I will not back down from the conviction that being open and honest about this and other sins that plague us is a good thing – a HEALING thing – which may at first feel like a wound being cleaned out.
The effectiveness of a sermon is not determined by the congregations immediate reactions. That, I think, is where you are mistaken.
The effectiveness of a sermon is not determined by the congregations immediate reactions. That, I think, is where you are mistaken.
I quite agree with your first point.
I’m open to the chance that my sense that there might have been a better way to handle the situation is wrong.
I guess it is beyond the point now, but my initial question was about the line between the two things. I was not saying they are the same. I was asking when we cross the line.
I am taking from this that the mere fact of asking the question with those words was hurtful. I’ll look for a way to rephrase it.
Not hurtful to me personally, John. I’m fine (Derek’s musings about my motives aside).
This is about something much bigger for me. It’s about how the watching, disbelieving, cynical world sees the Body of Christ. It’s about leading with integrity and honesty. It’s about being a safe place for ALL of God’s people, including pastors, to be honest (and for that honesty to not be construed as exhibitionism).
John, if your main critique is the process, and not the event itself, then bravo!
I disagree with Chad on numerous issues (the list is quite long!), but I do consider him a fb friend. His thoughts and probing questions challenge me and I enjoy the interaction. But I get the sense that too many people agree with him just because they like him. They stop assessing things critically. The sense I received from his article (from quite a bit of his articles recently actually) sounds like he’s hurt, angry and looking for support.
In any case, I respect and admire what he did in the article at hand, but I agree with you: there probably was a wiser and more pastoral approach.
wow, Derek. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
Chad, too many people agree with you! Glad I’m not a fickle facebook friend….
It’s fascinating how you and others can know my motives.
I guess it comes from just being a fb “friend” huh?
Hi Chad,
My comment wasn’t meant to judge your motives, but only to say that “it seems to me” from the tone and such of many of your articles, not that these things are actually true, but only that it is my perception. However, if that translates into judging your motives then I readily retract, apologize and ask for your forgiveness.
While I’m at it, I might as well tone down my comment. “Bravo” is a strong celebratory term. The post – in my judgment – said nothing remarkable enough to get a bravo. But I do think that looking back we might ask: what did we learn from the whole situation that we could have done better so that we avoid that mistake in the future. Of course your church let you down. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But a little introspection is good for the soul.
WOW. John, you have raised an interesting question and I’m glad you did. I’m a fan of Chad’s in many cases and sent my support to him early after his dismissal. If I recall correctly, what I said publicly THEN and privately to him was this: Asking questions is a GOOD thing. Questioning or raising objections are thought provoking. I’m glad Chad asked questions about Hell.
From what I’m reading here, the objection he had to your post has been edited. I’m surprised Chad would want to censor you rather than seriously engage you, but I understand that he might be insulted by the choice of words.
As one who has been preaching for some time now, let me hasten to say that questioning another’s motives is not cool here. Those that object (on serious grounds) to the manner in which Chad disclosed to his congregation that he is a sex addict need not be assailed as mindless robots following in the lockstep path of superiors (and please check your spelling of the Bishop’s name–it’s Goodpaster), nor does it mean that they simply want to preach mindlessly politically correct sermons.
Might it be that they genuinely believe that it might not be the right time for this pastor in this pulpit to divulge this addiction? Might they not be genuine in their objection in actually believing that this was not a wise OR pastoral thing to do?
And Chad, after being silenced for expressing an opinion contrary to the status quo, should you not be encouraged that John is being honest, open, and seeking dialogue?
And for the record, no one tells me what to preach–that’s between me and the Holy Spirit; however, that means I must live with the consequences that what goes along with this is that there are real world reactions and I might get summoned to the appropriate committee afterwards.
So, in the end, Chad, preach what you believe is right. John, thanks for asking questions and for being willing to self edit.
Again I can’t speak for Chad, BUT as a former porn addict myself, I HAVE divulged this information about myself in appropriate settings and seen this revelation bring healing and hope to others.
However, I’ve pastored five churches and there’s not a chance in Hell I’d ever think it was ok for ME to drop such a bomb on any of those congregations during a sermon. Speaking for THIS pastor in THOSE congregations in every circumstance, that would have been pastoral malpractice.
“So, in the end, Chad, preach what you believe is right. John, thanks for asking questions and for being willing to self edit.”
Bingo, Tommy. I think that about sums it up.
Regarding asking the question, I think it’s a good question (I said as much in a comment above). But it was how it was originally framed, suggesting that being honest is akin to being an exhibitionist, that I initially took exception to.
As I said in my post that started this, it wasn’t just that the church failed ME. That was secondary. The real concern I had (and still have) was that a message was sent to the community which read: don’t air your secrets here. And how do I know that? Because weeks following my confession several people shared with me that what I went through is exactly the reason they keep their mouths shut at church. They thanked me for doing what they themselves feared to do and hoped along with me that this rupture would bring about repentance at some point.
As Melanie noted, the reason I dared to share something like this is because I KNEW there were people in my church struggling with sexual sin. I shared in hopes of giving hope to even one of them who might be longing for someone in a rural community who could understand them and maybe even help.
The truth sets us free John, et al. I’m not going to hide behind pretense and this game we have created of clergy vs. laity. You call that exhibitionism. I call it being real. And you know what? It’s the unchurched who are perking their ears up. It’s the ones who have been turned off by these church-speak games we love to play. It’s the ones who have experienced the same sort of stigmatizing, shunning shame that I felt. And that’s good enough for me. In that I rejoice and am thankful.
And John, when you have been pastor of your own church for 4 years and decide to share something personal from your past and you do so in whatever way YOU think is best for that given time and context, trust me, I want write a blog post criticizing you for your pastoral decision.
I’ll trust that you did what you thought best, as best you knew how. And if your congregation responds in the way mine did, and you feel sorry for the way the community might perceive that “judgment” by them, I promise I’ll believe you.
Chad, I was really impressed with your forthrightness and your post inspired me to write a post over on my own blog about “being real”.
I’ve been a regular reader of John’s for awhile and I think he’ll testify that I often give him a lot of push-back and sometimes a hard time. What I know of him is that he thinks about absolutely everything from every angle; that’s why I like writing his blog.
With respect, it’s my opinion – and only my opinion – that it was in this spirit of analysis rather than criticism that he wrote the post.
I’ve gone from thinking you were forthright and “real” to believing that it would not be possible to be honest around you either. I hope that’s not true, but that’s the impression I’m getting. Is any of this going to bring healing to anyone?
Argh….”READING” his blog…of course! (I’m not a control freak! – wry smile.)
Now that Chad is alienating people who are inclined to agree with him, maybe he’ll reconsider his perspective.
Let’s remember that Chad put all the blame on the congregation and has yet to accept any responsibility for the situation.
Let’s also remember that Chad’s DS publicly stated that an agreement had been made between Chad and his church that Chad would refrain from pushing the hot buttons and that the main reason for Chad being asked to leave the pulpit was Chad’s inability to abide by that agreement. The more Chad writes, the more I agree with his DS.
If Chad was looking to help others in the congregation, nothing prevented him from starting a SA group. Unfortunately, admissions from the pulpit wind up like Jimmy Swaggart’s where the underlying (even if it isn’t conscious) desire is to get acceptance of the behavior without going through any period of adjustment. This is too much like someone who confesses to a serious crime and asks for our forgiveness but believes that they deserve no punishment. When Dr. King practiced civil disobedience he knew he was likely to spend some time in jail.
Wow. Nothing makes me desire to adjust my perspective more than a complete stranger speculating on things he/she knows nothing about apart from some brief news clippings and doing so under a pseudonym (at least, I hope that’s a fake name).
Yes, just start up an SAA meeting. But don’t tell the church why you are doing that or why you are attending it for fear of making them feel uncomfortable with the truth about you.
Brilliant idea.
Pam, so you get the impression that no one can be honest around me because I take exception to John confusing being honest with being an exhibitionist or that I disagree that it is his place (or yours) to question my motives in the context of a sermon in a church I pastored at for 4 years?
How on earth would I be able to change your opinion of me if I cared to?
I keep forgetting that ad hominem is okay if you are on the righteous side. That is my real name, which you would know if you bothered to Google it first rather than shooting off your mouth AGAIN. “At least I hope it’s a fake name” is an example of someone who is actually interested in dialogue as opposed to being praised as a martyr to the people who just won’t understand? Yes, very mature behavior.
What do we have wrong? Weren’t you asked to relinquish the pulpit? Didn’t you make an agreement to restrain yourself in the pulpit that you weren’t able to obey???
Maybe you think this was a successful pastorate but the rest of us would disagree with you. As you recount your adventures, you take take less and less responsibility what has happened. People (mostly anonymous by the way) who are being supportive have become enablers for your dysfunctional behavior.
It would be one thing to say, “Hey, this is what I tried, but it didn’t work out as I hoped. What should I do differently next time?” Instead, your attitude comes across as, “Agree with me that my congregation is unenlightened and failed *ME*! They did not deserve the benefits of my brilliance and gifts as a divinity student!!” Do you have any idea how arrogant you sound???
If you’ve got a job lined up in Tennessee, then put your efforts into that. Plant a church and prove us wrong.
Does Chad now say that this statement is false???
http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7Bdb6a45e4-c446-4248-82c8-e131b6424741%7D/NC_HOLTZ_STATEMENT.PDF
He has also supposedly withdrawn from the commissioning process in Holston AC.
Welcome to the “armchair critics” corner, Creed. I hope you brought popcorn.
So if I google your name will I discover that you are one of the dutiful Methodist atta-boys?
I don’t blame you for being angry at anyone who would dare hold up a mirror at our institution.
“Do you have any idea how arrogant you sound???”
Do you?
“dutiful Methodist atta-boys”?
Keep up the constructive dialogue. Stay classy, Chad!
Again, the facts are harsh and you don’t want to face them. You continue to prove John right the more you and your enablers post to simply try to shout down anyone with the temerity to say that maybe you made some mistakes.
Chad,
I don’t blame you for being angry at anyone who would dare hold up a mirror at our institution.
How is language like this helpful?
There are a lot of problems with our Church; it is after all made up of sinful people hopeless without Christ.
Looking at issues in the church IS helpful, but I fear that’s not really the intent here.
Our church is struggling, few would question that, and it will only turn around if God is with it (which I believe) and His people sincerely support it and work for it.
I don’t know you (which I fear may disqualify my opinion in your eyes), but I think taking some time away from the affirmation and criticism of the internet would do you well. Return to the people who have helped form your faith and seek healing. Allow yourself to heal from this, too.
How on earth would I be able to change your opinion
By taking on board that I said I admired you.
And considering the possibility that maybe John was just trying to think things through, as he has said. (Which is, by the way, totally consistent with the behavior I’ve seen from him for the last two years or so that I’ve been reading his blog.)
And by considering the possibility that he wasn’t trying to attack you. You’ve criticized a number of people for assuming what your motivations are but you’re making a big assumption about his motivation here too.
of me if I cared to?
If you don’t care to listen, then of course you don’t have to.
Pam, I appreciate the affirmation. And, I was just telling my daughter yesterday that I enjoy getting comments from folks like you who give me some push back.
I know I don’t have all the answers.
This whole conversation is disgusting.
This is why I don’t wear the label “Cristian” anymore.
To answer your question John, its simple…
“There should be no line.”
I admit I made a mistake. I went against my own rule for myself: Don’t engage with strangers over what they think they know about something they know nothing about, nor care to really know about.
You have your one sentence press release, Creed. You know it all.
take care
John, thanks for playing host to this train wreck.
I am quite simply speechless. Chad, I am praying for you as I have been.
After seeing the harsh manner of your reaction to those who disagree with you, I pray the reason behind it is that you are still dealing with a lot of pain that comes from a negative encounter with Itinerant Pastoral Ministry. I encourage others to be kind and merciful to you as well.
Open dialogue is what attracted me to you to begin with. Open dialogue with those who have questions or especially those who disagree with you takes maturity and emotional stability. I will pray for that as well.
I’m genuinely sorry that you have been hurt by The United Methodist Church. However I fear that this “conversation” and the relentless attacks on all things Methodist, even to simply “slam” someone who disagrees with you as a “dutiful Methodist atta-boy–minimize the effect you can have on actually making a difference. (By the way, you really did slam the person just for their name and have yet to apologize or retract that–that’s bullyish behavior)
Being an “outlaw preacher” is more than simply railing against the establishment–it is about loving people. I say with all love and respect, is it possible that your anger is masking your love here? I fear that the impression left here is that if this was your reaction to being questioned in your church, then they don’t look nearly so bad as they did when the news agencies jumped all over you for your fifteen minutes of fame.
You have MUCH that is good to say and your impressions of how the church needs to evolve can be a major contribution to The Body of Christ; however, for that voice to truly find the ability to change those within the structure of the church–rather than simply those who are already in exile–I pray that this will not be typical of the reaction to those who simply question or disagree with you.
You CAN make a difference
WAIT, please know the comment about 15 minutes of fame was not intended as a slam on you (I just re-read my own words)–rather a warning.
Right now, you have just arrived on the scene, but can make a lasting difference IF you remember:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Cor 13:1
Blessings to you
John: it sounds like you’ve edited this post, at least partly in response to the comments. I respect your willingness to take feedback seriously. Also, if I understand midwesterndiva’s address to you correctly, I think it’s pretty amazing that your daughter is able to disagree with you openly. I think that says a lot about your own openness and willingness to engage different opinions. Very cool.
Here’s a couple comments I posted on Chad’s FB page in response to your blog post: “FWIW: I give John Meunier credit for at least understanding what you were trying to achieve and for making a positive suggestion instead of simply offering negative criticism. FWIW2: I think you could have followed the spirit and letter of his advice and still wound up with the same negative results. The institutional church just isn’t ready for grace and truth. Law works better.
”
I know these are difficult days for the UMC, but you guys handle your differences WAY better than Baptists!
(I’m a Baptist.)
I was in church leadership for many years. I spent a lot of energy “editing” myself, so as to not share anything in a sinful manner. Leaders in religious organizations tend to feel pressure to be a “good example” and not cause others (those who are presumed to be spiritually weaker) to stumble.
The result was I kept my mouth shut many times, because I wasn’t sure I had the right heart, or was in the right space . . . or had the right wording, to communicate in a way that wouldn’t possibly cause someone to “stumble”.
The result of this was that neither I, nor others, had the opportunity to share and work through whatever my issues/sins were . . . and/or whatever communication issues I might have also had.
Since I was not truly open about the deep stuff, neither were others.
I realized the healthiest thing to do was to just speak the truth I was feeling prompted to speak, do it in as Godly a way as possible, and be open to whatever learning opportunities . . . and loving opportunities . . . that resulted from my honesty.
I hear and understand your question. In my opinion, there are very few situations where you can be too honest. Truth sets us free. It really does. Exposing the darkest stuff; frees others who also have dark stuff hidden (which is many, if not most of us).
Graphic details would be in the category of too honest, in most situations. General statements (as in AA) should usually suffice.
In the light of a new morning, I want to apologize for my tone in last night’s comments. Had I had any sense, I would have recognized two things: 1. It’s always good to stop and consider another person’s point of view for a bit before fighting against it (if at all) and 2. This had absolutely nothing to do with me except maybe, in the farther reaches of the periphery wherein I have been a member of a congregation at some point. And I’d add another: Chad Holtz does not need ME to defend him. He’s perfectly capable and certainly the most qualified to clear up any misconceptions about his past as I am only a Facebook “friend” after all.
I have a tendency to root for the underdog and my experience with church told me, the moment I read Chad’s blog post on May 25th that even within the church he’d be the underdog and would meet mass resistance for varying reasons.
And while it’s find to root for the underdog, even in those situations, it’s all for naught if I’m not doing so with humility and openness.
So I apologize, on many counts, for being a buttinsky.
Chad, I love you as a brother of Christ and John, I love you as a brother in Christ.
Grace and peace and Love.
Tana, I really do welcome everyone to the comments. I don’t consider you a buttinsky at all.
I certainly have written and thought things that need to be corrected or more carefully expressed in the past. Comments help me learn from those mistakes.
Grace and peace to you.