Dr. James Merritt: FHTM and His Blogging Critics – His Response

I wonder if Lumpkins read this. Thanks Dave.

Couple of things from my point of view and/or observation.

Peter Lumpkins and Tim Rogers have both commented on this issue: http://rebekah1.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/surprised-by-a-hero-of-mine/

I agree with Dave that we should be careful about unchecked criticism. These things take on a life of their own and often the truth gets completely lost.

I remain skeptical about Merritt’s involvment with FHTM. If there is nothing to hide, then why the effort to remove any video regarding it? Are not Pastors supposed to be transparent in their activities insofar as it doesn’t hurt someone?

Tell me again. Why was Jesus so angry at the moneychangers? I’ve read a few accounts of the video and it seems there is agreement, that this video was filmed at Cross Pointe.

My two centavos.

I’m a little confused about what allegations are false?

Merritt confirmed his past involvement and even defends the organization. We saw his testimonial video.

A paraphrase of the response:
“Pastor Merritt has chosen not to respond to critics because they are (1) unspiritual, (2) wrong, and (3) fools.”

Call me a cynic but I think I recognize the megapastor shuffle here.

I don’t think his response is the last word on this, but I commend you for asking.

I am not sure Matthew 18 is mandatory here. But it makes sense, if one is going to do a blog post on the issue, to call the speaker and find out what is going on.

There are bloggers who do this. I have seen Wade Burleson, for example, do this. He has had a question about something and before he has written, he has called the person to get their side or feelings.

This may not be practical. With pastor sermons being posted every week, pastors could spend all week fielding phone calls from people who wanted to know what they meant, why they said this or that.

So, while it would be good to call and chat first, it may not have been practical. I note that not even you got through to Dr. Merritt, and you are friendly toward him. If Dr. Merritt’s phone lines are open now every week, he may be getting lots of calls from strangers. I can see why he might not answer. And, thus, I can see what folks might think it would be a waste of time to call in the first place.

So, I don’t think it’s a big Matthew 18 card that should be played with any force.

Having read the response, I am still wondering what Dr. Merritt’s position is. The response said little about the issue.

Had I been drafting the response, I would have said whatever the facts were related to this organization and my feelings, such as, “When I first heard about XXX, I was excited. I spoke about it and encouraged people to look into this opportunity that might be helpful to them in these tough economic times. I have since learned that there are controversies related to this business. I am not in a positiion to analyze those, but have decided not to speak further about, in favor of or against, this business, but believe people may contact the authorities or others who have more information.”

That’s just a stab. I am sure a better statement can be written.

I also think it is fine for Dr. Merritt to have taken the video down, especially if there is something that has become controversial.

The hardest part of this, however, is that Dr. Merritt, like many people at one time or another, has said something that he regrets. I am sure that he wishes he never spoke about this company. What to do about it now? Just live with it. There’s nothing else to do.

Just ask Howard Dean. He will always be remembered for “the scream.”

But this serves as a reminder. Every sermon you preach nowadays is one click away from being on the cover of the New York Times or Headline News. Every bad joke. Every bad illustration. Every exaggeration. Every bad hair cut. Every bad outfit. Every stumble, mishap. Every bit of bad theology.

Preachers are going to have to learn to live in this new era.

May not be fair, but that’s the way it is.

My suggestions are:

Stick to the text.
Use real illustrations, unless they are obviously literary examples.
Do not exaggerate who you are.
Don’t come close to browbeating.
Don’t do voices or immitations, especially ethnic or gender related ones.
Don’t try to become an expert in matters that you are not an expert in.
Be really careful whom or what you recommend to others.
Quote, quote, quote. If you are going to wade into unfamiliar territory, quote a recognized expert in the field. If he/she turns out to be wrong, so be it.

Howell,

I got a kick out of your defense of your blog post. Of having the courtesy to contact Dr. Merritt directly, you say, “First, if someone or something is in the public eye, I do not feel obligated to contact that person who I’m writing about before I post a blog.”

Of Dr. Merritt’s involvement, you comment, “Doug, it may not be illegal to be involved with FHTM, but it certainly can be argued that it is unwise and that it is doubly unwise to try to use your position as a pastor to promote this type of scheme.”

It is clear that when considering the ethics of others, you are concerned about what is wise. When contemplating your own actions, you are concerned about what is obligatory. Could it be that you so blatantly use two different standards because it works in your favor.

Even if you are not “obligated” to contact Dr. Merritt before questioning his character, it is pretty clear that it would most certainly be the prudent thing to do. I’m pretty sure Paul had a little something to say about whether we should be focused on the “permissible” or “beneficial.” I’d refer you to 1 Corinthians 10.

Hi all,

Something isn’t quite right here. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know James Merritt or Tim Rogers. But I have noticed this unfortunate mess and I think we need to see some things more clearly.

First of all, good for you, Dave, that you contacted James Merritt on the issue and received a reply from his comm. director. I think you did the right thing. Now that the statement has come from Merritt (I know it was written by the comm. director, but I think we can safely assume it contain’s Merritt’s blessing – so I will call the comments Merritt’s), something’s not right in Denmark.

First of all, Merritt repeatedly refers to allegations and rumors, but if we take time to go back, there were no allegations or rumors in Tim Rogers’ original piece. There was only commentary on a video (which I have not seen) that has been since disabled. Tim Rogers’ original blog post is easy to find, and he seems to be commenting on Merritt’s own words from that now-disabled video. I see no allegations or rumors from Rogers – unless you count that the marketing company is under investigation from Montana – something easily verifiable. The marketing company may not break federal law, but what about Montana law?

Second, Howell is correct that Merritt’s comments were very condescending, even calling Rogers (and presumably Peter Lumpkins) “acting as unbelievers” and “fools.” I don’t know where Rogers got the video that was originally in his blog, but I’m not sure Matthew 18:15 applies to comments on a video. Does this mean that anyone who, say, does not contact an author before doing a book review is breaking Matthew 18:15 and deserves to be lumped with fools and unbelievers? I understand Merritt has a long and distinguished career, and that is good. But a lot of experience does not always help keep us from erring.

Third, I did not see any evidence of Rogers attacking other leaders for being involved with a marketing company that may have a shady side. Merritt’s words: “We understand Pastor Merritt is among many prominent and respected pastors, authors, educators and theologians who have been the target of these and other rumors, all of which lack credibility, have been put forth in a manner inconsistent with scripture, and without regard for the reputation of the cause of Christ, or scriptural instructions regarding conflict resolution.” Lacking credibility??? Rogers was commenting on a video, in which I presume the speaker is none other than Merritt himself. Without regard for the reputation of the cause of Christ?? It sounded to me that Rogers was trying to preserve exactly that.

Like I said, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I just find the statement from Merritt not accurately reflecting what I read from Rogers. I am not including anything by Peter Lumpkins in this mini-critique. I am only saying that Rogers is not guilty of Merritt’s accusations.

Jim G.

I stumbled across a reference to this story from a blogsite called FBC Jax Watchdog while doing a cursory google search. The article on that site linked back to Tim Rogers’ site but the Watchdog site apparently has a working link to the video.

I’m not speaking to the quality or integrity of the Watchdog site, but I did find a working link through that site.

Brother Dave,

First, I do not know who in the world Jim G is but I certainly cannot say enough to thank him for his analysis.

Second, while you have laid your cards on the table you still need to do something else. You need to point out where Brother Peter has made any “allegations” that “are patently untrue and unfounded.” As Brother Jim G has pointed out and you have agreed my blog post has not made any allegations. I used the very words that Dr. Merritt used and stated I was shocked. I was completely shocked when he said that people used to come to him with financial hardships and all he could do was pray for him. I did not say that he said that. That is not an allegation those are his words.

Third, please notice the patsy position you are being placed. Dr. Merritt did not respond to you, his communications director did. These are not Dr. Merritts words they are the words of a communication spin doctor. Certainly the words may be approved by Dr. Merritt but he did not correspond with you personally.

Fourth, when did Dr. Merritt get out of this business and why did he have the video’s removed? I know that my link was to a Vimeo video account of a Regional Director with the organization. Also, if this organization is such a stand-up organization, then why did Dr. Merritt leave?

Fifth, You are not able to hide behind the “I am not Dr. Merritt” phrase because you posted this response. You are now on record defending Dr. Merritt in this position and you cannot now hide behind the “you will have to ask him” point. You have stated: “It is clear that Dr. Merritt feels injured by accusations made by bloggers (or, perhaps one blogger).” What are the accusations?

Sixth, you have violated your own blogging etiquette as you ascribed motives to someone without contacting them. I know I have not received an email from you. To be fair, you have revealed your cards and said you believed Dr. Merritt was referencing Brother Peter. Did you contact him concerning his motive?

Seventh, you point out that Dr. Merritt has given over 35 years of ministry. Do you not realize that is the reason this post was placed out there? It is his years of ministry that shocked me when I ran across the video. I could not believe that Dr. Merritt was advocating he would tell people when they came to him after the service (don’t know if that is the invitation or the time as the parishioners leave, but it is clear they approach him seeking spiritual counsel) and he tells them to give him 30 minutes. The statement implies that he is using that 30 minutes to present the MLM presentation and get them to be one of his representatives.

Now, there are not allegations here, only the use of his words on the video that has been removed by the person that is charging others with false allegations.

Blessings,
Tim

Begging pardon, Dave:

You claim “I have not said a word criticizing you or Peter, so I did not contact you guys.” Fair enough. You did not bring up either of our names specifically in the original post. But you did state “it is my impression that the focus of Dr. Merritt’s comments is [Peter]… . Peter’s article is probably the one most in Dr. Merritt’s sights here” and even stated your own theory as to why—“…part of his [ Merritt’s ] emotion is based on the series of articles Peter has posted that are critical of Jonathan prior to this one.” So, I’m the probable huckleberry, so to speak. Yet you claim in the OP, “If I am going to make public accusations (such as was done in this case – in which Pastor Merritt’s ministry judgment and integrity were at question) it seems that integrity and common courtesy would demand that an effort be made to contact the person prior to publication” (embolden added). If “public accusations” were made, what were the accusations, who made them, and upon what basis were the alleged accusations made?

In addition, since you appear to have an inside scoop on Merritt’s emotions, care to tell us how you know “part of his emotion” is based “on the series of articles” I posted critical of Jonathan? In this not a tacit claim Merritt himself is not playing fair ball in his criticisms of his critics?  After all, couldn’t Merritt have enough discernment about him to address the two issues separately?  But if you are claiming Merritt is not playing fair ball in criticizing his critics, is this not a public accusation against him—albeit an indirect accusation but accusation nonetheless? And, if this is a public accusation against him, did you notify him that you were going to accuse him of having emotions based on a series I allegedly wrote which were critical of Jonathan? Let’s hope so.

You also claim, “If I am responding to published ideas of an author or blogger, I should reference those clearly but am not required to make prior contact” (embolden added). While admittedly you were not responding to the supposed “public accusations” directly, you nevertheless cite not only generally that “public accusations” were made against Dr. Merritt by some unnamed bloggers, but you also name me specifically as “probably the one most in Dr. Merritt’s sights here.” However, you appear to fail your own blogging etiquette by not “clearly” referencing those about whom you were speaking. Why, Dave? Why put up a generic reference to “public accusations” supposedly made by some bloggers  without “clearly” referencing those whom your are citing as making the “public accusations”?

Furthermore, contrary to your express denial to Tim—“I have not said a word criticizing you or Peter, so I did not contact you guys“–you most certainly have made critical remarks  For example, you raised the question concerning uncomely motives to me personally. You write,

“Dr. Merritt is the father of the now infamous Jonathan Merritt who has made statements about the environment…and about homosexuality… which have been controversial at best… Is there more here than just a discussion of FHTM and a megachurch pastor? Would these issues have been raised if other issues were not in play? The juxtaposition of these two controversies would at least open the door to that question” (embolden added).

So, according to you, Dave, there is apparently “more here” than a simple critique of Merritt’s conversing with vulnerable people about investing in a dubious MLM. Instead, other motives are potentially in play which drive my concerns, motives you do not fail to identify as having to do specifically with the younger Merritt. Rather than just take the critique I posted evaluating Merritt’s claim concerning counseling needy people after a service with a 30 minute presentation on FHTM, you spike the punch by making my questioning of Merritt dishonest at best.

Here’s the bottom line: I wouldn’t give two shakes of a gnat’s behind who the pastor was who claims he says to a vulnerable parishioner after a service, “Rather than just tell them, ‘let me just pray for you’, I now tell them, ‘if you’ve got 30 minutes, I’ll share something that will change your life’ (and that something is, a MLM–whether dubious or legitimate)—whether it were an Adrian Rogers, a Jerry Vines, a Paige Patterson, or a W.A. Criswell—that pastor deserves a direct challenge. Nor is it necessary to contact him in advance. Nor is Matt 18 at all relevant. Jonathan Merritt attempted to pawn this simplistic notion when I first critiqued his CSM article (here and here). It’s time we stopped exploiting the Lord’s Words by attempting to make them relevant to a case where His words were obviously unintended to apply (btw, for those interested, I’ve had on my blog for sometime now a button entitled Matt 18 and blogging, a button linked to D.A. Carson who addresses this reasonably well)

With that, I am…

Peter

Brother Dave,

Could not sleep last night and tried to reply to this post, but something happened and I lost the entire reply. Don’t know where it went, so if you have something in your spam just delete it.

Let me be clear as I do not want you to unintentionally misrepresent me. I am not judging Dr. Merrit, nor am I acting as his Bishop. Your and my take on MLM is completely at opposite ends of the spectrum. I have dear friends that are doing well in various MLM companies. I was offered an opportunity to get in one this company about 6 months before Donald Trump featured it on Celebrity Apprentice. Talk about missed opportunities… However, I chose not to participated in companies like this for the simple reason I make money when someone else gets on board. The temptation, for me, is too great to begin viewing people as opportunities rather than souls Christ died for.

As to your not being critical of Brother Peter. I do beg to differ. You said; “it is my impression that the focus of Dr. Merritt’s comments is not Howell or Tim, but Peter, and that part of his emotion is based on the series of articles Peter has posted that are critical of Jonathan prior to this one.” That is your “impression” because Dr. Merritt’s communications director did not state anything of the sort. Unless, that is, you have discussed this information with the communications director and he said Dr. Merritt’s response was due to the series of articles. So, unless Dr. Merritt’s communications director has given you information “off the record” to fuel your “impression” you are being critical of Brother Peter.

One other thing and I will let it rest. No one is out to see Dr. Merritt’s ministry or his churches ministry degraded. That was not the purpose of the blog and it certainly breaks my heart that some of his church members came out and began to respond. (Peter did close down the comments on his blog because, neither he nor I, desire to discuss another pastor with his church members) But, you must remember. If there is nothing wrong with the company then the reason for Dr. Merritt’s removing himself from the organization is very much a key issue here. Also, if Dr. Merritt did not say anything wrong in the videos then the reason Dr. Merrit’s church filed a copyright infringement violation has to be questioned. They were up and active before his words were pointed out. Now, there is no active video of Dr. Merritt promoting FMIH.

You say that your response is “wishy-washy” and I would agree with you. You just don’t seem to be taking the usual Dave Miller clear stand with Dr. Merritt that you took with Joe Nelms.

My experience with Peter L and his blog comments is that Peter shuts comments down (or deletes them) when ever they make good arguements against his position. This generally results in his comment threads that are largely supportive of his position.

Note that I did not contact Peter before presenting my observations about his blog.

On a more personal note, since I cannot get accurate feedback from the comments on Peter’s blog, I don’t go there. This has resulted in brighter days for me. 🙂

Bill & Bennett,

So, when did you guys post on my site and didn’t get thru? In addition, who are phantom people who got “deleted”?

With that, I am…
Peter

When it comes to comments, I have found it interesting that Associated Baptist Press no longer allows comments at all. They used to, and it was a fairly robust commentary. They could have moderated, as is done on this site, and that would have been o.k.

But they shut it down completely.

It’s ok by me whatever any blog host wants to do. it’s their blog.

et al,

Concerning those who dearly enjoy complaining about how I “delete” disagreeable comments, won’t allow posts damaging to my position to be logged, etc etc, I offer a few observations.

First, anyone interested may examine the comment threads since 2006 and gain their own sense whether a pattern may exist of my supposed cherry-picking which comment type I allow—that is, only those “easy” to answer or positive toward my position.

Second, I have clear commenting policies in place, policies which are public. If anyone can point out how I routinely ignore my own policies, I’d be interested. If not, I am at a loss what the issue is. Jared seems to think lots of his comments were “deleted.” Well, no. I’m afraid Jared is entirely mistaken. The fact is, on those times when Jared “feels” he was slighted (folks can go back and read the comment threads if they like) we had long strings of back and forth going on. And, I even forewarned the exchange was coming to a close and he’d better say what needed to be said.  Yet, Jared continued to log comments. Those are the comments that were so-called “deleted.” Here’s the bottom line:  neither I nor anyone else should even expect—much less whine about—not getting the last word on somebody’s blog.  For goodness’ sake, who do we think we are that we can waltz into somebody’s domain and demand every word we log–no matter how many times we log it or how many times the host says the point is not-well-taken—nonetheless, the words we log must be posted, or we’re being treated unfairly? Only the most sever case of whiney-butt syndrome could holster a skewed expectation like that.  

Third, the fact is, similarities exist in my commenting practices used at SBC Tomorrow as exist here. While I now moderate all comments, SBCV apparently moderates only some. But moderate comments SBCV does do. For example, my comment usually lays in moderation for sometime—for whatever reason—when I comment here (usually it’s the initial comment). In addition, I’ve had a number of my comments I’ve logged refused and not posted at SBC Voices. Ask your moderator for verification. And, while I’ve had private conversations about this, I do not make it a practice to publicly whine about my comments not showing up at SBCV. Why? When it’s all said, I am a guest here. It is not my site. Ultimately, the site administrator has the final say. I can live with that. If I can’t, I still cannot cry, “censorship!” The truth is, while it may have been unfair to me, I can freely go back to my blog and post to my heart’s content—and post anything I want. I can even post about “mean old Dave” for not posting my comment if I think it’s that important. Hence, to whine about my site not posting comments is only to condemn this site here.  What are you guys even thinking?

Now you get back to your normal business. If I stick to my normal schedule, I’ll comment again in about three-four months. Have a good weekend.

With that, I am..

Peter

What’s amazing….and very concerning…is that some lawyers get on these blogs and start hinting at legal action!!! Really? Is this what we’re coming to? Do you really want to kill free speech? Do you really want to stop the free flow of ideas and conversation between Pastors and others who want to talk about such matters? Really?

Wow.

Lawyers. Maybe that’s why all the negative feelings and such about them.

All lawyers in here…and others in here, who feel that legal action is required for “blog talk”…please reconsider…in fact, take a deep, cleansing breath…drink a little, sweet tea…eat a little Debbie Swiss Roll, or a Krispy Kreme donut…and realize that’ll be okay….

David

And this is what usually happens on a group blog with diverse viewpoints. They get accused of all marching in lockstep against the so-called outsiders, as if no one here can tolerate disagreement.