About the author
More posts by Moderator
-
-
Their Day in Court: Part Three
February 22, 2019 // 151 Comments -
Their Day in Court: Part Two
February 22, 2019 // 0 Comments -
Their Day in Court: Part One
February 22, 2019 // 0 Comments -
Statement from Recovering Grace regarding the lawsuit a ...
March 28, 2018 // 186 Comments -
Rethinking the Nativity
December 25, 2016 // 144 Comments
-
Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Go ...
January 10, 2016 // 1311 Comments -
Charlotte's Story
February 5, 2014 // 601 Comments -
Bill’s Cabin: Uncovering Sin
May 21, 2014 // 475 Comments -
How the Teachings of Emotional Purity and Courtship Dam ...
July 22, 2011 // 431 Comments -
Sacred Grooming, Part Six: A Secretary's Account of Lif ...
January 31, 2014 // 405 Comments
-
Rob, that wasn't what I was suggesting. I am not c ...
March 1, 2023 -
There is so much to unpack in the wedding of Cana. ...
February 28, 2023 -
Yes. That is partly what I'm seeing (and have been ...
February 28, 2023 -
Well, claiming only one interpretation can be corr ...
February 28, 2023 -
I believe I've learned of these four layers before ...
February 28, 2023 -
There historically has been four layers of interpr ...
February 27, 2023 -
Really late to the part, I know. But here's an int ...
February 27, 2023 -
Thanks for the book review Rob! I’m so glad that ...
February 11, 2023 -
Yes, I read the book, I ordered it from Amazon and ...
February 3, 2023 -
"Any thoughts on Jinger's new book?" I am very ...
February 2, 2023 -
Any thoughts on Jinger's new book?
January 31, 2023 -
I do wish that there was a section of Recovering G ...
October 11, 2022 -
Rob said: "Just look at the recent article by B ...
October 11, 2022 -
Indeed, Feser wrote a good blog entry about rash j ...
October 6, 2022 -
Shining light on the teaching of Bill Gothard is t ...
October 5, 2022 -
David, why do you still comment here? If you ar ...
October 5, 2022 -
I don't know anything about 8 callings or dimensio ...
October 4, 2022 -
In the Patheos link, Josh Parks seemed fussier abo ...
October 4, 2022
-
LOL thanks for the laughs! Hope it's therapeutic for all who read it. Later I wondered, are young women allowed to shop by themselves? Shouldn't they be chaperoned by parents or siblings?
I didn't grow up in ATI; hadn't even heard of it until I heard of the Duggars. But it is fascinating; I'm sure my parents would've at least considered it, had it been available in Canada. God bless your ministry here at RG.
Oh it was available in Canada. Our family was sucked in from 1993-2000, working at several training centres for 3 of those years. One time when I went shopping while in the US, an African-American woman came up to me with this incredulous look on her face asking why I was wearing such a long skirt and hiding my "fine" legs. I nervously stated that "I was a Christian and therefore I needed to dress modestly." She was again incredulous and informed me that she was a Christian too and there was no need for me to hide my legs like that, while she hiked my skirt up to my knees. I thought it was hilarious. Especially since I was a really chubby kid and no one ever told me I had nice legs before - and never has since but that's besides the point. I giggled the whole way back to the training centre.
Bless that woman, whoever she is! :)
Lol!! Brilliant!! :D
wow,,As I followed this story, I found myself getting very uptight with my palms and forehead breaking out in sweat as the tension mounted. I was actually getting short of breath towards the end till "you" escaped the store. LOL LOL --thanks- this was good!
Do we laugh or cry?
I have the same question! I thought, "Why isn't Rebecca surrounded by her four (maybe five or six) older brothers? Why isn't she shopping at Thrift Town?" I got a little anxious, too. Then I had a nice lie-down and it went away. As a recovering ATi mom, what was I thinking? Or...was I letting someone else do my thinking for me?
Dona, your comment, "As a recovering ATi mom, what was I thinking? Or...was I letting someone else do my thinking for me?" is a question I have asked myself a million times since getting out of the program.
I do not understand how I could have let a single man have so much influence in my life. How blinded I was. I am reminded of the verse John 9:25, "I once was blind, but now I see." Thank you God.
I couldn't delve into all the intricacies of Rebecca's situation, of course. The fact that she was by herself, AND shopping at a shoe store instead of at a thrift shop, certainly contributed to her discomfort.
She knew she should have just waited for the thrift store to get shoes in her size, which would have been waiting on the Lord to provide, you know. And after that harrowing incident, she realized why her parents thought it wise for their six children to shop in groups of three -- "A threefold cord is not easily broken."
@Ileata: I laughed and cried both! :)
@Sara Roberts Jones: Thanks for writing! As scary as it is to type it, I identify with your musing almost in its entirety. So scary, yet so glad that I've come so far since moving on with my life. :) BTW, it is stories/articles/musings like yours that are helping my husband understand "where I came from". Keep writing!
Sad-- but so true. Thanks for writing it! :)
I totally relate!!! I've had that EXACT same thought process happen soooo many times...thanks for the laugh, and also the reminder of how far God has brought me!!!! (0:
We still live in the world as Christians and we can go shopping in the mall even it is not always a pleasant experience. If we can't meet people like this in the mall and talk to them, who do we want to win for the lord. To dress modest does not mean ugly or like they dressed 100 years ago. Can we be sensible? It is not that difficult to know the will of God.
This mentality is what ATI taught, U.Peters. Sometimes when you leave IBLP, it takes a very long time to shake the thought processes you were force-fed.
Sara, I had to laugh while I read this. Sadly I could see myself 15 or so years ago. I loved the part, "But she didn’t compromise her standards. She was a light of Christ to two people who were obviously lost in sin. She can count the lack of shoes as a sacrifice for holiness." I'm sure the clerks knew just by her actions and great testimony for Christ that she was living for Jesus. :)
Rose Morris
Yes, we know all about being blazing lights of standards and love, don't we? :)
Loved it!!!!
Wow, flashback! How did we think we were being a light? I felt sorry for everyone who wasn't me back then. Now, I feel sorry for the girl who couldn't function in society for fear of offending God.
WHOA, well-said, KariU.
"Now, I feel sorry for the girl who couldn't function in society for fear of offending God."
Me too.
This article sounds like complete fiction to someone who wasn't raised this way. But I can attest that it most definitely is not! How sad.....this almost exactly describes the way I was as a young teenager.
Lol---that is too funny! It would be even funnier though if it wasn't me a few years ago :(
This article is just too funny!! Even though I was never a part of BG's ATI, I was almost sucked into joining a legalistic church community, where the women also dress in what is described above. I have met at least 3 people from similar, legalistic, controlling church communities. By communities, I attest to the fact that they have been highly successful in preaching their mission and planted other communities throughout the country and the world. What is scary is that there is a similar pattern of authoritarian structure and abuse in power, sex and money. I'm not a church history expert or researcher, but I cannot help but wonder how many of these types of communities exist out there?
:/ wish this really was a joke.
I simply cannot believe that this was that common with ATI. My association with IBLP folks has been very nice and i appreciate their desire to be modest.
Modesty isn't the question. Judging others' hearts based on their adherence to outward standards is, which is what Rebecca is doing in the story. Surely not everyone involved in ATI or IBLP thought this way, but pretty much any *legalist* would think this way. Which I definitely was. This is pretty much a transcript of the thoughts, conscious and unconscious, that ran through my mind all the time. Moreover, in ATI, we were TAUGHT TO THINK LIKE THIS.
I agree with Sara J. While not all ATI students went to the extreme of thinking this way, it was definitely taught in the curriculum. I was just flipping through the first Wisdom Book (ATI's homeschool curriculum) today, and on page 10 (project #2) is the first lesson in judging someone's motives based on their outward appearances. Lest you think I jest, check out this article which explains the project a little more: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/09/judging-101/. So if someone were to walk away from ATI without having learned to be judgmental based on outward appearances, it was not for lack of training in the homeschool curriculum! ;-)
This is not the exact same thing, but when I visited HQ in Oak Brook for a week or so, there was a big deal among some of the guys that they would always wear suits. They were making "commitments" to wear a suit coat and tie even when going shopping. I remember two guys speaking in glowing terms about some guy I didn't know, that he was so "conservative" that he would only wear "conservative ties", which they explained meant striped or dotted ties. No other kind of tie. They were not complaining about this, they thought it was great; they thought there was benefit in this.
However, Paul wrote:
You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”? Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.
From a distance, all the suits and ties and "bright countenances" seem to imply an underlying reality of a close walk with God. But the closer you got to what was really happening behind the curtain, so to speak, the more you realized how much slavery there was to things that looked good because of the pious self-denial and discipline ("higher standards") but these things don't help change a person's heart or make them closer to God. Keeping in step with the Spirit (Gal 5) and abiding in Christ (John 15) are the stuff of the Christian walk, but those things are relational, they start internally in the heart and then work out into daily life.
LOL This is hilarious. A light of God to two people in darkness. More like, "She left behind in her wake two people who will give only a passing thought to that girl who seemed mentally disturbed, and with relief will forget she ever came through the store."
My sister sent me the link to this website just yesterday, and I am devouring every page as fast as I can. I have felt so alone for years and years. Many of you are writing "LOL" at this article, and yes, it is pretty hilarious, but I didn't laugh as I read it. I sat breathless at each new paragraph because you could've just as easily replaced "Rebecca's" name with my own. I'm finding that many people are saying that same thing in other articles. I am 30, and only in the past few years have I been able to start having the Gothard veil lifted. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE THAT STARTED THIS WEBSIGHT. I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE SO MANY OTHERS.
Just saw this today. Sarah, your writing is priceless as usual. I had forgotten about "loo, loo, loo."
Coming from an unbelieving home, with a mom and older sister who were quite into feminism,raised in a large city, becoming a Christian through influence of friend's Mother during my childhood, not having met believing peers until Campus Crusade for Christ in freshman year of college...that's my background. For me, receiving godly teaching on the subject of modesty, through ministries such as reviveourhearts.com has been such a blessing. I am so thankful for solid teaching out there, though not perfect, but teaching that emphasizes Scripture (not twisted) and one's true motivation, heart... For me, having to swim against the tide while growing up because I had God's Spirit living in me, giving me the strong desire to live for him, it has been such a blessing to have godly role models and sound teaching on the issue of modesty.
I will also add this...I have placed too much emphasis on my weight for years and dressing modestly, but not frumpy, has helped a lot. I like the saying about dressing form-fitting enough to be womanly and loose enough to be modest. I like the thoughts about reflecting attention to God, not dressing to draw undue attention to one's body, especially to the sexual parts of one's body. Truly, for people like me whose self-worth was so tied up to how thin I could get, dressing modestly (but not frumpy!) has been very helpful.
Nancy Leigh DeMoss is a Gothardite you may not have realized yet. In her book Lies Women Believe and the Truth that Sets Them Free, she adheres to Gothards teaching of Jesus Himself being "rebellious" as He is found teaching in the temple and his parents are out looking for him. (the actual Bible story is found in Luke 2:40-52) Gothard uses "rebellious" and compares it to witchcraft which in turn means (according to that teaching) that Jesus was in fact not perfect, but a sinner Himself! It's not "godly teaching" it's false doctrine. Jesus was and always will be perfect. He is not, nor ever has been, rebellious or a sinner. Reviveourhearts.com is Nancy's website and I urge you to read your own Bible for yourself and allow God's Holy Spirit to move you and stop relying on other peoples writings to dictate/explain to you how to live a Christian life. Praise the Lord I saw this problem in her book on my own (meaning without the help of this website) but actually it took my now husband to talk it out with me so that I would see the full circle effect of Gothards teachings (even found in Nancy's book) while I was in a women's Bible study that wasn't even from a Gothard or other legalistic church. Someone just picked the book off the shelf of the bookstore (made popular by Christian media at the time) and thought "let's do this one." For a more indepth explaination you could read the article on this site titled "Is Jesus a Sinner According to Bill Gothard’s Teachings?" also found in the book "A Matter of Basic Principles" (part of the recommended reading on this site.) (My husband read this long ago and I need to.) This false teaching is the same thing said in Nancy's book. I recognized it due to my past involvement in the Gothard world but only by God's grace. My husband also came from the Gothard background and I see more often then daily how he has been a huge part in my getting out of the Gothard way of thinking and listening to God not gothard! I would have never believed that healing would come from a marriage relationship due to the patriarchal teachings I came from. Praise be to the Lord God!!! For those of you who come from this background and are still following Christ, please continue in exposing false doctrine and helping people like me. Also please keep praying for us all as we walk this path to shedding the lies and walking in the Light.
ATI makes Christians lose sight of the fact that it is just as unbiblical to be not sexually enticing at the right time and under the right circumstances as it is to be sexually enticing at the wrong time and under the wrong circumstances. Has anybody read the Song of Solomon and literally interpreted all that poetry?? Whew! Hot aaand steamy! but have you ever heard Gothard teaching about THAT particular book of the bible (or any other preachers, for that matter)?? Nope.
Clothing is all about communication. This is why, for example, when a girl outside of the Gothard compound prepares to go on a date, she negotiates with herself about what kind of dress to wear, for she wants to strike a balance of moderation - neither boring nor promiscuous.
See the hyperconservatives (in the social rather than political sense) like Gothard think that you emerge from the womb fully clothed as a Puritan and then start stripping in rebellion but the truth is exactly as Bertrand Russell once observed about certain primitive African tribes, that the women were forced to adorn themselves with jewelry in order to attract men because otherwise the men were unimpressed with the women's continuous nudity, so the immorality of not dressing at all isn't that a person is endorsing laissez-faire sexuality but rather that the person is refusing to be sexual when she (or he) is supposed to be!
Tie dye shirts,bell bottom pants,headbands, and sandals were the "norm" for us "Jesus - hippie" types in
our day. Ironically, a number of the women back then that wore the long skirts,headbands and choker beads----- ah they were very attractive so the notion that the long dresses will prevent guys from looking lustfully is about as realistic as BG/ATI sponsoring a traveling Tae Kwon Do team. As far as styles go, I announced to my family (back in the '90 s ) that I was going back to my " hippie roots". I grew out my hair, but I started to look like Jesse Ventura! Much to the dismay of some people I declared that no one, not even my wife, would make me stop.....until mom. I told mom that I'm older, on my own , etc., and that there was nothing that even she could do to get me to cut my hair------until she got out her check book and wrote out a a check ( for a nice amount). Shave me bald I said! Oh we'll, I was never meant to be a hippie type all my life. So much for the "Forever Young " generation! It can be very therapeutic for me to laugh at myself. Whatever our situation is, it is good to know that Jesus does not judge us by the outward clothing we wear, so those who have been guilted by the legalisms, know that you are free.
Blessings!
Let me address the whole notion of looking lustfully on a woman. The way it is interpreted not only by Bill Gothard but by many Christians in general is all wrong. Most of them will agree that initially looking at a woman and obviously feeling attraction because it is your biological imperative is not immoral. However, I would argue that EVEN THE SECOND LOOK is morally right, provisionally. What I mean is that attraction becomes lusting in your heart/a form of adultery because you are planning in your mind for that which you cannot have if, for example, she is married or otherwise unavailable. Perhaps the facts of your life dictate that she is simply not suitable to your needs and circumstances. It's like going to a strip club and setting your heart on a beautiful woman knowing that ultimately you will be walking away unfulfilled. However, if you see a woman who is beautiful and look again because you are assessing whether to actually pursue her then you are not lusting -- you are assessing, planning, and preparing! Good for you! Jesus stamps you approved as do several bible verses talking about how good a wife is and how good sex with her is. So you see lusting in your heart is talking as much about your own self-destruction like throwing yourself senselessly into a brick wall as it is about damaging the woman upon whom you are projecting unrealistic intentions.
And by the way, fantasies are healthy and natural as well because if you didn't have them then you wouldn't know what to do with a woman even if you found her. The only question here is the degree to which you are taking action to prepare and find someone.
You talk a lot about hippies but I would encourage you to not react to what your parents tell you is evil. As an adult, it is your response-ability to evaluate the evidence for yourself and evaluate what they say. You can take their advice and opinions into consideration but they are mortals like you. As an adult, you have God as your authority -- not your parents. Romans chapter 1 says that God's nature is revealed through the things that he has made, i.e., his creation. In other words, accurate biblical interpretation and physical evidence coincide, so look to the evidence and the bible simultaneously like you would alternate looking at a compass and the desert horizon. The Bill Gothard acolytes do not have faith in God; they have made an idol of each other/their insular society in the form of group think. Therefore, if you refuse to appeal to the evidence of creation then you are putting your faith in an idol and will be judged for it. Nobody has all of the answers because there's one set of truth but nobody understands it perfectly, but the important thing is that you do all that you can with what knowledge you have to adhere to the laws God set down in both the bible and creation.
ANON, you speak as one with authority, but neglect to distinguish between giving and taking. Fantasies are NOT categorically good. Nor is all that appears "natural" or part of creation, in a post-Fall creation that is groaning for deliverance from evil, even now. The measure of lust and immorality is not the "availability" of the woman, nor the pragmatic value of pursuing the "biological imperative" in a particular case, but the selfish attitude of the heart. As John Paul II pointed out, a man can lust after his own wife. But too often, in our self-absorption and unreconciled desires, we treat marriage as if is lawful fornication.
In God's design, lust, selfishness, self-oriented desire, objectification of the other, sterility as a stimulant, fertility as a turn-off, putting your will above the other's, putting your "needs" above the other person's welfare, and withholding emotions, possessions, time, attentiveness and sincere interest from the other--all these are perversions of the free, full, fruitful and faithful spousal love that we were designed to reveal through righteous expression of our nature.
You are correct that recognizing beauty is not evil, but you are incorrect that the basis of the good is any "biological imperative". The basis of the good in observing and admiring beauty is not self-oriented, but God-oriented, celebrating HIS good and awesome creativity and HIS glory in our design for a spousal union of persons (not mere bodies) reflective of and imaging the Tri-union of Persons in the Godhead. (By beauty I purpose to mean everything feminine, rather than any cultural standard of beauty.)
Set aside your fantasies and get ahold of God's True vision. Fantasies are impersonal and self-oriented, creating expectations that impose on the personhood of another. When a man begins to see spousal intimacy (and true chastity that guards it) as giving, rather than getting, personal rather than functional, he begins to experience the nature of God.
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church." Meditate on this Mystery and you will have no energy for fantasy.
Dan, I'm saying that fantasies are good in the same sense that one might say commerce is good for the economy. The person uttering the latter comment is most likely not referring to illicit trade like drugs and guns amongst gangs and likewise I'm not talking about immoral fantasies.
Having said that, however, I think you should be careful to acknowledge the difference between role playing/acting and reality. If you wife says, "ohh, poor BABY, should I make it worse for you?" we can all be reasonably certain she doesn't think of you as a literal baby and she doesn't literally want to worsen your lot in life.
hey by the way I'm still not done tearing BG's diseased corrupt temple of legalism down with the Bible yet. Regarding dating, there's nothing wrong with it. The problem is our sex-on-the-first-night culture. When our grandparents were young, there was a sense of respect so that instead of creating this titanium courtship wall of separation between young men & young women, the young would go on LOTS of dates with LOW COMMITMENT just to get to know a lot of people and learn what they were like. This was wise because they would cast a large net and then sift through their options to go on more and more dates with the ones that were most compatible. Then eventually, a couple would be said to be "going steady" because they were now in a serious HIGHER COMMITMENT relationship. Notice how these were young, responsible adults who didn't need mommy & daddy's permission to date. They had sense about them and much to lose. They weren't members of a throw away culture. BGs solution instead of training the young to be responsible, educated adults has conditioned the young to never grow up and be independent and poorly educated with all the skill of menial tasks on his compound. They don't have so much as a degree to become gainfully employed.
So dating is good and great. Society just does it badly.
So, which subsequent date is it OK to start having sex?
You appear to be in the mode of tearing down the lies, but grasping on to what seems to make sense in opposition to the lies. What you ought to consider is that ALL man's ways have defects. (Those grandparents lived in an age of world war in which life was demonstrably short and cheap and dating a means of satisfying the consequential impatience.) Before casting your wide net for women as if they were something to "catch", I encourage you to contemplate The Theology of the Body for Beginners and find out more about your own sexuality and design for a God-like love.
A lot of people are committed to a lot of things that are not good for them. The commitment does not sanctify the relationship. In fact, it becomes a stone of stumbling when unrequited. Get comfortable with yourself in light of God's design for you. Learn what it means to be sacrificially self-giving before you take your hungers and desires on a fishing expedition. Please.
Jesus cast a wide net, but no wider than His Love could serve; and he has patiently waited 2000 years for the consummation of His vows. Learn to feed the fish without hooks or nets. (This is not against "dating". It is against hunting and fishing.)
Dan, it's difficult to decipher precisely what you're talking about there because in my experience Christians these days use a lot of ambiguous theological terminology to confuse what are otherwise straightforward biblical concepts. I hope that isn't what you're doing here.
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, your comments are twisting my words about casting a net in dating by implying that my meaning is to find the woman who can satisfy a person's selfish desires the best, but in truth, I'm actually implying that a person ought to refrain from making serious commitments prematurely. These commitments mean both for one's self and for the date. In other words, to exaggerate for the purpose of illustration, don't go buy a $1000 engagement ring and have sex on the first night. This only makes sense. By casting a wide net, a person can keep commitments low and mingle with several people to find someone who is highly compatible.
You talk a lot about love but based on your comments I wonder if you can even define it in practical terms because it seems like for you it is all about self-sacrifice and that's it. I disagree. Christianity is not a lose-now-but-win-later proposition; it is a win-now-AND-win-later proposition, except that people don't meditate far enough to see it. For example, a person who is a rapist and a thief is almost certain to have problems holding down a job and interacting successfully with family. He might be able to live a double life for a while, but he will have to fake it and in the limit, one behavior or the other will eventually consume that person. Consequently, agape love (which is an action word, incidentally, rather than a feeling) is really intended to favor, in this life, both the person expressing it as well as the person for whom it is expressed. You might cite martyrs of the faith as counterexamples to this claim but I would ask you this: would you accept $500 billion dollars in exchange for murdering some of your closest relatives? No. Well Martyrs have reached such a level of Christian maturity (i.e., they have abided by the design of creation to such an extent) that the alternative to death in their situational dilemma is simply intolerable. This is what distinguishes Christian martyrs from Muslim martyrs, incidentally. Anyway, regarding dating, my point is that love is as much about receiving as it is about giving because it isn't creation design-conforming (that's my own term but it's apt) to give continuously without reciprocity. Remember what Jesus told Peter when Peter refused to let Jesus wash Peter's feet? Jesus said, if you don't let me do this, then you have no part with me. Same principal involved with dating -- it's give AND take.
If BG is right and that it is a woman's fault if a man lusts after her, then I can only conclude that the way in which Islam demands that women dress is correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGTKN0DaxzQ
"She was a light of Christ to two people who were obviously lost in sin. She can count the lack of shoes as a sacrifice for holiness."
A testimony?? They were most thinking, "what ever got into that old fashioned girl (Quaker maybe?) She is certainly strange!" and never thought of her again.
It is hard to believe that anybody would think in such a "weird" way, but I know it is true. I still find myself doing "mental checks" sometimes, when it is quite unnecessary!
Well written Sara!
It's sad that some people think this way. I mean, if she's not allowed to talk to guys, then how's she gonna find someone to one day marry? Likewise, if she's not allowed to talk to people who are worldly by her standards, how is she gonna win someone to Christ?
David, you bring up an excellent point with that. In Matthew 5:27-28, note how Jesus places ALL of the blame for lust on the MEN -- and nowhere do you see Him place any of the blame on the women. Just what do Bill Gothard and his ilk not understand about that?