A Response from Roy Maynard

Roy Maynard responds to accusations from Gary Ezzo.

Background: WORLD is a Christian magazine whose mission statement is "To help
Christians apply the Bible to their understanding of and response to everyday current
events. To achieve this by reporting the news on a weekly basis in an interesting,
accurate, and arresting fashion. To accompany reporting with practical commentary
on current events and issues from a perspective committed to the final authority of the
Bible as the inerrant written Word of God. To assist in developing a Christian
understanding of the world, rather than accepting existing secular ideologies." I
mention this so that readers perhaps unfamiliar with the magazine may gain some
perspective into its nature.

In the May 25/June 1, 1996 issue, WORLD published an article by Roy Maynard titled
"The Ezzos Know Best". This issue may be ordered for $1.95 from WORLD Customer
Service, P.O. Box 2330, Asheville, NC 28802.

Not long after the article appeared, Growing Families International began circulating a
rebuttal, in the form of a letter by Gary Ezzo addressed to Marvin Olasky, editor of
WORLD. It has been posted on CompuServe, on GFI's web site, and widely
distributed via email.

[Introduction]
Roy Maynard issued the following statement on July 13, 1996, in response to a letter
from Gary Ezzo to World Magazine. That letter, as being distributed by Gary Ezzo and
Growing Families International, contains a purported "interview" of Roy Maynard.
Permission is hereby granted by Roy Maynard to reproduce this statement for non-
commercial purposes, providing it is reproduced without alterations in its entirety,
including this introductory paragraph.

[Mr. Maynard's Statement]
The "interview" was not an actual part of the letter sent to Marvin Olasky, and should
not be presented as if it was. Nor was any discussion between Gary Ezzo and me
conducted in that form; it is not a verbatim interview. At best, it may be pieces of
several conversations, totaling approximately two hours, that have been threaded
together in such a way as to distort my words, views, and journalistic methods.

There are many glaring inconsistencies which undermine the validity of the whole
"interview." For example, read closely the alleged question/answer number 11. He
contends that he said to me, "But you implied to the reader by the use of your words
that she (Valerie Jacobsen) found another way in the Bible." And according to him, my
response was "Yes, I did write that but that is not what she really said."

In actuality, I wrote nothing of the sort. The Jacobsens studied the Bible and felt that
Ezzo's ways were not supported. Why would I confess to a crime I had not committed?
I would not have accepted Ezzo's assertion, nor would I have then gone on to admit I
made up the quote. If that actual question had been put to me, I would simply have
told Gary to read the article a little more closely. This is a lie on his part. I don't know
how to say it any more strongly.

As another example, the validity of Dr. Sears' assertions was checked. Churches have
been divided and babies hurt, and we can document that. Yet Gary Ezzo says that he
told me, "You stated that Sears told you that churches were splitting because of the
program. How many churches did he say?" My response, according to Ezzo, is "He
didn't say a number."

Again, the "question" begs a completely different, much more logical response. We
never said that Sears or anyone else said churches are being split (which is a well-
defined legal, corporate action). We quoted Dr. Sears as saying that it "divides"
churches, and before I included that quote in the article, I verified it. I have
documentation about the Lake Avenue Congregational Church, and there's the first-
person evidence offered by the moms we cited in print, as well as numerous other
examples I found in my extensive research. Had I actually been asked that question, I
would have responded with those facts, not the whipped-cur response Gary Ezzo
invents.

Another example: My wife and I do not plan on having an "Ezzo baby," as Mr. Ezzo's
misquote of me implies.

Gary Ezzo has yet to address the substance of the issues raised by his critics. Instead,
he goes after the critics and the medium.

It's a shame that more words would be written about an article than were written IN the
article. And Gary Ezzo has yet to address the two main complaints: Why does he make
such wild medical claims, without being able to back them up? And why does he
make generalities -- does he really believe that their methods are universal and
guaranteed to succeed?

The article stands, and World Magazine stands behind it.

Our note: It grieves us that things have deteriorated to such a point that the posting of
this statement has become necessary. Our hope is that our brothers and sisters in
Christ will join us in prayer for all the families who have been touched in any way by
this controversy.

Return to Family Issues Page