MacArthur

[Bob Jones V]

Have any of you followed this?

 

[voicecrying]

I remember reading an article that debunked that version of events. I'll see if I can find it again.

 

[Ransom]

I could believe that this happened, but unfortunately Roys also has some sort of axe to grind with John MacArthur, and it seems to me she's been trying to gin up some sort of scandal against him for years. While that doesn't mean this story is false, it does mean the reporter's objectivity and credibility are suspect.

 

[AverageJoe]

I could believe that this happened, but unfortunately Roys also has some sort of axe to grind with John MacArthur, and it seems to me she's been trying to gin up some sort of scandal against him for years. While that doesn't mean this story is false, it does mean the reporter's objectivity and credibility are suspect.

Have NEVER been a fan of Roys! She's always trying to defame someone!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am really really suspicious of Julie Roys' motives and methods. She does seem to have a vendetta against MaxArthur. But I know a guy who was on staff, and he says MacArthur is overbearing, heavy handed, rude, arrogant, and unapproachable. So I am not surprised at the evidence either.

Several years ago and Julie Roy reporting. Sounds like a hot story to me!
Did the story begin ‘Once upon a time’?

 

[Ransom]

But I know a guy who was on staff, and he says MacArthur is overbearing, heavy handed, rude, arrogant, and unapproachable. So I am not surprised at the evidence either.

So by the time it gets to my ears, it's thirdhand. That also isn't particularly credible.

 

[biscuit1953]

I was pretty much inactive on this website for quite a long period of time until just recently and never followed this story but the more I understand about the John MacArthur situation with Eileen Gray the harder it is to defend this. If her husband confessed to abusing her which seems to be the case, how could a pastor or church justify telling a woman she should stay with her abuser? I sat under one pastor who said from the pulpit that if a woman ran home to mamma after being beaten and bruised, that was no a reason for her to leave her husband. If Eileen Gray's husband confessed to abusing her as seems to be the case, there should be a public acknowledgement by the church a mistake was made. I have looked at several videos much like the one here where some of the facts seems indisputable. Is this any different than the Independent Fundamental Baptist scandals and should it be swept under the rug?

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

A man should not be considered a believer who abuses women and children.

 

[Ransom]

I was pretty much inactive on this website for quite a long period of time until just recently and never followed this story but the more I understand about the John MacArthur situation with Eileen Gray the harder it is to defend this.

As I said earlier in the thread:

I could believe that this happened, but unfortunately Roys also has some sort of axe to grind with John MacArthur, and it seems to me she's been trying to gin up some sort of scandal against him for years. While that doesn't mean this story is false, it does mean the reporter's objectivity and credibility are suspect.

Since this Ruslan dude gets his information from a single source, which is also Julie Roys, it doesn't change my opinion.

 

[Ransom]

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the works: Here's what Protestia had to say about the Eileen Gray case in 2022.

Judge Julie: Accusing a Shepherd

Here we go again. Much like the last time I responded to a Julie Roys...

protestia.com

One, I believe Julie Roys engages in yellow journalism, and has a clear bias against John MacArthur and Grace Community Church.

Two, I believe Protestia engages in yellow journalism, and have a clear bias against Julie Roys.

So I'm not basing any conclusions off what either of them say. However, there's a timeline in the Protestia article that may be the closest thing I've seen to objective fact coming from either one.

What Roys is implying is something like this:

1. David Gray is found to be a child abuser.
2. Eileen Gray attends marital counseling at GCC.
3. GCC disciplines Eileen Gray for refusing to be reconciled with her husband.

What Protestia is implying is something like this:

1. Eileen Gray attends marital counseling at GCC.
2. GCC disciplines Eileen Gray for refusing to be reconciled with her husband.
3. David Gray is found to be a child abuser.

Same bullet points, quite a different story. In the first version, GCC more or less covers up a case of abuse by shaming the victim, which indeed would implicate them in something heinous. In the second version, GCC makes a flawed disciplinary decision based on the available evidence at the time, but we find out later that the wife's allegations were indeed true.

I'm not advocating for either version, because both sides of the reporting are jerks. It's a he-said-she-said situation where both parties have a significant axe to grind: one with MacArthur, and the other with Roys. I'm only pointing out that the situation may be more complex than one or the other is letting on, and it's wise to suspend judgment until saner heads present the facts.

 

[biscuit1953]

Thanks. The story was disturbing.