Can Julie Roys Support Her Claims?

You know, I've never even met Andrew in person, the one thing I've picked up on is everybody picks on the man. And so here's my take as an outsider. Oh, that's not true, he picks on everybody else. No, no, see, I think he's an innocent victim of just ruthless people who harshly judge him.

He just seems to me so innocent. I don't know, I need to meet him to find out, but yeah, that's just my impression. He'll have to tell me whether I'm right or not. That's hilarious, wow. I don't trust Chris's opinion on it, I mean.

Julie Roys and the Question of Reporting Integrity

One, two, three. Welcome to Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your questions and challenges about God and the Bible. Meet your hosts from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport, Dr. Anthony Silvestro, and Pastor Justin Pierce.

We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your challenging questions, anything you have about God and the Bible, we can answer here. You doubt that? Well, come on in, go to apologeticslive .com, Thursday nights, 8 to 10 Eastern Time, that's New York City time, and just come on in, ask anything, we can answer it, because I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

As you've seen from the announcement or the title of the show tonight, we are hoping, doubtfully, that Julie Roys will come in, but the question is, can Julie Roy support her claims? So I'm gonna end up asking everyone to do me a favor and tweet this out to her so that she knows in case she missed it, because she was challenging me that I have, there's nothing wrong with her reporting, and I gave her some things and she ignored them, and then said I didn't answer, but that's okay.

Her Twitter is at reachjulieroys, so tweet this out to her, tweet apologeticslive .com, tell her, hey, we want to hear you support your claims, because we would like to see that. So tweet that out to her so that she knows that we're live, that we're waiting for her to come in and have a discussion.

We'll discuss some of the things that, well, some of the things she's discussed about John MacArthur and things like that, and hopefully we can discuss it with her. That would be a much better conversation.

And while we wait for those tweets to go out and for her to come in, hopefully, you guys get the idea I'm not believing it. I've been doing this for way too long to know that those who challenge me never seem to want to come in here.

But hey, I'm here. I'm here to answer any questions anyone has. But I do want to put out some things, some feedback we got recently. This is on my other podcast, the Wrap Report podcast. That's Wrap With Two Ps.

My Andrew Rapaport's Wrap Report. I had my co-host and I had a discussion, and he took that discussion, Bud, he put it on his podcast, and we got a response from it. So we got this from David. It says, Bud, I just listened to your discussion with Andrew Rapaport that took place while recording the Wrap Report, which you republished through the BudZone.

I wanted to commend you both publicly for the generous and gracious way you discuss and debate your theological differences. Not all disagreements can or should be treated as gently, but I thought this was a great example of matching the tone with the circumstances of the differences.

And so we had done a podcast where Bud and I didn't agree, and that's not all that unusual, actually. We have some differing views on things, and so, especially on end times, so when we get to those, it'll be fun.

But there is a thing, any of you who know Matt Slick and I, we've debated many times, there's no need for the name-calling and the abuse that you have to do when you disagree with one another. And that's one of the things we try to, at least, demonstrate here.

You know, we have people that come in, actually, I should just play this because I've been waiting to play this. We hope that maybe the guy, John, will come back in, but this is some of the things, we had guys that make claims like this.

So you're saying, and while I'm clarifying, make sure I understand, you're saying that as believers, we no longer are under the law, meaning there's no right and wrong.

No right and wrong judgment upon your conscience. So let me give a scenario. Law has no authority to judge your conscience. It has no right to condemn your conscience, like all the people, because you are not under its dominion.

Okay, so if a believer

Because you are dead with Christ, then law doesn't have authority to speak the dead.

Okay, so as a believer, are you saying that a believer can go sleep with a prostitute and it wouldn't be right or wrong because he's not under the law anymore? So if he sleeps with a prostitute but has faith in doing it, then it's okay?

Is it okay? Yeah, it's okay. Okay, I'm gonna ask this again because I want to make sure that I heard you correctly. Yeah, it's okay. It would be, as long as you have faith He can do that. He can

Faith. Wow, okay. You're saying that as long as we have faith, whatever we do in faith is not sin? Yes. Yes, he said yes to that. I couldn't believe that. But yeah, this is a guy who also claimed he was the top 1 of all Christians.

And I'm hoping, I'll give you a background. He says he's gonna, you know, he got upset because I didn't know who he was, he claims. He claims to be the angel that had visited with Daniel, you know, like the book of Daniel, and John on Patmos, like in the book of Revelation.

Yeah, he claims to be that angel. Yikes. So when you're dealing with guys like that, I mean, one of the things that you gotta do is you gotta, you know, we have plenty of people who will look at a guy like this that makes claims like that and just want to rip them up one side and down the other, but we have to be gracious.

A guy like that is deceived. That's what he is, he's deceived. And I think that we're gonna deal with other topics tonight of possible deception and people that mean well, but don't. So I got this in, I got a letter in the mail.

How often do you get that? This isn't even an email. This is a actual letter. Hello, Mr. Rappaport and the Striving for Eternity team. My name is, and he gives his name, I'll just call him Phillip, to protect the guilty, because that's actually his name, Phillip.

But no, he says, I have a fun story to share with you. A couple of weeks ago, I met Mr. Rappaport at Living Waters Ambassador Academy. I talked with him a little throughout the academy, but at the time I was not familiar with Striving for Eternity.

Well, yesterday I was on the Kootenai Community Church website looking for some clips of Justin Peters from the Clouds Without Water Conference that I attended a few months ago. I just lost my place because someone was calling me.

Clouds Without Water that I attended a few months ago. And while doing that, I ran across a recording of the Ambassador Evangelism Conference that Mr. Rappaport put on at Kootenai Community Church back in 2018.

Since then, I've listened to most of the recordings and it has been a huge blessing to me. I also came across a video of Mr. Rappaport sitting at a restaurant with Justin Peters and Jim Osman explaining how the hashtag Justin I win thing started.

The funny part is I recognize the restaurant as Messi's Burgers because it's located in my hometown of Spirit Lake, Idaho, across from my church. It was just one of those small world kind of things that happened.

How often do you expect that? I'm in California living waters talking with a guy. I saw, I remember seeing that his ID said he was from Idaho, but didn't think to ask him if he knew where Sandpoint was or any of that.

And meanwhile, he could recognize the restaurant that I was in from the background. I will say Messi's Burgers were really good. Just saying, if you're ever in that area, Spirit Lake, Idaho, go check out Messi's Burgers.

Original Research, Misquotation, and the Problem of Discernment Blogging

So let's get into the topic. I do hope folks that you tweeted this out to Julie Roys. I would hope that she would come in. If not, we're gonna just do open questions and all. Any questions that you may have.

I am doing this show, I'm single hosted here. So I have a friend that's gonna join me here in a moment, but it might mean that I may miss some questions. So you may just have to ask a couple of times because it's not as easy to do everything.

But let me just bring in Mr. Cole, because he came in early. And I kind of have to bring you in because you saw the title of this and you were like, who's Julie Roys? And you went and did some research.

So now I kind of have to bring you in so that we could talk about some of your research. So why don't I let you just share what you had told me before we went live with some of the stuff that you had, what you did to find out about her.

So I don't have a depth of knowledge because it's been like a day-ish. And so basically all I did was I saw the title of the podcast coming up. I was like, who's this lady? Went and found out, okay, she's an investigative journalist or as she says she is.

And she has a podcast and she mainly focuses on abuse. Like church spiritual abuse and reporting on allegations concerning coverups of sorts in churches. And it seems like she has quite the collection of stuff on John MacArthur.

So I got a little bit into that. There's some stuff there that's concerning, but from what you and I were talking about earlier, maybe there's some key details that are missing. I'm not sure, I haven't seen that.

But I really did enjoy some of her podcast content because it brought up very key issues that I think might be something, maybe it's a blind spot of mine, but also might be legitimate blind spots in the church that we should be addressing.

As reformers, we have Semper Reformata, always reforming. We're always trying to look for the blind spots, right? And so if it's true, the things that she's reporting on, it's concerning on one hand, but if it's false that the things that she's reporting on are misleading us on potentially, then it's very concerning in the other direction because she's actually bringing up good points and now then potentially doing a disservice to those important topics.

So that's basically where I come from on it. I've spent like maybe four or five hours with the podcast today listening to her, listening to some of her guests and things like that.

All right, so let me just share one thing with you that because I'm gonna say things, I wanna be fair with it. She and I, I guess, exchanged a bit on Twitter and what ended up happening is typical is with people like this is they start it and then they back out and let their followers just go after someone and pester them to death.

Unfortunately, that happens a lot. So what I wanna do is explain at least a little bit of the issue that I have. Now, granted, I haven't checked out a lot of what she does. Why? And right off the bat, any of her followers are gonna go, well, how dare you?

If you haven't checked her out, what are you doing saying she's wrong? I get it. There's a reason I haven't checked out that much because what I did check out, I had concern with. What I did check out, one of the things that I do is what's called original research, original source research.

And what that means is I don't just take something. If someone says something, I don't just look at that and leave it at that. If someone gives a quotation, I go back and find the original source. I go back to wherever was originally claimed, go back to the original and find that because you end up finding that a lot of the people that are out on the internet that are getting lots of attention because they're supposedly having great things that they're posting.

And what you end up seeing is a lot of times it is something that if you don't do the research and check back, you find out that it looks like really, really good research and then you find out it isn't.

Let me give you a for instance, there was someone who wrote an article against John Piper, claiming that John Piper believed in a works-based salvation basically Catholicism, saying that he believed in faith plus works because he was referring to final justification.

And he would do this and people would say, well, this is meaning that he would talk about works and that works are necessary in justification. So what people would do is they'd say that, oh, he's saying that works are necessary to be saved.

Well, okay, first off, when you're dealing with John Piper, one thing you have to understand is he likes to be nuanced. That's just the way he is. He wants to be nuanced, he likes that. He wrote a whole book where Desiring God, he has to spend like the first two chapters explaining the nuance of his word, Christian hedonism, because he realizes that word is not the normal usage.

So you understand that about him, but you also have to understand about John Piper that he is a Jonathan Edwards fan. He has done a lot of research on Jonathan Edwards. And the phrase final justification comes from Edwards, but how do they both mean it?

Well, both of them in context mean it as that day we stand before God and our sanctification works will be judged. And so part of that that he's looking at is the sanctification. When you look at it within the context of how he speaks, that's how he uses it.

However, that is not the way this blog article was written. It was written very differently. And I went and researched it. The author dared me, he challenged me, because I said to call Piper a heretic, you need to have really good support.

And he said he had it. I spent about 10 to 12 hours cross-checking everything that this author had said Piper said. And I discovered that what happened is there was one phrase, a damning quote, so it seemed, because one of the things is the author never cited where he got his quotes from, or at least not all of them.

And one of them said very clearly that John Piper said, quote, works are necessary to earn salvation, unquote.

That's pretty damning, isn't it? It's pretty true, too, in a certain context.

Well, if you say Christ works, yes, and if you're saying, but you're speaking of regeneration, it wouldn't be human works, but here's the problem. I couldn't find the quote in anything Piper ever, where I actually have all of Piper's works where I could search them all.

It didn't exist. The closest I came was where Piper said, speaking of sanctification, that works are necessary for salvation, or actually for justification, meaning that sanctification work. So I asked the author, where did you get this quote from?

I can't find, I said the word earned was added, and he says, well, that's what he means. I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, you can't put it in quotes and not say exactly what he said. You can't add a word and put it in quotes and then say that's what he meant, because he doesn't mean that when you read them in context.

In fact, this blogger actually put a comment where he took Piper and put it in quotes, and Piper did actually say that. The problem was Piper was responding to what someone else said, and so yes, Piper did write that, but he wrote it referring to someone else, and then he responded and disagreed with it.

This is the type of internet blogging internet discernment ministries do, and I think it's problematic. So this is, let me just share, this is Julie Roy's, her investigations, and I want you to notice something.

Just, I'm just gonna scroll through and notice it's all big name people and churches. Andy Wood of Echo Church, John MacArthur, Master's Seminary, Ravi Zacharias, Mark Driscoll, Hillsong, Bethel Baptist Church, College and Seminary, James McDonald, Liberty University, all of these different classical conversations, Moody Minch, everybody, everybody, ECFA, and it seems like she's doing investigations on all these people, and they all got problems.

Well, okay, in one sense, I will admit that there's an aspect of that that's true because, well, every one of these churches and universities and all are made up of people, so therefore, yeah, there's gonna be problems, and so when I first came upon this, her writings, it was with an article, and let me bring this one up, and this was an article that she did trying to claim that, well, MacArthur is a hypocrite, okay?

You can see it in her title here, The Prosperity Lifestyle of America's Anti-Prosperity Gospel Preacher. Now, here's the thing I want you to notice. If you see this picture, you see that really big house with the three-car garage and the big-sized pool,.

And the one, two, three, four tennis courts,.

Four tennis courts, you look at that house and say that is a mansion, and you see it's John MacArthur's picture over that. Here's the problem. That's not John MacArthur's house.

And the other problem is, and I brought this up with Andrew in the pre-show, is, okay, sometimes these images are images that people will just go and lazily pick off of the internet and slap on an article.

I did a reverse image search, and this image is original to her website.

Which means she created this, okay? Now, why would create such a thing? If you're doing the research, this is not his house, why would you do that? Because what this picture does, this picture gives you the impression that John MacArthur has this prosperous lifestyle because look at his house.

The assumption, just from the picture, is that that's MacArthur's house. You immediately have that idea. And so you look at this, you look at the title, the title seems to imply that, I mean, is John MacArthur America's anti-prosperity gospel preacher?

No, America's anti-prosperity gospel preacher's name is Justin Peters, okay? That is who America's anti-prosperity gospel preacher is. But John MacArthur does preach against the prosperity gospel. The idea of the wording of this is the prosperous lifestyle of MacArthur meanwhile, he speaks against prosperity.

So the idea is that somehow he's a hypocrite. Just in the title, it leads you to believe he's a hypocrite. And you go on to read the article. And when you read the article, it's gonna talk about his houses.

And so he has three of them. He has one that is in by the church that he bought 50 years ago. And she'll mention what it's worth today. Well, over the last 50 years, guess what? Prices have gone up. The area where they're at has had a boom in Los Angeles.

And so yes, housing went up. It doesn't mean he paid that amount today for it. It means that what you have is that he had bought a house that increased in value. He has a second home that's a little further away.

So as kind of a where he, is there anything wrong? Is there anything wrong with having money? No, not if he earned it. Not if it was, if he earned it, fine. If he can afford two houses, he has a third house that is a family house that's like a vacation home for not just him, but for his children, I guess.

And so they all, I guess, went in on that together. Well, that's not such a bad thing. Besides the fact that I know his one son who has a good construction business, has money. And if he wants to buy things for dad, I mean, that's not wrong, is it?

Now she makes a big deal to point out that the size of the house, and she neglects to mention that he lives, she lives in the same size house as he lives. So what she ends up doing is making it seem like this is this expensive home.

Now you say, well, she's saying that that's not the case. Well, the thing is, is that she ends up posting in there. Okay, let me bring up this article again, so you can see it. And here she is. And I'm gonna try to zoom in here for you, because I want you to see what it says under the picture.

It says John MacArthur's 1 .5 million, dollar Santa Clarita home. And there's the picture of the home that we talked about with the tennis courts and all that. But that's not his home. But she lists that as his home.

That becomes a problem. If that's not his home, then that is purposeful deception. If you're talking to me, Cole, I muted you and the kids came in.

Sorry. What's interesting is this is the kind of stuff that you would be able to go to court and say, this is defamation. And there's no lawsuit against her that I know of.

True, and this is one of the claims, one of the claims they always have with MacArthur is, well, he never responds. Okay, he never responds. Is that such a bad thing? Because the reality is, one of the things you have with trolls is the more you feed the trolls, the worse, because they want attention.

Now, am I saying she's a troll? Well, yes, but I'll get to why. But when you feed the trolls, the internet trolls, they love the attention. You know how you get them to usually lay off? You ignore them.

Now, when you're as big as someone like John MacArthur, some people don't lay off because even though he doesn't respond, they get enough people that don't like him that will respond. So they still get what they want out of it, okay?

And so that becomes an issue that it's usually best to ignore, okay? It just is. So this was the first article that I had issue with, I had concern. She talks about in here, you know, since 1996, MacArthur owns a $700 ,000 villa an hour west of Santa Clarita.

Now, he does own a house that, I guess, according to Zillow, was that much. But, and this is pre-COVID, by the way, so the house probably is now claiming to be over a million. But did he buy it for that?

You see, that becomes an important difference in how you do journalism. You're gonna say you're a journalist, you're a reporter, you have to look and do the actual research to be honest with people. But when you do things like this, it's being purposely deceptive, okay?

And that is where I have the issue, okay? If you're going to give today's value for something that was bought 50 years ago, yeah, what did he pay for it? If you're gonna give a picture of, you know, a house that, you know, his, you know, family uses and, okay, is that, you know, that becomes the question.

And so that was the first that I came upon her. And right after that, I was like, this is, I'm seeing the problems in the way.

That she is doing reporting. And the house thing is petty anyway. It's like, if you're gonna come out the gate against somebody on MacArthur's level, like notoriety and, you know, tenure, all the things, right?

All the books and stuff and all the good teaching that he's done, you wanna come out and throw a firebomb into that church, metaphorically. Wouldn't you think you'd come out and bring up all of the abuse allegations and bring receipts before you just go and be petty about what kind of house the guy lives in?

Well, maybe she didn't know those stories. I mean, it's possible that those things came to her after, you know, she starts doing more and more against him. And look, one of the things when you're a blogger, what ends up happening is you get people that then start sending you articles and they send articles saying, look, you know, here's, you know, this, I got this on this person.

And people start to look at this and say, oh, this is, you know, there's something here. And they trust either where they get the information from, or I'm gonna explain how people get into doing some of this later, because I do wanna explain some of it.

You know, then she did, the other thing was the issue that, and I should say with that article I just addressed, one of the issues I have is did MacArthur get his money the same way the prosperity gospel preachers get their money, right?

No. And so the article's laid out as if he's hypocritical because, look, he's got this fancy, wealthy stuff and he's against the prosperity preachers. MacArthur is not against the prosperity preachers because they have money.

He's against the prosperity preachers for how they get their money. And there's a big difference there. I know people who have had successful businesses, sold those businesses and went into ministry. People who can, I know one individual who is a pastor of a church.

The church does not pay him. You know why? Because the guy sold his business for millions and he doesn't need their money. Now, does he have a fancy car? Yes. Does he have a fancy house? Yes. Is it because he got it from the church?

No. He got it from his business. Was there anything wrong with him having the business? No. So the fact that even if MacArthur is paid well and they do compensate him well, is that a problem? He's not asking for the money to get paid.

He's not out there saying, sow a seed, give me this money and God's gonna bless you. He's not doing that. There's a vast difference in the way he's making money and the way the prosperity gospel preachers are making money.

And because of that, you end up seeing that it becomes an issue. Okay? So what you end up with is after that, there was an issue of a watch. I guess he was given a watch as a very expensive watch as a gift.

Okay? Cole, if you happen to give me a, I think it was a $40 ,000 watch or whatever, right? And you have money, is that necessarily wrong?

Nope. It's a voluntary transaction between two human beings.

In fact, I'm gonna expose some things. Let's deal with prosperity preachers. Okay? So let's get some things out. I drive a Mercedes-Benz 500 SL. I wear, well, I usually wear my Apple watch, but before I got that, I wore a Rolex watch.

My suits are, actually, I forget the name of the suits, but they're very well, Armani suits. Now you look at all of that facts and you go, well, gee, he must be a prosperity preacher. No, all of my suits happened to be my father's because they were his suits.

I'm the same size. And as he grew out of them, because he started losing weight, or as he grew out of where he wasn't wearing suits, he gave me a suit. So do I have Armani suits? Yes. Did I pay for them?

No. Do I have a Rolex watch? Yes. For my 40th birthday, my father gave me a Rolex watch. It was a birthday present. Could he afford it? Yes. I drive a Mercedes-Benz. Now it's a 1999 Mercedes-Benz. Did I buy it?

No, it's actually the second car that my brother had given me. Actually, I did buy it because I sold my car and I gave him all the money that I got. Because I always feel bad when he gives me cars, but he gave me two cars.

That was his old car. Now, you could look on the outside and look at those things and say there's a problem. And you see, if I don't give you the details in that and say, look at this, it's just I happened to grow up in a well-to-do family that has money.

It doesn't mean I have. It doesn't mean that my family's not generous to me. No, they are. And that's the way my family is. So it's like, this is the thing that that little bit of context difference can make all the difference.

And that's the thing that you see in a lot of what we see with internet blogging and these journalists, discernment bloggers. And so let me explain how I think. Oh, you want to say something? No, I'm just listening.

So let me explain how I think the people get into this because so you could see it. Do I think that Julie Roys had evil intent? No, I don't think she started out with evil intent. Do I think that she thinks she's doing anything evil or dishonest?

No, I don't think she does. But what I do think is that what happens with many of these people is they get one big break. They break some story and they get a lot of attention. And with the help of the internet, they get out there and it's, you know, they'll get the attention and they go, oh, wow, with the internet, you get lots of clicks.

But what ends up happening is they want to keep that going. And that becomes a problem. So what they end up doing is they look for another story. And sometimes they find another story of someone else that has got problems.

So what do they do? They report on that. And the first couple of times, it's usually pretty accurate and people trust them. And so what ends up happening? Well, now that they're trusted, it's like, well, look, they got another story and another story and another story, but it becomes really hard to do all this research and keep it going week after week after week.

So people start to cut corners. And what they do is they start to take quotes and maybe add a word like earned in a quote to make it say something they didn't really say. Maybe it drops some of the context.

Maybe you start to believe in your own mind that John MacArthur really is this wicked, evil man. And therefore, every time he says something or any defense is made, it's like, oh, you're just a follower, worshiper of the Christian Pope.

You know, it's interesting, in my dialogue with Julie Roy is not once did I defend MacArthur. I never said anything about MacArthur, but all of her followers are telling me how I just worship him. And I accept that he can't do any wrong.

I never said anything like that. But I do find it interesting that her followers never do ask that of her. Can she do wrong? Could she be wrong? If you have a picture that's not MacArthur's house and you say it's his house, was she wrong?

Now, did she do it purposely? I don't know. Don't know her heart. But it does seem kind of strange when you see her put the picture over the house in his picture there to cause that. And so that's what you have.

So you have a watch, an expensive watch. It was a gift. There was the issue where she tried to say, he did plagiarism. And it is interesting to note that what she does is the timing of it's also interesting.

Posting it just before Shepard's Conference so that there'd be a big buzz when everyone's talking about Shepard's Conference and they're also seeing whatever the new scandal is. So when,.

Go ahead, Cole. I wanna touch on that. I saw a thing where she, on one of the videos of hers, she's, I don't remember the date of it because some of the stuff I had to dig back. I think a lot of this started coming up from her back in early August or whatever, some of the articles I saw.

Not August, but May, earlier in the year. But she had this thing where it was a screenshot of one of the different conferences that he was gonna be at here this year in 2020. And then all of a sudden, then one screenshot had his face in the lineup and then the next screenshot didn't have it there.

And then it was like, huh, this is interestingly, she kind of framed it so that way it looked like the controversy that she, from her reporting, was getting in fold. And then later it was in, and it was a, I think it was a Twitter thread, actually, I saw of hers, where she had some of this stuff.

And it's, this kind of framing is really, really, really detrimental to your credibility once you learn what framing is. And framing is basically when you take a situation and you either manufacture context or you leave out context, like you were saying.

And framing devices are basically opinion. And that's, and you can't have opinion in factual reporting. If you're an investigative journalist and you're going to post information about somebody that is damning and damaging, you better, she's lucky it's John MacArthur and he probably has the kind of, what they might call a stiff upper lip, where it's like all of the crap that someone could throw at you, you just don't break composure.

And he's not gonna go after. He's just like, whatever, I deal with this all the time, right? And that's a biblical principle too. It's like, okay, this is another Christian. And it's like, okay, I can't, she's not actually damaging my anything other than other people.

It's not like a business, right? It's what I'm trying to get at. You did this in the secular world, you would have people on you. You would be like, go look at James O 'Keefe in the New York Times, right?

Look at all the defamation stuff there. And honestly, like.

Actually, defamation of character is one of the hardest things to prove in court. It's actually very hard to do.

There's a Supreme Court ruling on that that basically came down to, if you're a public figure, people can say whatever they wanna.

Yeah, that's where it comes. And so, what I was trying to say though, this happens gradually. And when you talk about the house, so here's another article of hers. Mega churches, mega mansions, pastor's homes valued in the millions.

And I mean, you look at this home and it's like, wow. I mean, that home is pretty big, right? And so, you look at this, but when we go down, she mentions MacArthur. So she mentions all these different homes and look at this one, this one's a huge house and all these big, huge houses and the value of them, right?

And she talks about these million dollar homes and she mentions MacArthur under California. And I want you to notice here, she now mentions that his home in Santa Clarita that was $700 ,000 before COVID is now at 1 .5 million.

Did he make any of that money? No, no. What you end up seeing is the house value went up and she increased her thing. Now she says he owns three homes, two in California, one in Colorado. MacArthur's home in Santa Clarita is valued at 1 .5 million.

Okay, what did he pay for it? That's the question.

So he can take out a home equity loan now.

The assumption is he paid 1 .5 million. That's crazy. But it wasn't worth 1 .5 million 50 years ago. You see, this is the thing that happens. And so one of the things that I had issue with is this, she had an article that she wrote about someone that had attended the church named David Gray.

And this got her a lot of attention. And this one is one that a lot of people think really looks like it has some teeth to it. And this is one that a lot of people bought into and said, well, yeah, it's clearly there's a problem here.

Why? David Gray, I guess, is an individual, David and Elena Gray attended Grace Community Church. They had been, at least she had been excommunicated. But it was interesting because they refer to David Gray's arrest.