Jmac supporting

Additional information

GCC response

The response explains that their church is not likely to issue a public statement about it, citing the pledge of privacy and confidentiality of pastoral counseling sessions, while taking shots at muckraking journalists like Roys and others who have been the main drivers of this non-story. 

The statement below was sent by an individual close to the situation in response to personal emails asking questions. The statement was and is not a form or canned response from GCC. Phil Johnson has confirmed the church will be issuing no official response. It is internal church matters. 

The Response

The elders of GCC are not likely to issue a public statement on the David Gray
case. Here’s why:

Objective viewers who examine the facts on record without prejudice should be able to see that this case is complex, and there’s more to the story of this couple’s marital strife and their interaction with counselors than the evidence contained in public court records. The main exculpatory facts in this case pertain to things that were said in the privacy of confidential pastoral counseling— in sessions Mrs. Gray herself requested when she was saying she wanted to seek reconciliation with her husband.

In other words, recently-published stories about the case are missing vital details. In almost every counseling or discipline case, statements are made and issues arise that cannot and should not be made public.   Counselors promise confidentiality. Having made that promise, the elders of Grace Church intend to honor it, even if it is to their own hurt (Psalm 15:4). They are not going to breach the bounds of propriety or fuel the tabloid appeal of this story by feeding details from private counseling sessions into the press or social media.

It is also the elders’ position that noisy, angry, sideline critics who have already judged the matter do not need to be answered (Proverbs 26:4; see also Proverbs 17:4). The chief gossip-mongers who are fueling this story have already violated every biblical principle that governs how matters like this should be dealt with. A case such as this cannot fairly be re-litigated twenty years after the fact–especially on social media or other online forums. Given the way all the recent narratives have been slanted and the timelines deliberately compacted, it is clear that those most aggressively pushing this story are not genuinely interested in truth anyway.

Those who personally know and trust the leadership at Grace Community Church do stand with John MacArthur and the elders. .  Our encouragement for people on all sides is to pray for everyone involved in this case. Pray also that the Word of the Lord will continue to spread. And pray that Christ will be glorified (2 Thessalonians 3:1).

Phil Johnston response

It is noted while Phil was listed as an Elder 1999 to 2005, Johnson admitted on Twitter that he has sometimes taken an "inactive" status in his role as an elder, so he wasn't involved in the 2002 excommunication. He did, however, note that he "might have been" present at the service where MacArthur spoke publicly about Eileen.

"We have discipline issues to deal with in about a 1/3 of our communion services," he tweeted, "I don't remember or record each one."

Fred Butler response

Also commented on the hit piece, saying that MacArthur and the church were right to call out the woman.

Butler noted in a tweet that David was "confronted over his sin ... repented of his behavior ... wanted to reconcile w/ his family and be counseled/discipled ... the wife refused to take him back, which is an unbiblical reason for her wanting to leave the marriage. She was being held accountable for that."