Can Julie Roys Support Her Claims?

You know, I've never even met Andrew in person, but one thing I've picked up on is everybody picks on the man.

And so here's everybody else. No, no. See, I think I think he's an innocent victim of just ruthless people who hardly 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 whether I'm right or not. That's hilarious. Wow. I don't trust I don't trust Chris's opinion on it.

I mean, 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 the announcement or the title of the show tonight. We are hoping doubtfully that Julie Royce will come in.

But can the question is, can Julie Royce support her claims? So I'm going to 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 OK. Her her Twitter is at reach

Julie Royce. So tweet this out to her tweet ApologeticsLive .com

tell her, hey, 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 who challenged me never seemed 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 I do want to put out some things, some feedback we got recently.

This is on my other podcast, the rap report podcast that's rap with two P's. My Andrew Rapaport's rap 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 rap report, which you republished through the

Bud Zone. 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 in time.

So when we get to those, it'll be fun. And 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 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 conscious.

So let me give a scenario. It has no authority to judge your conscious. It has no right to condemn your conscious.

Like all the people. Let me give it. Because you are not under its dominion. Okay. So if a believer.

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

Okay. So as a believer, are you saying that someone, 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?

Yeah, it's okay. I'm going to 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.

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, you know, this is a guy who also claimed he was the top 1 % of all

Christians. And I'm hoping, you know, I'll give you a background. He says he's going to, 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 got to do is you got to, 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 going to deal with other topics tonight of possible deception and people that mean well, but don't.

So I got this and 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 Philip to protect the guilty, because that's actually his name,

Philip. 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 Osmond explaining how the hashtag

Justin I Win thing started. The funny part is I recognize the restaurant as Messy'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

Messy's Burgers were really good. Just saying, if you're ever in that area, Spirit Lake, Idaho, go check out

Messy's Burgers. 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 going to just do open questions and all.

Any questions that you may have. I am doing this show single -hosted here, so I have a friend that's going to 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 times because it's not as easy to do everything.

But, let me just bring in Mr. Cole because he came in early. 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 we can 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 cover -ups 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, 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, you know, because I'm going to say things,

I want to be fair with it. She and I, I guess, exchanged a bit on Twitter.

And what ended up happening is typical 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, you know, what I want to 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 going to 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, 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, I mean, 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. But if 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 wrote. 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 it. 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 him 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 going to 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, you know, all of these different classical conversations,

Moody, Mitch, 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 going to 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 size pool and the one...

The baptismal. 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 you 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 going to talk about his houses. And so, he has three of them.

He has one that is 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, is there anything wrong with having money?

No, not if he earned it. 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 the size of the house.

And she neglects to mention that she lives in the same size house as he lives.

Huh. 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 going to 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

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 kid's kidding. Sorry. When, what's interesting is he's, this is the kind of stuff that would be, 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. But there's, 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, you know, it's usually best to ignore.

Okay. It just is. So I, this was the first article that I had, I had issue with,

I had concern she talks about in here, you know, since 1996,

MacArthur owns a 700, $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 going to say you're a journalist, you're a reporter.

You have to look in 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 someone that was bought 50 years ago, yeah.

What did he pay for it? If you're going to 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 going to, if you're going to 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 he's done, you want to 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. Or maybe, like, It's possible that those things came to her after, you know, she starts doing more and more against him.

unfortunately, 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, 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, well, I'm going to explain how people get into doing some of this later because I do want to explain some of it.

You know, then she did, the other thing was the issue that, and I should say with that, 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?

No. And so the article is 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?

They're not, 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 going to 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 that 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, 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? No. It's a voluntary transaction between two human beings.

In fact, I'm going to, I'm going to expose some things. Let's deal with prosperity preachers.

Okay? So let's, 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, they're very well, Armani's, Armani suits.

Now, you look at all that facts and you go, well, gee, he's, must be 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 anymore 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 happen to grow up in a well -to -do family that has money.

It doesn't mean I have. It doesn't mean that, you know, my family is 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. Okay. Just listen. Let me explain how

I think the people get into this. Because, so you could see it. Do I think that Julie Royce 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, 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 you drop some of the context. Maybe you start to believe in your own mind that John McArthur 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

McArthur. I never said anything about McArthur 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

McArthur'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 the 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 they tried to 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 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 want to touch on that. I saw a thing where she on one of one of the videos of hers she's

I don't remember the date of it cause 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 like 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 you know 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 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 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 you better she's lucky it's

John McArthur and he probably has the 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 going to go after he's just like whatever

I deal with this all of 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 my anything other than other people it's not like a business right it's what

I'm trying to get at if you did this in the secular world you would have people on you you would be like go just 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 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 want about you yeah that's that's where it comes so so you know what

I was trying to say though you know like this happens gradually and you know when she you talk about the house so here's another article of hers megachurches megachurches megamansions pastors homes valued in the millions and I mean you look at this home and it's like wow

I mean that home is is it's pretty big right and so you know you look at this but when we go down she mentions

McArthur 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 and the the value of them right and and she talks about you know these million dollar homes and she mentions

McArthur under California and and I want you to notice here she now mentions that his home in Santa Clarita that was just one was seven hundred thousand dollars 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 McArthur'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 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 she had been excommunicated but it was interesting because they referred to David Gray's arrest now this couple

I guess had adopted children and David Gray ended up being arrested for sexually abusing the children now the thing that she doesn't mention in the article from what

I gathered is she neglects to mention that the time of his arrest and the time that it was known was like three years after the fact of the the church dealing with it so did the church know about that no not there's from what

I've gathered there's no knowledge that the elders at the time that they disciplined Elaine out that they knew about the abuse that was three years later you can't hold them accountable for what they didn't know now they're going everything she has is to MacArthur and yet MacArthur wasn't involved in the counseling it was two other pastors and so why did these pastors not believe

Elaine when she said her husband was this bad awful guy well for one reason it seems that the police were involved and both

David and Elaine had been abusing the children according to what we've seen is that the pastors at the time realized that David seemed repentant at the time and Elaine was not

Elaine seemed to appear that she wanted a way out of the marriage now

I've seen this as a pastor doing counseling where you get a couple where one wants out of the marriage and they just start throwing everything at the other person accusing them of all sorts of things that aren't true so I've seen that does that mean it's always true no you have to evaluate but from what

I gathered it seemed even the police didn't believe Elena even they had an issue with Elaine that she was because of her behavior so when you write an article and you blame it only on one party when both were involved in abuse and you look at that and say okay and then you hold you you're holding people accountable for what they wouldn't have known for three years and then you blame

MacArthur when he wasn't the one doing the counseling why bring up MacArthur very simple because MacArthur is the big name you see did she ever get charged for any of the abuse or what was the evidence against her

I don't think they got charged um he's doing 21 to life he he did for the sexual abuse yeah but I think

I think if I remember correctly it's been a while since I looked this up but I think I think they had like chained the kids up or something or tied them up and both of them were involved um so but I don't think she ended up um

I do believe if I remember correctly the kids were taken away from them but the the thing that you have is why mention

MacArthur was MacArthur involved in in letting somehow letting

David Gray go which because this is the accusation that that MacArthur let him go and and let him continue to abuse well at the time they dealt with this couple it wasn't known but it wasn't

MacArthur it was you know Carrie Harding who's an assistant to MacArthur okay you know or I think that was the person who if I remember correctly

I think that was the name uh or you know but it you know

I think that was if I remember correctly that's but it was one of the other pastors actually two of them

I believe they wasn't MacArthur himself so what you see is why why go after MacArthur for a very simple reason that's the big name you know then we had there was a time when

MacArthur came out against uh I can't think of the words uh what

Ed Linton did plagiarizing it took me a bit for the word sorry about that when he came out about plagiarizing she had an article up saying that oh look here you have a book that was written with an editor in the name and that editor left the seminary and now it has that it's put on by MacArthur and the staff at Masters University and it doesn't have the editor's name and they said oh it's plagiarism well when you do this as an editor and you do this and so when you do it under in this case a ministry or a university the question is who owns the rights to it well they do not necessarily the person who writes it now there's you give away those rights

I have a book you can see it right over my shoulder it's called Sharing the Good News with Mormons when

I wrote that chapter that I have in that book I gave away the rights to my own words those words that I have there they changed

I didn't like some of the edits that's what an editor does because they now have the rights to it okay now in a case where it's an edited you're the editor working on on behalf of the university or seminary well then you're just the editor on their behalf you're not the author you can't by putting

MacArthur and the staff at the seminary you can't now say that somehow he plagiarized because it's not saying that he wrote it it's saying that MacArthur and the staff edited it did they have a role to play in that yet usually you do okay and so this is where she's trying to make something that's just not there all right and so this is and she's not alone there's plenty of internet bloggers that do this sort of thing cut corners to try to get attention okay and so this is the thing that we end up seeing with a lot of people and I'm trying to go through see some of the comments so Kathy had said

Justin Peters interviewed Phil Johnson on a show about her he did and he and they talked about the thing with the house and Phil explained those things by the way let me just read a handwritten note that I got putting

Kathy's comment up there I got a handwritten note from Kathy that's even better that's better than a typed one even though typed one's better because nowadays everyone just sends email but she sent me a note to the ministry saying thank you for your ministries great resources

I appreciate the solid biblical teachings discussions and podcasts and so we appreciate you

Kathy and that sits on my desk for a reason because that I appreciate when people do that so let's see

Alexander Wright I'm reading these as I put them up there but let's see I remember what Alexander Wright says

I remember when you told me a story about Piper I had some misconceptions until you cleared it up so and that is why we do original source research is why you have to take the time to do this you can't just read something on the internet and believe it until and trust it especially if it's such a serious offense you need to do the homework and with the gray situation that she had she's got police reports that seems pretty compelling but as I showed when she talks about the prices of his house she's using the current day prices because she's showing that the house more than doubled but he didn't pay any more for it it's that the community around him increased so Carlos says

I'm honestly tired of all this so much bickering on social media I agree with Carlos the fact is there's so many people that they're out on the internet making money because this is a way people make money is to get the clicks and to get the likes and things like that so you know this is something that we have to we have to realize that there's reasons people do this alright let's see well

Jason has they want to proclaim prolong their 15 minutes of fame and that's right that's exactly what for some of them they're looking to do and so and I encourage everyone to you know to share

Jason said here's at reach Julie Roy's well we're trying to reach

Julie Roy's we'd like her to come on and talk about these things why won't she well

I like I said to her and her followers I don't think she will because I think she wants an echo chamber that's usually what people like this do they don't want to have the discussion they don't want to have they want to be able to say what they say to their followers who listen to them and then everyone's like pats them on the back oh you're so good you're so good you're so good and they never have to answer for it that's the problem if you're purposely misrepresenting then it's a real problem this is what

I see a lot of so since she hasn't come in and if she does come in we'll bring her in and John didn't come in I'm looking to see

I don't see any questions in there that we have so Cole I'm just going to open it up to you to see if you have any questions for us tonight well let's let's kind of let me ask you about Christian counseling biblical counseling versus professional

Christian you know with a PhD and and my my comment earlier to you was that you know

I believe that Julie brings up some with in her content some obvious obviously good questions to bring up and so like Answers in Genesis they have

Jason Lyle and they have Nathaniel Jensen and these guys are doing science that is blowing past secular science and it's proving you know it's showing more evidence of biblical truth where do we have that in in the context of counseling people and let me add one extra thing to that is from my view it seems like there are two ditches that can be fallen into one ditch is biblical counseling meaning you know you're you have you're using strictly the

Bible for your interpretation of everything that's interpersonal and all those things and then without with and then that ditch also includes the the cynical maybe stereotypical and maybe sometimes founded accusations against secular psychology that in order to do their science they borrow from our worldview which is that we live in a world that is created and it can be understood because we have an intelligent creator yet they deny that and they take the science that they that they do and all of the things they find out and they use it for their postmodern in their postmodern framework right and so that's the other ditch is how do we not fall into maybe a liberal um shrinks chair who is also has the label of Christian and how do we not fall into the chair of a counselor who is maybe a wolf or has a misunderstanding of scripture and ends up abusing someone because they don't have the psychological training and background yeah and let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's

And it says, do not admit a charge against an elder, except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

And I know so many pastors that read that. They will, hey, you don't accept a charge unless there's two or three witnesses.

But what's the rest of that say? As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all so that the rest may fear.

This is not done in church. There's this idea in a lot of churches to protect the church, to protect the leadership.

And they don't want to call out when someone does wrong. They just let them go. So what you end up seeing, that if you have a sinning elder, scripture tells us what to do.

It is to call them out publicly in front of everyone. That's what we do.

Now, do we have cases where the abuse isn't called out? Yes. The most common right now is the

SBC. I mean, they're now being investigated by the federal government. And it's, you know, they put out this big report because they're going to show how woke they are.

And look, we found 2 ,000, you know, cases, I guess it was, I forget the number.

And what you end up seeing is that if you look at how many people the

SBC represents, all of a sudden that's really small. And so you end up noticing that now you have a different situation, right?

It's a very small percentage, but they make the number sound like it's really big and it's, you know, that becomes an issue.

Is it as widespread as it is? No. Should it be addressed every time?

And should this ever be swept under the rug? No, we shouldn't. We don't always know who the guilty party is in some of these claims.

Can the woman make a claim that's wrong? Well, yeah. I mean, Amber Heard. The only reason

I became aware of Amber Heard, because everyone was talking about this case and the thing that made it such a big case with Johnny Depp was because she lied about the whole thing, right?

About the claims. Women can do that. And this whole idea of always believe the woman, well, that gives the women the authority to just make a claim.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be true and they can get in trouble. So you have to do the research in these claims to figure out what's right.

And so all this to say, does Julie Royce have legitimate issues with bringing up abuse that occurs in a church?

Yes. We should address that. Oh, and she can, she'll bring receipts on statistics on, and a lot of her guests are very well -knowledged in these things.

And it's not to say that the totality of what she does is necrotic, but I think that portion of what she's doing as far as journalism is questionable at best.

And it's probably, you know, like you're saying, it's actually not profitable to just be a straight journalist.

You have to do other things. You have to bring in money somehow. And it's in the clicks thing, you know, there's a lot of low -hanging fruit out there too, where you can just go, okay,

I want to pull this in, pull this in, pull this in. And it's unfortunate. Oh, here's the other thing is

I did this, I did notice to be, to be fair again, the other direction, because I can say good things about some of the content

I heard. I can also say some, that there's obviously some liberal influence in some of her stuff.

Not that she is necessarily, but I think her focus being so highly on the female aspect of things.

There was a couple of guys that she had on one of the podcasts I didn't get a chance to listen to, but a couple of her guests, or at least one in particular was very much in this,

I was waiting to hear more biblical stuff. And when people brought Bible verses to things and said, okay,

I'm going to, I'm going to do this. I'm going to take this issue and expound out on it. They did a good job of that.

And I was like, okay, I can see that you've brought receipts there. But then some of her other guests are not so much on that and they're more feely and subjective.

So it's hit and miss. It's hit and miss all over the place. When you have someone, for me, when

I, when I see somebody that is proven that they're, they're willing to do things that are deceptive at worst, maybe, you know, best, but they, they're willing to cut the corners, to do things,

I think dishonestly, then I don't trust the receipts that she brings on anything because I can't trust it is, is, is the issue.

And so now let me just see, um, Coppola mentioned Conversations That Matter had a good podcast.

And so John Harris, a friend of mine, someone I know, he has a podcast called

Conversations That Matter. He dealt with this whole thing of the grays and went through it. And he went through in detail.

And that's what you want to do. Look at, do the work that he did. You'd go and you'd do the original research.

What was that podcast again? Conversations That Matter. Okay. So I did see that I hadn't got to that one yet.

Okay. So I didn't read all of the letter that Kathy had had given me, but she, she said, yes, read all of it.

I just see this. So I will read the whole thing. Since I didn't read, I, you'll see why

I left the other part out, but she said to read it. So I will read it again. Kathy sent us a letter.

It's a handwritten saying, thank you for your ministries, great resources, and appreciate the solid biblical teachings, discussions, podcasts, et cetera, except the small offering.

May the Lord continue to grow your ministry. Those who, sorry, grow your ministry and those who are, who serve with you.

Grace and peace, Kathy. So yeah, the reason I didn't redo the rest is because, I mean, we love every,

I mean, you want to give a small donation. We, we had a donation today of a dollar and that helps.

The reality folks, I should put it up and let you know how to donate if you want to.

And it's strivingfraternity .org slash support. But we, we have noticed this is one of the things we noticed.

And I've talked to many other prayer church ministries when during recession times, small ministries struggle and people start funding, giving their money to the bigger ministries that have the millionaires to cover expenses.

And so we don't have that. And so we go into small churches that no one wants to go to.

None of the prayer church ministries want to go to small churches. Why? Because you're not going to get the fame. You're not going to get the money.

You're, you're, you're just, it's, it's not what they would consider helpful, but the small churches are the ones that need the help.

And that's why we'll go. But the reality is travel has tripled.

And so, yeah, we need, you know, every amount we can to go to those churches.

Giving money to Striving Fraternity is not going to pay my salary. It isn't. 70 to 80 % of all the money goes toward ministry, not salaries.

Okay. I do get a small salary. It's not much. It doesn't even pay my mortgage.

So, so Julie Royce can't come after me for the price of my house. I have other means of income.

But so, so there, so, but, and I guess since, since we are, we got a request for my pillow,

I should mention my pillow. I might as well at this point, my pillow is a sponsor of this show and you can go to mypillow .com

use promo code S F E that stands for Striving Fraternity. If you guys hadn't seen on the news, the, the

CEO of my, of my pillow, Mike Liddell had the FBI rate him and confiscate his phone.

And they, they just don't like that. He called out things against the elections. Hmm. How dare you question the elections.

But if you want to help support Striving Fraternity and support Mike Liddell and his company, go to mypillow .com,

get some products, get lots of products and use the promo code S F E. So with that, let me get back to what you're saying.

So I do think that there's legitimate things that could be brought up when it comes to some of the sexual abuse that occurs in the church and the coverups, because that's the real issue is people are not doing what's biblical and it's allowed to continue.

You have a guy we did on this show, an issue when there was a guy who had been hired at Cedarville university that was leaving a hidden camera in the showers to record men bathing.

And they wanted, everyone was after Cedarville for hiring the guy, but nobody wanted to go after the woke preacher that now had to step down.

Um, JD, I think it was JD Greer who's, who's, who ended up not reporting that they had issues with this same guy when

Cedarville went to hire him. So why was that a seat? Because it was covered up with that church.

He was able to find another job. That's the thing. Scripture is very clear what to do when you have a pastor that persists in sin.

Now does this mean he's got to be sinlessly perfect? Obviously not. We all sin. We're all human beings.

But when you have a sin of disqualifying nature that continues and persists, you must continue.

You must announce it publicly. Now does it need to be on the internet? No. Needs to be to that church.

Right? So, are there cases where it should be to the internet?

Well, yes. Um, was it, okay, so Drew was saying he didn't know

Greer stepped down, so maybe it wasn't Greer. Who, I can't remember the name of the guy, because I just can't remember his, oh, it's

Chandler. That's the name. Is Chandler the one that had the cancer? Drew, Drew will let me know if he's the one that recently stepped down.

So maybe it was, it was Chandler. See, I can be corrected. So Drew, if it's, if it's, just give me the name of Chandler's church and I'll know.

I just, I can't remember the name of it, but when I hear it, I'll know. But yeah,

Matt Chandler stepped down is what KT is saying. So, so it must've been Chandler that is, so the guy came from Chandler's church and we did a whole episode saying, why did

Chandler, like no one's going after Chandler for not, you know, doing it, the village church.

That's right. Okay. So that's it. So he was, he was a pastor at a village church and he was, they knew about an issue, but they didn't say anything to the church.

They just said he stepped down and they let him go to somewhere else. See then it's not our problem.

That's wrong. That's not what scripture says. You have someone that's persisting in that sort of thing. You call it out.

That's what you do. And so that's what should have been done. It's just not what was done.

And so, um, in at least in that case, and unfortunately in many cases, so that needs to be done.

Okay. Here's a hard question. That's in the same topic that Julie brought up within the context of the grays is on even regardless of whether of her misinterpret misrepresentation of the situation, the question

I think is important because I looked into it and I, I'm still a little bit confused on it myself. In the case of abuse within a marriage, we're not talking any other, we're not talking sexual abuse or sexual immorality from physical abuse, mental abuse.

Is there an exception with how would it, how, what's the proper way to deal with that?

If there is, if they're going to be, if they're, if divorce is now a thing because abuse has come to light and they need to separate, because that I could not find an article,

I could not find it scripture and I've got 24 hours and even less with work in the middle to try to find it.

But there's like articles that are like nothing but sexual abuse is the, is a proper exception to marriage.

So there is a report, I mentioned this last week when we were asked about Doug Wilson and I said clearly

I, I don't have an, I've heard from many people about this, but I haven't done the research on it.

But there's supposedly someone who is a pastor or deacon at Doug Wilson's church who the wife accused the husband of rape.

Now I'm putting that aside with the Doug Wilson, just let's address the issue. There were, there's some people who are trying to make the claim that you, that a man cannot rape his wife because sex is part of the marriage bed and therefore that's acceptable.

I disagree. I mean, I think you can have someone who abuses sexually his wife.

And then that's considered sexual immorality then? I, yeah. Yeah. See, that was that, see that right there, that answer you just gave is exactly the position that was taken on Julie's podcast.

And that's why I'm saying this is, it's so hit and miss with her. She has the right idea on the things, but I think the means of which of getting into the conversation is sketchy.

Yeah. The support she uses, but here's the thing, I'll quote MacArthur, which would bother her.

A broken clock is right twice a day. So the fact that she's right in some things doesn't mean she's right in everything.

The fact that I'm right in some things doesn't mean I'm right in everything. So let's bring in, I see

Pastor Darren is here. Yo, yo, what's up brother? How you doing?

Good. Good. Evening. Good. Thanks for having, thanks for letting me come on. I know you maybe had a cringe a little bit when you see me in the back there.

I don't know if you realize this guy is growing out there a little bit more. Yeah, man. It's getting bigger.

It's getting bigger. I'm trying to, I want to audition for Santa Claus come December is what I'm shooting for.

Well, you get a little bit more of that white in there and yeah. I'll tell you what, man, it's funny.

The correlation of the number of children I have versus the number of gray hairs I have, the two are directly correlated with one another, you know,

God is good though. We're blessed. There's just a couple of things you guys were talking about that I wanted to just jump on and throw in just a couple of comments, if that's okay.

The first one you were recently talking about, so now just seems like as good a time as any, but for a long time in my ministry,

I would say that there were two justifications for divorce in the scripture. One is adultery and the other is abandonment, but in the scripture, that word that Jesus uses is not adultery, it's sexual immorality.

And when you look at the passage that he's referencing back in the book of Leviticus, it's clearly talking about, in the

Old Testament, if a person committed adultery, what was the penalty for that? It was death, not divorce, person got divorced by way of death, but the penalty for adultery was death.

But then the Levitical law, and I wish I could just pull it up so you could see it, because I just preached some sermons on this like maybe last year, but it's the

Levitical law says there, if there's anything, if the husband finds anything unclean in her, if there's anything, the idea is like if there's something, she's not appealing to him for some reason.

And there were two different interpretations of that passage in the time of Jesus. There was the liberal interpretation and the conservative interpretation.

The liberal interpretation said that the standard there is anything the man thinks. If she burned the breakfast, they would say, he could divorce her.

The conservative standard was, no, you can't divorce your wife for any reason. You have to have some good reason why she has violated the covenant of marriage in order to justify divorcing her.

And so when we start talking about abuse, there's two kinds of abuse generally that happen in a marriage and a third kind when you start talking about social issues.

There's adultery or there's sexual abuse and there's physical abuse.

Sexual abuse is sexual immorality. A man does not have the right, according to scripture, to force his wife to have sex with him.

That is abuse. That is, in my estimation, you guys can argue with me about that if you want to, but I think

I can make a pretty good case regarding the way the scripture lays out the duties of the husband, that he does not have rights over his wife's body in that way.

So I would say, well, that is the kind of sexual immorality that Jesus is talking about. I think it's I want to say it's

Matthew 17. Sorry to not have ever my whole thoughts together before jumping on here. When a man is abusing his wife, he's physically abusing her.

So he's not sexually abusing her, but he's punching her. He's hitting her. He's and this is an unpopular opinion in my circles, but it's it's what

I genuinely believe the scripture is teaching. In that case, I would argue that that man, his covenant obligation to his wife, marriage is a covenant.

His covenant obligation to his wife is to use his strength to protect her, to provide for her and so on and so forth.

And I would argue that when a man uses the strength that God gave him to protect and care for his wife as a means of assaulting his wife,

I would argue that that is justified grounds for divorce on the basis of abandonment. And because he has even though he is still physically present in the home, he has abandoned his he has abandoned his post as a husband.

And I'll add to that. And I don't know, Andrew, maybe this is getting off in the weeds because I don't know if you and I fully agree on this.

But one of the things we talk about in our church is defy tyrants when a governing authority behaves in a way that is contrary to what the scripture teaches.

And they either use they either command that which God forbids, they forbid that which God commands, or they or they begin to use their authority in such a way that they use to bring harm to their people, that we should use whatever nonviolent recourse we have at our disposal to oppose that authority or to escape that authority, because authority and responsibility go hand in hand.

And when an authority has a certain jurisdiction and it leaves its jurisdiction or abandoned its responsibility, then that that covenantal that covenantal authority has abandoned its rightful jurisdiction and is no longer to be obeyed.

And so that would be I would argue that you can make a strong case that divorce is permissible both in instances of sexual immorality and in instances of physical physical abuse.

That's not popular in my circles, but I've really spent a lot of time researching, praying and thinking and studying the scripture and actually studying what some some some older brothers have said in the history of the church.

And I think I could make a pretty good case for that. Well, I think when you get out of your circles and get into more biblical circles like ours.

I've got one more that will fit on, I think I'll tack right on with what you're saying is, you know, the marriage as a covenant is a picture of Christ in the church.

Yes. We are we are slaves to righteousness. Right. Yeah. OK, well, what's the

Old Testament say about when a slave master abuses it as one of his servants?

That servant has the right to leave. Right, yeah. I might get yelled at by Andrew by misusing analogies and scripture on that, but it to me, it it kind of I've been

I've been yelled at for this before, but that's the first thing that came to my mind. Yeah, we don't want to make an illustration, say more than it is just a

Facebook user here. By the way, if you want to not if you're on your name, show up, just go to projectslive .com

and it has instructions on how to get StreamYard to be able to use your name. You got to give permission for Facebook.

But they say glad this is being engaged despite our differences on spirituals.

So assuming that's probably about spiritual gifts. Yeah, that's what I'm guessing. But so so the thing is, is that, you know,

I should I should really quiz, you know, Cole here and see how well he was paying attention, you know, on the previous

Sunday. But in you know, when I preached it at the church he attends, we were looking at First Corinthians 10.

And there's a reference to spirit to sexual immorality and a time when many died.

Right. Twenty three thousand died. When did that many people die? Well, you go back in the

Old Testament and it was in Numbers chapter twenty five. What happened in Numbers twenty five?

The basically the Gentile kings knew that the Israelites were coming through. King Balak tries to get this prophet, this prophet of God to curse the

Israelites, Balaam. Balaam wouldn't do it, but Balaam was greedy.

He wanted that money. So what did he do? He convinces Balak. He says, I can't curse him, but I'll tell you what, if you get your women to marry their men,

God will curse them. And that's actually what did happen. God did curse them. And twenty four thousand died in a single day.

Yeah. And so when you look at that, it's very interesting because what does Paul say? Paul refers to that as sexual immorality.

Right now, the thing that I brought up in the message was that's kind of strange. We wouldn't think marriage, you know, sex within marriage is sexual immorality.

But they were marrying who God did not allow them to marry. And he called that sexual immorality.

Yeah, that's right. Sexual immorality in scripture is not just what we might think it is as sex outside of marriage, but it even can extend to basically it's it's having sexual relations with someone you're not supposed to.

So for for the Jewish, the Israelites, they were not to marry outside. That was wrong.

That was sexual immorality. I kind of made the case that we might be able to apply that to Christians if Christians marry non -Christians.

Is that sexual immorality? And, you know, this becomes a question of it very well could because we do have scripture.

It's very clear that we shouldn't be marrying unbelievers. However, once we're married, we also have scripture that says you remain that way.

Yes, because we become a blessing to the other spouse and the children are kept holy within the context of the marriage.

So, yeah, I see. Yesterday when you had some other things. So I wanted to there were two other things

I want to talk about. The other thing I wanted to talk about the the discussion with Julie Royce, because here's what

I think is interesting. One of the things that she'll do, I've been following Julie Royce for a little while now, and two things about her specifically that I want to address.

One of the interesting things that she does is she builds this narrative around the idea that he wouldn't answer me.

He wouldn't give us a response. He didn't say anything. And you referenced that earlier, Andrew.

And she takes that and she tries to use that as a there must be something more here because if there weren't something more here, he would give me an answer.

And one of the things I think is really interesting about that on this specific. Airing of this specific podcast is

Andrew, you invited Julie to come on to this podcast and discuss these issues with you. Yeah, I suppose she must be hiding something then if she weren't willing to show up here and have a discussion with you.

By her own argument, yes. And the thing about it is it's like, OK, when you take that same argument and turn it around,

I'm sure she has a thousand justifications why that's not the case. Maybe she's busy doing something tonight. I don't know. Well, I don't know.

I made that exact argument. Yeah. And and I said, if you don't come on, then you have something to hide.

And she says, well, why would why would I come on? You haven't you haven't given a single thing that I did wrong.

And I said and so I listed them one, two and three. I gave three things. Yeah. You know, it's funny because she kept saying, well, you haven't said

I did anything wrong. I'm like, I keep naming them. They're in the thread and all her followers like you can't name anything.

I'm like, you see, yeah, see, that's the thing is like you, you know, you have confirmation bias.

And if you want to go, go listen to the rap report that I just did on confirmation Bible bias in John chapter nine, because confirmation bias is a real thing that people have.

They ignore anything, any evidence if it doesn't fit the narrative that they have, because unfortunately, we live in a generation more than in the first century where narrative matters.

Truth doesn't matter. Theology doesn't matter. Narrative matters. Right. And we can't have anything to go against the narrative.

And that's what you have here. So if you apply the same thing to her, it's so funny because so many of her followers,

Darren, were criticizing me for what she does. Yeah. And I'm pointing out, well, thanks for exposing what she does.

Oh, I'm talking to you. But she's doing that. Yeah. You're saying it's me. But if you're going to say that I'm wrong for doing it, then say she's wrong when she does the same thing.

And it's like, no, no, no, no. She's perfect. Yeah. I mean, they wouldn't say that. But the ethical ethic, what happens when you don't have a biblical ethic is what you end up with is an inconsistent standard.

And you have to apply that inconsistent standard. One, our heroes and she accuses our side, so to speak, of this is that we apply one standard to our heroes and we apply another standard to everybody else.

And I do think that there are people, quote unquote, on our side to do that. But I think like on this podcast, for example,

I mean, I think you've made a regular pattern. I think in my ministry, I have to. We've made a regular pattern of calling out our side when they behave sinfully and so forth.

And I do think you have to do that. And you know that I got myself in a lot of trouble for doing that.

I'm not liked by a lot of people because I will call out my own side when they do something wrong and they do it publicly.

It's you know, and I expect that to be done with me. Right. Yeah, you know, exactly. Exactly. We all have to do that.

Yeah. And there have been times. Look, you go back in the history of this show. Even you'll see times where I come back on a following week and say, hey,

I said something. I did something. I was in error. I correct it. I tried to.

Yeah. Amen. Amen. The other thing with Julie Royce and then I had one other thing. The other thing with Julie Royce as a pastor and I know the thing with Doug Wilson came up here, which

I've looked into that issue a little bit, but not enough that I know one of the one of the arguments is that he was tried by his peers in the

CREC, but they were just a bunch of yesmen. I will push back on that and say I know several of the people that were involved in that trial and they are anything but yesmen.

So that that I know at least that accusation is false. Now, again, the problem with me saying that is you got to take my word for it and that doesn't count much as evidence.

But I will say there are guys. What's that? Yeah. Right now I'm a yesman.

That's right. But I know that's not true. One of the things is the other thing with Julie Royce regarding this as a pastor, this is something that I wrestle with in all of these situations that keep coming up.

One of the questions you have to ask yourself as a pastor when somebody comes snooping around your church, asking questions about church discipline issues and so on and so forth or history of sexual abuse or whatever, you have to ask yourself the question, is it appropriate for me to discuss this matter with this individual?

And usually the answer to that question is no. And I might often know Julie Royce might find something out about me that she doesn't like as a pastor.

Now, I don't think that I'm popular enough for her to come after me, but she might. Let's say I preach a sermon and it goes crazy by the grace of God.

Right. And I've come that or you do or any of us. Like if we're popular enough to get Julie Royce's attention and she decides to come after you.

As a pastor, one of the things that you do is protect the privacy of your congregation. Now, there are exceptions to that where there's sexual abuse, you report that to the authorities.

Where there's physical abuse, you report that to the authorities. There are when a crime has happened, the state has the sword.

The church has the case of the kingdom. When the state, when there is a crime that has happened, the state must take that to the church.

And I do think that is something that we haven't really done well on as well as we should in some regards.

That's what the Southern Baptist Convention is in the position that the Southern Baptist Convention is in right now. I agree with what you said earlier, that there's more being made of this for the sake of a political agenda, but there still is a big problem.

We need to understand when a crime happens, we go to the state. But when a situation arises where there's a church discipline issue, where there's a matter of conflict in a family, as a pastor,

I'm involved in counseling and so forth. If you want to come talk to me about that, I'm going to tell you it's none of your business.

I have nothing to say to you about it. It's none of your business. There is nothing about any situation happening in my church at all whatsoever that I would want to discuss with Julie Royce.

Nothing. There's nothing that I would want to discuss with any journalist about what's happening in my church with regards to my pastoral ministry.

And they might say, well, there's court documents, everything's out in the public and so on and so forth. And they might say, this person says it's

OK to discuss it, so you should be able to go ahead and discuss it. No. That's not my job as a pastor is to protect the privacy of my congregants and to minister the gospel to them and to bring the truth of God's word to them and to counsel them when they go through difficult issues.

And when you're a pastor, you deal with people when they're at the lowest place in their life, when they're going through the most difficult circumstances that they've ever had to go through.

They did something really stupid. They somebody did something really stupid to them. They're in the midst of a terrible suffering situation.

And then maybe they recover from that six months or a year or two years later. And it's your job.

So they say pastors cover over things. Well, that's part of what the pastor does. Oh, did

I get kicked off here? No, he gave you the platform. Oh, OK. Sorry, I guess I'm on a monologue here, but that is part of what the pastor does.

There are certain things a pastor cannot cover over and should not cover over. There are times when church discipline is needed, something that's brought to the church when the person just won't repent.

But when you're dealing with a person that's willing to be discipled and they're repentant, we're not talking about a crime or anything like that.

No, I don't. And even if it were a crime and it were reported to the police and there were police report and it's in court and all this other stuff,

I'm still not going to talk to Julie Royce about that issue because she doesn't have any business knowing about it.

And I don't have any business talking to her about it. And I think that's a lot of what's being missed here, like the responsibility of pastors.

There's nothing in the biblical qualifications of pastor that talks about talking to journalists, especially.

I'm just going to third rate journalists, you know, who have a knack for being dishonest.

So that's one thought I just kind of want to throw out there as a pastor is, I mean, if John MacArthur weren't famous, it still wouldn't be appropriate for him to talk to Julie Royce about these issues and the whole host of those other guys, too.

So I just kind of want to put that out there about Julie Royce. There's an interesting thing about when she about one of this, this has come to my mind a couple of times tonight was when

I was when you had up her website with all of her investigations and I saw

Ravi Zacharias in there, she likes to credit herself for bringing that to light. But it's like I knew about that and I never knew who she was.

Yeah, I know. But you know, she she's late to the game on that one.

You guys talked about that on this show, didn't you? No. Do we talk about it? But I mentioned things from years ago.

We're talking a decade or two. And the more important when he was exposed for not having gone to school where he claimed the more.

Oh, I didn't know that. But the more important issue between if you want to contrast

John MacArthur and Ravi Zacharias. You when when

Todd Freel did the wretched radio breakdown on the oh, where you where there's smoke, there's fire, basically, he went down through a bunch of Ravi's Q &A is where people asked him obvious questions that were like, this is the time to share the gospel.

And he completely routed it. Yeah, yeah. Made made jokes, stories and routed it 100 percent of the time.

Yeah. So that MacArthur doesn't do that. That's why I say, yeah, let me let me address,

Pastor Darren, what you were saying. This is what Matthew 18 says, and a lot of people don't understand this because a lot of people don't really understand what they should be doing.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his faults between you and him alone.

Yeah, that's a very important word. Yeah, it is. Because what do you see? Everything about this is to keep the privacy.

Yeah. Now you have to juxtaposition this to what I read in First Timothy five, 19 and 20.

Yes. When you have a man at the pulpit who's public, then it has to be public for all to fear.

But that's not what this is saying. The whole idea of church discipline is to give protection of the of the innocent.

Yeah. And so you're not somebody because guess what? We may get it wrong. And so you're trying to make sure you're protecting the innocent.

Now, if it's used to cover up, that's totally different. Right. But like you said, someone comes to your church.

Julie Royce comes knocking on your door because she wants to know about church discipline situation. Are you a member of this church?

Why do you have a need to know now if the person is a public figure, it becomes different. Sure. Yeah, absolutely.

Right. I mean, this was an issue with with Harold Camping. He was in several churches and he'd have issues and leave.

But he was in one where they said, no, you're a public figure and you're not accountable and we're going to put out a public statement.

And so they did. And wouldn't you know it after they did that? He suddenly got the realization, revelation, whatever you want to call it, that the church age is over.

Right. He was covenantal. He went from from hyper covenantal to hyper dispensational because all of a sudden the church age ended.

I didn't know there was a change. You know, it's amazing. Israel and the church are one. And now there's a church age and it's over.

And, you know, you shouldn't be going to church. But so, yes. I mean, I agree with you.

I think that, you know, just because someone doesn't answer doesn't mean they have something to hide.

And this is the whole reason that we have a Fifth Amendment in America. Right. So you can't.

And that's a biblical principle that, you know, did so by her rationale.

Jesus had something to hide because when he was at court, his mouth was shut.

Mm hmm. And so when you look at that, the the logical arguments that she makes and her followers make it, man,

I think you on my Twitter, man, that's all for the last three days, that's all I've been dealing with. It's like, OK, you know, realize the rationale you're doing.

Look at the arguments. And so, yeah, was there a third thing that you had or not? Yeah, there is a third thing.

But if you don't want to discuss tonight, because it seemed a minute ago like maybe you were steering the conversation away from this and I'm going to steer it back.

But if maybe we could do another episode about it. But I wanted to address the issue. What is your the other brother's name on here?

Cole. Cole. Is that right? Yeah, right. I want to address one of the issues that Cole brought up that Julie Royce does often bring up in her articles, which is this issue of biblical counseling.

Do you mind if we discuss that for a few minutes? Yeah, go for it. Because and I think you ask a good question there,

Cole. Because when it comes to psychological theory or psycho theory, psychological theory, we're often taught to believe like one of the things that you did in that question was you juxtaposed what answers in Genesis is doing sort of over.

Is anybody doing that in the psychological sphere? Because they're both sort of scientific. But the problem is they're two very different kinds of things.

And a lot of times they get juxtaposed over one another. And what I think is kind of a dangerous manner.

So when you have strep throat, you go to the doctor, you have symptoms, right? You have a fever, your throat hurts, maybe your breath is stinky.

You go to go to the doctor, they swab your throat, they put it on a microscope and they see, OK, there's bacteria here, whatever it is.

OK, this person has strep throat and they give you antibiotics. That's science. Right. But say you have say they want to say you have borderline personality disorder.

OK, that's a diagnosis. It's in the DSM five borderline personality disorder or just personality disorder.

Or I don't want to get myself in trouble by going into a bunch of these other examples.

Say you have borderline personality. You're not going to mention like transgenderism as a.

That would be another one in there. Just saying it is it is they may take it out in the next one, though.

I don't know if it'll make it. But say, OK, so what are the symptoms to borderline personality disorder as an example or personality disorder is another one?

Well, they're all behaviors. It's not the symptoms of this issue is not when you read psychology textbooks, which

I have done when you read psychology textbooks, they lead you to believe that we know this person behaves in this way because the serotonin is imbalanced in their brain and they want to treat it like it's the same kind of issue as if you have strep throat.

You have these symptoms. Therefore, you have this diagnosis and this is how we're going to treat it. Except I don't know if you saw the recent report.

I think you're going to say the same thing I was getting ready to say. I'll shut up and let you go. Well, so what

I was going to say about that, there was just a huge meta study that was done in which they discovered that the meta study is when they research a bunch of extra smaller studies.

And so they did this huge meta study in which they did research on all these antidepressants that they have been prescribing to people that are supposed to raise the serotonin in their brain to address these social issues, these behavioral issues.

And what the meta study discovered is that they actually have no idea a whether or not low serotonin in your brain is what causes you to behave in that manner and then be whether or not the medicine they're prescribing actually increases the serotonin in your brain.

And so there are many honest psychiatrists out there. And Andrew, I can send you the link to this study if you want to include it in your show notes.

But there are many psychiatrists out there even that are honestly saying we don't even really know what these drugs do.

We don't actually know how these drugs are affecting the brain. And and but when you go to the doctor, oftentimes the way it's explained to you is the same way as if you have strep throat.

All right. So that's all important because I want to counterbalance that with what I'm getting ready to say, which is biblical, biblical counseling.

When a person has a problem, whatever that problem may be. OK. When a person has a problem, whatever it is, a social problem, behavioral problem, whatever the case may be, there are two potential things that cause that problem.

A person as Christians, we believe that people are made up, that they're not just a body, that they have a body and a soul.

And when we're attempting to deal with a person's behavioral problem, we want to deal with them as a whole person, not just as a body.

And the problem with psychological theory as it exists today is that oftentimes it seeks to just deal with the body.

Now, I said there could be two problems that could cause a person to behave in a certain way.

One is physical. There are sometimes physical things that cause people to behave in a certain way. I give an example, diabetes.

We know that a person that has low blood sugar behaves in a certain way.

And that's scientific. We can take their blood sugar. We can see they have low blood sugar. We can see that causes them to behave in that way.

I'm currently recovering from a brain injury. Been dealing with it for about nine months now. And we know when a person hits their head, that that can cause a certain set of symptoms.

That's a physiological problem. And where there is a physiological problem, that physiological problem needs to be addressed.

The other thing that causes people to behave in certain ways is the heart. Sometimes what you need is not a brain scan, but a heart scan.

You need to see there are spots on your heart, not your physical heart, but your spiritual heart, the heart in the biblical sense, the control center for your life.

And when we're talking about biblical counseling, what we're trying to do, so I'm trained in biblical counseling and do a lot of biblical counseling here at the church and so forth.

When we're doing biblical counseling, what we're trying to do is we're trying to address the condition of the soul.

And what we're trying to do is if a person's behaving in this way, that way or the other way, we want to go to the heart of the matter.

Jesus said out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. He said out of the heart comes anger, malice, you know, hatred, all of these list of other things.

Before the brain injury, I could have just quoted these verses, but they're just not up there anymore now. But this is what

Jesus said out of this. This all this stuff comes out from the heart. That's what

Jesus said. Well, modern day psychology wants to say, no, it's not your fault. It's a problem with your brain.

And the scripture says, no, it is your fault. And it's a sin.

And you need to repent or you have a worry. And we need to work you through the process of not worrying biblically or you're afraid and we need to help you work through the process of not being fearful biblically or you have pride.

And we need to bring you to a place of repentance from your from your pride. And so I don't think that biblical counseling is anti scientific.

And there's a good book on this. There's there's a book out there. It's a four views book on Christian counseling.

And Ed Welch wrote the biblical counseling section of that book. He's trained both in psychology and biblical counseling.

I think he's actually a medical doctor and he does a great job defending the biblical counseling position from a scientific standpoint in that book.

And so I'm saying all that to say there's a there is a narrative out there.

The biblical counseling is sort of what you want to watch for is the people like Julie Royce and some of these people out there that are that that are anti biblical counseling.

You'll notice that they talk about biblical counseling much in the same way that people out there in the world talk about answers in Genesis.

It's not real science. It's not it's anti scientific and all of these other things. Well, when you actually go through training in biblical counseling, you come to understand, no, what it is is

Second Timothy three, 16 and 17 says all scripture is God breathed and is profitable for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped unto every good work.

And so the idea there is we as Christians, since we're filled with the Holy Spirit and we have the truth of the word of God, we find in this in this word, we find all that we need to live a life that brings honor and glory to God.

And so I could say a lot more about that. I don't want to keep talking on and on here, but I just wanted to come on and address that discussion.

What was that book reference you were saying? It's for it's a four views book.

It's four views on Christian psychology or four views on Christian counseling or something like that.

I can look it up. I just the way those books are. There's usually an editor, not an author. So you might be either usually like counterpoint series.

I don't think it was counterpoints, but it's like that. It's got a red cover on it. I can see it in my mind. I don't have it here at the church with me.

So my home office. So but I definitely would recommend reading it, brother, because I think it would be tremendously helpful to you.

You see all four views right there side by side with one another. And then each view responds. It's like the counterpoint series.

Each view responds to each section. But I say all that to respond to your question. But I also say

I like to say that I think that Julie Roy's and her assessment of biblical counseling, especially in her attacks against John MacArthur, what

MacArthur is doing in California with regards to biblical counseling is some of the best in the nation.

I would say faith in Lafayette here in Indiana is also on that list. They are genuinely helping people from a biblical standpoint.

And so I think she's been very unfair with regards to the way that she's treated the biblical counseling ministry of Grace Church.

Well, one of the things you find with people like this is that they. They get to be very critical, especially when they start getting a lot of followers and a lot of people pat them on the back and the the they hear the amens and attaboys type of thing.

And what ends up happening is they start believing their own hype because they're in an echo chamber. And as long as they're in that echo chamber, what ends up happening is they start to believe everything they say about themselves.

Yeah. Right. By the way, I'll put this up here now is that Drew said

Darren is a good person to get counseling wisdom from. Thank you, Drew. That means a lot to me, brother. You said that before you went into the monologues, too.

So here you are. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So and brother, I get what you mean with the head injury, because when

I had the ATV accident, it so sidebar, it was the weirdest thing.

So I get in the accident and. I think, you know, we're we're in the middle of a mountain, there's like, you know, nothing you do, but got back on the

ATV and head home. You know, I mean, it's not like you can call my wife, you know, why is waiting for us at a restaurant?

Right. So I'm sitting there and I'm like, I literally the first thing I did, my watch is one where when

I fell it registered that I fell. Yeah. They're calling nine one one. And and I stopped it from calling nine one one.

In this case, probably fine, because there's nothing I would do other than fly a helicopter. And then

I couldn't afford that. So but which showed me

I got a problem that that's the first reaction I'm going to do. And I stood up and I just fell right down. And I got

I ended up realizing, OK, I took my helmet off, sat there for a bit, got my senses, put the helmet on, got back on the quad, started riding and I'm going, my my buddy saw me.

He's like, hey, you OK? I said, I fell over. And he goes, OK, he thought it wasn't a big deal. He takes off and I'm following him.

I'm sitting there and I'm like, I can't remember his name. Like I knew I did not know.

Like there were things I knew I should know. I was trying. I couldn't remember my wife's name.

Yeah. I couldn't like there were things. I'm like, I told my wife, I started having memories. I knew that weren't real.

Yeah. It was so bizarre. And like the more that this was happening, the more

I'm trying to remember. And I went, oh, there's a problem. So I ended up like flashing him. So he knew to pull over and he's like, hey, what's up?

I said, I got a problem. I we got to get off this mountain quick. He goes, well, we are. I said, no, I mean, like quick.

And it wasn't until we got to the restaurant. I think he really realized I was in bad shape. Like I couldn't

I couldn't remember anything. So. So, yeah, that was that was a weird feeling. I said to my dad, my mom had

Alzheimer's. And I said, it's like, I wonder if that's what Alzheimer's is like. Like, you know, you should know things.

Yeah. You know, you don't know. And you don't even know that you're repeating yourself and asking the same question over and over because you're getting the answer.

Yeah, absolutely. How long ago was that? That that happens recently. Today, six weeks ago today.

Yeah. Well, six weeks ago today was when I was in the hospital. Can I take you to start remembering stuff that you forget? Oh, I remember the next day.

And so I had this I had a guy that took me in for x -rays and he took me in for a CAT scan. And I asked him his name a number of times.

I mean, so many that he kept like I could tell I asked him before. And in the morning he comes in to take an x -ray and he goes, what's my name?

And I said, I want to say Jason, but it's spelled differently. He goes, you're right. He said, good, you're better.

And I said, I asked you a lot. And he goes, you asked me a lot of times because I was trying to find things to remember.

So I was asking him because like to remember that name. And it was really hard.

Yeah, and I think one of the things that that speaks to, which I do think that you were right when you said there's an over there's always a ditch on both sides of the road, right?

One of the things I teach my kids is stay out of the ditches. If they tell you what's the advice that dad gives you over and over again, it's stay out of the ditches.

There are physical things in the body that can cause problems. You know,

I hit my head. I really learned my brain's in fight or flight mode. That doesn't justify losing my temper, by the way.

I still have to repent and strive to walk in righteousness by the grace of God.

But there are there are some physical things that do cause certain behaviors. Postpartum depression is a real thing, you know, that we can look, we can understand the way that a woman's hormones work scientifically and understand why the the imbalance in those hormones causes her to be depressed after she has a after she has a baby.

And that is based on a completely different theory than the one that I just lined up about with with antidepressants and so forth, because that has to do with hormones.

It's a completely separate thing. There are two different things, even though the symptoms are similar with the depression, but organically they're two different things.

So there are real conditions in the body that do affect our emotions and behaviors. What you're describing, you know, you hit your head and it's like you probably were kind of grumpy, too,

I imagine. I mean, I was pretty grumpy after I hit my head, you know, your brain. You know.

Yeah. No, actually, I was kind of really polite and all, I guess. But, you know, it means that you can keep keep talking and keep so straight and solid when when in Cole's window, we have this adorable little girl putting her head in.

I know. I mean, you're like you're able to keep going. I just, you know, where is she there,

Cole? And now she's now she's going to be shy. There we are. Hi. I'm waving at you.

Wait, how old is she? She's four. Four. That's awesome. And my eight year old's on the couch chilling.

All right. Nice. Nice. I'm glad you have an eight year old that's chilling. Well, you know, my eight year olds never really do that.

It's a little late. I'm letting them stay up. I think the wife went and took a nap early and she's still out.

Yeah. And they're being quiet. So I'm not. Well, they're good. Well, we're going to end up wrapping up soon.

But I do I do want to I thank both you guys for coming in. I wish Julie Royce would have come in, but she didn't.

Folks, you could you could tag her on this, send it to her. What was her thing again?

I forget. I got to look. I think it was reached Julie Royce at reached Julie Royce on on on Twitter.

You know, Julie, here's here's a public plea for you. Come in. This is we we do this every week.

We anyone can come in. You can come in any, you know, anytime you want to come in.

Discuss this. We'll be happy to talk with you. If you want to have a dedicated time where we'll give most of the show to you, we will come in and do that.

If you think we're somehow going to ambush you, as was claimed by some of our followers, go look at the history of the show, do the research.

You're a reporter. You claim to be go check out and see whether we ambush people, whether we treat them well, just not the case.

And so with that, I want to thank Cole for coming on. Pastor Darren, always, always appreciate your wisdom.

Looking to come out your way a little bit more. You have to talk to you offline about that, because I actually will be out not too far from you.

I'll talk about that with you. I do want to let folks know just real quick that we are doing a couple of sales.

One sale that we have and I've mentioned before is if you go to striving for eternity dot org, sharing the good news with Mormons.

I'm one of I guess I've been saying 24 authors. But if you listen, my rap report, I had Eric Johnson on and he said there's actually 28 authors.

They had more authors that did little shorter segments. But so almost 30 of us that wrote on this different, different ways of sharing the gospel.

Very helpful if you want to learn how to share the gospel specifically to Mormons. And we're doing basically we're going to we're looking to clear out the inventory that we have right now.

And so we're giving 35 percent off on all the copies that we currently have.

So just if you go to the website and use the coupon code LDS, it stands for Latter Day Saints.

But we're going to do our Christmas special again. It has been very appreciated in the past.

So for Christmas, if you want to get my book, what you believe, get the book, what do we believe?

And that is going to be on sale 50 percent off.

And there is no limit on the number of copies. So you can get as many copies as you want.

Their coal is is holding that up. So if you want to get a copy of what do we believe?

We did not put a limit on the copy. So this is a good Christmas gift to get for folks.

It is a very easy to understand systematic theology. It's right there in the screen.

And so you could pick up as many copies as you'd like, and it will help you,

I think, tremendously. I'm not saying that because I wrote it. I'm saying that because of the comments that I have gotten from the book.

It is something that's easy to read. It's only about 200 pages. It is what many people see as a quick reference going through systematic theology.

So I want to encourage you guys to get that for Christmas gifts for everybody on your list.

So what you do is go to striving for training or go to the store, pick up. What do we believe? As many copies as you want and use the coupon code

Christmas, the coupon code Christmas, and you will get 50 percent off of that book no matter how many copies you get.

So that is something we're doing that when that was appreciated very much last year.

So we decided to do that again. So that's all that we have for tonight.

Might end a bit early. I know you're upset. No, Anthony time. But he's he's look, when he comes back, you guys can all tell him there was no

Anthony time because he was worshiping a pig, at least the skin of it.

He's at a football team, some team called the Browns, which I hear they don't even win anyway.

And so that's where he is right now. He's not here because he's watching a football game.

Just saying. So you guys could give him a hard time for that and tell me he should have been here. This was more important than watching a football team lose.

I don't know if they want to lose loss. But by the way, he talks about the team they probably lost.

So but but with that next week, I messed up and was supposed to schedule to have a missionary gamer on this week.

And I messed up. So we're going to do it next week, which actually worked better for his schedule. So great. And so we're going to have a friend of mine come in.

He is a missionary gamer. Cole has seen him. We talked about that. And so and Melissa is saying that the

Browns, I guess, won 1413. So she was watching or just quickly looked it up. Well, I know who's going to be happy and who's not going to be happy at work now.

Well, OK, Anthony will be happy, but you don't work with him, so I don't get that. But oh, the guys at work had that.

So that's all. Oh, OK. So so the thing is, is that next week we're going to talk with a guy who actually goes into games and he is spends like eight hours a day as a gamer.

He is he is getting missionary gamer because he's not just a gamer.

He's actually going in and evangelizing. That's what he's doing. And he's doing it like as a full time job.

He's going to talk about that. We're going to have some great clips that he has of that, that he has recorded of him playing games and sharing the gospel.

You know, many people are going to go, well, can you really do that? It's just an excuse to play games. He and I are going to have a long conversation about people that use games for missions work and whether they're really doing missions because, well, most of them are not, in my opinion.

So that'll be next week. And so I look forward to having you here until next week. Remember to strive to make today an eternal day.