The Prosperous Lifestyle of America’s Anti-Prosperity Gospel Preacher

No it isn’t Tyler. Go look at it. The street address is blocked.

For those who want to see for themselves: http://romans45.org/misc/roys.pdf

an empty nester? I mean he is 80, right? Isn’t it prideful and wasteful for him to have a 2 bedroom house?

*Note: Sarcasm

No Mark, I think he should buy another one on Martha’s Vineyard.

I literally just looked at the link and beheld Roys personal address in West Chicago. I don’t know what else to say, I’m afraid.

Did you look at the link I posted? The personal address is blurred out. What are you looking at? Provide us a link so we can see it. She acknowledges that it does not show her address. (BTW, her address is publicly available for anyone who wants to find it. It’s not a secret. But no one should use it to send personal hate mail. If you don’t like her, ignore her.)

I have no particular horse in the MacArthur issue. Let the people who care sort that out, but let’s make sure we are being as accurate as we can be so that we are not caught up in making false statements.

with over a 100+ titles, then you too can buy a house in Martha’s Vineyard. Maybe right next to Barack Obama.

saying God’s plan for everyone is to be rich, especially by sending money to my ministry. Etc. You know the drill.

When did it become unbiblical for individuals to become rich through hard work and effort and the providence of God?

“Can” does not equal “Should.”

[Larry]

if MacArthur indeed told his editors to pound sand, then we’ve got a hint as to his character regarding ministry decisions as well.

Seriously? A author should not have the most significant influence in the title of his book? I think Phil Johnson is his primary editor, but an author’s work should reflect the author (not anyone else). And if an author objects to an edit, shouldn’t he should be entitled to withhold permission to publish? The bigger an author is, the more sway he is going to have.

Agreed that the “bigger” an author is, the more sway he is going to have. I also have no problem with the notion that the author would have influence into the title of his book. I’m all for negotiation. That noted, a line is crossed when a “big time’ author more or less tells his publisher that if they don’t like the way he’s doing things, he’ll just go elsewhere.

Along the same lines, notice Phil Johnson’s stiff arm and language towards Roys. Same basic attitude. I have a great deal of agreement with GTY on a lot of issues, but this is really symptomatic of some big problems in the organization.

Tyler, someone suggested if you clicked on the original link the page would be stored in cache and that is what it would pull up. So if you clicked on it before he blurred it, and went back to the page, it would still show the original cached version. In any event, it seems clearly to have been updated at the very least. The bottom line is that the address has been blurred and Roys’ has acknowledged that on her Twitter timeline.

If I knew how to post pictures, I would post them here. You can also go to Julie Roys’ timeline on Twitter and see her confirm that the address is blurred. When the screenshot of the blurred address is posted on Julie Roys’ timeline, she says: “He just did that when I called him out personally.” When someone on Twitter asks her, “Did he delete and reupload ? When I click on the link he provided to the letter your address is blurred,” she responds, “Yes, he must have [deleted and reuploaded]. Without apology.”

I can imagine that Phil posted it and didn’t blur it (perhaps didn’t think to; I wouldn’t have thought to do that) and then blurred it after it was pointed out. I would be cautious of reading any ill intent to it, particularly since it is fixed now. If he intended to expose it maliciously, it is doubtful that he would have then blurred it. I would imagine he uploaded it as proof and didn’t think to remove the address or blur it. Thinking the best of others is, IMO, usually the best course of action.

[TylerR]

As of 45 mins ago, Roys is still protesting the address is up.

I have no idea if this was malicious, and I suggested it was unwitting when I first brought it up. It is ridiculously negligent, however.

I think it’s a matter of timing and browser caching, just as Larry pointed out. Earlier, I was able to see the address on Johnson’s link. I saved a copy just in case it went away. Now, when I click on the link you put up in your post above, I get the blurred-out address. It’s possible that Roys is still getting a cached or earlier version.

I also have no problem with the notion that the author would have influence into the title of his book. I’m all for negotiation. That noted, a line is crossed when a “big time’ author more or less tells his publisher that if they don’t like the way he’s doing things, he’ll just go elsewhere.

So what line is this and what kind of negotiation is this if one party can’t walk away? If one party knows the other can’t walk away, then there is no negotiation at all to speak of. There is literally no power on the side that can’t walk away. There is no reason to change anything if the deal has to happen anyway.

There may well be a lot of problems in the organization. I don’t know and don’t care. I imagine Phil Johnson was trying to show that Julie Roys’ questions had already been answered.