Public statements are difficult to get right. There are so many perspectives to consider and someone will always be able to study the statement and dissect each word of the statement. I try to give grace, but there are so many problems with this statement, it is near impossible to ignore.
First, there is music playing in the background. This is an emotional manipulation technique used to make you feel sympathy. It’s used by the SPCA and hunger relief to make you feel sorry for the starving dogs and starving children. When you hear the music, you know the statement is being given to make you feel something rather than know something.
Second, there are cuts and edits in the statement. This wasn’t done in one take. It was produced. There was the opportunity to make sure each word was perfect. If Wes Feltner wanted to be totally forthcoming, he would have walked out on stage, delivered the statement with no music, giving himself no chance to go back and say it better, and then left the stage. If Berean did not want him to personally address the congregation, they should have had a recorded statement with no music and no cuts.
Feltner states he wants to address the allegations, but he spends more time talking about how his sins came to light. He begins by addressing a pressing concern for members of the congregation: “Why are you leaving us?” No pastor wants his current church to know he is considering leaving them. This is not a selfish or deceitful desire. You lose your ability to minister to a congregation if they believe you are trying to leave. Most people do not tell their boss they are looking for another job until they have secured that job. So Wes must do damage control and say he was only considering leaving because the other church was near family. He is telling Berean, “They came to me, I wasn’t thinking of leaving.”
If this statement was about the events of 17 years ago from a repentant individual, the statement would start, “Seventeen years ago I sinned against three women, my church, and my God.” So by starting with damage control we are clued into the true purpose of this statement: to protect himself at any cost.
Wes then begins removing blame from himself. “A small group of individuals from outside that church” are the reason Berean is now disrupted. Everything would have been so smooth if “a small group of individuals” had not caused trouble. I refer to this as the Scooby Doo defense. “I would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids and their pesky dog.” But remember, it is always the villian that gets upset with the small group.
And who is that small group? They are the ones he abused and their families. They are the ones who tried to make the situation right 17 years ago and were ignored.
Feltner then makes an interesting statement. He declares that he suspended further consideration of becoming the new pastor of First Baptist Clarksville. There is only one reason to make this statement, since it can be demonstrated to be false. Wes must save face with Berean. He must continue to look like the hero. It is a very noble thing to try to protect the other church. So Wes must be a martyr. The problem is that long after the allegations came to light, First Baptist Clarksville was still looking to bring him in to preach. So if Wes removed his name from consideration, the pastor search committee was not informed. Truth is not what Wes is worried about. He is concerned about looking noble. Feltner states:
They accused me of pastoral abuse based on events that occurred 17 years ago when I was a single, young man working as a youth leader at a church in Indiana.
When you say “they accused me of pastoral abuse” you are first saying you are innocent. If you are admitting you did wrong, you say, “they revealed my pastoral abuse.” The repetition of 17 years ago is to bolster his supporters who want to say, “He’s different now. He’s changed. We all did dumb things when we were young.” Feltner needs supporters to have this mindset so he encourages it by distancing himself from his previous actions.
The truth is we all did dumb things 17 years ago. The difference is, when your action was done while you were a pastor, misusing your authority and influence for personal gain, you have disqualified yourself from continuing in the ministry. You no longer meet 1 Timothy 3’s demands of being above reproach and well thought of by outsiders.
And make no mistake. He was not merely a youth leader. He was a youth PASTOR, no matter which words he chose to use in this statement.
He points out he was a single young man. I wonder if he counsels the single young men in his church to have intimate relationships with their girlfriends in Las Vegas before they are married. He was single, not married, when he had a sexual relationship with a young lady under his authority. This reality should have immediately placed him under church discipline. Period. No discussion.
Wes Feltner pointed out he dated these two women (remember he was dating three girls) with the permission of their parents. But that permission is negated by not giving full disclosure of what he was asking to do. It was uninformed permission because I am confident he did not tell the parents he was dating three girls at the same time. I wonder what he believes the parents would have said had he revealed that information. I do not have to wonder. His refusal to disclose that information demonstrates his thoughts.
Yet, notice there is an inconsistency. Feltner points out first that the girls were 18 when he dated them. Then he points out he had their parents’ permission. Do you understand why he felt he needed the parents’ permission to date these girls? They were still high school students under his authority. He wants them to sound old enough (they were 18) and himself to look noble (the parents said it was okay).
Feltner agrees with some of the facts, but not all the allegations. He dares not specify what goes in what category. To admit to anything causes him to lose support. This entire statement is designed to give him a chance of saving face. Let social media (which he has publicly left) sort it out. A statement of repentance declares your sin. It does not obfuscate the truth. Wes can say he has deep regret for hurt he caused, but by his refusal to be open about his sin he is doing nothing to give credence to his victims. Therefore, his deep regret seems to be more about his current troubles.
Now let’s talk Matthew 18. Okay bear with me on this one, as this one needs to get worked out. Matthew 18 is Jesus’ instruction to the individual on how to help your brother who is in sin.
Step One: Go to your brother. If you read JoAnna’s story, she said how she was not comfortable with an aspect of the relationship: he made her feel small. Joe Donahue went to him: He was rebuffed. The pastor was informed. And now, these ladies took the information to the church. For this he is upset. Which step did they fail to do? He cannot cry they did not follow Matthew 18. They followed it. The church now has the responsibility to put Wes Feltner under church discipline which would include firing him, and setting out a course for continued faithful living without releasing him to another church where he could serve as a pastor.
Ready for the irony? Wes is not following Matthew 18. He is putting forward in this statement that these women have sinned in their handling of this matter. Yet, he did not go to them privately. He did not take someone with him. He did not approach their church. He is publicly ascribing ill-intent to their disclosure (more about that in a minute). Remember, Jesus says that if you are worshipping and know someone has something against you, leave your offering at the altar, go and be settled with your accuser, and then come back to worship. (Matthew 5:23-26) Yet, Feltner has gone to service after service after service and never gone to speak to these women.
If we want to focus on the context of Matthew 18, the context is not good for Feltner. It starts with a condemnation of anyone who would bring temptation to sin to one of God’s little ones. So taking a girl to Las Vegas and giving her alcohol probably was in violation of Matthew 18. Wes might not want to point too plainly to this chapter.
Dealing with sexual immorality in the church, Paul did not point to Matthew 18. This can be seen in 1 Corinthians 5. When Paul saw the sexual immorality occurring in the church, he simply said to hand the individual over to Satan. He didn’t say to privately address the one in sin. He said let Satan have them. I am curious if Wes Feltner has ever preached on this passage. If so, did he preach that Paul was jumping the gun and accuse him of trying to ruin the life of this man and woman in the church?
Feltner goes to great lengths to make it seem as if he has continually tried to sit and speak with these two women. What he does not say is that it began with a lawyer falsely claiming to represent the church giving a “friendly” (his word, not mine) warning that these women could be breaking the law and encouraging them to get a lawyer. This does not set the Christian tone for the type of meeting Jesus calls his children to have.
This statement has the smell of a lawyer’s hand with the number of times he speaks of Meg and Joanna’s “concerns” and “allegations.” These are words of lawyers, not pastors.
Here’s the sentence that makes me the angriest as a minister of the gospel:
“Meanwhile, having not spoken to me for 17 years, they organized to destroy my reputation and career.”
Having personally talked with one of them before this came to public knowledge, I know this to be a complete lie. They wanted nothing more than to protect this church in Tennessee, as they wanted protection for the church in Jeffersonville, and want protection for the members of Berean. This statement is meant to make Wes Feltner the victim, and his victims the abusers. This statement demonstrates a twisted heart with no concern for these women he once abused. It is a calculated statement to bolster support, call the victims, “liars,” and garner sympathy for himself.
If Feltner has not spoken with these women, how could he possibly know the intent with which they are speaking out? Without knowing their intent and making this statement, he has demonstrated once again why he should not be in the ministry. Only Jesus knows the heart. Oh, apparently Wes Feltner does, too. He owes them a separate apology for this statement alone, on top of so many more apologies.
Feltner then begins speaking of the stress this ordeal has placed on his family. His goal is to make himself the victim. It ignores that these women’s families are going through the exact same ordeal. If people realize Meg and Joanna are being persecuted, they might ask themselves why any woman would put herself through the shame and embarrassment for something that happened so long ago if it were not true. Why put your family up for public mockery with nothing gained for yourself except to protect God’s people from unqualified men.
Did you notice when Wes Feltner was speaking of his leave of absence he used the phrase “mutually agreed.” Wes was in control of the situation. He’s still attempting to look pastoral. Once again he is the noble martyr willing to step aside for the good of the congregation. He must continue to look like a leader. It is the only chance he has of saving face.
Unfortunately, Wes will probably be forced out of Berean only to land in another congregation a little later or follow the trend and start his own church. People cannot get stars out of their eyes when viewing celebrity pastors. Mark Driscoll had to leave Mars Hill, but planted Trinity Church. Perry Noble was an alcoholic pastor but he planted Second Chance Church. They claim, “I’ve been forgiven by God.” God does forgive. Absolutely. Yet, forgiveness comes with temporal consequences. That consequence is permanent disqualification from pastoral ministry. It’s time to serve God quietly and bear fruit in keeping with repentance.