The Other Side of the Marty Minto Saga?
To those who found this website via doing a Google search for “Marty Minto” (this blog is at the top of the stack as of this writing), would you please be sure to read the final comment posted at the bottom? Thank you.
Living as I do an hour north of Pittsburgh, I get pretty fuzzy reception of WORD-FM, the large Christian radio station embroiled in controversy this week for the firing of Marty Minto, the popular drive-time talk guy. I like Marty; the few times I’ve chosen to grit out the bad reception and listen to him, I think he’s done a pretty good job. When I heard of his firing this week, I dashed off a personal email to him, thanking him for his good work. And I prepared to go blog’s-a-blazin’ with righteous indignation directed squarely at WORD-FM and any bystanders who might have happened too close by. This is what Brannon Howse chose to do in an article called “Christian Happy Talk“, and Eric Svendsen followed suit in “The Firing of Marty Minto“. Having had a pretty bad experience personally with WORD-FM, and being in the middle of a series of blogs I’ve entitled The Laodicea Chronicles, and actually planning on my next post being on a very related subject, I figured that I had all the grist I needed to let loose with both cannons.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the blog…
In doing my fact-checking at WORD-FM, I happened upon a link to an article for pastors written by Ron Walters, the Vice-President for Church Relations for Salem Communications, the parent company of WORD-FM. Reading Ron’s pedigree, and having an honest desire to fix the problems I see vis a vis Christian media—rather than merely rail at them—I decided to email Ron to get his side of the story. With all due respect to Brannon and Eric, it doesn’t appear that they made a similar effort. I was a bit abrupt in my first email to him; I told him that, because of a previous experience, I didn’t have a lot of regard for either WORD-FM nor for Salem, but that I’d give him a chance to respond to my questions; to wit, 1.) was there “more than met the eye” regarding Marty’s firing? And 2.) would the station have fired Marty merely for entertaining a question regarding the state of the pope’s soul. Ron’s answers to me were that yes, there was more to the story than was being reported—while at the same time, I should point out that Ron was very clear in his respect for Marty and his ministry, and that, no, Marty would not have been fired merely for this.
When I got this word, I determined not to blaze, but to seek for more answers. Ron, understandably, was guarded in his wording; some of what goes on in personnel matters is, frankly, none of my business—nor of yours, thank you; we should not expect to be privy to all of this. I returned an email to Ron on Sunday evening, offering to interview him for my blog, and then to post the unedited results in this space, but I heard nothing further from him, and this being Tuesday evening at 10:15, and the deadline for the Christian Carnival being within a couple of hours, I decided to post without it.
What are my points? First, let me concur with both Brannon and Eric in suggesting that, at the very least, there are a whole lot of questions that need to be answered about the state of Christian media in general. I will still be posting on this topic in my series, and I have some deep concerns. I think that we have a massive issue on our hands, one that is far from limited to the firing of one on-air personality. Second, though, it strikes me that some flaming was done from a one-sided perspective. Are we doing our homework before we cut loose? Or are we only getting one side of the story? It seems to me that we need to take the extra few minutes to check out both sides. Third, it would seem to be a wise use of our new toy—that being the Godblogosphere—to band together and seek answers to our questions, and accountability from those who ostensibly “serve the church”, to quote WORD-FM’s General Manager. There are many of us who are pretty convinced that the church is not being served well at all, if at all. But it would seem to me that refraining from the rancor might serve our ultimate ends better. There is a time and place to criticize, and no one who reads this blog with any regularity would think I shied away from that. But I want to be part of the solution to the problems with Christian media, and if I can build a platform for doing that by showing some restraint, then restraint will be the order of the day. And the order of the blog…
Unique visitors to post: 30
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
11 Responses to “The Other Side of the Marty Minto Saga?”
Great post.
I’m very glad to see someone not jumping to conculsions and taking the time to get to the root of the matter (or at least attempt to do so).
Funky Dung ~ Apr 20, 2005 at 8:09 am
Could you explain the “No Kool-Aid Zone” thing to me? Does it have something to do with the Jonestown mass suicide?
Funky Dung ~ Apr 20, 2005 at 10:25 am
Patience is a virtue, and a difficult one to come by. Great post, and color me impressed.
jpe ~ Apr 20, 2005 at 11:06 am
Thanks for the kind words; I only wish that I were generally as patient as perhaps I’m trying to be this time…
The “No Kool-Aid Zone” does indeed refer to Jonestown, in which, of course, hundreds drank the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid simply because their leader told them to, and out of blind devotion, they died. I call this “The No Kool-Aid Zone” because I try not to “drink the Kool-Aid” for anyone. I voted for GWB, but I’ll take him to task when he deserves it. I pastor an E Free church, but I won’t toe the party line if I see something that needs commenting on. And so on.
And if you ever see me starting to take a sip, please rip the Dixie cup from my compromising lips…
Byron ~ Apr 20, 2005 at 12:57 pm
What is Marty Minto doing now…does anyone know? I was hoping he was back on the air somewhere as he compelled me to examine my (Catholic) faith many times and helped me be better able to understand the actual Bible basis of my Chruch’s teachings. Funny, he helped me become a more devote Catholic and more engaged in Church work as Christ asked us to do.
Don ~ Oct 21, 2005 at 1:24 pm
You can reach Marty at http://www.talkingtruth.org
DJ ~ Dec 19, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Marty’s web site is no more.
He doesn’t answer e-mails either.
I pray that all is well with him and his family.
JT ~ Jan 30, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Marty and his family have left PA and moved to NC, where his wife has acquired a teaching position and he is seeking to pastor at a small Baptist church.
Pray for them as they start their new life.
God bless you Minto family!
A friend from TPCC
JT ~ Oct 18, 2006 at 3:57 pm
To the individual who just placed two totally inappropriate posts on this blog: your profanity will not be tolerated, and when you choose to use such language, your credibility is undermined. If you would like to speak with more suitable words, your posts will be allowed, but not using the kind of language you chose to employ.
Byron ~ Aug 16, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Marty Minto called me today. This was the first time I’ve ever spoken with him. We had a cordial conversation, the result of which caused me to make a decision regarding this post. I will be sharing more details with you in a subsequent post, but I want to explain that some posts that were made here were removed (my subsequent post will explain why) and that I’ve permanently shut down comments on this post. Again, if you’ll be patient, I’ll explain the whole situation in due time, hopefully as early as tomorrow. If you authored one of the posts I’ve removed, I’d ask your patience as well, as I will explain my reasoning soon enough. Thanks.
Byron ~ May 1, 2008 at 12:08 am
OK, here is my promised explanation. This will almost assuredly be the final comment on this post, and I make it by way of promised explanation of my actions in taking down a number of posts.
As I said in yesterday’s post, Marty Minto called me yesterday, and we spoke for probably an hour-and-a-half. Despite having a couple of differences of opinion, it was a pleasant-enough conversation. It related to the fact that several people had made posts critical of Marty on this blog, and his desire was that I take the post down altogether. I have not, as you can see, elected to do that, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment. But what I did elect to do was to employ a Biblical strategy, spelled out in Proverbs 11:14, and seek the counsel of some respected Christian friends. Their counsel, with a variation or two, was pretty much unanimous that, at the very least, I should remove some of the comments that had been made, and that is what I decided to do.
It was my decision that allowing the posts to remain, again posts critical of Marty, not in the role of radio host but in the role of pastor, would constitute a violation of some Scriptural admonitions not to entertain accusations against an elder except under very particular circumstances, circumstances that are not really possible on a public blog of this type. I had not considered it from that point of view before; my general rule of thumb has been to leave all comments up except for those which involve profane language. I figured that as long as I maintained “neutrality”, and took no position as to the validity of the comments (or the lack thereof), then I could leave the posts up. I did attempt to maintain this neutrality, but my friends enabled me to see the issue as deeper than merely maintaining neutrality. Marty asked me to consider how I’d feel if people posted negative things about me on a forum such as this (theoretically, open to the entire world). His point is well-taken, and my friends substantiated its validity. Accordingly, I made the decision to take them down.
Now, I want to be clear at the same time that the neutrality which I held while the comments were up is unchanged. I do not have an opinion as to the allegations that were made. I do not in any way, shape, or form doubt the integrity of those who posted, even if my ultimate judgment now is that the comments ought to be removed. I do not dispute Marty Minto’s integrity either; in fact, the original post, made over three years ago, really wasn’t even a post about Marty Minto, per se; if you’ll notice, his name doesn’t even appear in the concluding two paragraphs, my “summary points”! I just want to be clear about what my actions were, and what they were not: they represent no conclusion one way or the other, simply a decision not to allow them to continue on this blog.
I will suggest to any and all concerned that the best thing that professing Christians can do is to seek reconciliation. I recognize that that is sometimes difficult to achieve, but it is never impossible, particularly if two believers are both committed to seeking God’s face and will.
I realize that there might be some who will not be satisfied with the fact that I’ve done this. Marty himself requested that I take the entire post down; I declined for reasons I think I explained above, namely that the post isn’t per se a criticism of him at all. Those who have issues with Marty’s pastoral ministry probably won’t be too happy either. To any and all I say that I have a responsibility first to God, and only secondarily to my readers. I believe, now that I’ve received counsel from some great friends, that this is the best course of action at this time, and I’ll appreciate any understanding that readers can give me as I’ve made this decision.
Thanks, Marty, for having the guts to call me, and I apologize for not being sensitive to the pain that allowing unedited comments could cause. My prayer and hope for you would be the same as for anyone/everyone: that you would be fully submitted to the will of God as revealed in the Word of God, and that God would use you in a mighty way, shaping and forming you as He does each of us in our journeys of faith.
Byron ~ May 1, 2008 at 11:20 pm