Op-Ed: You Can Have Confidence in Supporting Grace Community Church
Here’s a thought on the recent scandal stirred up by recent reports. Based on the information Grace Community Church (GCC) elders had at the time, there was sufficient reason to believe David was repentant and the home was safe. Eileen disagreed, and justifiable church discipline ensued, on account of not submitting to their collective spirit-led wisdom.
Suppose later David emerged as a child predator who fooled everyone and necessitated a separation/ divorce, does that mean that GCC is guilty in light of their initial assessment, based on the information they had at the time? There’s a case to be made that they’re not.
Reasonable people can disagree and come to different conclusions. As far as why there’s been no response, one view could be that GCC sees the discipline of a member as a private church issue. And although Julie Roys made it public, there’s no step in Matthew 18 that says after you tell it to the church, which they did in a private manner, that you then release a public statement on social media giving every passerby the intimate details of the discipline, especially if Julie Roys writes about it.
That’s not a step contained in the bible.
The fact that David later went out and did this wicked thing (which it seems some people have questions about the extent of his guilt) does not mean that the initial assessment and ask by GCC elders was wrong prior to this event happening, particularly when we have basically no information of what went down in those sessions, or really what the counselor or counsellee said or did that resulted in the ex-communication.
Even if GCC completely dropped the ball in their interaction with her, and their efforts at church discipline were misguided on account of being far too eager in their attempts at reconciliation and not sensitive enough to obvious lies and predations from David, is that worthy of public comment, or does that still fall under the category of a private church discipline issue that the public does not need to know about? No. We are not owed an explanation.
You may not agree, but those of us who take this position aren’t arriving at it out of nowhere. It’s not like we have no biblical basis for putting a certain about of trust and confidence in John MacArthur and the elders at GCC and assuming good intentions and honest dealings with the couple.
At the very least the church has earned our consideration that there’s a way to reconcile these events that doesn’t result in the allegation that GCC covered sexual abuse, or gaslighted a victim, or callously did her dirty on account of their deep-seated misogyny and patriarchalism.
For more in-depth assessment, check out our new article: Roys vs MacArthur: Anatomy of a Smear
About Author
For one thing, the basic implications apparently underlying much of the accusations, that patriarchy and male leadership are abusive or conducive to abuse or overlook abuse, are complete and utter nonsense. The opposite is true. The Patriarch’s role and responsibility is to lead, teach, protect, serve, and provide. Obviously David Gray was not behaving as a Patriarch should. He was not fulfilling his leadership responsibilities according to God’s Word. And the implication that MacArthur and the elders of the church would wrongly view Biblical male leadership in a manner that would require wives and children to be subjected to abuse is preposterous, and that they were knowingly and intentionally subjecting Eileen and the children to an abusive environment is absurd. The facts bear this out. The church immediately provided her with a place to live separate from David. If there had been any intent to knowingly subject them to abuse, the church would not have done that. They would’ve immediately sent her home.
You can’t mix the world’s views, standards, and definitions with those established in God’s Word. The world’s definition and view of male leadership is entirely different than that which is defined in God’s Word. You can’t point to abuse that the world’s definition of patriarchy might condone, and say, “see that’s the problem with Biblical patriarchy.”
In this case, Roys is conflating the standards. The question is why.
She can’t stand MacArthur. She writes at least one hit piece per month and this one was specifically calculated to be released exactly when the SC was going to be held.
I know you read a lot of reviews and news to earn jobs online. Some people don’t know how to make money and say they’re faking it. I have my FIRST check for a total of $10,000, quite interesting. kgp Just click and open the page to click on the first statement and check….
.
The jobs…. https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Something isn’t right, no doubt about it. I have a very hard time believing the church leadership would’ve knowingly and intentionally put the wife and children in harm’s way. That didn’t happen.
as much as I saw the bank draft which had said $40175, I be certain …That…My father in regulation ought to realie receiving money of their spare time from their computers.. There moms pleasant frend began doing this four much less than 20 months and as of now paid for the morgage on there domestic and bourt a appropriate Acura. you could test here
For more detail ……. https://nextjobpro.blogspot.com/
When my home church has practiced discipline and spoke of people being put under discipline, they refrained from naming the person outright to the congregation. I think the thing that everyone has a problem with is that David was part of the GCC leadership team, so the optics are really bad here. It looks like it was the old boys’ club protecting one of their own. Now, I’m not saying that’s what I believe happened, but that’s how it looks to most people unfamiliar with the story.
It’s really sad to see something so terribly triangulated all on a lack of information being used to discredit one of the most faithful Christian ministries because they tried to show the grace of the gospel to a family in need. That’s not Christian and that’s not journalism. I stand with GCC and MacArthur.
Finally a proven way of earning money online. Yes! you can earn more than you think only by working just a few hours from home regularly. I have been doing this job for like a few weeks and my last weekly payment was exactly 2537 dollars.
See More Information Here… http://jobscash.tk
Sadly, you omit that David confessed, in writing, to his counselor Cary Hardy, who refused to read or accept his confession. In addition, the sad, sordid and evil facts of this case are a matter of public record, having been published in court records. So your suggestion, Ben that GCC is protecting “privacy “ is laughable. They are attempting to obscure their own evil, presumptive and officious actions. Nothing more.
I’m not sure who’s comment you’re referring to, but it isn’t mine. Based on your comment, it appears the “privacy” claim is actually your own.
I wasn’t there. I don’t know what happened. I have no obligation to take sides, to try to connect dots, or to make any wild assumptions. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If the entire church leadership is “evil” as you claim, and they are all guilty of conspiring to cover up crimes or evil deeds, or of knowingly putting Eileen and the children in harms way, (whatever the accusations), you must prove your claims, and you must prove the guilt of each and every individual you’ve accused. That is Biblical. You’re going to have to list specific sins, and/or specific crimes, the individuals you believe committed them, and provide the proof. That’s how it works. And until you do, you can expect to be challenged, and should be challenged. It is a sin to falsely accuse. You must provide proof.
Apologies, Ben. My comment was directed to the original post, not you. I’m not playing your pharisaical game of catch 22. Neither I, nor Julie Roys has to “prove” anything. Her article reported thoroughly, factually and verifiably what is in the public court records. You won’t read them since they would give proof thatyour obsequious allegiance to JMac is woefully misplaced.
As I said, I have no obligation to take sides.
List the specific sins committed by the specific individuals and prove your case, in every case. Otherwise you are bearing false witness. The Bible is clear (as is US law). The burden of proof is on the accuser.
You may not be aware, David Gray, the accused is in prison, serving 20 to life. The accusations have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts that Julie Roys reported are not in dispute. They are a matter of public record. Eileen Gray was publically shamed and “disciplined” by GCC and John MacArthur, directly. The incidents are on video. There is nothing left to prove. The facts have been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Heroes die hard.
The facts pertaining to David Gray’s guilt are not in dispute. But you are accusing John MacArthur. And you have not shown what he knew or when he knew it. You have not shown that he intended to publicly shame her – did he know someone was bringing a camera to a communion service, with the intent to publish it? That alleged “shaming” happened in Aug. 2002. David Gray was charged in Feb. 2004. Yet in your response to me, you order the events as if David Gray’s conviction were before the supposed “public shaming.”
Your most basic accusation is that he and the church leadership had some sort of malice toward Eileen, to intentionally and knowingly do her harm, or to put her and the children in harms way, and as I mentioned in my first post there are facts that do not support that narrative. If you want me to believe they knowingly and intentionally did malicious things to Eileen, then you are going to have to prove it.
What sin did John MacArthur commit? Where’s the evidence that he committed that sin?
John MacArthur stood in support of the perpetrator, who had confessed in writing to Cary Hardy by that time. He “disciplined” the victim(s). You take great pains to lecture others on what the Bible says. Have you never heard the Bible speak of caring for widows and orphans? Have you never considered what the Bible says about those who judge falsely? I am not even slightly surprised that you stand with MacArthur and GCC, rather than their victims. You state, “If you want me to believe….” Rest assured, I do not care what you choose to believe. You’ve made your allegiances quite plain.
Why couldn’t Eileen report it to the police? According to Roys, she contacted the church but didn’t contact the police. Then apparently did nothing expecting and waiting on the church to contact the police on her behalf. Does that sound normal to you? Was she incapable of picking up a phone and contacting the police herself? Did John MacArthur have her phone disconnected? Did he physically stop her from going to the police station?
It doesn’t add up.
We’re supposed to believe that for some significant period of time, Eileen waited on the church to contact the police for her, while her children were being abused. Did she ever even ask them to contact the police? Did they ever even talk about it?
If she didn’t contact the police, wouldn’t she be guilty of the same thing she’s accusing the church of doing? If she didn’t ask the church to contact them on her behalf, which would be highly unusual, then she is guilty of worse than she is accusing the church of doing.
You’ve got to do better before I’ll ever be convinced.
Yes, I know what the Bible says about judging falsely. That is exactly why I’m not going to judge MacArthur guilty when you have no proof that he’s guilty. 🙄
There is nothing in the Bible that says widows or orphans, or women, or men, or anybody at all, gets a free pass when it comes to a requirement to prove their accusations. Sorry. There’s no asterisk beside the 9th commandment. No parentheses containing “(does not apply to widows and orphans).”
According to the article here, “Anatomy of a Smear” Cary Hardy said there was no confession of anything beyond spanking the children out of anger and more harshly than they should’ve – to which both David and Eileen confessed.
According to your own post here, Cary Hardy refused to accept or read the alleged confession. If that is the case, then why would you expect him to have told John MacArthur about something he didn’t accept and didn’t read?
You make no sense.