Warning: This report contains graphic accusations of journalistic abuse.
In 2019, Roys was on a roll. She had, over the years, exposed some questionable and outright ungodly men. From James MacDonald to Bill Hybels and Ravi Zacharias, her investigative reports had shed light on their actions. Now, it was John MacArthur's turn to face exposure as another ungodly, hypocritical money-driven pastor. While the nature of his wrongdoings differed from those of the same category of sexual perversions, Roys was determined to unveil John MacArthur's direct involvement in covering up sexual abuse. She aimed to remove this individual from the church, intending to reveal John MacArthur as nothing more than a child-hating, uncaring hypocrite – a man as morally tarnished as Ravi Zacharias. This individual needed to be held accountable, and Roys was committed to ensuring that this came to pass.
A keystroke echoed, and a metaphorical scene reminiscent of Shawshank Redemption unfolded, conveying the moment's gravity.
Amid a sense of urgency: John MacArthur placed Roys article on his desk within the confines of Grace Community Church. The sound reverberated through his dimly lit office, a sombre tone accentuated by the persistent ringing of phones in neighbouring rooms. The auditory reminder of festering hypocrisy weighed heavily as the impending revelation loomed. MacArthur's thoughts raced, searching for a solution. His gaze fell upon a framed picture on the wall, bearing the phrase, "His judgment cometh and that right soon…"
An epiphany sparked within him, urging him to approach the picture. Swiftly, the frame was removed, unveiling a concealed safe within the wall. With trembling hands, he entered the combination, and the safe's door yielded to a click. The hypocritical MacArthur set aside his Passion Translation Bible instead of having a MacArthur study bible; a lockbox harbouring his most confidential documents. As the box was opened, a pallor swept over MacArthur's face. The realization struck that vital records detailing Paul Guay's confession of sexual misconduct against his daughter were conspicuously absent. The phones continued their unwelcome chorus. The box slipped from his grasp, clattering to the floor. A maelstrom of fury and despair contorted his expression as his fortress of deception crumbled. Amid the growing clamour of RTT reporters outside his office, MacArthur's resolve to confront his guilt and cover-up seemed non-existent. A ballpoint pen beckoned from his drawer, his fingers reaching for it driven by desperation. Beyond the office walls, the hallway filled with RTT reporters clamouring for a confrontation with MacArthur. Amid his frantic search for a sheet of paper, a sense of shock enveloped him. He began penning his resignation letter, only to have the pen slip from his grasp, creating a dissonant note in the air as it fell splashing ink all over MacArthur. MacArthur slumped to the floor, the pen escaping his hand.
Lying there, a voice reminiscent of Morgan Freeman's emerged: "I like to think that the last thought that crossed MacArthur's mind, aside from the pen's ink staining his hair, was wondering how Julie Roys had gotten the best of him."
Contrary to Roys' expectations:
It's conceivable that Roys foresaw reactions to her 2019 report. Perhaps she envisioned a resignation letter from John MacArthur, akin to Grace Brethren Church response— expressing remorse for not dismissing Paul Guay in 2003. However, GCC never issued a resignation letter from MacArthur nor did they issued an apology letter from the Church itself. Roys' frustration, shared by many contemporary Christians, mounted as MacArthur continued preaching about God's holiness and humanity's need for redemption at GCC. In essence, it was business as usual.
Understanding Julie Roys and the Allegations
To grasp the essence of Julie Roys' identity, is found at her RTT site. A 'Christian' investigative reporter group that Roy's founded. As for whether John MacArthur covered up sexual misconduct, the answer is evident to those familiar with MacArthur's teachings on sexual immorality in the church—over the years: no.
While a succinct response might suffice, an in-depth analysis is for those seeking a comprehensive understanding. In the following sections, we'll delve into the reasons why John MacArthur isn't likely to have concealed sexual misconduct, suggesting instead that he's facing contemporary attacks fueled by prejudice or personal aversion. These motives, however, remain known only to the individuals involved and ultimately to God.
Navigating Complex Territory
Ideally, such sensitive matters are best resolved within families. Yet, for their own reasons, the Guay family opted to make their experiences public. Consequently, this issue entangles anyone associated with John MacArthur, as inquiries regarding his alleged involvement in covering up child molestation will inevitably arise, especially from skeptics seeking avenues to discredit the message of Christ's redemption for sins. This motivation drives the decision to examine the case in-depth, focusing specifically on the Wendy Guay incident while addressing other allegations in future articles.
Structuring the Investigation
The methodology employed in this analysis centers on Roys' focal point: "Witnesses." Accordingly, two key aspects require clarification:
1. Establishing the witnesses of the sexual abuse allegations.
2. Identifying the witnesses involved during the alleged cover-up of sexual abuse, ensuring consistency and corroboration of their accounts.
As a Christian, transparency is paramount. Establishing the credibility and biblical integrity of witnesses is pivotal.
Cross-Examination / Fair Judgment:
1. Deuteronomy 19:15: "A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established."
2. Proverbs 18:17 (NIV): "In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines."
Equal Weights and Measures:
3. Leviticus 19:35-36 (NIV): "Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt."
4. Proverbs 11:1 (NIV): "The Lord detests dishonest scales, but accurate weights find favor with him."
The Allegation of Inappropriate Behavior
Roys' article commenced with Wendy Guay's account in August 1979. She confided in her best friend, Lisa (Tucker) Ward, about her father's alleged sexual abuse. Wendy insisted they sleep fully clothed when they spent nights at her house. Instances arose when Paul Guay, her father, entered Wendy's room at night, creating an uncomfortable atmosphere. One night, as the girls woke up, Guay was rubbing their backs, prompting fear and disclosure. Ward and Wendy eventually shared their secret with Ward's father, John Tucker, a former missionary and member of Grace Community Church (GCC), who then claims he talked with Paul Guay who allegedly confessed to “sexual acts” with his daughter. The three then made there way to John MacArthur and allegedly Paul Guay ones again confess this time with John MacArthur present.
Analyzing the Witness Statements
From the available witness statements, we discern the following:
1. Wendy, a 16-year-old, alleged her father's intrusion into her room and touched her.
2. Wendy's friend, Lisa, was present during an instance of Guay rubbing their shoulder.
3. Wendy confided in Lisa about unspecified behaviours.
4. The specifics of what Wendy and Lisa disclosed to John Tucker, Lisa's father, is not made clear but instead is nuanced with “Sexual acts”.
5. John Tucker, Paul Guay, and John MacArthur are described as all being in one room, as Paul Guay confesses.
In this article, we will address the details of this case to draw conclusions regarding its merits and whether there is any guilt involved.
Transitioning from Allegations to Cover-Up Witnesses
If you type into a search engine John MacArthur and sexual abuse" yields assertions similar
to the following: "Witnesses claim that Pastor Paul Guay confessed his sexual abuse to John MacArthur, but MacArthur did nothing and later denied hearing the confession."
This portrayal, however, is somewhat misleading, and here's why.
Unpacking the Alleged Confession
The claim is bold: Pastor Paul Guay confessed his own sexual misconduct to none other than John MacArthur, the esteemed pastor of Grace Community Church. A narrative takes shape, one where Guay's admission is laid bare, and MacArthur's alleged dilatoriness and acedia behaviour is put forth.
However, a closer examination is necessary, for appearances can be misleading. The surface account oversimplifies a far more intricate reality. Let's delve into this complexity.
The Reality of Confession
Picture this: Guay, burdened by guilt, divulges his transgressions to MacArthur in a candid confession. Though vivid, this depiction oversimplifies the turmoil accompanying such a disclosure. The reality of admission is rarely straightforward; it involves wrestling with emotions, grappling with guilt, and navigating a web of secrecy.
Similarly, the assumption that John Tucker, a silent witness to this alleged confession, would provide strikingly very little detail in what was actually confessed by Paul Guay in front of MacArthur overlooks the human complexity that underpins such conversations.
The Path Forward
To unearth the truth, we must journey forward. As we continue this exploration, we'll investigate the core of Guay's alleged confession—did it happen as claimed? Did MacArthur indeed remain dilatorily and acedia? Were the lines of communication as straightforward as they seem? You are the judge and will have to make your decision based on the facts of the matter.
The Intervention of Paul Guay in 2003 and the Birth of a Cover-Up
In 2003, Wendy, now 39 years old, was married—her life was anything but perfect. Wendy had been suffering from mental problems, which had her addicted to medication, according to RTT. She also suffered from body image issues. An issue that appears Wendy never got over from her teen years. (More on that later)
In early 2003, likely around late January or early February (Based on the information provided in emails), Wendy learned some disturbing news from her aunt, Donna (Paul's sister). Allegedly, Donna, the sister of Paul Guay, had been forced to engage in sexual activity during the 1960s. Donna further claimed that her daughter Pam, Paul's niece had also fallen victim to Paul's predation, subjected to sexual acts when she was just 7 years old.
Confronting the Past
Prompted by these new revelations, Wendy became resolute in confronting her father, who, at the time, was a pastor at Grace Brethren Church. She initiated a series of email exchanges, orchestrating a family intervention to address her father's history. Throughout early 2003, Wendy reached out to John MacArthur and Grace Community Church (GCC), seeking affirmation for her efforts and even proposing that MacArthur accompany her to confront Paul Guay about the allegations.
Initial Responses and Support
Grace Community Church responded by offering Wendy support in two key ways:
prayer and assigning Tom Pennington a support coordinator. Tom would contact Wendy by phone to talk about the situation.
Wendy stating the following about Tom to John MacArthur Fed 20, 2003, “ I thank you very much for having Tom call me last week. He seemed so genuine, speaking with compassion kindness and wisdom. Unfortunately I have been so consumed by our situation that I did no stop and think about the fact that you were on vacation. I am very sorry for being so insensitive.”
However, in a follow up Email It was emphasized by MacArthur’s Personal Secretary Pat Rotisky
that John MacArthur and other members of GCC wouldn't physically participate in the intervention that Wendy was planning. Deeming it a family matter that the best people to do the intervention would be Wendy and her family. Given that Paul Guay was no longer a GCC member since MacArthur could not shed any further light on the new revelation that Wendy was bring up.
The Allegations and Misconceptions
Wendy continued communicating with Pat, gradually outlining her motivations and reasoning for why Wendy believed MacArthur was more involved. She also voiced concerns that someone from GCC might contact her father. Pat reassured her there were no intentions to contact Paul based on Wendy's request, wishing her well on this challenging journey.
Wendy's concerns grew, and she began implying that John MacArthur was aware of the molestation allegations and had chosen to overlook them in 1979, indicating that fear of liability was the reason for MacArthur's reluctance to participate in the intervention in 2003.
Clarifications and Policies
Pat emailed Wendy to clarify two crucial points. First, Grace Community Church wasn't fearful of legal repercussions; MacArthur's limited knowledge of the matter was the main reason for his non-involvement. Second, Pat reiterated that the Church had always had a zero-tolerance policy for child predators. Scripturally, there was no justification for protecting such individuals. In fact, under civil law and church policy, any incident of child molestation requires police involvement.
Wendy's Outrage and MacArthur's 1979 Letter
Pat Rotisky's letter left Wendy deeply unsettled. She challenged the notion that policies safeguarding child abuse victims existed at Grace Church in both 1979 and 2003. Wendy was convinced that MacArthur was aware of her traumatic experience and indirectly accused him of concealing it. This sentiment was strongly influenced by a letter MacArthur had sent her in early September 1979.
In September 1979, Wendy received a letter from MacArthur. In 2003, she maintained that this letter was in response to her father's molestation of her in 1979. An excerpt from the letter read: "I am so sorry about all the problems you have been through, but I believe the Lord is working in very special ways. Your dad is really sad about it all, and we have met and talked at length about the situation."
However, Wendy's diary entries from August of that year hinted at broader family struggles rather than a focal issue related to molestation.
In her presentation, Roys frames and utilizes the September letter in a way that attempts to downplay the numerous challenges Wendy faced in 1979. Roys' mishandling of the MacArthur letter not only fails to clarify matters but also creates a false impression that MacArthur acknowledges Wendy's molestation and was directly addressing that specific claim. However, this is simply not the case.
Unveiling Presuppositions: The Power of Context
The absence of context can weave misleading narratives in the intricate tapestry of events.
As Roys orchestrates her narrative, she presents a sequence that demands scrutiny. Beginning with Roy in her article structure Wendy's revelation—"Wendy said her father called her the same afternoon that he met with MacArthur and told her that he had confessed the abuse."—Roys lays out this statement before she introduces the pivotal letter from John MacArthur, a piece meant to corroborate the confession.
Yet, Roys omits a critical aspect: the letter from MacArthur wasn't a reaction to a recent meeting regarding the abuse allegations. MacArthur's opening line is the truth, nestled within
the image shared in Roys' article: "Thank you for your letter."
Meaning MacArthur wasn't sending young Wendy a letter in response to a confession from her father but, in fact, was answering a letter sent to him by Wendy.
Diving into the past, the unanswered question emerges—what did Wendy write to MacArthur in August 1979? Roys skirts around this detail, failing to mention that Wendy had, in fact, appended the conversation to an earlier letter in August of that year. A glimpse into this correspondence is preserved in 2003 emails to GCC.
In her Feb, 20, 2003 email, Wendy candidly states:
"My letter to you, that you were responding to, was specifically regarding the molestation, otherwise I would not have been so meticulous in marking 'Personal' all over the envelope."
However, a close reading of Wendy's diary entries from August hints at a different narrative—a portrait of an adolescent grappling with various challenges. Dominating these struggles were her weight concerns, her sense of being overlooked by her father, her father’s anger issue, and her perception of her brothers receiving more affection.
Beneath the surface, a significant detail lies concealed—from Wendy's 2003 account and Roys' 2019 article.
An extensive 8-page letter
This obscured facet, which Roys intentionally avoids spotlighting, unfolds in the summer of 1979. Consulting Wendy's own diary entries, a revelation emerges—she penned an extensive 8-page letter to her father and stepmother, a testament to her emotional turmoil during those months.
The precise content of these letters remains locked away. However, delving into Wendy's diary entries paints a vivid picture—suggesting that the issues highlighted earlier played a pivotal role in this communication.
Furthermore, in Wendy's letter dated February 20th, 2003, she offers additional context for the letter she sent to John MacArthur, which subsequently formed the basis for MacArthur's response. She explains that her father had been unkind to her, implying she would be a poor wife to her future husband."
In Wendy's recollection, her father's and stepmother's response to her letter fell short of her expectations. An entry dated Aug, 17, 1979, poignantly captures her sentiment: "I got a letter from my dad. He missed the whole point of my letter. He is making everyone hate me. I don't feel close to him. I do feel his love, not one bit.'"
This insight adds depth and nuance, an element that Roys tactically sidesteps.
Wendy's Motivation for Contacting MacArthur in 1979:
A distinct hypothesis leads me to believe that Wendy's outreach to MacArthur in 1979 was triggered by family circumstances. It appears that Wendy's communication to MacArthur revolved around her father's reaction to a letter she had written—a letter that seemed to convey her intention to leave her father's home and reside with her mother.
Examining MacArthur's response, it becomes apparent that his letter leans toward addressing a family counselling issue involving a father-daughter relationship. The contents of the letter, when considered from the perspective of a girl no longer living at home and experiencing emotional distress due to feelings of being unloved and misunderstood by her parents, appear to take on a different hue.
Interpreting MacArthur's letter in the context of the claimed molestation narrative reveals a nuanced approach. There's an absence of explicit references to inappropriate touching, MacArthur's intention to involve law enforcement, or the Church's potential role in the matter—a critical aspect that Wendy and her supporters emphasize.
Surprisingly, MacArthur's letter refrains from mentioning any wrongdoing by Paul Guay. The brevity of the letter and its lack of a substantial response to the allegations of molestation could be attributed to the broader context—familial dynamics and Wendy's expressed desire to leave her father's household.
Navigating through these intricacies, it becomes evident that interpreting MacArthur's letter solely within the framework of molestation allegations falls short of capturing the entire essence of the communication. The backdrop of complex family dynamics, emotional turmoil, and the absence of direct accusations in the letter add ambiguity that challenges a conclusive narrative.
Descending into Confusion:
With Wendy's February 20th letter directly challenging John MacArthur's lack of knowledge about any other details, and MacArthur becoming frustrated over the continued charges laid by Wendy, MacArthur decides to reach out to Paul – a decision that Wendy finds unacceptable.
Upon discovering that MacArthur had initiated contact with her father to seek clarification and confirm his perspective, Wendy responded with frustration directed at John MacArthur for his actions.
She believed that MacArthur should not have communicated with her father but instead should have reached out to John Tucker or Gary Davis to seek their accounts to clarify 'memories'.
However, this situation raises an important question: What if John Tucker's and Gary Davis’s involvement in the matter was not significant enough or relevant enough from John MacArthur's perspective to warrant direct contact with them? With 25 years having passed since 1979 by the time 2003 came around, even Wendy herself was struggling to accurately recall the events. Yet, she insisted that MacArthur contact individuals who supported her version of events in 2003.
She conveyed to MacArthur: "what in the world did he say to you that day that would make you believe that these other men of God were lying?"
Wendy indirectly questioned MacArthur's integrity by implying that MacArthur disregarded the input of godly men. This raises the counter-question: Why was Wendy assuming that John MacArthur was being dishonest and lacking in godliness?
My Brain Hurts (Does Yours?):
The involvement of John Tucker and Gary Davis in this matter has left my brain perplexed as I strive to piece together this article. Why? Because the conflicting reports surrounding Tucker and Davis's roles are widespread and, at times, difficult to comprehensively grasp in terms of their relevance to the overarching narrative.
Facts remain facts, but the inconsistencies within their accounts lead me to assign limited weight to their recollections or potential involvement in scenarios where they might have encountered John MacArthur confessing to Paul Guay or acknowledging Guay's guilt.
This doesn't imply that I doubt the possibility of these men eventually hearing of Wendy's allegations; it's quite plausible that they did. However, the question of "when" remains an enigma. I cannot definitively ascertain whether either directly conveyed their concerns to MacArthur. If indeed these men possessed information regarding Wendy's accusations, there's also the possibility that they relayed it to another individual who then brought the matter to MacArthur's attention.
This perspective is influenced by Guay's admission that his embittered ex-wife initially raised these claims.
According to Marlou Fronapel, (Wendy mother) she contacted Grace Church to voice complaints about Paul based on Wendy's allegations.
It's conceivable that Wendy's allegations might have indirectly reached John MacArthur, even though MacArthur himself never engaged in a direct conversation with Wendy's Mother.
One certainty emerges:
MacArthur did become aware of allegations against Paul Guay of a sexual nature, although identifying the exact source of this information remains a formidable challenge.
However, I tend to believe, based on the only detailed letter provided in the RTT article, that the sources of the information likely came from Marlou Fronapel. It's probable that what had occurred is that when MacArthur learned of the actions, he confronted Paul, who then denied the claims. This notion is somewhat supported by Marlou Fronapel letter when she herself acknowledges that the reason her phone call wasn't returned was probably due to Paul's denial.
Furthermore, MacArthur seems to corroborate this when he states that Paul claimed it was his wife's word against his.
Inaccuracy:
In Julie Roys' 2019 article, she asserts that John Tucker, Lisa's father and Wendy's friend, is informed about the alleged sexual misconduct in August 1979. (As clarified earlier, it remains unclear what specific information was communicated to John Tucker regarding the mischief. Was it just Paul's rubbing of the shoulders, or were other details provided? If so, what were they?) The article indicates John Tucker confronts Paul Guay, who subsequently confesses to the ordeal.
According to Wendy's 2003 emails and Tucker's 2003 affidavit, Tucker and Paul visit MacArthur's office, engaging in a conversation during which Paul confesses to molestation. This confession occurs in the presence of all three men, and prayer is offered. John Tucker experiences a sense of relief as he believes that MacArthur will handle the situation.
A Different Account:
While Roys' article only presents the aforementioned account, an alternative version of events emerges. According to Wendy's perspective, the following sequence transpires: After confiding in John Tucker, he attempts to discuss Wendy's situation with MacArthur. However, MacArthur declined to sit down or listen to the allegations.
It's worth noting that Wendy will claim dates and events in her emails, stating, 'according to my diary.' However, it appears that RTT has not provided these entries, and thus I cannot confirm whether they exist. One thing becomes clear: almost everything Wendy mentions about molestation being recorded in her diary is conspicuously absent from RTT sources. In fact, the August entries provided seem to have no association with molestation.
Mother (Marlou Fronapel):
As mentioned, Wendy's mother becomes aware of the matter and calls Grace Church to report the accusations.
Uncle Gary Davis ? :
Who is Gary Davis? Davis happens to be the brother-in-law of Wendy's mother, Marlou Fronapel, and he himself holds the role of a pastor. According to both Wendy and her mother, Davis enters the scene at the request of Fronapel, following her unsuccessful attempts to contact John MacArthur. As per Fronapel's account, Davis takes the initiative to reach out to GCC. Given Davis' pastoral status, Wendy asserts that MacArthur, out of respect for a fellow pastor, answered the call. During this conversation, it is claimed that MacArthur admitted to Davis about Paul's confession of molestation. Emotions ran high, and both men engaged in a heartfelt prayer. Wendy's narrative, as relayed by Davis, paints a picture where MacArthur acknowledges his role in church discipline and commits to handling the matter.
However, Marlou Fronapel version has her brother-in-Law also being rejected by MacArthur. Implying that Gary Davis himself never spoke to MacArthur.
When Roys attempts to talk to Gary Davis for her 2019 article, she has to concede that upon reaching out to Gary Davis, he declines to speak with her. Consequently, the veracity of Davis' account remains unverified.
Diary Account:
Interestingly, Wendy's diary presents a slightly different version. In the entries provided for August, there is no mention of Wendy confiding in John Tucker about molestation. The majority of the entries revolve around Wendy's father, stepmom, and her decision to move to Oregon with her mother. As previously mentioned, Wendy's diary entries focus more on her letter to her dad and stepmom about family issues.
However, one entry closer to the end of August mentions Tucker and Davis together. Wendy writes: "Mr. Tucker and Davis are going to speak with my dad about stuff. Yuk Yuk Yuk." The specific nature of the "stuff" that Tucker and Davis intend to discuss with Paul remains uncertain.
Tucker and Davis’s Talk with Paul Must Be About Molestation:
If you consult Roy, Wendy, and others, they will affirm that Davis and Tucker were prepared to confront Paul about his abuse of 16-year-old Wendy.
However, if this is true, it adds to the confusion. Why? Because in John Tucker's 2003 affidavit, he never mentions confronting Paul with Davis.
This raises an interesting point:
If you've just confronted Paul Guay and he has confessed to the actions, wouldn't it be logical to include the other eyewitness to the confession? Yet, Tucker's affidavit contains no reference to Gary Davis.
There is no 2003 affidavit from Davis, and when Wendy attempts to encourage MacArthur to contact Davis based on her understanding of Davis’s account, Wendy seems slightly less confident as she states, "I will reach out to him tomorrow to confirm his account." However, there is no clarification as to whether Wendy actually follows through, as there is no further mention of Davis.
Could it be that Davis’s recollection was different? Or perhaps Davis no longer remembers much about that time? It's difficult to say. However, based on Wendy's diary entries that place Tucker and Davis together, one would imply that if Paul had confessed to molesting Wendy, Davis should have also heard the confession. Yet, Wendy tells MacArthur that Davis spoke on the phone with him to hear the confession from MacArthur's lips about Paul's molestation confession. This implies that Davis didn't directly hear any confession from Paul.
This leads to several possibilities:
1. There was no confession made by Paul before Tucker or Davis; thus, neither individual needs to recall the meeting.
2. Tucker and Davis weren't confronting Paul about the abuse but perhaps about other family issues related to Wendy's living situation.
3. Wendy's diary might be incorrect, based on misinformation. Since Wendy herself wasn't present during any confrontation, she is recording hearsay evidence, relying on information conveyed to her, which could potentially be inaccurate. In other words, it's possible that Tucker and Davis never confronted Paul together.
If Wendy Sent MacArthur a Letter of Molestation, Then Why Care About Tucker or Davis?
In her email to MacArthur on February 20th, 2003, Wendy implies that her letter to him was about her being molested. However, if this is the case, why would Tucker or Davis need to be involved? The entire premise of Tucker and Davis’s involvement is based on the idea that Wendy was too shy, nervous, or embarrassed to bring the charges directly to MacArthur herself. It suggests that these mild-mannered individuals were there to handle the difficult part. But if Wendy is now claiming that she was the one who brought the molestation charges to John MacArthur’s attention, then one must question why she would want MacArthur to contact Tucker or Davis for their experience in his office. According to her testimony, she had just relayed incriminating information about her father to MacArthur. At that juncture, there appeared to be little reason for MacArthur to initiate face-to-face conversations with John Tucker, Gary Davis, or any other individuals who could merely serve as hearsay witnesses.
While I understand that many letters are eventually discarded, I assume that a responsible pastor would want to retain letters discussing molestation as potential evidence for a crime. Even though 25 years is considerable, I find it odd that Wendy never requested MacArthur to review the letter the she sent. Additionally, I struggle to accept that a letter addressing molestation would be easily forgettable.
A Theory is Born for What Took Place in August 1979
Let's examine the context of the previous entries and the troubles Wendy was experiencing at home. There is a possibility that Tucker and Davis could very well have been planning to talk to Paul about his behaviour towards Wendy, not about molestation. In other words, it could have been Wendy's desire to stay in Oregon, and these individuals were attempting to address the family problems to encourage her to return with her father, which she ultimately did.
More circumstantial evidence based on Wendy's diary suggests domestic issues at home in August 1979 rather than a molestation issue. Interestingly, there is no mention of "Mr. Tucker" or "Uncle Gary" going to speak with John MacArthur about any matters in August 1979. Nor is there any mention of a confession arising from the meeting involving Davis, Tucker, and Paul.
However, when Wendy recounts this diary reference to John MacArthur, she adds to her diary entry by asserting that Davis and Mr. Tucker were going to confront Paul about the molestation and then visit John's office. Yet, Wendy's own diary entry does not mention this; it is entirely devoid of any reference to molestation and John MacArthur's name until September 3rd, when she receives a letter from MacArthur.
Wendy appears to be extremely happy upon receiving a letter from MacArthur. In fact, there is a change in her mood from a darker disposition to a more positive one as she is thrilled about MacArthur's interaction with her father. And that all is well now.
Simpleton Logic
Now, I may be a "simpleton," but if I were to apply some basic logic here, wouldn't it make sense to suggest that what transpired in August 1979 is that young Wendy was no longer planning to stay in Oregon but intended to return to live with her father and stepmother? Is it not more plausible that the "situation" Wendy and John MacArthur were discussing wasn't about molestation but rather about "Wendy's problems with her father, and her living situating?
I mean when Wendy herself stats: "They both feel it is God's will for me to live here." pretty much makes it clear that Wendy's living arrangements was the main issue.
But someone will say, 'August 1979 is the month that the sexual molestation happened, and when Wendy finally had enough!'
I know that is what Roy puts at the beginning of her article, but here are the facts: Roy doesn't know when Wendy and Lisa Tucker confessed to John Tucker.
In fact, no one does.
No substantiated specific dates have been provided, aside from Wendy mentioning August 5th or August 10th as the alleged dates when Paul Guay confessed to John MacArthur. However, even Wendy can't state this with certainty. Additionally, despite her referencing her diary, RTT doesn't provide the entries for these dates.
Instead, what we get are assumptions and presuppositions. While it is possible that Wendy did confide in Lisa and then in John Tucker in August of 1979, Christian standards, however, are not based on assumptions stemming from feelings. If you want me to believe the story being told, then I will need dates that can be corroborated.
A High Standard
Proverbs 22:1 (NIV): "A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."
Moreover, when you're raising allegations against an individual of John MacArthur's stature, a person who, in audio recordings (1975), preaches with fervor about the gravity and sanctity of sexual sins, proposing that he fails to comprehend the weight of the very message he's conveying comes across as implausible. Whether one concurs or not, given my personal assessment of John MacArthur as an exceptional expositor of the Word of God, I find myself inclined to hold those accusing him to an exceedingly high standard. This implies my expectation for a maximum of three witnesses to substantiate accusations with compelling evidence, all in conjunction with direct eyewitness' statements. Up to this point in Roys' article, we have yet to secure the affirmation of two witnesses' accounts, let alone two witnesses displaying credible integrity.
Immorality in the Church, Part 1: Delivering the Immoral to Satan (Sermon give in 1975)
Liar, a Liar, or Something Else?
Much of the confusion and drama in this matter involving Wendy and MacArthur centers around Paul Guay's character.
One thing becomes apparent: During this (1960's to ?) time frame, Paul Guay has a habit of telling one person one thing and then telling another person something else. According to Wendy, for almost 25 years, Wendy had believed her father's account to her that he had confessed his secret to John MacArthur, only to be told by MacArthur that what Wendy had believed about her father was, in fact, not true.
Wendy doesn't like this response, as already described. However, why Wendy acts so angrily over MacArthur contradicting Wendy's account is somewhat hard to understand.
Why?
Because Wendy herself knows that her father's ability to tell the truth is anything but stellar. She states:
"My father mixed God's words with Lies," "If my Dad had shown a humbled acceptance at any point for what he'd done, telling the truth about each and every one of his acts…" "Please know that I do not blame John for the molestation or for believing in my dad. I believed in him too. He fooled me too."
Even Pauls sister (Donna) makes a cameo appearance in Roy's article by stating how, when Paul was openly confronted in his Church in 2003, his sister accused him of forcing himself on her and having sex with her. To which Paul denied the claims. However, according to Wendy's ant, Paul approached her afterwards and confessed to having sex with her but stated that he remembered the encounter as being consensual and that she was also a willing participant. It needs to be pointed out again that Only Donna herd this confession.
Wants to believe a liar?
Wendy knew that her father was a liar, and even though Wendy knew her father to be a liar, she still wanted to believe him about what he said to MacArthur in his office in 1979.
However, she rejects her father's truthfulness when he contradicts his own statement to Wendy when MacArthur asks him.
One might say that's because Paul is trying to suck up to John MacArthur and do him a solid for getting him involved?
It's plausible, however, according to Wendy, that her father held a grudge toward MacArthur and spoke harshly towards him after he had been fired by MacArthur over the years.
In 2003, it seemed that Paul Guay had managed to move forward, leaving the past behind him, yet it remained an indelible part of his memory—a sentiment many of us can relate to as believers when we reflect on our past sins. In Wendy's February 17, 2003, letter she shares a poignant excerpt from her father's response to his sister's letter (though the sister's words are regrettably absent), where Paul articulates: (see pic)
Weather this implied that Guay was now operating as a born again Christian? Is only known to God.
I will say this, after Paul's firing in 1982 for sexual misconduct, there has never been any further accusation of sexual misconduct from 1982 to 2012, when Paul died. So, it is possible that if Paul had been a faithful Christian and had confessed his sins, it could be very likely that by the time 2003 came around, Paul was telling the truth about John MacArthur's account. But I speculate.
Wendy then wants to remind John MacArthur of Paul's lying habits and that Paul's admitting to John MacArthur could also be a lie. Stating:
Whether Paul was honest in 2003 is not really the point of John MacArthur calling Paul. MacArthur called Paul to recount his memory of the events rather than to construct events. Wendy, and for that her allies in this matter almost makes it appear that John MacArthur can't remember the event and that he is conspiring with her father to devise an alternative event.
For example Wendy's brother James Guay told RTT
“Not only did he [MacArthur] blame the victim and pathologize the means of value of the victim’s mother for being a disgruntled ex-wife,” James said, “but he after the fact acted like he didn’t know what actually occurred.”
This assertion by James is misguided, as MacArthur never implies that he considers Wendy's mother as a "disgruntled ex-wife." Rather, MacArthur is purely conveying the information Paul Guay shared with him in 1979. It appears MacArthur is making a genuine effort to communicate to the family that he cannot provide the response they desire, as meeting their expectations would necessitate him to falsify information.
My interpretation of MacArthur's letter in 2003 reveals a man who does recall the incident but seeks to adhere to a standard of two to three witnesses. He is reaching out to Paul as a potential witness of the event. I'm inclined to believe that even if Paul Guay corroborated Wendy's account, MacArthur would have retained his recollection of the events as he remembers them. In other words, MacArthur would not have fabricated or altered his narrative.
Paul Guay’s credibility
The reality is that Paul Guay's credibility has been significantly compromised. While the certainty of whether Paul Guay was a true believer is known only to the Lord, one thing is certain: Guay's credibility will inevitably be scrutinized – as it should.
In the Intervention of 2003, the family asserts that Guay had admitted to sexually abusing both Pam and Wendy. According to James (Wendy's brother), this assertion is supported by the corroboration of several other family members.
However, it is also noted that Guay's appeared to somewhat mitigated his guilt, which led to frustration among the family members.
This makes Roy's article all the more puzzling.
Why would she write this article based on witness statements that would have to include Paul Guay's as one of those witnesses to the confession?
Not just the credibility of Paul, but almost everyone involved in Roy's article either has a credibility problem – Wendy and Paul – or the other witnesses' accounts simply cannot be validated.
While there is no question that Wendy was abused to some extent, as admitted by Paul Guay, there is still no concrete evidence to suggest that MacArthur was aware of Paul Guay's molestation of Wendy in 1979.
Wendy's effort to unveil a potential 'cover-up' by John MacArthur, through the identification of both vague and readily provable inconsistencies, is quite disheartening.
Not substantiated
The fact that MacArthur couldn't confirm the occurrence of Wendy's molestation in 1979 doesn't automatically indicate a cover-up. It simply signifies that the account cannot be substantiated.
In fact, that is precisely what MacArthur tells Wendy when he does bring up the accusation that he did hear about Paul.
Stated that Paul had denied the accusation, saying that all he ever did was rub his daughter's shoulders and that MacArthur had no reason to doubt him as, up to this point, MacArthur had known Paul's character to be trustworthy. There needed to be more for MacArthur to go on in 1979.
Yet, Roy not only writes the article but makes the article lean more toward Wendy's favour, even though there are questionable inaccuracies with Wendy's accounts.
The True Christian Standards
It's one thing for the secular media and bloggers to write their gossip trash, but for people who claim to be Christians and then write gospel trash, it is discrediting, not just for themselves, but it doesn't glorify God and His standards. We, as Christians, need to keep His standard as our foundation, which Roy clearly fails to do in her article.
Not only does she fail to keep the Christian standard as her principle, but based on how she writes the article, I would even question if she even understands what a Christian standard is.
If secular society courts wouldn't take this case on due to problems, then why does Roy think Christians should?
If she genuinely held onto a Christian worldview and standard, she could have written this article more truthfully and skillfully while emphasizing that the bar is two to three witnesses. That equal weights and measures need to be applied. Instead, Roy goes with feelings and inconclusive testimony.
Ironically, Roy actually misses what I think is an uncomfortable error for GCC and MacArthur, which I will go over shortly. However, before I do, we need to cover one more final point about the whole matter: Wendy, Wendy’s brothers, Lisa Tucker, John Tucker, Gary Davis, Marlou Fronapel, Donna and even Roy's understanding of Church Discipline.
Biblical Integrity & Church Discipline
If you are a faithful Christian, I am sure you have already picked up on some questions. For instance, why would the supporters of Wendy in this matter think there is a concept of Church discipline for sexual molestation?
Let me make this clear: You do not need a Ph.D. in Church doctrine to understand that one of the most basic sins that will result in being cut off is unrepentant sexual sins. Whether it's sexual sins outside of marriage, same-sex sins, or child molestation, such actions cannot be tolerated, especially by pastors.
The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in 1 Corinthians 5. In this chapter, the Apostle Paul is notified of a perversion in the Church. While this perversion is not directly related to this matter, it is worth noting. Paul is dealing with a situation involving a son and step-mother, where the son and Step - mother are openly engaged in a sexual relationship. According to Paul, the Church does nothing to correct this behaviour, which warrants their expulsion.
Paul's fervent style of addressing this kind of conduct is evident; if he has no patience for a son and Step-mother, it's without a doubt that he would respond similarly to a father and daughter situation. So the question arises: Why do so many people in this matter believe that Guay could keep his job just because he confessed his sins to MacArthur?
I have not the foggiest idea. In fact, I am left speechless because anyone who reads their Bible daily will understand that men in positions of special authority must live righteously. If they fall short, they must be held accountable.
(Like John MacArthur or not, he has been pounding away at that very message for decades.)
Furthermore, civil laws that govern sexual perversion, limited as they may be, must be followed by Christians. Meaning it is not the Church's role to implement some sort of arbitrary disciplinary regime for the child molester. Instead, the state is responsible for bringing justice to the violator. Romans 13 strongly implies this.
Of all the actors mentioned in this article, only one side truly grasps this: John MacArthur.
Having listened to recordings of John MacArthur teaching on sexual immorality in the 1970s, it's clear that his stance has remained consistent. Given MacArthur's consistency, it is inevitable that he would have fired Paul and contacted the local authorities to investigate Paul Guay for molestation if he had affirmed the accusation.
While researching this article, I began delving into some of John MacArthur's older tapes, dating back to the 1970s and even the 1980s. During this exploration, I stumbled upon a sermon titled: "Sexual Purity in the Church 1986."
Intriguingly, within the first two minutes of the sermon, MacArthur finds himself recounting an incident where he was approached by a dismissed pastor seeking a reference letter. Although MacArthur doesn't explicitly mention that the fired pastor is from GCC (Grace Community Church), it strongly implies so, as why would an unrelated pastor approach MacArthur for a reference? In the anecdote, MacArthur informs the pastor that he won't provide a reference, and when the dismissed pastor inquires about the reason, MacArthur aptly explains that while forgiveness can be extended to those who have stumbled, a pastor's past image remains inescapable and subject to reproach. Providing further reasons why I have no doubt that MacArthur had zero knowledge of Wendy being molested by Paul Guay.
Furthermore, it appears that Wendy and her family were under the impression that MacArthur and GCC would provide Paul Guay with a reference letter for another church.
However, I believe this sermon lays that idea to rest.
'I still don't believe MacArthur would have called the police', as some of you might argue.
For those who might say, 'No, I am convinced that MacArthur would have still done nothing,' Okay, well you now have to condemn all the main actors in this production, likewise. They did not adhere to the high standard of biblical integrity. You can claim all day long that MacArthur should have done something, but the fact remains that MacArthur is not the Bible's standard on right or wrong. I am amazed at how often I have to remind people of this.
To borrow from the Apostle Paul:
'Is John MacArthur divided? Was MacArthur crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of John MacArthur?'
This implies that if MacArthur made a mistake as a fallible man in 1979, why didn't any of Wendy's allies take the issue to the next level? All of them were old enough to be accountable for knowing right from wrong.
Consider this scenario: "One night, the girls woke up, and Guay was rubbing their backs. Wendy woke up, freaked out, and grabbed me," Ward said. Soon afterward, Wendy divulged her secret to Ward. They then told Ward's dad, John Tucker, a former missionary and then-member of Grace Community Church (GCC), about the abuse. This process led Paul Guay to confess his abuse directly to John MacArthur. While MacArthur did nothing substantial, he claimed to want to administer some form of Church discipline for a criminal matter? Upon hearing this, John Tucker became concerned and approached the elders in the Church. Tucker expressed concerns that MacArthur wasn't following Scriptural guidelines regarding 1 Corinthians 5 and violated pastoral duties outlined in 1 Timothy.
Furthermore, Tucker provided to the board John MacArthur series titled: "Immorality in the Church, Part 1 & 2: Disciplining Sin in the Church" which was record in 1975, 4 years earlier where MacArthur makes it clear that Sexual immorality of this nature need to be dealt with harshly.
Tucker understood that the Church need's time to conduct an investigation and that the fact that Paul confessed should make the Board's job straightforward. Furthermore, MacArthurs own sermons make it easy for the Board as they can latterly play the tape for MacArthur.
After confirming the allegations, the elders and Board of Directors promptly contacted the police in accordance with guidelines and terminated both Paul and John MacArthur. MacArthur's attempt at arbitrary Church discipline, was not accepted.
This scenario could apply to every actor involved, including Guay.
Even Guay, if he had confessed, should have known that the Bible's response would be for him to voluntarily step down and report himself, or at the very least have the Church take that action on his behalf. Yet, this didn't happen.
Not a single person, including Wendy, contacted the police independently or questioned why Church discipline would be used in a criminal matter. Roys has yet to mention these details, further raising questions about her motives for writing her article.
I am left with a couple of scenarios:
1. Paul misled those around him into believing that Church discipline could address these issues.
2. There was malice in the years preceding the 1979 event, with people conspiring to create a Church discipline cover story. Many non-believers and even Christian members have a warped understanding of Church discipline. This misguided understanding might lead people to believe that MacArthur was foolish enough to apply Church discipline to a criminal matter.
I'm not sure which of these scenarios is accurate, but I will say this: MacArthur's understanding of Church discipline wasn't what Wendy expected. In fact, it seems that MacArthur's biblical understanding of both the role of Church and the state caught Wendy off guard, given that she repeatedly insisted on an arbitrary church discipline cover story. Interestingly, in her attack on MacArthur for the alleged Church discipline deviation, Wendy never provides specifics on what Church discipline was supposed to address.
The failures to understand Church discipline doctrine by those involved in this matter are shocking, especially since two of the members are pastors, (Gary Davis & Paul Guay) and another is identified as a former missionary (John Tucker). Ladies and gentlemen, this is why knowing your Bible is important: it allows you to correct errors when they occur.
Why Was Paul Hired Initially?
While reading through the extensive RTT article, one particular section caught my attention. It states:
"Marlou Fronapel also shared stories with TRR about Paul Guay during their four-year marriage, revealing a recurring pattern of predatory behavior. She recounted an incident in 1960 when Guay was attending Pacific Christian College in Fullerton, California, and the administration reprimanded him for "flirtatiously" pursuing a freshman coed. Fronapel added that Guay faced issues for seeking relationships with high school girls at two churches they attended, with one of the churches even asking Guay to leave. In 1964, Guay impregnated his second wife, Jane Guay, a teenager in a youth group he led, Fronapel claimed. Following this, Guay divorced Fronapel "illegally" in Las Vegas and married Jane. (Guay and Fronapel legally divorced in California in 1966.)"
During the 2003 intervention, Marlou Fronapel provided GBC with her letter, chronicling Fronapel and Guay's marriage. I must admit that, on this particular point, Roys' article is surprisingly generous in its description of Guay's life.
While Fronapel does acknowledge that some time has passed and she has attempted to suppress the details of Guay, she still manages to decently recount the relationship. Without a doubt, Guay led a highly questionable lifestyle in the 1960s. His obsession with women was truly startling.
What Roy doesn't mention about Guay is that he on at least one occasion, was stalking a certain undisclosed lady. Additionally, in the late 1960s, Guay and his brother were involved in an armed robbery, for which they were apprehended. Guay managed to escape severe consequences due to his lack of criminal history, yet he did serve time in jail for his crime.
I'm not even sure where to begin with explaining why Paul Guay should not have been hired. I believe the best approach is for me to let the word of God explain why Paul Guay should never have been hired...
1 Timothy 3:1-7 (NIV): "Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, [Take a moment to reflect on this...] temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he care for God's Church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders so that he will not fall into disgrace and the devil's trap."
Furthermore, Titus 1:5-9 (NIV): "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God's household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."
While Marlou Fronapel's memory might not have been at its sharpest in 2003, and certain details could have been misrepresented, the facts remains that there are multiple allegations stated can be verified. It's truly puzzling that Grace Community Church (GCC) still opted to hire him.
Perhaps this choice could be attributed to the limitations of conducting comprehensive background checks during the 1970s, but regardless of the reason, Guay remained fundamentally unqualified. This decision to bring him on board will forever be intertwined with GCC.
Grace Brethren Church (GBC) chose to retain Pual Guay?
Understanding the rationale behind GCC's decision is a puzzle on its own, but even more confounding is why Grace Brethren Church (GBC) chose to retain him.
In 2003, Paul was confronted by Wendy and her family. Although he denied several accusations, he did admit guilt in some instances. Furthermore, Guay doesn't appear to take any exception to his first wife's rendition of events. Which alone should have prompted GBC to sever ties with Guay upon affirming the details.
The evidence presented at GBC seems substantial enough to justify his dismissal.
Shockingly, GBC penned a letter to Wendy explaining their refusal to terminate Paul and referenced 1 Timothy 3:1-7 while evaluating pastoral qualifications. Though the passage doesn't lean towards Paul's continuation, GBC struggled to interpret it, resorting to broader biblical teachings to rationalize his ongoing tenure. How GBC, in 2003, failed to grasp the implications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 remains beyond my comprehension.
An own on GCC:
As for the circumstances surrounding Paul's hiring, I'm curious, but I acknowledge that understanding this must be entrusted to the Lord. One thing is unmistakable: even in 1979, when John MacArthur taught solid biblical principles, he would have aptly explained 1 Timothy. Yet, GCC hired a man with a far-from-"above reproach" background. Therefore, GCC lapses of verifying and aligning Paul's history with the elevated standards for pastoral positions established in 1 Timothy is an own on them.
While MacArthur has remained silent publicly on this issue, there was one account from Wendy that I think is likely the closest we can get to MacArthur acknowledging the error of Hiring Paul Guay. On a phone call around April 2003, Wendy recalls MacArthur becoming frustrated when she brings up other family members who had been victimized by him. According to Wendy, MacArthur "lamented hiring Guay because he had been divorced.” I have no doubt; I believe that the mere mention of the name Paul Guay around John MacArthur likely makes MacArthur wish he could go back in time and never hire him.
Cautionary Warning:
I am not a pastor but a simple believer with a heart full of God's passion. I have devoted a significant amount of time to meticulously examining the Paul Guay, Wendy Guay vs. John MacArthur matter.
While I find no fault with MacArthur or GCC for Paul's actions, nor do I fault them for their handling of him when he was associated with them, I do take issue with GCC hiring Paul based solely on his apparent history of inappropriate conduct during his younger years.
A man who cheats on his first wife, leading to impregnating another woman and divorcing his first wife, is unfit to be a pastor. Regardless of repentance or the time elapsed (40-50 years), disqualification is warranted due to the consequences. If Grace, and by extension, John MacArthur, had been aware of all the details about Paul's first wife and his behaviour, they should have made a better decision and refrained from hiring Paul.
As I conclude this lengthy and in-depth into the matter of abuse involving MacArthur and Wendy, I want to issue a cautionary warning to churches and pastors.
The call is to be "Above Reproach." We cannot call our members to a holy lifestyle while living in a way that contradicts our message. Our light cannot shine before the world if our lamps are burnt out. We cannot uphold high standards when our hiring practices demonstrate low standards. As a believer in Christ, I earnestly desire that all pastors adhere to elevated standards.
It's important to clarify that my critique of the hiring process does not diminish my deep respect for John MacArthur. I have learned extensively from his teachings and still consider him an exemplar of solid preachers. However, even the best leaders are not immune to mistakes, and we must evaluate decisions critically. I implore churches to invest effort into their hiring practices, guided by the biblical standards we have been provided. I also believe that the individual believer should be mature enough to know whether he is qualified to meet the high standards of being an elder or pastor. Personally, I wouldn't meet the high standards, and therefore, I would never put myself in a situation where I could be reproached.
I do not want to dishonour God nor my fellow believers, and I hope you feel the same way.