INTRODUCTION
When I was 18 or 19 years old I really began to question the teachings of Bill Gothard, the Advanced Training Institute, and the Institute in Basic Life Principles. I had seen some things at various training centers that didn’t line up with the principles that Bill taught, and I began feeling in my heart that something just wasn’t right. However, IBLP teachings were all I had ever known in my life, and I didn’t even know how to begin processing them through the truth of the Scriptures.
Around that time, my brother was given a copy of Midwest Christian Outreach’s A Matter of Basic Principles written by Don Veinot, Joy Veinot, and Ron Henzel. He had read it and had passed it along to my mother, telling her that if even half of it was truth we needed to reconsider our involvement with ATI (the Advanced Training Institute) and IBLP (the Institute in Basic Life Principles). Curious myself, I began to read it. What I read literally changed my life forever. I had never seen such a clear presentation of the errors in Bill Gothard’s teachings, and the many stories of what went on behind the scenes in IBLP were incredibly eye-opening. While my journey to spiritual freedom had begun prior to reading the book, it was through the book that God affirmed to me that I was on the right path.
Midwest Christian Outreach (MCO) is an apologetics ministry whose mission is “to give clear answers, and a solid defense of the orthodox biblical faith, to all types of unbelievers—atheists, agnostics, as well as members of cults and new religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, the International Churches of Christ, and so on.” Although they had primarily dealt with major cults early on in their ministry, people began asking MCO to research IBLP.
At first, MCO didn’t see the need to investigate Bill Gothard and his teachings, simply because Bill had been a respected Christian leader throughout the latter half of the twentieth century and they assumed his teachings were orthodox. But as people continued to ask about IBLP, they began to dig a little deeper. The book, A Matter of Basic Principles, is the result of their findings. The following is a brief synopsis of each of the chapters.
CHAPTER SYNOPSES
The prologue gives a detailed overview of the social factors that led to the public acceptance of Bill Gothard’s teachings. The public upheaval of the 1960’s created an environment in which parents were desperate for answers to the problems of the day. Bill Gothard’s finely tuned system of principles for living were quickly embraced, but ultimately became a form of “evangelical Talmud.”
Chapter 1, Citizen Kane and a History of Inconsistency contains a rather detailed picture of Bill Gothard behind the scenes of his public ministry. Much of the chapter is about the sex scandal involving Bill’s brother in the late 70’s and early 80’s. There is documentation of Bill’s attempts to cover up the scandal, as well as his attempts to silence those who felt he was handling the situation improperly. Also in the chapter is information illustrating Bill’s personal refusal to be held accountable to his authorities, and his propensity to use Scripture to intimidate those who would speak negatively about him.
The second chapter, The Unconfrontable Bill Gothard, is the complete history of Midwest Christian Outreach’s attempts to meet with Bill Gothard for discussion of the problems they found with his ministry and teachings. As the chapter title would suggest, they found Bill completely unconfrontable, and his endless attempts to avoid meeting with them and to change the “rules” under which they would meet are carefully documented. This chapter also contains a section documenting Dr. Ronald Allen’s (a respected theologian) attempts to meet with Bill over a 20+ year period.
The Emerald City, the third chapter in the book, attempts to get to the foundation of what is wrong with Bill Gothard’s system. The authors focus on two main areas: Gothard’s misuse of Scripture (and his twisting of the concept of a rhema), and his teaching on authority/chain of command. The authors are careful to delineate what exactly Gothard teaches in these areas, and to articulate a biblical response to these teachings.
Chapter 4 is entitled IBLP: Institute in Basic Legalistic Practices, and contains a detailed discussion about whether Bill’s teachings are legalistic, particularly in his application of the Old Testament to the New Testament believer. Although a bit tedious in places, the authors are careful to give various perspectives on the Old Testament’s place in modern Christian living, demonstrating that Bill’s view of the Mosaic Law falls outside the bounds of any historical evangelical position. They also discuss in this chapter whether it is appropriate for Christians to criticize other Christians, a complaint that Gothard’s followers have often raised about MCO.
The fifth chapter in the book is entitled, Character First!, and covers two key problems with the teachings of Bill Gothard. The first issue discussed is moralism, which is simply a system of behavior modification like Gothard teaches in his multiple versions of character-based curriculum. While the authors certainly don’t have a problem with good character, they find that Gothard’s focus on external behavior is antithetical to the biblical concept of sanctification by grace. The second issue addressed in the chapter is Gothard’s misunderstanding and false teaching of the concept of grace. The authors go to great lengths to clarify and contrast Gothard’s position with the orthodox position, demonstrating that Gothard’s position stands in opposition to the spiritual freedom for which Christ died. In fact, the authors document an instance in which Bill literally said, “Christians can’t handle freedom.”
Chapter 6, A Black and White Gospel for a Color World, is a discussion on Bill Gothard’s black and white view of how Christians should live. Beginning with a discussion of what Gothard teaches, the authors highlight how Gothard believes that there are no such things as “gray areas,” and that every decision a Christian makes is either right or wrong. They continue by discussing how Gothard refers to those that allow for spiritual freedom as “Antinomian Rationalists,” a bizarre accusation that in most cases is completely untrue. There is a discussion of how Gothard uses a fear of making wrong decisions to keep his followers dependent on his rules for living, and how Gothard fails to grasp the truths that Paul clearly taught in Romans 14.
The Orwellian World of Bill Gothard is about how the authoritarian structure of IBLP and ATI creates an environment in which individuals are forced to conform to the standards and rules put forth by Bill Gothard. The chapter illustrates this concept with a number of testimonies from former Gothard followers who came under the intense spiritual abuse of IBLP leadership at various training centers. One particularly shocking account is the story of Pastor Johnny Jones, who moved across the country to lead the Flint training center at the request of Bill, who had announced publicly that he had been told by God that Johnny was the man for the job. Pastor Jones was repeatedly deceived and lied to by Bill and other leadership as they failed to fit into the IBLP model of a perfect ATI family.
Chapter 8, Alpena Mountain Home, is the story of the Hamm family, who had allowed IBLP to utilize a large amount of their property to launch the “log cabin program” in Arkansas. This story illustrates how Bill repeatedly refused to submit to the building laws of the state of Arkansas, and how he even spiritually threatened Mr. Hamm when he tried to hold Bill accountable to these laws, writing: “I am sincerely concerned for the judgment of God that will come upon you for the actions you are taking.” Bill actually even tried to coerce Mr. Hamm into donating the property through spiritually manipulative tactics.
The Courtship Game, naturally, deals with Bill Gothard’s teaching on courtship, which in reality is a form of arranged marriage. The authors present Gothard’s teachings on the subject, and then show how they are unbiblical, unfair, unreasonable, unworkable, and unwise. In my opinion, this is one of the most powerful chapters in the book, as it deals with some of Gothard’s most dangerous concepts, including the “leaky umbrella,” emotional suppression, and hasty marriages. Most importantly, they discuss how Gothard’s system forces young adults to allow their parents to take God’s role in guiding their lives.
The tenth chapter, Bill Gothard—Medicine Man, focuses on IBLP’s Medical Institute of America, which was responsible for producing a number of “Basic Care Bulletins.” The authors demonstrate how these bulletins were largely based upon “junk science and/or New Age mysticism,” which Bill borrowed because he was able to fit the concepts into his system of spirituality. At best, Gothard attempts to create in his readers paranoia of the medical community, and at worst, he gives advice that is dangerous. The authors also discuss Bill’s teachings on Adoption—he is generally against it—and of the “sins of the fathers.”
In the epilogue, the authors’ years of experience in counter-cult ministry really comes through. They write extensively about the power of propaganda within cults and cult-like organizations, and they show why it is so hard for people to leave such groups. However, they make a strong appeal to their readers, showing how the grace of God will enable even the most tormented soul to embrace the freedom that Christ won through his death on the cross.
CONCLUSION
A Matter of Basic Principles, while occasionally tedious in the theological sections, is a fascinating and enlightening read. I would strongly recommend it to anyone who is seeking the truth about Bill Gothard’s teachings. I personally believe that this book has played a major role in the decline of Bill Gothard’s influence, and in the massive decrease in enrollment that ATI has suffered in the past 10 years. If you know someone who is entrapped in the legalism of IBLP, giving them this book would be an excellent step towards helping them find freedom. If you are a proponent of Bill Gothard’s teachings, I would encourage you to simply read the book. The truth it contains could change your life, much like it did mine.
You can purchase A Matter of Basic Principles from Amazon in either paperback or Kindle editions. (Note that by purchasing using these links, a small percentage of the sales price comes back to support the ministry of Recovering Grace.)
Thank you for the book review! It gave an excellent and concise view into some of the basic problems of IBLP. Very helpful!
Well said!
Thanks for this review, John. I received a copy of the book some years ago and it was eye-opening. I don't see eye to eye with the authors on all of their viewpoints but the issues they raise about Gothard and the Institute are substantive.
This will sound funny but one of the early jarring moments for me was when I realized that the Institute commands millions of dollars and that he is able to fly all over the world at the drop of a hat. Much is made out of the facts that he draws little or no salary and drives an old car. But what does that matter when you essentially have no expenses? He gets on a plane at the drop of a hat and flies wherever he wants to, whenever he wants to. He has complete freedom of movement.
For some reason, I had thought he was in touch with the needs of families in the "real world." He is so far out of touch he has no idea; he is effectively able to live as a millionaire, far away from the daily realities of the ATI families with limited budgets who have to buy their own food and gas.
Awesome!!! WEll done!! I hope this article leads many more to know the freedom in Christ and to read the book! Thanks so much!!!
Ordering the book today. Thanks for the review. I had no idea of the background of the authors, or the ministry involved. I appreciate knowing that.
This questions is for John Cornish or really anyone else who might know. The article mentioned Pastor Johnny Jones. Does anyone know how to get in contact with him or where he might be living currently? While he was working at the RCI, he came to our youth retreat to be the speaker. (Long story, but the church behind the youth retreat was meeting in the RCI and the pastor was pretty connected with BG.)
Anyway, Pastor Jones led the retreat, and we had the closest thing to a revival that I've ever seen/experienced in my life. It was amazing and it really shook up the core of this legalistic youth group. In fact, I know for sure that the young people who really felt the power and call of God that night are still following Him faithfully today, even as they left the legalism and junk behind.
It was an amazing, life-changing experience for me...something I always look back to...and I'd like to let him know and thank him. If nothing else, maybe he will be happy to know that God had a purpose for his time in Flint.
I'm reminded again of how this book was one of my first steps on the way "out", and how the authors really did "get" what I was experiencing. As I read page after page (covertly, lest my parents catch me), I came across a story of a friend of mine... Although the name was changed, I knew who it was... as I read her recollection of events familiar to me, I was unequivocally convinced of the veracity of the entire book. It was the beginning of the end.
I always wondered about bill gothard. He was giving all this detailed advice to moms and dads regarding family life, but yet he had not been married or had children himself. That was kind of weird, reminiscent of the Roman Catholic clergy.
How would someone still steeped in IBLP and ATI respond to this book?
I have a friend who has been in ATI for over a decade. They are a lovely family (they really are) but through this website I have come to realise that comments that caused me to internally say 'whoa' are straight from IBLP doctrine. For instance her eldest son has walked away from ATI (and maybe God) and now she says he is dead to her and it doesn't matter because she has five other sons. My heart breaks for this young man and if I could, I'd tell him that Jesus still loves him and not to give up on God because of the rejection his parents (mainly the mother) is dishing out. He got married last year but his parents weren't going to attend because he hadn't followed the biblical courtship model. Sadly we are now living in another country and there is no possible way to get in contact with him so all I can do is pray.
For my friend, she is completely indoctrinated in every aspect of IBLP. They would be the poster family for ATI if only this son hadn't jumped ship. Last year she suffered from depression but wouldn't see a doctor, their smart children won't be going to university and in fact, their second eldest son has had to drop out of homeschool so he can work for free in their struggling business. I'd love to give her this book but it seems she has blinkers and absolutely no doubts about the path they have taken. Do I give the book to someone who appears completely 'happy' with her set of rules and risk a broken relationship or do I keep the relationship and chip away at the blinkers?
On a positive note, I love this website and I have learnt so much from you all. I have had my own personal struggles with legalism and am so grateful to God that I never got caught up in IBLP. I hate legalism with a passion now - how can we so easily disregard God's amazing grace? Last year not long after I discovered this site, members of my homeschool group started raving about IBLP (I live in Asia) and as I was able to point them to this website, a retraction was promptly issued. Praise God!
Hi Louise, Thanks so much for sharing your story and question. Sadly, that story is all to common for families within ATI. Many adult children of ATI have been through so many spiritual and emotional abuses at the hands of their parents or leaders in the program, they have a hard time separating God from their experience. Many have to start completely over in figuring out who God is, but a number never do--leaving both God and their abuses in the dust. I wish this wasn't so common, but I've personally heard hundreds of stories along these lines.
As far as your question--It's very difficult for someone who won't see the truth to actually choose to see the truth. Plus, another thing you need to know... Bill Gothard has been training the students/parents for years on how to respond to critics of this program. When I was a student in the program and working at one of the Training Centers, they handed out pamphlets to all of us on how to respond to any criticism which might accuse us of being legalistic. It went through, step by step, what to say and how to fight those charges if they were ever levied against us. This is just one aspect of the program that smacks of being cultish in nature. How many other Christian organizations actually train their people how to argue for and defend, not the gospel, but the legalistic tenets of the program? It's all very strange, and I wouldn't have believed it if it hadn't happened to me. While this family, depending on their level of involvement in the program, may never have received formal training in how to defend the program, they simply may not be open to hearing the truth. I highly recommend that you pray about it before giving them the book. Make sure that this is God's timing for doing so. If not, just wait and continue to be a presence of grace and truth in their lives. If you feel God's leading to give them the book, be prepared for them to cut you off. That is what many (not all) past and present ATI families have either been taught or have learned to do with any conflicting viewpoints.
My parents were involved in the Seminars since the 70's, and joined ATI back in 1989. It wasn't until last fall that my parents read this book. I don't think they would have been ready for it until then. But as they read, they asked each other, "Could we see evidence of these issues while we were in the program?" While not all stories were verifiable to them personally, they began seeing patterns of behavior in the stories that they could confirm having seen. But they were always able to excuse it at the time, based on one thing or another. The book helped pull a lot of things together for them and help them realize they could verify these dysfunctional patterns within the ministry.
I hope this is a helpful perspective!
That is so wonderful that you were able to point them to this website so they could find the truth about ATI. I thank the website adiminstrators and creators for the work they are doing. Also, Louise, I would give her the book and beg her to read it. Risk the relationship. The relationship with her son is so very important. We are not guaranteed tomorrow. If her son were to unexpectedly die, she would never have a chance to ask his forgiveness. Her actions would haunt her forever. My daughter died, and I believe the legalism we imposed upon her in ATI are the reason for the circumstances that led to her eventual death. The legalism we imposed on her strained our relationship and we will never get that lost time back. Time when we could have enjoyed each other in the love of the Father. Thankfully I had a chance to seek her forgiveness long before she died. In my opinion, I say give her the book. She may get upset now, but when things do not work out, as they eventually will not, because Gothard's teachings are false, she will know she has someone who cares and understands and that you are a true friend. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy. Proverbs 27:6 Also, perhaps you could locate the older son through Facebook, or mutual acquaintances on Facebook. Many have been able to connect across the miles through that website. When we first got out of ATI, we were ostracized by many in ATI. That was when I realized something was seriously wrong, when membership in an organization superseded our relationship to each other in Christ. However, unfortunately I did not know there were others who struggled, or of the falseness of ALL of Gothard's teachings thereby having the opportunity to cause continued harm in our lives.
I hadn't thought of Facebook but the surname is one of the most common for those of English descent!
Yes, but look up mutual acquaintances. If their friend list is on public view, which a lot of people's are, he may be on it. Or message the mutual acquaintance and ask. FB has allowed me to reconnect with so many people. Good Luck :-)
Louise, I am very familiar with parents like your friend.
Having spent 12+ of my growing up years in the program, I know a LOT of ATI families.
Often the parents are a bit of a lost cause... (with nothing but respect and love and admiration for the parents on this site who have humbled themselves and repented and admitted they were wrong!) Just think what it would cost them to admit that they have been wrong! They chose ATI, they chose that lifestyle, and it would be very humbling or humiliating to admit they were wrong, and have actually been harming their family. The kids on the other hand, did not choose this. They had no choice in the matter, they are the primary victims.
My suggestion as a "student" who eventually saw the light and found God's true Grace, is that even though they treat their adult children like, well, like children, and part of the family unit instead of as individuals, you don't need to do the same. Even if due to being sheltered they are socially inept and act like children, treat them as adults and equals. I still remember the first adult, who treated me as a equal. she started out as a friend of my parents but became a dear friend of mine. For a while, I wanted to name my firstborn child after her... That's how much it meant to me, to be treated with respect and equality by an adult. I was 16 or 17 at that time.
Anyway, sorry for the rabbit trail, but I would give copies of the book to the adult children. Yes your friend may hate you if/when she finds out, and accuse you of helping her children rebel, but you may in fact be preventing them leaving the faith entirely as that oldest son did... You never know what pain can be behind a smile and a compliant manner. Some former ATI students have even felt so hopeless about being unable to be perfect enough, that they have committed suicide. And you don't need a parents permission to give or lend a book to another adult. And maybe later, the parents will even be swayed by the questions their children ask. If you give her the book, likely she will simply set it aside or throw it away. If her adult children read it and then ask questions about the material, she may then be forced to confront and deal with the information it contains. "Wise as serpents, harmless as doves..." ;-)
I was one of those children who became suicidal. Thank God I hit rock bottom without coming to serious harm! He used my baby sister to reach my turning point, she looks up to me like no other human on the planet, (which is terrifying and wonderful), and I knew if I killed myself, it could cost her her own salvation... someday I'll tell her about it, when she needs to hear it, maybe I can return the favor to her.
Louise, I read the book covertly, while still steeped in ATI. I could verify many of the stories, as I had seen them happen, or it had happened to a friend of mine. It was the beginning of my leaving ATI and the accompanying lifestyle.
Not 100% on topic, but some of you may be interested: Bill Gothard, or someone who use his name, just commented on my blog:
http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/is-authority-more-important-to-patriarchy-supporters-than-child-safety-bill-gothard-allegedly-weighs-in-on-that-question/
I quoted something said of him on this thread: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/01/a-response-to-bill-gothard/
I am so thankful for this book. God used it in a big way to open up my eyes to the truth and see Bill's heretical teachings for what they are.
Thank you John for writing this excellent article. I believe it's a must read for all who have been affiliated with Bill Gothard in any way. I would even recommend it for those who haven't been influenced by Bill's teachings so that they can be informed and protected.
For those who are sceptical about this book and its accuracy, I challenge you to do some research. If you have an open mind and are truly seeking the truth, God will be faithful to show you. "You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free!"
"For those who are skeptical about this book and its accuracy, I challenge you to do some research."
As a current member of ATI, I'll take the challenge. I got the book some 6 years ago now . . . I contacted Mr. Veinot and then those he sent me to, as well as Bill himself. I focused on things in the book that, if true, would result in my family’s departure from ATI. Substantive issues like immorality, illegal activities, real "abuse", the kind a court would condemn.
I wrote my own “book report” January of 2006: http://www.corduan.com/book_review.html (also posted on Amazon). I sent it Mr. Veinot, never heard back. It has been up since then and, to this date, I have not received a single rebuttal.
I stand by my contention that the book is misleading at best, and factually and substantively wrong at worst. That it remains unrevised is, to me, unconscionable . . .
Interesting fact. One who knew about the scandal with Mr. Gothard's brother at the deepest levels was Gary Smalley, so indicated in the book. While I do not know his convictions on any issue, it is deeply significant that he was happy to address recent ATI conferences, freely acknowledging his role in the "early days". Dr. Coke went to Mr. Gothard with the sole purpose of rebuking him for the same issue, on behalf of his brother . . . and came away one of the deepest supporters of IBLP I have seen, a regular at conferences for many years. Either everyone has lost all of their senses, or things in the book are at the very least not balanced.
For the record John (author of the posted review) and I are communicating privately. He continues to investigate, as do I. May Jesus be glorified, and His kingdom advanced.
Y'know, what really gave me the greatest pause about Bill Gothard's involvement or role in the whole "Steve" scandal, was the documentation that both Steve and Bill made the exact same apology to the IBLP staff: "defrauding young ladies". We know that Steve went far beyond "defrauding" (But that's another weird Gothard teaching... you don't name the actual offense when you ask forgiveness, but instead cloak it in "nice" language)... One can't help but wonder... WHAT exactly, was Bill apologizing for??
Things that make you go, "hmm..."
"Hannah": "Defrauding", as you will know if you have an IBLP background, starts with and usually means, "Making someone think you are planning on marrying them". The application is usually to dating.
So . . . if he got close to a young lady – and he apparently did – and led her to believe that he was “getting serious”, but wasn’t, and there were hard feelings . . . THAT would be defrauding. The person is to have said clearly, “Bill never abused me”. I know this person has gone home to be with the Lord and the family emphatically does not want any more inquiries or involvement on this. So one is left with what one has.
It is also clear that Bill really didn't understand the extent of what was going on behind his back. So a joint confession of "defrauding" would make sense if he really believed all his brother was doing was "getting close" to young ladies emotionally and breaking hearts.
I take a deep breath before I say the following: Bill said to me twice, different occasions, when this came up: "I have NEVER seen nor touched the private parts of a woman".
I hope you're right, Alfred.
Although, the Steve scandal predates Bill's development of the courtship model, along with the assumption that one should not lead a woman to think you are interested in her prior to formally asking her father's permission to marry her. By several years.
Alfred,
Our leadership team has, in fact, vetted the accounts written by Mr. Veinot and Mr. Henzel, and stand by the review written by Mr. Cornish.
We have chosen (due to privacy concerns) not to publish the specific account of what happened, nor did the authors of "A Matter of Basic Principles."
At the end of the day, Bill was forced to resign over his moral failures, and when he managed to retake control of IBLP the majority of his staff resigned in protest. This should be more than enough evidence of the extreme nature of Bill's sin, even without the dirty details.
RG administrator
I forwarded a pretty clear, strong statement made by Mr. Gothard to me personally on the matter. Are you saying that you know he is lieing? This is really important to me.
Alfred, Gothard also told journalist Sarah Posner on the record that he does not teach wife-to-husband marital submission. I am not saying that his denials are always false, just that they are not by themselves reliable.
Many of us working at IBLP headquarters in the '90s observed Gothard's habit of surrounding himself with attractive young women with whom he took liberties. I was one of them for a time, as were other girls I knew. I am certainly not suggesting that Gothard was ever sexually involved with any of these students; I do not believe that he was. He did, however, regularly behave in a fashion that would have been grounds for dismissal for men and boys on his staff.
He would hold and rub a girl's hand for several minutes while gazing into her eyes. He would stroke a girl's hair. He would comment on or inquire after a girl's weight loss or gain. He would play "footsy" with a girl in his van alone or in the presence of others.
I called home from a roadtrip with Gothard to tell my parents that I was very uncomfortable with the physical attention and compliments, and uncertain how to avoid it without appearing to overreact. A different time, Gothard and the center director showed me to my room at the Oklahoma City Training Center, and the center director waited awkwardly for Gothard to leave the room with him. The director finally departed, clearly uncomfortable with the situation, and left me alone with Gothard. I tried to simply smile and nod as he took my hand in front of the window and talked about the wonderful opportunities ahead of me. I was alarmed, but had no idea how to object without causing a scene. I was 17 years old.
Bill Gothard has a history of creepy and invasive behavior with young girls, behavior clearly in violation of the codes of conduct for all under his authority. The behavior I observed and was subject to was hypocritical, harassing, and would be condemned by Gothard's own teachings.
I am not privy to what happened in 1980, but it is easy to see why the story is so believable.
As I remember the definition of "defrauding" as it was taught when I was under IBLP/ATI teachings (from about 1975 to 1996), it included ANY behaviour that might incite another person to sensual thoughts. It was not just about stirring up ideas of marriage, but included dressing provocatively, interacting unnecessarily with the opposite gender, and in any way calling attention to yourself. When I worked at IBLP Headquarters, we were repeatedly told that persons of different genders could not even be friends without defrauding one another.
Even if Mr. Gothard has "never seen or touched the private parts of a woman," that does not mean that he has not indulged in inappropriate behaviour. It is possible to be intimate with a person without touching them in an overtly sexual way. It is possible to indulge in lustful behaviour without doing anything that casual observers would perceive as "inappropriate."
I can attest to what Lizzie has said below. I have seen Mr. Gothard holding and caressing the hands of various young women for several minutes at a time as he talked to them, usually while gazing deeply into their eyes.
I have been the young woman whose hand was being caressed in this manner. Even though we were in a room full of people, the situation was quite unsettling. It felt extremely intimate, especially as Mr. Gothard was gazing directly into my eyes as we talked, and I felt very uncomfortable. He was holding my hand too firmly for me to pull it away without yanking it from his grasp. I was unsure how to extricate myself from the situation without creating a scene or causing offence. Interestingly enough, could call upon my ex-husband to confirm that when he saw what Mr. Gothard was doing as we talked, he was filled with jealous rage. And my ex-husband is not typically the "jealous rage" type.
I don't know what was going through Mr. Gothard's mind while he was holding my hand and stroking it, but I was thinking, "I wish he would stop that. I don't like it. It feels creepy and nasty." And my ex-husband was thinking that he wanted that dirty old man to get his hands off me.
Lizzie/Wendy: I know that what you are talking about is true. I have a son at headquarters. As a bit of a "toucher" myself as a means of connecting with people (Gary Chapman’s "love language") I have some sympathy for Mr. Gothard in this, but I wish he would refrain from doing it with young ladies, regardless of how “fatherly” he may feel.
Your testimony, though, would solidify my understanding that this has never been sexual in nature. Manners are one thing, but sexual "fondling" as alleged in the newspaper article is something completely different. This took a pretty big name in Christian circles down in recent years, and should take Mr. Gothard down if true.
For Mr. Veinot to tell me - as he has - that he won't tell me what Mr. Gothard did because it would "destroy the ministry" makes no sense to me. That IS an offense worth destroying a ministry over.
Gary Smalley lived that entire time and presumably knew the details, being one of the top staffers who resigned. He put his reputation on the line in the last couple of years in overtly supporting Bill. Draw your own conclusions.
Has it occurred to you that the sketchy details may be intended to protect the person he offended?
Alfred, I perhaps phrased badly. When an older man is touching young women in a way that makes most in the room uncomfortable (especially the young women in question), we can hardly discount the presence of a sexual component on his part. I meant that I did not believe that there were private sexual liaisons or overt gropings.
This unwanted touching of his goes far beyond bad "manners," and would be legally categorized as sexual harassment were the young women to object. Pooling together the separate experiences of four such young women, I can say that we did not object because we thought that (A) Gothard was a man of God and that surely we must be misunderstanding the situation, (B) our objections would be met with condescension and dismissal, (C) if we brought our concerns up we would damage the ministry, and (D) in a worst case scenario, our reputations would be permanently smeared.
In truth, it has been difficult for me to comment this evening because all these years later I still fear being painted as hysterical or dishonest. A true account is all I have to offer.
I do not know what happened in 1980 and agree that there must be proper evidence to back up serious accusations, but character references for Gothard are neither convincing nor adequate defense. He has many times displayed a pattern of teaching one code of conduct while following another. I bring up his semi-public conduct with young women to show that this pattern is evident in his behavior with women on his staff, as well.
Rashel: Mr. Veinot said to me: "We opted not to use them [the actual accounts] as it would subject them [the family] to yet more public pain and would perhaps damage the Institute beyond repair which was never our intent."
An offense minor enough that the family asked it to be dropped and minor enough to allow Mr. Veinot to want it not to "damage the ministry beyond repair" is minor enough to leave out of the book.
The authors strongly allege openness and truthfulness, especially in the light of declaring obfuscation on Mr. Gothard's part. When I, with some trepidation, opened the door and said “bring it out” I found an airtight situation where the allegations apparently will never be explained let alone defended. I am sorry – I could understand, “the man ed her ”, without knowing who she is. Forgive me for having – after 6 years – an increasing level of unhappiness with that.
Lizzie: Your statements stand, as do mine. If I had any sense my young ladies would be abused, I would do more than leave.
*sigh* That last statement got gobbled by some apparent attempt on the website's part to HTMLize. Trying not to be crude, I tried to say
"I could understand, “the man [verb]ed her [noun]” "
but it gobbled up the words in brackets . . . making it all the worse sounding now that I get to explain it.
Coming back in behind Lizzie to agree with her assessment again. What Mr. Gothard did in holding my hand for far too long was not "bad manners." It was "fondling." Had I objected and he continued, it would have been legally actionable as sexual harassment. While I don't doubt that if I'd yanked my hand away or said, "cut that out," he'd have stopped, I am equally sure that any public objection would have cost me my job.
So why didn't I yank my hand away or say "stop it"? Besides the fear of losing my job, the reasons Lizzie gives are spot-on:
I thought Gothard was a man of God and that I was misunderstanding the situation --- that is, something must be wrong with ME, that I would find something objectionable in this man holding and stroking my hand for more than ten minutes.
I was sure that my objections would be met, if not with condescension and dismissal, at least with wide-eyed bewilderment that I could object.
I was sure that making a public scene or bringing up my concerns publicly would damage the ministry, and at that time, I was still not willing to do that.
I was also sure that my own reputation would be shot to pieces and I would be painted as the worst of fallen women if I suggested that I found such innocent-seeming attentions inappropriate.
Wow! If any other older man expresses this kind of attention to a young girl, it is considered inappropriate. Dads of daughters are usually known to be very protective in this way.
But when it's Mr. Gothard, people like Alfred just look the other way and call it his love language! Wow...wow...wow...
There is a difference between expressing love and taking advantage. When a young husband is angry with jealousy and when girls are feeling creeped out, that is not love. That is taking advantage.
Love makes people feel valuable and safe, not used and unsafe.
What makes you so confident that Bill would tell you the truth about something of this nature? Do you really believe that he would want you to know the truth about his sin?
According to his own stated guidelines to us students on staff, if BG verbed ANY nouns belonging to a single young woman, he was worthy of being sent to the "backside of a desert" to lick his wounds and consider his sin for a while. And maybe, just maybe, if he was deemed repentant enough, he would be asked to come back to the fold.
BG verbed plenty of nouns. It was a scandal we young girls didn't know how to address, so we left it alone. We all WANTED to be there. If we told, we would have to go back home and live with our parents. We didn't know we were just low-cost worker bees there to keep the ministry going--we thought we were part of Utopia, and of something much bigger than ourselves. It felt like nearly every student at home wanted to be us, working right under BG's nose. And in my own inexperience, I assumed that what happened between BG and the young girl(s) was so random and so uncommon, that it surely couldn't be enough to warrant taking down the whole ministry.
I was wrong, though. It wasn't random. There was a pattern. And if we had been honest with ourselves (and just a bit more jaded) when we joked about his young female traveling posse with their "soft curls that framed the face," we would have realized that what looked like a pattern WAS a pattern.
Perhaps in his own mind, BG is convinced that there was no sexual overtone (or undertone for that matter), because he didn't touch private parts. But in our world--the world he created for us--all of our parts were private when it came to boys. Even our thoughts were schooled to avoid touching each other.
Alfred, I see you choosing to use the term 'defrauding' to implicate something of lessor importance. First, this is NOT how Gothard uses the term on others. Defrauding covers A LOT of bad territory in the Gothard system. It's a curse to be found guilty of it. If you are comfortable with that, then, sure use the term. If you are attempting to justify what you must stil call 'inappropriate behavior' by using the term, hmm.... I see an inconsistency in your argument, that's all. Why?
There are documented accounts of more than simple innocent or 'defrauding' behavior on his behalf. You are leaving huge logical gaps between your referenced quote from Gothard above and the loose ambiguous term of 'defrauding.' I don't have anything to prove...who cares about Gothard's actions? It no longer means anything to me personally. He's irrelevant to me.
To equate public handholding to an offense worthy of terminating a ministry is interesting to me, but I will leave that to you. Some have expressed discomfort with "Public Displays of Affection" between siblings. Is that an expression of incest, or even a sign that it is likely to happen? Nope. Especially not “in public”.
I suspect we have learned all we can from that particular topic.
What a strange comment...
It's the Institute staff that makes something dirty out of familial affection (http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/07/dividing-sister-and-brother/) but then Mr. Gothard's "public handholding" is just fine. It's the Institute who sends students home in disgrace for less. Are you defending public handholding in disagreement with the Institute's policy, Alfred?
Bill behaves in ways with young ladies for which he would put your son on the next plane home or that would get you sued in the workplace for sexual harassment and this does not bother you.
Of course it's fine. What could possibly be wrong with an older, unmarried man latching on to a pretty young woman's hand and caressing it for 10 minutes, while gazing into her eyes? Assuming, of course, it was at least their third date, and he had paid for dinner.
Seriously though, I'm not quite simple enough to believe everything I read, but multiple witnesses are saying it happened to them in a public situation, which means it could easily be refuted were it not true. It sounds like he's lucky he didn't get his clock cleaned by some brother or father. Common sense tells you that ain't normal behavior. There doesn't have to be anything else going on.
Matthew, I agree. Why does the system grant such wildly diverging stances in judgement based solely on respect of persons? Under biblical systems of morality, this was considered a disgrace and a lack of righteous judgement. The system is seriously flawed in light of Scripture and time-proven standards of equity, justice, and judgement.
Alfred, we're not bringing up Gothard's regular objectionable conduct with young women as an offense WE think worthy to terminate a ministry, we're bringing it up as conduct that he engages in even though HE has used milder conduct as grounds to terminate the IBLP ministry affiliation of many other staff members. It is an example of how he holds others to a higher standard than that to which he holds himself, and an example of how he does not practice what he preaches in the realm of sexual conduct.
You brought up Gothard's history and personal character as circumstantial evidence against the 1980 charges. We're bringing up his history and personal character as circumstantial evidence for the 1980 charges. Neither is truly adequate, but both provide useful context.
There are four different types of things that might have happened and been apologized for in and around 1980: relatively innocent dating or flirtation, consensual sexual involvement, harassment, or abuse. It is understandable that the family would want to avoid detailed stories for the sake of privacy since they are not truly anonymous (you seem to know who they are), while at the same time denying the latter and most extreme possibility. It is also understandable that Veinot would want to balance the family's concerns with being fair to Gothard, while still exposing a very relevant series of events.
On a more personal note, Alfred, I once took the position you now take, and believe you are approaching the situation in all good faith in hopes of seeing the truth come to light. As your son continues his work at headquarters, he will likely see things that cause you concern.
This story struck a chord for so many of us not because we cannot forgive an indiscretion or sin that happened over thirty years ago, but because the manner in which the event was handled set a pattern that has Gothard has followed ever since. He responds to challenges to his conduct and/or teachings by finding an excuse to remove or discredit the challenger, then seeks to consolidate power in such a way that he cannot be challenged in the same manner again. This pattern has been repeated so many times that he has created a system in which he functionally has no accountability left at all. The 1980 events marked a transition from a mostly healthy ministry structure to one man's hypocritical dictatorship.
Here's heal with the hand-holding or other touching: if any young man would have done the same thing to a young woman as Lizzie or Wendy described, they would likely have been dismissed from the staff pretty quickly.
I remember one evening at the Indianapolis Training Center, I was standing near the front desk, which was a few feet from Gothard's office. There was a young man having a very friendly conversation with one or two young ladies at a table in the lobby, which was also near Gothard's office. When Gothard saw this as he walked into his office, he broke up the conversation, took the poor chap aside and gave him a very stern lecture about not defrauding people and having a proper courthship spirit.
Even if this type of behavior wouldn't rise to the level of harassment or inappropriate contact in the real world, it still shows a high level of hypocrisy.
Ummmm, definitely. My reputation was destroyed on the basis of rumors - in one week. I had to leave because once your reputation is destroyed you have nothing left in that culture. There was no real basis for me to have to leave - just the fact that I didn't have a courtship spirit. By the way, the only thing I was guilty of was having a crush on someone. I had never allowed myself to even express my feelings. Once the rumor mill starts you just can't make it stop, no matter what is at stake.
To even begin to justify Mr. Gothard's behavior as appropriate in any way does a huge disservice to those of us who served faithfully and were destroyed by the words of others. His behavior was inappropriate over and over again. He should be at least held to the same standard that the rest of his staff was/is. As a teacher he also is supposed to be held to a higher standard. Boy, it really burns to have to live by what you say.
Me: "I was sure that my objections would be met, if not with condescension and dismissal, at least with wide-eyed bewilderment that I could object."
Alfred: "To equate public handholding to an offense worthy of terminating a ministry is interesting to me, but I will leave that to you. ...I suspect we have learned all we can from that particular topic. "
I rest my case.
boom goes the dynamite.
But seriously, I am so sorry to Wendy and Lizzie and the rest of you ladies who were in this situation and you were so alone. It really hurts to see how easy it is for someone to simply dismiss your experiences out of hand and to know that still represents status quo there at the Institute. I'm not in your shoes but I do know the fear of being dismissed and called crazy; I can imagine it is just that much harder for you guys.
The idea of a single, older man holding the hand of an underaged girl with whom he is not related, while her family is far away, and while he has no accountability, is frightening. It is not a "love language." Every time I ever met Mr. Gothard, I never once saw him grasp the hand of another man (other than for a quick handshake). He didn't "hold hands" with men. He didn't request private, late-night meetings with married ladies, with brunette girls, with homely young women, or with redheads--no matter how deeply spiritual these other women were. And he definitely never, ever, held hands with a girl who was even slightly plump. These "affections," this "showing his love language," was reserved solely for the attractive, slender young blondes with softly curling hair. As for the "public displays of affection" among siblings, the only place that I ever heard the appropriateness of that called into question was at TC's. Brothers were not allowed to hold their sisters hands. Once, I was reprimanded for hugging another girl (I'm a girl. I was told that it was "too affectionate" and a bad testimony, and that in the future, all hugging should be for no longer than 5 seconds; nevermind if someone had just had bad news and needed comforting; only 5 seconds of comfort allowed!). It is suspect at best when a man so overly conscious of other people touching each other feels that he is above his own rules.
Makes me very scared for Jana Duggar, who meets all of BG's preferences.
No longer IFBx.. I'm not too worried for Jana, she's too high profile, I think he'd have enough sense to mind himself around her.. lucky girl.
When I was a teenager, I think I would have literally staked my life on the credibility of Bill Gothard and the Institute. After some experiences where I realized Mr. Gothard was being inconsistent, I began to question. Even so, this book blew me away when I first read it. There are things I would say differently than the book, and I have some theological differences with the authors but it caused me to start asking real questions, for which I am grateful.
I recommend this article for people just beginning to research: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/marchweb-only/3-3-33.0.html?start=1
A couple things to notice: one of the long-time board members was removed by a process of what some might call dirty politics. It was his belief that he was removed because "he started questioning the institute's finances".
The board was surprised to learn about how the money was actually being handled. "Brown said that the board, as an entity, had learned nothing about the institute's finances in the 10 years he was a member of it." He added, "All we did was rubber-stamp the recommendations of the president."
The article draws attention to an inconsistency: A seminar brochure states that "All funds are carefully controlled by a board of directors … "
There are some older Christianity Today pieces that are harder to get hold of. One is titled "Bill Gothard steps down during Institute shakeup" (Aug. 8, 1980, p. 46) but it was followed the next month with "Gothard's fast comeback overrides calls for reform" (Sept. 19, p. 56).
Matthew: Are you aware of any financial improprieties that the audits actually revealed? I know full and proper audits were performed in the wake of these allegations.
Alfred, would that we all had friends as loyal as you are to Mr. Gothard!
My comment wasn't about the audits. Were the results of those ever published or were they kept private?
But to my point - I was commenting about a few of the numerous discrepancies, such as where people believe that he submits to a board, and he claims to be in submission, but in reality the board was rubber-stamping whatever he wanted. When someone actually started to ask questions, they were slyly removed from the board. To me, that looks more like power than submission.
Matthew: The article you cite says:
"The Institute has been audited over the last decade by the small Chicago certified public accountancy firm of Brabenec, Yasus, Tague and Company. The semi-retired partner who has reviewed the institute books said it was a shame it had to bring Price Waterhouse in, since 'whatever problems they had certainly weren't in [the financial] area.'"
If Dr. Brown's rubber-stamp approvals were hiding problems, subsequent audits would show SOMETHING.
I am loyal, but not as loyal as you might thing. I hate baloney.
Matthew, sometimes being loyal and in denial is easier than facing the facts. As a parent who was in ATI over 16 years, I found myself on numerous occasions definding Bill's teachings. Afterall, he was such a godly man, I thought. I was not open, for years, to the truth that was right there in front of my face. The truth is, he is just a man who sins everyday just like you and I do.
I am truly saddened as I have read several of the comments today of young people sharing about Bill's inappropriate behavior and then to have it justified by you Alfred. This behavior of Bill is not normal nor should it be accepted and/or justified.
I appreciate the administrator's comment today for the RG leadership team as it was very blunt, clear and honest.
Alfred, Do you really want to know the truth? There are enough stories on this Recovering Grace site that should cause you to fall to your knees in brokeness and repentance. I posted a question to you above which I will again repost here.
"What makes you so confident that Bill would tell you the truth about something of this nature? Do you really believe that he would want you to know the truth about his sin?"
I read the book after 5 years at a training center. I was very skeptical because I had invested so much of myself into this "ministry". I read the book with my fingers in the notes pages. The thing is a lot of the situations talked about in the book I was around for. I heard the "prayer requests" for them. I also heard the rumors and sometimes the actual truth. So when the book was written it wasn't hard to know which stories were true. The truth is there and even worse stories that could have been told to make their points.
Yeah.
"The truth is there and even worse stories that could have been told to make their points."
Exactly! And I do know some stories of my own. So often the truth is right there in front of our face and we do everything we can to ignore it and prove it wrong. It was very humbling and humiliating to admit failure. As a parent who raised her kids under Bill's teachings, I am so grateful to have been set free going on about ten years now. Also glad my whole family has been freed of this bondage and are serving the Lord out of gratitude and love.
I'm crushed. Bill never held my hand and rubbed my hair. And I was special!
Circ!! ROFL!
Please, for the love of God, if there are other more "damaging" or serious stories of sexual impropriety - SHARE THEM!! There is no "ministry" or person's reputation worth endangering people's emotional and physical safety. Especially since we are talking about a homeschool ministry with MANY children involved!!
Amen!
Well, I knew at least four girls who had been sexually abused by family members, friends, etc, while their families were enrolled in IBLP. Because of BG's teachings on sexual abuse (which make it the fault of the victim--which truly stung, considering I had been sexually abused myself. I was only 8 when it happened and had never heard that if I "dedicated my body to God," I would be spared such things.), none of these girls ever recieved any kind of counseling, even from a Christian counselor, and lived in constant pain and guilt because they were told they were at fault in the situation. They were basically dirty, defiled, and unlovely, impure--by BG's teachings; NOT by God's. Never by God's!!! Several of those girls wound up basically self-destructing; after all, why even try if you're already "damaged goods?" I remember thinking it made little logical sense to claim that if you dedicated your body to God, you'd be spared from rape. After all, God allowed the disciples to be beheaded, parboiled, crucified, etc. Some awful things happened to the martyrs of the faith. Oh, but not rape. Not dirty rape. It was disgusting to hear him twist Scripture to make the victims of assault actually the ones to blame.
Frankly, Bill's Scripture twisting is enough to turn any person away from his organization. For example, he uses Proverbs 14:1 to prove that a woman is a "fool" if she tries to intervene in family matters when her husband hasn't given her permission.
Really? If you read that verse, it is clearly saying the exact opposite. A woman can singlehandedly build up or tear down her home with wisdom or "non wisdom" respectively. No mention of doing everything the husband tells you to or you bring your house down. No mention of the husband at all actually.
This is a huge example of Bill's issues with making the Bible fit to his whims and rhemas. And yet, it is one of the smaller ones.
"This is a huge example of Bill's issues with making the Bible fit to his whims and rhemas. And yet, it is one of the smaller ones."
^^^^Well said Circ! I have been reading this book "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth".
"Interpretation that aims at, or thrives on, uniquesness can usually be attributed to pride (an attenpt to "outclever" the rest of the world), a false understanding of spirituality (wherein the Bible is full of deeply buried truths waiting to be mined by the spiritually sensitive person with special insight), or vested interests (the need to support a theological bias, especially in dealing iwth texts that seem to go against that bias). Unique interpretations are usually wrong." (Fee & Stuart 2003)
BG was the master of foolery with his wording. His entire "ministry" is based on his own interpretations of God's Word. One thing I am 100% certain of is the fact that God did not reach down and hold BG's hand or stroke his comb-over and ask him, BG, to interpret the Holy Bible for Christians.
Alfred, you appear to be a very loyal minion indeed. I hope your son does not walk away damaged like many of us. The twisted BG versions of the Bible have really hurt those of us that worked for ATIA. IT has wreaked so many families, mine being one of them. I can trace our issues all the way back to my parents first involvement with IBLP.
Alfred,
I cannot understand you at all! Gothard's hand holding is twisted and creepy and you sit there and defend it. I doubt you would leave ATI like you said. You are going to take testimony after testimony and try to excuse it somehow. So sad...
Time out, time out! Let me get this straight. If the thread of comments here are to be believed, the facts of the matter must be as follows:
1) Bill publicly held hands with a young woman, now deceased. He later apologized for "defrauding" her. Not to her, but to his staff.
2) His brother slept with one or more secretaries, then also apologized for "defrauding".
3) Bill was subsequently forced to resign over public hand-holding.
4) When Bill instigated a coup de etat to regain his position, all the iblp staff resigned in protest of public hand-holding.
5) The "young lady" took the secret with her to her grave. Her family is so ashamed that she held hands in public, that they want no more inquiries on the matter, bless her memory!
6) Bill went on to start a homeschool program, in which he could freely hold hands!
Clearly, Bill's mistake was in the vagueness of his apology. If only everyone had realized he was talking about holding hands, I doubt they would have been so up-in-arms over it!
This convo is getting a bit too creepy for me ;p
Oh, I forgot:
7) Veinot and Henzel later went on to publish a book, in which they omitted the fact that Bill had held hands in public, as the information would likely destroy Bill's ministry.
There. I knew it was incomplete without 7 points.
You summed it up perfectly, Hannah! That's exactly how I feel about the situation. Too bad half the staff resigned over him holding hands and possibly projecting an intent to marry to this poor girl that never quite worked out. Because no one on staff would be excited for him if he were thinking about getting married, and they would most certainly blame him for defrauding the girl and step down in protest from their jobs if he changed his mind and didn't get married. Riiiiight.
Well duh. I mean, hand holding is how BABIES are made! Isn't it? He could have gotten a girl PREGNANT!
Oh wait. That's what I was taught by overly zealous ATI moms. Nevermind. Carry on.
LOL Kit!
LOL! Seven points indeed! :D ~Tik
ROFL!!! I think you got it about right, Hannah. "Hand-holding" is what almost brought the ministry down. Thank goodness for parents who were afraid of public school and college, so BG could re-stock his decimated staff with apprenticeship students who were placed "under his authority." Meaning, presumably, holding hands is okay when one is a guardian. And since he confessed (under duress) his attraction to them to all the parents, I guess that means he also forsook his attraction to the young girls under his guardianship. Or not. Either way. It was just holding hands. That's his story and he's sticking to it.
"Hannah", that is an incredibly concise review!!! I would give you a more worthy credit of your work, but I am too involved in my current activity rolling about the floor in peels of laughter. Thank you for dividing the arguments and seeking the facts!
While what I said earlier was meant as a humorous remark based on some of my experiences in ATI, I was struck by this comment of Alfred's:
"An offense minor enough that the family asked it to be dropped and minor enough to allow Mr. Veinot to want it not to 'damage the ministry beyond repair' is minor enough to leave out of the book."
I beg to differ. A family would not ask anything surrounding a minor offense to be dropped. A minor offense would not damage ANYTHING beyond repair. Alfred, I'm not accusing Mr. Gothard of anything, but are you at all aware of how many rape victims NEVER COME FORWARD because of how awful it is? They would rather try and forget it than deal with it. They don't want that stigma, and neither do their families. After the person dies, the hurt still stays with the family. In fact, I can see that after a person's death, a major offense would be even MORE likely to be dropped, because now, not only does the family have to deal with the fact that their loved one went through so much pain, but also the fact that they are now dead. Either one is bad enough. Both together, can be unbearable.
It would be highly naive of you to think that an offense that no one wants to speak of would be a minor one. Non-existent? Maybe. Grossly exaggerated? Possibly. Minor? Not a chance. If you really think there was an offense, I would think hard and long before dismissing it as "minor."
Hey! I'm over here! Anyone?! I got a hand to hold. Come on!
AND . . . when all is said and done, nobody can still tell me what he did. With all of the knowledge and experience and contacts and motivation here, the best we can do is handholding. *I* didn't come up with that.
The same thing . . . 6 years of asking.
No, dude, I'm not privy to Gothard's personal sex life or lack thereof, sorry. I got neither verbs nor nouns for ya. All I have is the documentation in this book, and the lingering questions that it leaves.
Alfred, I think you are confusing "can" and "will." Those who know the exact details WILL not tell you what he did, because you were not part of the problem, you are not part of the solution, and the family has asked that details of the situation not be shared publicly.
Quite frankly, the exact details are not your business, nor are they mine. It should be sufficient for anyone outside the situation that the young lady's family found whatever happened to be disturbing enough that they wanted it hushed up, and the IBYC board and staff found it disturbing enough that Mr. Gothard was asked to resign. When he reinstated himself, most of the staff quit in protest.
For you to continue pushing for the prurient details in light of those facts is inappropriate.
Wendy, My thoughts exactly!
Nobody resigned because of immorality ascribed to Bill, Wendy. Nobody asked Bill to resign because of immorality. He was asked to resign because he completely mishandled the immorality of his brother. Unhappy staff resigned for the same reasons.
Read the statement by former board chairman Sam Schulz on pg 55. He references the brother and other staffers with respect to immoral activity, and Bill's mismanagement of the affair. He never suggests Bill was immoral, even though he blamed Bill, had already resigned, and had no reason to cover anything.
In fact, the only two sources for that accusation in the book are an LA Times Article and Tony Guhr. Don sent me straight to Tony when I asked for details. Tony dodged me on that several times without explanation. He was still very unhappy with Bill. Very unhappy people find a way to let you know, especially when you suggest the accusation is false. You can guess my confidence in the LA Times, Chandler, and his unnamed sources.
Gary Smalley and his wife walked the whole messy business first hand and ultimately resigned. He supports Bill today. I doubt he could do that if he knew of major unconfessed sin.
Is that what this was all about, you trying to force someone's hand to spill details that they either can't or won't?
"Hannah": Given that other significant "facts" in the book have failed to check out, I am seriously beginning to doubt this one. How WOULD someone act that has taken a stance that they know can't defend? It is a solemn thing to publicly accuse a servant of Jesus of moral failure.
For the love of God! That's ridiculous! I have not accused Gothard of an affair, I have only said I had questions. And I don't consider it a "solemn thing" to expose sin or abuse for anybody, whether or not they claim to be a Christ-follower! To my mind, that sounds like a statement borne from the authoritarian attitude of, "silence the victims in order to protect the patriarchy at all costs"!
No, I feel no obligation to protect a leader's reputation, and certainly not the man's in question. That's his responsibility, not mine. Although, if you wish to keep defending him, go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. But your "solemnity" is nothing more than a guilt tactic to silence questions. I've had enough of being silenced in my lifetime, thank you very much.
Hmm... I think we're actually called by God to hold Christian leaders to HIGHER standards morally, not refuse to accuse/question them. If a man is clean, his story will check out. I've seen way too many Christian leaders living in moral failure whose followers refuse to question, because they think that certainly a man of God wouldn't have that struggle! My husband is a pastor, and I've seen statistics that show that 3/4 of a seminary graduating class will not make it past 8 years of ministry. The majority will wash out or leave the ministry because of personal or moral failure. Moral failure in ministry is epidemic. If someone suspected my husband (their pastor) of moral failure, I sure hope they would be willing to check out the details and raise a question, and not just assume because he's a pastor he will never struggle with it. ALL men need moral accountability, *especially* those in leadership.
This conversation has been going 'round and 'round. But I do want to say that I think I see what you're trying to say, Alfred. That it's a big deal to accuse a well-known man of sexual inappropriateness, especially when no one has the actual details of an actually-documented incident.
But the reactions of those surrounding that incident speak volumes. And those here have provided details of his inappropriate behavior, behavior that would have anyone else within the Institute sent home. In order for Gothard to be a man of integrity who adheres to his own meticulous moral code, then these women must be exaggerating or lying. If they aren't, then Gothard is at the very least shading the truth (which, in Institute parlance, is lying).
I guess the women could be bitter enough to make up stories to bring him down -- although if that were the case, you'd think they could come up with something a little more salacious. But Gothard has even MORE to lose if they're telling the truth, so he -- and his friends -- have a strong motive to discredit his accusers.
"I've never seen nor touched the private parts of a woman" is a bold statement. And very, very specific. My husband is an attorney, and after twelve years I've figured out that if he makes such a highly detailed statement, it means there's a loophole somewhere. "I have never been involved in inappropriate or immoral activities with another person" would be much more general, and much more convincing. Possibly that's what Gothard meant by his statement. But it's suspect, and those of us damaged by his rigid rules, punitive theology, and double standards of behavior do suspect it.
After 6 years of asking, I wonder what exactly you're looking for. This isn't a big thing, eh? Nothing more than hand-holding?
Nothing any worse than glaring hypocrisy, spiritual abuse, and abuse of power as The One To Whom God Revealed All.
Young people who gave their time, energy, youth, and passion to work in BG's training centers were sent home for such serious infractions as simply talking to a person of the opposite sex. They were sent home in shame and disgrace as sensual sinners.
Being branded a 'defrauder' of anothers 'emotional purity' in ATI-World was very nearly the same as being branded with the scarlet letter in Puritan times.
Even if the only thing under discussion was BG's moral authority to lay down God's Will for the rest of Christianity... in this "very small thing," I'm afraid he quite simply disqualifies himself.
He cannot be above his own laws - teachings that have left thousands of young people with abnormal views of the beautiful thing God intended male-female relationships to be.
Alfred..... It seems to me that you just want nasty details before you decide to stay or leave ATIA. You sound just like our nation's court system.
Well, we just can't make that decision until we see cold-hard facts. (Never mind that the evidence is there to support the claim.....never mind that there is probable cause....)
Sorry Alfred, you are probably a very nice individual....but this lack of concern over the sexual harrassment endured by the young ladies in this forum is making my heart grow even colder toward ATIA and the parents that place their kids in situations that they could come into contact with a pheophile. Yep, calling him like I see him.
And, I realize that I am on the tail-end of this convo.....but it takes me awhile of seeing round robin talk going on before I get involved.
Let me ask you this.....what if your pastor, neighbor, boss, or best bud always showed your daughter the sort of attention that has been described in the above comments? What would be racing through your mind? What if the roles were reversed....and it was your son getting that same physical attention?
I would hope that you would be appalled and be working to fix that situation promptly. In this day and age we are much MORE educated aobut sexual harrassment or sexual advances. Back in the early 80's and 90's it was not something that any of us really new about.
I can tell you that if it were my child.....I would handle the situation and handle it fast. I can also tell you that if I had so many people telling me how bad a situation was...I doubt very seriously that I would allow my child to stay involved with such a diabolical organization....That's the word! Organization....IT IS NOT a ministry. It is an organization.
Hi Alfred..
I knew this website when I was doing a little bit of research about IBLP teaching. Whether this organization's teaching is biblically true or not. I did the research because I wanted to decide whether to continue following seminars or not.
I don't know Gothard or other people in this site personally. Therefore, I can not say whether Wendy or Lizzie's story were true or not. Gothard sexual harassement might be true or might be not true. Even a judge can not really know what actually happened in a case. Only God can. So I try to focus on the objective: WHETHER THIS ORGANIZATION'S TEACHING IS BIBLICALLY TRUE OR NOT.
If you really want to decide whether to stay or leave, try to focus on the Scripture, Albert... I find out that this website is a wonderful resource to find Scriptural base about IBLP's false teaching. I hope your decision to leave or not to leave IBLP is not based on whether rumours around Gothard are true or not, but based on the Scripture, the whole Scripture, not just verse by verse.
Hey, I really like that.
My position has been all along that it would seem like the authors have enough "ammunition" to make their points without getting into things that look like rumors when you dig into it. That is extremely offensive to me. A charge of "fondling and groping" is at the top of my list of things to worry about. Mr. G employs, cares for my kids - I find some of the comments that suggest that this is "none of my business" amazing.
[And - with apologies to others who feel differently - I have never known a pervert who just "held hands" while giving a “pastoral blessing” . . . have you? Bad people can't help doing bad things. If there is an iceberg underneath, then let's get to it. If not, please, move on.]
With as little objectivity as appears to be able to be brought to bear on this issue, the authors should have just dropped it and focused on what brought them to have issues with IBLP in the first place.
I am supportive of Mr. G and IBLP. The ministry had a profound, life-changing impact on me in 1973 and beyond. As such I am loyal as my starting position, kind of like family, and not just because we are in ATI.
Having said that, I have gotten burnt by Christian heroes that I later came to believe to be frauds. That is why I picked up the book and dug in. I read all of the stories and comments.
Speaking for myself, I have NOT accused Bill Gothard of being a pervert. I HAVE said that he behaved in ways that I perceived as inappropriate. (It is possible to behave inappropriately without being a pervert.) I have offered my own experience, and corroboration from my ex-husband. I can also offer corroboration from my mother, who told me just yesterday that when she was at IBLP HQ with me, she saw similar behaviour. (Incidentally, my mother is loyal to Mr. Gothard and defends his early ministry, just as you do.)
I have NOT said that the hand-holding was in the context of a pastoral blessing. The conversation that I was having with Mr. Gothard was a request to enact a Pesach Seder as one of the Saturday evening meals, and, among the topics in our 10-minute conversation were the fact that I had studied classical Biblical Hebrew in college and would be able to recite the blessings in Hebrew; the fact that a typical Seder meal is about 5 hours long, so we would have to shorten it; and the fact that the Seder was a prototype of Christ. No reason at all for Mr. Gothard to hold my hand throughout this conversation.
Finally, I did not say that awareness of such charges is none of our business. I said that the SPECIFIC DETAILS are none of our business. You asked for "he verbed her noun" details. I'm saying that such details are NOT appropriate for sharing beyond those who were involved in the situation or its resolution.
Certainly, it is our business to learn whether inappropriate behaviour occurred. We have the information in the book, the witness of several young women, and the witness of numerous staffers. We have newspaper accounts stating that when staffers saw that Mr. Gothard was returning to head the organization, they quit in protest because he was not following his own rules. We have parents and students saying that they personally saw Mr. Gothard engaging in behaviour that would have gotten staff members sent home in disgrace. Clearly, inappropriate behaviour has occurred. Judging the severity of that behaviour is up to the individual person.
Alfred, I understand your loyalty. It's commendable that you don't want to condemn a man without incontrovertible evidence. I understand your desire to be certain of the facts before you walk away from a ministry that helped you. Remember, I was under IBLP teaching from the mid-1970s to 1996. More than 20 years. That is a long time, especially when it encompasses your teens and 20s. When I tell you that it was not an easy decision for me to walk away from the man and the teachings that had been the bedrock of my formative years, I hope you will see that I do, TRULY, understand where you are coming from.
But, please, try to understand that the SPECIFIC details are NOT yours to have.
Put yourself in this family's place. Your daughter has been taken advantage of by a man you trusted. In your desire to protect her, you get the whole thing hushed up. Would you want some stranger coming around 30 years later saying "I need to know whether I should trust this man with my own kids. Tell me exactly what he did to your daughter. What verb did he do to what noun?" Would you not react toward that person with horror and disgust? Suspicion of his motives? Anger that he'd brought the whole mess up again? They've already told enough of the story to raise concerns. Either accept or dismiss those concerns, act on that decision, and move on.
I know better than to draw this particular conversation out, but -
1) Wendy's comment, as usual, is excellent.
2) [And - with apologies to others who feel differently - I have never known a pervert who just "held hands" while giving a “pastoral blessing” . . . have you? Bad people can't help doing bad things. If there is an iceberg underneath, then let's get to it. If not, please, move on.]
That is a profoundly ignorant statement. Alfred, here is my challenge to you. Have your wife read the statements above by Lizzie and Wendy and ask her if she would be OK with that happening to her daughter (being in a room alone, hand being held and rubbed, gazing into eyes, husband being moved to jealousy).
I will repeat that I personally find it disturbing that Bill Gothard expresses attention to pretty girls in ways that would get you in trouble at your job and for which Gothard himself would send your son home in disgrace.
If your wife reports that she has a "caution in her spirit" about those descriptions, then what are you prepared to do to honor her in that?
Yeah. At best, I find these allegations of hand-holding with teenaged girls, an issue of sexual harrassment, something which employers should not tolerate in our day and age.
Hey Alfred, it's been a week and you've made numerous other comments. Are you dodging my challenge?
My challenge is not that you speak *for* your wife. It's that you truly listen to her heart as she responds to the stories by Wendy and Lizzie as to whether she would have any "cautions in her spirit" if this were to happen to her daughter.
Alfred,
I find your defense of Bill Gothard on this ministry/website committed to helping so many of us who have been hurt and damaged by ATI and Bill Gothard's teachings highly offensive. How dare you defend as 'love language," Gothard's grossly inappropriate behavior to young girls. How dare you paint a picture of godliness for us, when we know the hurt, the pain, and the damage this ministry has caused in our lives. There are numerous young people who have endured countless offenses by the ATI ministry. There are countless relationships between parent/child damaged due to the teachings and leadership of ATI/Bill Gothard. In addition to multitudes of problems/dissensions in churches and relationships due to Gothard's false teachings. I unfortunately was a parent in ATI, and my advice to you is don't walk, but run as fast as you can from this ministry. For you to will find, when the false teachings fail, for they are false, you will find heartache, for that is what Satan offers. Gothard is a sheep in wolves clothing. However, one thing is certain, Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ. For He is our deliverer, and He has raised this multitude of young people as testifed by these posts to speak out against Gorhard's ministry.
Uh... Wolf in sheep's clothing? ;)
Imo, good advice. I could have avoided loads of heartache, had I "run" years earlier than I did.
Hannah,
ROFL :-) ummm, I was a little upset when I wrote that.....BG is NOT a sheep, he is a wolf.....LOL :-) After reading the repeated comments by so many you giving point blank testimony of clear cut inappropriate behavior by Bill Gothard.....only to have Alfred continue to dismiss you, it was like a repeat of ATI as I finished reading all the posts. If any of your parents have not repented and apologized to you I am so sorry. From what I am reading on here, your parents should be so very proud. Continue to speak out and stand for the freedom Christ gave us through His death. And I too Hannah, you have no idea how much I wish I had run.
Alfred,
You said, "I focused on things in the book that, if true, would result in my family’s departure from ATI. Substantive issues like immorality, illegal activities, real "abuse", the kind a court would condemn."
You can assume that all the stories about Gothard are all lies. That he never did real "abuse" with women (or men). So, as long as he never do the kind a court would condemn, then you would stay? But what about substantive issue like Scripture twisting, the kind God would condemn? Would it result in your family's departure from ATI?
"It's Me": :-) One man's junk is another man's treasure. This is one area where we stand on a level ground. My hope for eternity is not based on other people's opinions but on the Word of God alone. Because of this my conscience is not bound by any person's Scriptural perspectives, no matter how many degrees they have. To my Lord alone I give account.
So . . . some of those Scriptures don't seem so twisty to me as they may seem to you. I don't follow all of what Bill Gothard holds - and, no, I am not a Cabbage Patch believer - but the fundamental issues I think he got right.
One of the complaints is that Bill preaches things he does not keep. To whatever extent that is true, that is wrong. But God's Word stands alone . . . our sinfulness proves its veracity.
Don't seem so twisty, so twisty or so very much twisty, all of them are actually the same: The Scripture is being twisted. The twisted version of the Scripture is the fake Scripture, two different Scriptures.
You will not leave, because if someone twists the Scripture, abuses the Scripture, it is not a substantive issue for you. Eventhough you know that the Scripture is being twisted, you are still defending the man that twists it and searching and asking about the rumours. For 6 years. Okay, now I know your priority. I got it.
Alfred, I asked my dad recently whether he had ever gone verse by verse through the Basic Seminar and looked up each passage. He said he had. I asked if he had noticed how many passages were either taken out of context, partially quoted, or twisted in order to support the point. He said he had noticed that Gothard does this regularly. I asked if he had a problem with this. His answer was no, because even though Gothard does not have Scriptural support for his teachings, the basic principles are good.
In other words, you can do whatever you like with the Scriptures, as long as you come up with ideas that other people like. To me, that is irresponsible mishandling of God's Word. If someone is obviously not "rightly dividing the word of truth," I am not ready to accept what he teaches.
How hard would it be...if BG is the Godly man he leads us all to believe he is...for him to humbly ask forgiveness for making you ladies feel so uncomfortable? I'm sure it would be too little to late for you, but I would think he would be greatly bothered by the fact that he made you feel so uncomfortable and want to apologize. I mean remember his teaching on getting a clear conscience? If your brother has aught against you go and be reconciled to your brother...
Alfred, it's this hypocrisy that is now so evident to me in BG, the fact that he teaches one thing but doesn't bother to practice it himself, that makes me glad we are no longer in ATI. We got out a while back simply because we had no reason to pay $675.00/year any more because we had all the wisdom books and they were opening up apprenticeship opportunities to people whether they were in ATI or not. My husband jokingly said,"But all that great counsel you will miss out on." Because every time I called ATI with a problem or a question I got some inexperienced teen-ager who very sweetly said I should pray about it. I digress. Sorry.
My heart goes out to all the young people who have been so hurt. I would say it's because I have the gift of mercy...but I am at this time questioning and bringing before God and the Scriptures everything I learned through IBLP & ATI. including the teaching on gifts. I have asked my kids to forgive me and they have graciously done so. Thankfully my husband never "drank the Kool-Aid" so they weren't blitzed as bad as some kids have been.
I remember in college, our Campus Minister did something that offended me. (It didn't have to do with inappropriate behavior toward me...it had to do with a teaching he gave) I remember being so afraid to approach him to discuss it with him because he was so wise and I was just a new Christian. He listened to what I had to say and then immediately told me I was right and would I forgive him? I was stunned. I did not expect that at all. I had expected him to defend himself and tell me what a stupid person I was for being offended. So different than what a lot of you young people have experienced from Bill.
Alfred, at the risk of becoming redundant, let me repeat an earlier comment that is relevant to this discussion...
WHY is it that a religious group with cultish tendencies has to end up with mass suicides, or even 'just' documented evidence of physical abuse, sexual abuse or financial wrongdoing BEFORE christian people stop repeating:
"Chew the meat, spit out the bones"??!!
Why are so many christians opposed to the idea of calling a public figure who claims to speak for GOD to accountability for his teaching or practice?
Incomprehensible.
Will: I probably should not even respond . . . I guess it would be helpful to understand what you are basing this blast on. "Mass suicides?" "Sexual Abuse?" Where in the world are you getting this from?
I see, BTW, the section on "Sexual Abuse" up on the website. Read the first story which was a tragedy, but it was freely acknowledged that nothing would have been better if ATI hadn't been in the picture. Curious what else is posted. I, for what it is worth, am not aware of any such issues in the circles I move in . . . and this is a wide open forum to challenge my perceptions. Of all the families I have interacted with over 18 years, only one has had any serious issues. They alleged to hyper-follow Gothard but were, interestingly enough, not in ATI, I suspect finding it not narrow enough. As of this moment 6 kids rejecting God and everything else. But . . . I went to the one I had had the best relationship with and specifically asked if the turmoil had anything to do with sexual garbage. He assured me that none of that had happened. Basically the kids reacted to hyper-standards with no grace to go along with it. I HEAR YOU – it doesn’t work.
As to accountability, I am all for that, teaching and practice.
Alfred, there are plenty of people who ardently support BG; the difference I see with you is that you're willing to enter into discussion on the matter, and read over the articles on this site. I know your comments are setting some people off, but I want to thank you for reading these articles and participating nonetheless.
I ask that you would continue to read the articles this month with prayerful open-mindedness... I think that will be necessary for what's coming in the days ahead on this site. It's good to know that no ATI families within your circles in the last 18 years have admitted to sexually abusive situations. But 'specifically asking' someone if there's inappropriate behavior going on, and getting a 'no', does not put the matter to rest. I'm a pastor, and I assure you that people's degree of honesty to my direct questions is clouded by dozens of protective games, including whether they trust someone with the truth, or whether they believe that person is able to help them move past the lie, or whether they are spirit-prompted to take a step out of the darkness. In other words, people lie until they're ready to face the truth. If we could pull the darkness back, I imagine you would discover far more families around you with dark dark secrets (if the stats on abuse are even half true)... and OFTEN where we least expect it, amongst the people we admire most.
I mention this because twice you've said that you 'specifically asked' someone if any hanky-panky was going on (Gothard, and now this family you mention above) and when they said no, that seems to put the matter fully to rest for you. It would be a beautiful world indeed if everyone's yes was yes as Jesus exhorted. But sadly it's more complicated than that, as I'm sure you agree.
I use this analogy a lot... the difference between the word 'screen' as a verb and as a noun. What we ASSUME we see in conversation with someone is 'screen as a noun'—a big white canvas upon which their life is projected without any censorship or five-second delays. :-) But what we are actually experiencing is 'screen as a verb'; based on a hundred variables, the person we're talking with is being selective in what they're willing to share, screening what they share to project the self they want us to receive, like, accept. They may not choose to admit to you the things they've even been unwilling to admit to themselves. People are subconsciously making these sorts of decisions all the time... whether they can entrust the details of their darkness to another person... deciding whether someone else is entitled to them. The writers on this site believe that there is more to Gothard than what he says, even as much as I know you want to believe that one conversation you had with him. I wish it were as simple as a Bill-to-Alfred conversation and a flat-out denial... and for the record, I truly hope he was telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. In the end, the real story is hidden somewhere in the convergence of ALL our stories.. which is why we're telling them, and—I suspect—why you're reading them.
I'm glad you're trying to be open-minded on this. Please continue to be so, and give due weight to the stories you read. Thanks for participating in this site.
Hey, Kevin, thanks for the comments. Cautions accepted. In this particular situation I know the family well enough and the individual was mad enough that I had no reason to believe I was getting anything other than the truth.
And on hanky-panky at HQ, I have lived long enough to be able to believe about anything about anyone. The depravity of our hearts is virtually unbounded, and we have a committed foe on top of that.
However I get irritated when I get the feeling I am the target of propaganda, regardless of how well intentioned. I want to make up my own mind. Especially when it is close to home, and the conclusions will have life-altering effects.
Waxing political, and likely to offend some, I think back to the recent issues with presidential hopeful Herman Cain. I was a Cain supporter . . . when the accounts of impropriety began to surface I had every reason and motivation to believe it to be the work of political operatives. As I considered the detailed accounts presented coupled with official actions of those that had investigated, plus the candidate’s reactions compared to what I would expect myself to do if the charges were true or if they were false I was forced – for myself, sadly – to conclude that the accounts were likely true. I was not there, ultimately very few people absolutely know the truth. But it was convincing enough to me to make a decision for myself.
Obviously my motivation is different from many on the forum. I am deeply grateful to Bill and IBLP for the way God has blessed me through the ministry. I clearly heard Jesus voice in what I heard in 1973 and beyond, and the ensuing years have absolutely validated for me that God was in it. Growing up without a father Bill has been a bit of a father-figure to me, key advice at key points . . . so it goes pretty deep. My wife heard Jesus voice, not Bill’s, when she committed her right and ability to have children to the Lord and subsequently suffered deeply at times through the blessing of 11 children. That being true, I want the charges against Mr. Gothard to be false. But I also have a higher responsibility to Jesus and to my family . . . in the end God is true, and every man, sadly, is at times a liar.
So in the end I am “from Missouri” – “show me”. Don’t waste my time with garbage. Don’t expect me to dance just because you are playing the tune, and cry, just because you are weeping. And don’t declare to the world you have proof and corroboration and then, mysteriously, not be able to produce anything when I show up. THAT has been deeply disappointing given the non-trivial stresses I have endured to accept the challenges of the authors.
Alfred, I have not seen anyone in this conversation say they had "proof" of anything beyond their own personal experiences. I thought even the RG admins said they had investigated the claims in the book regarding the scandal and found them to be true, facts which you yourself assented to.
Really, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
In other words, Alfred, why does it have to be a Waco/Jamestown type tragedy before we say: "something's wrong here."
-Multiple first hand testimonies of a Christianity gone awry specifically BECAUSE of BG's teachings are not enough.
-Well-researched critique of BG's (lack of) exegesis is not enough.
-Multiple accounts of authoritarianism, hypocrisy and spiritual abuse in training centers is not enough.
-Why not?
Please keep in mind that just because you personally have not been harmed by BG's teachings and their implementation does in no way discredit the thousands (probably?) of young people who have.
We were the ones who were to be the banner-carriers and shining examples of BG's "New Way of Life."
The fact that a very large percent of our generation no longer want to have anything to do with BG and are NOT planning to expose our children to IBLP/ATI should at least be accepted at face value as a very telling indicator of the long-term value and inherent goodness of BG's teachings.
When a man claims to speak for God, even more, to receive revelations and insights from God that others should live by, we should hold him accountable for his teachings and how they are implemented - AT LEAST as much as anyone else.
Will: What is YOUR testimony? Tell me about the abuse you have endured or seen first hand. That is worth something to me.
[BTW, since you referenced "abuse" at Training Centers, please read this http://kendra145.tripod.com/ and this http://www.rickross.com/reference/gothard/gothard15.html on ITC and one detailed account in the book pp 206-210]
Alfred, I know you didn't ask me, but I have at least 2 stories of abuse which are here on this site. The first was familial abuse, which I considered to be the fruit of some of the false teachings. The second story, is of unjust mistreatment endured at a training center. We all have stories like this, here. That was what ultimately convinced me, the stories of abuse and mistreatment of personell, stories I could not deny because they happened to me, they happened to close and distant friends of mine. I eventually realized that was the fruit of this ministry and its teachings.
Alfred, You will read my story later in this series... and I want you to fully understand that there is something amiss in ATI. Listen to the stories you are about to read, pray about the stories that you are going to read and pray that we will find healing one way or another.
Sara: I will. Some of my responses may be insensitive in the light of the agony that some have gone through. I do not mean to minimize things - have suffered too much myself.
Alfred, I was at the itc when the lit in the first link you posted ran away. I had also just left the itc when the abuse allegations came out. When I watched the news programs I knew who was behind it. It was an interesting situation. I know which parts of those stories were true and which ones weren't. The people who were leaders of the lit program really did try their best with the lits. One of the biggest problems was the actual itc leadership. If there was a way they could manhandle people and situations they would. The lits under them were either favored or not. The favored ones had more privileges than the others. That favor could change at the drop of a hat. Let's just say it wasn't a stable environment for anyone - not to mention kids that were hurting! I was not a part of the lit department so I can only comment from the outside looking in. Let me be clear on this... There were many on staff at the itc that were emotionally and spiritually abused in many many ways. I was one of them. Understand this also Bill Gothard does not live by what he says. In fact, what he tells the students at the training centers is different from what he tells the parents. My entire family was on staff at one point - I know full well what goes on behind the scenes. I am also very reticent to talk about a lot of it because of reactions of people who still support Bill Gothard. Somehow I hope your blinders come off and you see him for who he really is - not someone to trust your kids or your life to. I hope your kids don't end up in the same place I have been.
"I was There": Thanks for your comments. I believe you are validating my conclusion that the charges of abuse toward the "LITs" is unfounded. The authors indicated that they personally interviewed "Rachel Stevens" and validated, corroborated her story. They quoted verbatim from her now nonexistent website as though it was the truth, but it was a lie.
With regard to the other statements on the staff, I can believe it. Many of the "staff" are forced into situations for which they are not prepared. And staff families, who often make great sacrifices to serve the Lord at IBLP, sometimes discover that the utopian dream they were expecting isn't. Bill Gothard is a man full of ideas and vision - turning them into reality is often a lot messier than anticipated leaving stressed, disillusioned, hurt individuals in the wake.
I am ABSOLUTELY NOT validating your comments! Quite the opposite. I invested years of my life, gave everything I was only to be devastated! If you truly believe that Bill Gothard is just a man full of ideas and visions - you don't really know him. He personally lied to me. Not to mention trying to have a conversation with him of matters of importance and having his assistants in and out listening in, others people who have "important" business to take care of, and having Bill Gothard fall asleep and miss half the conversation. I have no respect for him. My parents may have "benefited" (not sure how) but I certainly did not!
There was truth to the allegations of abuse of lits at the training center. The problem was they were not able to talk to the right people. I will not go into what I know. Not to protect anyone else but myself. Selfish, maybe but I really don't owe you an explanation. You are obviously not really open to anyone else. Let me just close with this thought. After reading all this you are now responsible for this knowledge. If your kids end up "bitter and rebellious" in ati lingo just remember that you are the cause of it. You knew what was possible and yet did nothing.
"I was There": Am I more or less responsible since I have gone to the trouble to study the book and read most every account on the website here? I know my son – on staff – browses through here on occasion, and I would never tell him otherwise. Just like the topic of “sex” in another thread, I have never felt anti-Gothardism to be a topic to hide. In the end they have to make their own decisions.
You can understand my frustration . . . I don’t want the evil reports to be true, but I am making myself dig into them. If I find something substantive, I am obligated to act on it. One such thing would be real abuse, something that could not be justified in the eyes of the law, the “law” that at least in some cases placed young people in their charge in Mr. Gothard’s care. Charges are made in the book that this was the case, as you appear to now make here. But no-one will talk.
“Lied to” is a strong statement, and something I care a lot about. Bill Gothard makes or implies many things that he ends up “changing his mind” on, or, I suspect, forgetting. End of the world big deal to you, apparently not even a blip to him. It is a bad thing. Been there, done that. Is that what you are talking about?
I understand. But lots of grey areas really is hard to react to. It is "abuse" to some people to not have a TV - I have a friend get children taken away, this being a primary listed reason. There is abuse in the form of favoritism, harshness, unpredictability . . . again, hard to follow up on. Marine boot camps have real "abuse" . . . has gone on for centuries.
What I want to know is behavior against which there are laws. Not too terribly high of a standard.
Alfred, you almost seem to be hearing what you want to hear. I can understand that. I myself am fatherless, and for a time, Bill Gothard appeared, to me, to be a perfect "father." I even raved for hours after the first time I got to shake his hand. Little me, shaking the hand of a real-life modern-day hero of the faith!
Sadly, I must say that I believe that you are mistaken--I know I was. I think somewhere, deep inside, you've begun to see the "cracks in the armor." I remember my reaction when I first felt those nagging suspicions that Mr. Gothard was about to fall off the pedestal I'd put him on (not that I ever would have admitted that he was on a pedestal). I clung to straws. I argued small points. I shut my eyes and ears. I flatly refused to believe the majority of the horror stories I heard. I cut off friendships with others who had come to realize Mr. Gothard was not what he seemed, believing that anyone who turned their backs on him, and on the ministry, must simply be worldly, and in rebellion. I remember the feeling all too well. I will simply say this: when you feel yourself angered by something said on this site, ask yourself if you're angered because it's striking a nerve. After all, I'm guessing that when you hear someone claim that God doesn't exist, or something that is truly an attack against your Lord and Savior, that you feel profoundly sad--but not angry. I came to recognize the difference in myself. When someone assaults my Savior, I feel so terribly saddened by their lost state, and I just want to run to Jesus, throw my arms around him, and ask him to please, please, change that person's heart. But when I find myself angry, or quick-tempered, or automatically reacting to what others are saying, it's a sign that I'm reacting because deep down inside, I'm afraid that my "comfort zone" of beliefs is being challenged. No one likes to admit that they have been in the wrong camp, or may have made mistakes, particularly in the name of God. I know I hated the feeling, and fought it tooth and nail for nearly four years, protesting the whole time, "I DO believe in Bill Gothard! I DO believe in Bill Gothard!!!" I finally couldn't keep it up any longer (and couldn't keep telling myself that those who'd broken with IBLP were just rebels) when a sweet, Godly girl of my acquaintence came out against one of Bill Gothard's teachings. I was so shocked, that I finally listened. It nearly broke my heart. I pray that someday soon, you have the strength to be broken as well.
Alfred, have you caught the term "Spiritual Abuse" used several times now?
This is a decent summary...
"...some key characteristics that can be found in abusive (unsafe) churches:
-Inability to ask questions or raise issues- If an individual raises a problem they become the problem.
-Lack of accountability - accountability suggested but not there in reality
-Increasing expectation of commitment
-Emphasis on external image- even if it is not reality
-Manipulation, dominance and control
-Social isolation of members from individuals outside of the church
-Obedience to authority in all circumstances
-Secrecy - over finance, decisions etc
-Emphasis on finance
-Misuse of scripture/pulpit
-The belief that the minister always knows best
-Fear of leaving
-Personal slander and subsequent isolation on leaving
-Loss of personal identity
-Elitism - there is no other church like this.
It should be noted that this list is not conclusive and each individual's experience will be unique. It should not therefore be used as a checklist to establish if someone has genuinely been spiritually abused."
This is a real, recognized, defined problem w/in many churches and christian organizations.
9/10ths of the characteristics listed above describe life in an ATI Training Center, the place where the working out of BG's teachings is seen better than almost anywhere else.
Will: I am really not ignoring you, but I am having a hard time figuring out how to respond to your general comments. It would sure help if you could zero in on your personal experience or beefs. You said in one pop that you saw several ATI families lose the heart of their kids. I have seen very few of those . . . maybe it is just different regions of the country.
I see your list, but I don't know what to do with it. That is not the ATI I know.
What, again, is your personal issue?
I really am not up to writing a book. =)
My purpose in referencing spiritual abuse was to broaden the scope of your 'investigation.'
I will say that there were times during my 3 years at the MTC when I literally felt like I was losing my mind. I wanted to serve, help minister to, and love the Russian people. There were many times when I was simply not allowed to. It would have meant leaving the territory of the TC, and 'my main loyalty and ministry should be to The Institute.'
I also had much more "freedom" than most, in that I was out at a Russian school 4-5 days a week, and was given the "special privilege" of attending a Bible study at my Russian church.
Alfred, one of my 'issues' is spiritual abuse.
Here is a personal example that you have requested, 'one small incident':
After having volunteered and paid my way to minister w/ATI in Russia for 3 years, I left in favor with God and man. I was NOT kicked out, and I had NO black marks to my name.
Before leaving, I 'made an appeal' to the director of international ministry who was visiting at the time.
(I had to approach him because the acting director of the MTC was not allowed to make such momentous decisions as allowing my friend to attend the same Bible study I had attended for 3 yrs in my Russian church.)
At the time, I was told my appeal would be considered.
After a month had gone by and I got news that my friend had NOT been allowed attend the weekly Bible study, I wrote a 'letter of appeal' to the international director. In it, I had the infernal gall to ask for some explanation of why my friend wasn't being allowed to visit/take part/encourage/be encouraged as I had.
I think that he must have called me as soon as he had read the letter, because he was quite incensed, to put it mildly.
Over the space of half an hour, I was preached at. We did not have a conversation. I was told that I would never succeed in any sphere of life: I would never have a good job; I would never have a good wife and happy marriage; I would never have a fulfilling ministry; I would never have the blessings of God... if I didn't learn that I MUST NOT, under ANY circumstances question 'my god-given authorities.' (However, at the time I was NOT under that man's authority in any way, shape or form...)
Thank God that I had always been encouraged to think a bit for myself. Thank God that my parents were not as loyal to Gothard as some. If that had been true of me, I might have been much more deeply hurt by this one incident than I was.
(as it is, my wife and I happened to run into the man in question a few years later. He didn't recognize me, but my wife says, she looked over, and I'd gone so white she was afraid I was going to pass out.)
Small change, maybe, but a clear example of spiritual abuse.
Characteristics of spiritual abuse:
-Inability to ask questions or raise issues- If an individual raises a problem they become the problem.
ALWAYS the case in TC's. (Ok,99 percent of the time.)
-Obedience to authority in all circumstances.
ALWAYS, under any and every circumstance the case in TC's.
-Manipulation, dominance and control
(see above)
This IS a problem.
It would be a problem in a local church. It is even more of a problem in a para-church organization that has influenced the lives of thousands of young people.
You, my dear sir, have not lived in a TC, the epitome of 'Gothard-life.' If you had, you still would've had a different experience as one of the 'authorities.'
Why is it so hard to take us at our word? Our only agenda is to help young people avoid, if 'nothing else', spiritual abuse that results in a skewed view of God and Christianity.
So sorry, Will. One of my brothers had a similar demeaning confrontation, with Gothard himself. Without going into all the gory details, suffice it to say that this let me know that the spiritual abuse within the organization, was from the top down. A Christian leader should not be doing character assasinations on impressionable young people. It can cause them to struggle with feelings of worthlessness, for years to come.
I DO have a son who lives at HQ. Does that count? :-)
However . . . I believe you. Such heavy handedness goes on. Stinks. Don't disagree with you. Out of balance. I am a father - I think of young people being treated in that manner, and it hurts. What marriage and children might have done for Mr. G.
I do think you're onto something, there, Alfred.
A few links for reference. =)
http://www.watchman.org/profile/abusepro.htm
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-spiritual-abuse-biblical.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_abuse
I haven't read all the comments, but Alfred, you have got to be kidding. You are a father in ATI. Certainly, you know what BG would counsel you to do if your daughter were attending a Christian college and the college president was in her dorm BEDROOM holding her hand!!!!! That's not about manners, it's about propriety. It's about sexual harrasment! And in BG's instance, it's hypocrisy because he most certainly would tell you to get your daughter out of a school were she treated that way there. (Not to mention what would happen to an ATI young man if he dared treat a girl that way, even if he claimed he were being "brotherly.")
I am not a bitter ATI student. I'm a mom. I was never touched inappropriately by BG. But I would NEVER send my child to a school where the leadership had that kind of reputation. Never! And I pity the children of parents who would defend such actions.
Help me out with the bedroom comment.
Up-thread quite aways, from Lizzie:
"I called home from a roadtrip with Gothard to tell my parents that I was very uncomfortable with the physical attention and compliments, and uncertain how to avoid it without appearing to overreact. A different time, Gothard and the center director showed me to my room at the Oklahoma City Training Center, and the center director waited awkwardly for Gothard to leave the room with him. The director finally departed, clearly uncomfortable with the situation, and left me alone with Gothard. I tried to simply smile and nod as he took my hand in front of the window and talked about the wonderful opportunities ahead of me. I was alarmed, but had no idea how to object without causing a scene. I was 17 years old."
You forgot to mention how he glanced out of the window to another building which turned out to be the girl's dorm.(Which I suspect is why she bothered mentioning the window at all.)
Not great.
Appreciate the "in front of the window" comment . . . perverts find closets and closed rooms to somehow find themselves alone with young ladies.
My wife has indeed noticed some of the "extra attention" to attractive young ladies. But her assessments match mine, that it represents a naive lack of perception - something a wife would pound out of you in a hurry - rather than evidence of a pervert. Neither of us have any qualms about leaving our young ladies in his care. My young ladies would not be silent if something were amiss in this department.
Not sure if you have been to the Oklahoma City Training Center but all the bedrooms were on the second floor and above and not readily visible from the outside. Standing by a window would not provide any transparency or accountability. Here the position is relevant. Because it shows how far in the room he stood and empathies the intimacy, how as opposed to just standing at it near the door and making it less intimate.
No, the "perverts" in question here do not need to coerce girls into closets. Abusers play confidence games. They win confidence and they groom their victims (and sometimes the parents) to allow further and further violations, like turning the heat up on the proverbial frog. It's the same behavior that prisoners use to manipulate guards to give them special favors.
You are looking for evidence that BG is a beady-eyed "pervert"... no wonder you never find your evidence. It's not about someone being a pervert, it's about someone who puts up a good image and then takes advantage.
Alfred, it's too bad for Jerry Sandusky that he didn't have more people like you on his staff. He would have never been stopped.
Since when is it up to the wife to "pound it out" of a man not to give unwanted attention to pretty girls?
That's an issue of character. I didn't put that burden on my wife. I just asked her to verify and she said "that's ridiculous, no."
The Institute lays on rules that the students can't bear but then Gothard can claim ignorance as to appearances? ha ha, if there is one thing Gothard understands, it is image. Check out those suits and that combover.
Thinking of Alred's daughters, as a woman who used to be a young lady, if that were to happen to me, knowing how strongly my dad would stick up for Gothard to the bitter end, why would I ever go to my dad with my concerns? It's clear you don't care about the girls at all. All you care about is Gothard's reputation.
It took me years to tell my parents of some of the things that happened to me and that I saw happen while working with the Institute, because I knew they would stick up for Gothard over their own daughter. Believe me, I tried many times. PLEASE–I plead with you–promise me you won’t ever do that to your daughters, Alfred. *Always* trust the word of your children over anyone else’s word–even a great spiritual leader. If you trained them up right, you should NEVER have cause to doubt their telling of the truth, should a conversation like this happen. I finally told my parents everything–16 years later–and they finally believed me. Our relationship is being restored, but I can’t tell you how much it hurt to know they would defend and favor Gothard over their own daughters who worked on staff for so many years. I was not raised in an abusive home. I have very loving, godly parents. But for years their loyalty was stronger to Gothard than their own adult daughters who had personal experience working with Gothard.
I find it very, very difficult to believe that a man of his age, who is constantly teaching wisdom, should be so naive. If, after years of counseling others, he is incapable of noticing that others are uncomfortable with his attentions, that would show not naivete (let us remember that this man in well past youth...), but rather, confidence. It takes confidence to take the hand of a young, pretty girl. Confidence to send out the other person there keeping you accountable. Confidence to stand alone in a bedroom (as if a window, at night, in a location where onlookers would be highly unlikely, is any sort of protection), engaging in behaviors that others would be dismissed in shame for. A young man in Flint was sent home because there was suspicion that he had sent a text message to another girl after hours--not an inappropriate text message; any message at all was a crime so great, that he was dismissed in such great shame that we were forbidden to say goodbye to him when he left. A man who holds himself high, high above the standards and rules that are clearly delineated for others is not naive. He is confident. Because he has total control over the situation.
I wonder if Lizzie would be bothered if I took this up with Mr. Gothard directly. Don't want to embarrass her, but this is the kind of thing that, if correctly represented, needs to not happen ever again. Looks bad. I guess a time frame would be helpful. Perhaps she would prefer to contact me directly - click on my name, email link in there.
I will say, Alfred, that I have heard that Bill's Board of Directors is well aware of his continual "defrauding" behavior towards girls and is extremely concerned and have warned him about it repeatedly. No, he doesn't have a wife to help rein him in, but isn't that what his Board of Directors is for? The question is, if he doesn't listen to them and heed their cautions, do you really think he would listen to you? He might appear to listen to you, but he would still go and do what he wants to do. This has been his pattern of responding to his Board for years. You're welcome to try, but please don't expect immediately results. He has to be convinced in his own heart that this is wrong behavior to be willing to change. For all the stories I've heard of this happening over the YEARS--not just one-time occasions--I'm not convinced that he sees what he's doing as wrong or defrauding. Which then begs the question--if he admitted to defrauding girls back in the scandal of the '80's and doesn't see THIS as defrauding, what the heck was he referring to? And did he ever learn his lesson on defrauding? It would *appear* to all observations, not. And yet he still teaches us to avoid all appearances of evil. Hm... Food for thought.
When pretty girls are physically intruded upon because they are pretty girls, this sends a message to everyone around.
It sexualizes and devalues the other pretty girls and the not-so-pretty girls alike.
It sends a message to the boys, that the boys themselves do not merit the coveted time with Mr. Gothard because Gothard's time is more heavily invested in pretty girls. It sends a message that Mr. Gothard is enjoying the pleasures of time and company with the ladies that would get the boys sent home.
Alfred's comment here is exactly the problem with Gothardism: image and appearances are more important than people's souls.
I am in the process of getting some more information - potentially - on the 1980s which will help a lot to answer those questions, Beverly.
Again . . . *sigh* . . . it is a judgment call at what point some irritating behavior reaches a point of breaking fellowship. For my part I - again - have never seen a genuinely leacherous person who didn't, somehow, take his motivations to a conclusion. You can stand on the brink only so long. After 80 years (how old is he?!) and ample opportunities for violated women to come forward, this pattern is what it is . . . and no more.
I have seen "Exhorters" such as himself do very similar things in other areas where they are so focused on discpline. Exhorters are all about motivation, setting a standard to move others forward. He really does sneak soda . . . and eat ice cream. And probably feels really guilty about it.
If that is the level where the battle remains - and single Mr. Gothard has had huge oportunities to give into temptation - then maybe he is not doing too bad. How many single men do you know in public Christian service? Stunningly few. For good reason. Yet, if I read 1 Cor. 7 correctly, that should not be so abnormal.
I am sure this will not satisfy anyone, but I had to say it.
Alfred, I keep hoping you'll take me up on my challenge to have your wife read Wendy's and Lizzie's stories and then listen to her heart.
In the meantime, I am shocked, truly shocked at the lengths a dad of pretty daughters is willing to go to in order to defend bad behavior.
I'll point out that Gothard is aware enough of image not to do this in front of the parents and again, it's with the pretty girls. Again you seem oblivious to the fact that it does something to these girls' souls when their value as a person is linked to their desirability to the man in charge, who feels free to ignore their boundaries.
A quick review of the excuses you are making up for him:
It was in front of the window, not in a closet
Touching is his love language
He is naive
He is single
He is an exhorter
I don't think Gothard would accept these excuses for himself. I think he would deny the whole thing. The fact that you and your wife are both aware that he treats pretty girls differently, and wrongly... it just blows my circuits.
Quoting MatthewS here: "....[Review] the excuses you are making up for him.... I don't think Gothard would accept these excuses for himself."
More to the point, MatthewS (and Alfred), Mr. Gothard would not accept such excuses from any other man employed by IBLP or ATI in any capacity if that man were caught holding hands with and gazing into the eyes of --- or spending time alone in a room with --- a young woman to whom he was not married. For ANY length of time. I have seen people publicly humiliated and then sent home in disgrace for much less.
For a person at the head of an organization to exempt himself from one of its most fundamental rules is hypocritical in the extreme. In a Christian leader, it is inexcusable.
In my mind what Gothard what Wendy and Lizzie described while it's a little inappropriate, and shouldn't have happened - it's not THAT inappropriate. What I find IS a problem however is the hypocrisy in the situation and as Wendy described, what would have happened to any other man in IBLP who engaged in similar conduct: they would have been terminated.
I had a good friend of mine who was on staff at a training center who was basically sent home because someone caught him putting his hands on a woman's shoulders while he stood behind her office chair to look at the computer screen she was looking at. . .
Amy, Anonymous: Are we talking about things like what we are talking about here, or something worse? Since you are talking about my young ladies as opposed to my young man (who is on staff).
And, on the blown circuits, Matt: Obviously we all have to give an account to Jesus, right? Where is He in all of this?
How much nonsense would you take from your own father if you were watching irritating things constantly out of line? Where would you draw the line and break fellowship? How bad would it have to be? How many rebukes before you are “out of there”? With family it is a little different, right? God used Bill and his ministry to bless me in countless ways in the early 1970s – 1980s, in many ways filling the role of a father to the fatherless boy who took him very seriously. I am not alone . . . fruit that remains, things that have stood the test of time, proven in my life and the lives around me. I remember sitting as a 14 year old among 10,000 people in the Portland Memorial Coliseum . . . the final day of the seminar, toward the end . . . a lady ahead of me turned to her companion and said (something like): “This feels just like when I was saved!”, speaking of spiritual joy coursing through her. The point was, it was so also for me. Frankly, it was Jesus I was in love with . . . and His word . . . and I was deeply grateful to Bill Gothard.
Where do I go from there, Matthew? Sort of calls the whole Jesus thing into question, eh? He appears to have blessed Bill’s ministry, even with some miracles on the financial side . . . and yet has no power to reign him in and stop Him from harming His name? There are a number that exit not just Gothard but Jesus as well.
Can you, Matthew, say for sure that Jesus has abandoned Bill Gothard . . . that He does not support him? If yes, I understand . . . if not . . . is there not a twinge of fear for publically reviling him? Not picking on you specifically. Job’s friends got it wrong . . . Moses’ siblings got it wrong . . . Mordecai got it right, as did David and Paul (when dealing with someone filling a God-installed role who had alienated friend and foe). The final Voice has not yet spoken. I want to hear what He has to say. I am not afraid of hanging here and listening and doing what I can to make things better. I know I have my limits and there are a number of things that would take our trajectory outside of IBLP. So far we have not yet crossed that line, and I acknowledge that my line is further in than most.
I find it so interesting . . . IBLP has been “buried” so many times . . . and somehow it keeps roaring out of the ashes. Do you think Bill worked behind the scenes to get the Duggars – and now the Bates – on national television? That came out of nowhere. A fishbowl examination of pretty much everything he stands for – hard to hide baloney from that many constant cameras. HOW to you account for it? Is there any possibility that “God is Not Finished With Bill Gothard Yet”?
Alfred, I certainly hope you're right and that God is not done with Bill Gothard yet. Repentance, renewal, and a system of accountability and honest Christian community would be a wonderful thing. I think we should all be praying to that end.
In the meantime, you have to make the decision you see as best for your family... for your sons and daughters. I hope this site is providing the discussion and resources you need to make the best decision in that matter. It would be unhealthy for you to expose your kids to something destructive because of a loyalty to some event in the 1980's. I'm not suggesting that's the only thing holding you to IBLP, but wisdom is being able to adjust course in light of new information.
It's been said before, but what's good about Gothard is not unique, and what's unique about Gothard is not good. You will find Jesus alive and at work in many other places. Praying today that you might be prayerfully open to pursuing a different avenue of Christian growth.
One more thing hopefully worth mentioning. You ask, 'Where is Jesus in all this?' I appreciate your faith that God is still capable of bringing glory to his name despite the broken aspects of a ministry. That's the same hope that encourages me in my own church... that God still chooses to draw straight lines with crooked sticks.
But where is Jesus in all this? Well, on Easter Sunday, he was reduced to a list of principles for avoiding stress by addressing our anger and giving perfect greetings. Absolutely baffling. If that's the message on EASTER, where is Jesus in Gothard's systematics on the other 364 days of the year?
Loyalty is a wonderful asset or a dangerous liability, depending on what we're loyal to.
For the record, I'm serious about my last comment, Alfred... I really am praying for you and your family; if God calls you out of Gothardism I know that will be a painful and difficult road for you, because you've invested a lot in it. But if there's a 'next stage' for you, I am praying it would be a place of that same 'spiritual joy' you remember experiencing, for you and all your family. Thanks for wrestling through this in our community.
Alfred, I didn’t have exactly the same feelings as you but I too had some meaningful times in the seminars and I accept your experience and your joy as valid. My son is now approaching that age. I want so much for him to be in love with Jesus in a deep way. I realize one of the best things I can do for that is to be in love with Jesus myself.
I imagine this whole discussion might have a personal component for you. What if Mr. Gothard is not who he appears to you to be? Would that mean your experience was invalid? Would that mean your walk with God is somehow less valid if Mr. Gothard were proved to be something other than he appears?
What if you were to leave Gothardism? Would it be possible for you to have a healthy walk with God apart from the structure of Gothardism?
What would it cost you emotionally to lose the father figure of Mr. Gothard? How could you ever replace that?
Hypothetically speaking, how would you know if God ever were to remove his blessing from the Institute?
(Incidentally, that was one of the questions that I asked Mr. Gothard personally in Indy, after I had just returned from a successful trip to Moscow. I was still drinking the Kool-Aid but was I was starting to have some doubts. His response was one of several points of no return for me.)
Lol, having a tv show or not, certainly is not a sign of God's divine blessing... Maybe a sign of being a freak show, but not of divine approval.
Kevin: Heard and understood. But I will tell you, and you won’t believe me – there is more to Bill Gothard than this website. I respect you – whether you believe it or not. I have cause to believe that someday you will wish you had not been party to this. As I have said elsewhere, the Apostle Paul was so despised when he was arrested for the last time that no a single person – besides a handful – stood with him. Many solid believers were delighted. You know enough of the Scriptures to know what I am saying is true. Forgive me, please - That nitpicking on Easter – as well as my son’s Peru blog (Ok, taking it a tad personal) – borders on the ridiculous. And I am sure I have unjustly offended whoever wrote them. There are plenty of real issues to deal with to drop into that sort of thing.
You would have a hard time believing it, but I walk independently from “Gothardism” as you call it in many ways. But, thank you for praying for us. That is sincere too.
Matt: I very much want to know who Bill Gothard really is. He is not the caricature on this website (at times), to be sure. I know enough to know that some – besides Bill – will have some ‘splaining to do to the Lord of Hosts on a coming day. Jude tells us that sinless angels won’t even rail on the devil.
I also know that there is truth to some of the accusations . . . and I need to know what to do about it. So far, every time I have approached Mr. G with an issue he has neither dodged me nor attempted to bamboozle me. As a result of one inquiry I found myself spinning into the middle of the “Pastor Jones” issue. I watched Bill and Pastor Jones go into a back room in Sacramento some years after the book was written in an attempt to work it out (other factors were at play too, significantly Bill and Don Veinot meeting several times). Never was given the particulars of the meeting, but he was certainly not dismissing the complaints. When one former staffer told me on another forum that he had seen an alleged “mighty work of God in answer to prayer” turn out to be as mediocre as the sale of a piece of property to raise funds, I sent Mr. G an email. He responded with statements from several who had been around at that time in various positions of authority. Whether you believe them or not, again, this is not the “Artful Dodger” that is portrayed. And I am far from an “insider” – it took a year or two of living here before Mr. G finally put me and my son together.
The bedroom comment came from someone who commented on Lizzie's story. BG walked into her room when she was asleep, (meaning she was in her pajamas) woke her, had an hour's conversation with her.. at about 11:00 at night. Oh, and if I remember correctly he was ALONE (meaning no chaperone). If that doesn't creep you out, nothing will.
Oops, that particular account happened to someone else, I believe.. my bad. Wait, that means he's done this kind of stuff to others right? scary scary scary!
Alfred- My mind is racing with so many thoughts right now, that I may come off as confusing.
I lived in a state of blissful ignorance while enrolled in ATI. I had a pretty balanced childhood. My parents went overboard in some areas, but for the most part they let us learn from our own mistakes. My father was a drug abuser in the late 60's early 70's. He came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the Teen Challenge ministry. He knew that we couldn't learn from his mistakes, he knew that we would have to learn on our own. We needed to make our own decisions (age appropriate of course).
In 1995 my parents learned of a new program for the students called Equip. It was their desire for me to go. They did not force me or manipulate me into going, but because of the relationship that we had, I wanted to honor their wishes.
I made some great friends there, and that's the only thing that I wouldn't trade my time for. My eyes were opened to so much. It was my experience at the ITC that caused my "issues" with the institute.
Here a few things:
Academically- In EQUIP (2nd week I believe), we learned the ABC Bible study. Basically, you read the Scripture, write down what you got from the passage, etc. The girls were given the passage of "The Woman at the Well". I wrote down what I got from the passage and turned my paper in. It was returned with a failing grade. Why? Because my answer wasn't the answer that they wanted me to have.
Personal appearance- It was apparent that many of us on staff were gaining quite a bit of weight. The leadership conducted a special session for everyone in the TC to discuss this problem. You know, the leadership had us do the Weigh Down Diet to slim us up. Hmmm... I thought we weren't supposed to look on the outward appearance. It's one thing to address diet for health purposes, it's a whole other thing because you don't like how we look.
Physical Stress- I worked on the ITC staff for several years. In 1998 I became over tired and burnt out. The only one who noticed something was wrong was my roommate. She was so concerned that she called my parents asking what she should do, and just wanting them to know that something was up. The leadership that I was directly under had no idea. I think the fact that I was missing meetings and meals to sleep should have brought the problem to someone s notice.
Character- Isn't dependability 'keeping your word even if it's to your hurt?' Well, someone in leadership gave me their word that I could leave the TC for two special events (not ATI related). I believe they just gave me that line so I would commit to another year of service. First event- somethings are changing, so I can't let you go. Second event- somethings are changing, so I can't let you go.
Those three things are just a few of the things that occurred there. It would take all day to mention them all. No, I am not bitter. Rather, I would say that I was hurt. These things made me see that there was/is a lot wrong with this organization. I learned.
As for those who were abused (in any way), I know these things to have happened/are happening. I will not post what I know and have seen of a few dear friend's experiences, as they have not authorized me to do so. Please know that it does happen.
wait...are you saying that they had you using the Weigh Down material? As in Gwen Shamblin's program -- Gwen Shamblin who denies the Trinity?
Yes, Ellen, they did.
JDM: Thanks for your very open statements.
1) Bible Study: Shame on them, if this is true. In fact, this is the one thing that Mr. G correctly points to as the protection from cultism, the freedom to come to differing conclusions from the same passage. Somebody messed up.
2) Appearance: Understood. That is a big Gothard thing. He was greatly influenced by "Dress for Success", which uses scientific surveys to determine the effect of aspects of appearance on perceptions and reactions. While it does work, there are not a few of us who don't care for it, at least the way in which applied. I mean, why, in Scripture, do the prophets wear "rough garments"? That is a deliberate anti-"dress for success".
3) Stress: One of the biggest failures in the Institute. The focus on discipline has turned into some catastrophes. The man who focuses correctly on the wonder of spiritual gifts must understand that God makes people differently. Some can benefit from fasting, others maybe not. And women function differently from men. As you implied, that is the job of the leadership, to watch for that. Some do a great job, others not so much.
4) Character: That gets me plenty worked up. That is wrong. "He who swears to his own hurt and changeth not" (Psalm 15:4) I suspect this to be a non-trivial reason this website exists. Bill said, "Seeds of a wounded spirit, when pushed underground, produce a crop of rebellion." He is so intensely correct.
I would be hurt too. I have lived some of it.
Alfred, I appreciate that you continue to explore and engage us here on Recovering Grace. I appreciate that you seem to be genuinely trying to find the truth about the ministry and teachings of Mr. Gothard.
I am concerned, though, about a phrase that you frequently use that could offend some of the other commenters: "... if this is true ..."
As I read your comments in various areas, this phrase, or something similar, has come up several times when someone has shared their personal story with you. I am sure that you do not intend it this way, but it can easily come across as "I'm not believing THAT" or "I think that's a lie." It can even (most offensively) come across as a very patronizing "You poor, confused little thing. You MUST have misunderstood what was going on."
I understand your reservations about accepting personal anecdotes as absolute truth. But please be careful as you communicate those reservations. It's very easy to come across as dismissive or arrogant on an online forum, and to appear to be constantly questioning people's veracity is something you don't want to do.
Point taken, Wendy. I do come across that way, as you well know, and it is offensive.
Both you and I have been snookered by stories in our lifetime, so I hate to go on record as a complete "believer" when I am several layers removed from the source - matter of policy. Very specifically when I reach the point of potentially taking a cause up, putting my reputation on the line as I march into Mr. Gothard's office. That is a signal that I may want to put some weight on the story to make sure it will hold me when I am looking Mr. G in the eye.
But the last thing I want to do is appear dismissive of suffering.
@Alfred - Jesus tells us in Matthew 7 that we know false teachers by their fruit. The people on this website are sharing the "fruit" that ATI has produced in their lives. I see nothing but a harvest of abuse, misery, and false promises, both here and in my own life.
Really, if you want to discuss experiences, it all boils down to your experience vs. mine and the others who have shared here. But I'd caution you - what an adult can dismiss or overlook, a child or teenager may be harmed for life by. You many not have problems with ATI and be able to separate "the meat from the bones" so to speak, but I can guarantee that there are others, younger and weaker in the faith than yourself, to whose spiritual growth BG's legalism and Scripture twisting is toxic.
I believe the "good" that you see in ATI stems from the fact that BG doesn't just sow wild oats - there is some good seed in there too. But this just makes the mixture all the more dangerous. Put a little leaven in the dough and the entire loaf will become leavened. Mix your performance and ability to live the Christian life with the finished work of Jesus Christ, and it will pollute your entire relationship with Jesus. In my experience, this is the deadly fruit of ATI, IBLP, and the teachings of Bill Gothard.
Furthermore, your use of apparent monetary blessing, influence, etc. as an indicator of God's blessing on BG concerns me. Didn't the Pharisees have the biggest following, the most money, and the biggest political clout in Jesus' day? Weren't they the ones with the TV shows, so to speak? They tithed mint (or were very particular about the points of Scripture they chose to adhere to, just like ATI/IBLP/BG), but crucified the Son of God (didn't Jesus say if you do it to one of the least of these you've done it to me? Doesn't this make you cringe, esp. after reading some of the stories this month of how BG ignored/misjudged victims of sexual and other abuse? What about this thread, where we've read about BG's inappropriate behavior toward his sisters in Christ?). To echo the words of the Bible - don't judge according to the appearance of things, but judge according to what is right. If you do so, I don't see how you can, in good conscience, support BG.
For those who inquired, a more thorough account of my experiences with Gothard have just been posted in a Recovering Grace article. I am keeping my name private, but any number of people around for the events described could identify me.
Alfred, you mentioned the Duggar and Bates shows. How is that in any way definitive proof of God's blessing? Growing up, I often was told that if something bad was inexplicably prevented, it was proof of God's direct intervention and blessing. Furthermore, I was taught if something unusually good happened to me, it was again, proof of God's blessing. This seems to be along the lines of what you're saying. Here's where that argument breaks down. Did you know there are DOZENS of documented failed assassination attempts on Hitler in about a 10 year period? Some of the failed attempts have been proven to be because of human error, but an awful lot of them failed for no discernible reason. I could continue on with lots of other times when ruthless leaders were "miraculously protected," or appeared to be "divinely blessed" and yet are clearly not leaders God would bless. If He did have a hand in their successes, it's more likely because He was allowing them to bring judgment on the people around them than that He was actually proving his blessing. Therefore, your argument about the TLC shows being proof of God's blessing doesn't really work.
Kit: Draw your own conclusions. Hitler's preservation had to do with the fact that God's spankings on Germany and the rest of the world were not complete. No comparison.
Of course no amount of "good stuff" can justify evil. Many cults have lots of "good stuff" happen along the way. But they also typically extort money and have lots of lawyers. IBLP has a bit of a soft belly in that regards. Including the fact that - with minor exceptions - I appear to be the only voice raised in Mr. G's defense here [Feel almost Elijahesque]. And my wife would really prefer I spend less time on this and more back helping her land our family which still sports a 3 year old. So, maybe I will just "go away". I just find it interesting that defenses are raised from interesting and unanticipated quarters. Just when ATI was "dead", just when it was "all over" . . . enrollments are up, there is renewed interest. I would expect that if "God is Not Finished With Bill Gothard Yet" (perhaps some will recognize the prior oblique reference to the little pins that every alum got at the end of the Basic Seminar in the 1970s)
Alex: If that is all the fruit you see, you are not looking very hard. That is downright unfair.
Lizzie: I am praying about what to do with your account. And that is not because I don't believe you.
Alfred - thanks for the response. To be straightforward, I'd ask how you claim to know how hard I've looked? I was homeschooled in the ATI curriculum since day one of first grade all the way through graduation from high school. I attended the San Jose conference as well as a regional training conference, and have attended Children's Institute as well as the Basic Seminar. I've also participated in other ATI activities including several ALERT Cadet camp outs, the ALERT Cadet program, a web design course at ITC, and home church with other ATI families. I've been through all 52 Wisdom Booklets at least once, many of them twice. To name a few, I've used the Character Sketches, Commands of Christ, and red Basic Seminar book training materials. I was practically born "in the system" and participated in Wisdom Searches every morning and most evenings until I was 21 (I'm now in my mid-20's).
I don't mean to be accusatory, but it's a common technique I've seen in ATI to discredit the messenger and thereby the message. I've not only investigated the fruit of ATI - I've lived it. To summarize my experiences and findings:
1) Almost every family I grew up with who used the ATI curriculum is no longer in the program.
2) Several of these families' children have gone to jail, sexually abused family members, and turned their back entirely on Jesus. A few have gone on to lead healthy lives but are no longer involved in ATI.
3) To summarize my own personal journey:
a) My Mom died when I was in my early teens. My Dad, who is to this day faithful to ATI/BG, talked with us kids about her twice after she died that I can remember. My siblings and I were left to work through our grief alone while putting up a facade of "I'm fine."
b) My step Mom, who was partially-raised within the ATI curriculum and served at several training centers, was emotionally and spiritually abusive. My Dad ignored this, often being so himself the older my siblings and I got. He used/uses the ATI teaching on authority to justify his behavior.
c) My siblings and I have been shunned for disagreeing with my Dad on "gray areas" (i.e., contemporary Christian music).
d) My Dad never talked with me about sex or helped me develop into a man who could properly lead a wife and kids and make competent decisions. I was raised to run my every decision by him to get his "blessing." With few exceptions, the only choices I was given growing up were between honoring or dishonoring him.
e) As an adult, I've struggled to accept God's love, learn what it means to live in community with other believers, and prayerfully make my own decisions without being told what to do. I believe these things are due to the fact ATI teachings make God's love, grace, and acceptance conditional, encourage "Lone Ranger Christianity" where you're never really allowed to struggle or have a bad day or have others help bear your burdens, and groom men and women to live their entire lives letting their authorities make their decisions for them.
I could go on - this is really only the tip of the ice berg. I just want you to see, Alfred, that I'm not some outsider making judgment calls about something I have no experience with. I've lived ATI - I was the model ATI student/Christian young man and have had others tell me so. I memorized Romans 6-8, got up every morning to journal and read my 3 chapters plus my Psalms chapters and Proverbs chapter for the day. I followed the steps to tear down strongholds, kept my relationships pure so I could have a successful courtship and marry the woman of my dreams, used the power of spoken blessings to motivate others, and faithfully read every new thing that BG mailed out to faithful ATI families.
But these things that were once gain to me, and defined my Christianity, I now count as loss for the all-surpassing treasure of simply knowing Jesus Christ. I have not attained this, but this one thing I am doing because Jesus has made me His own - I choose to forget these things which are behind and to press toward the mark for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, that I may know Him, His life, His death, and His resurrection power.
Alex: You definitely have an extensive track record with ATI and IBLP, and I feel deeply for you. Every ATI kid is like my kid . . . it hurts.
My point remains that I know a world of the same out there that does bear fruit. I mean, help me out . . . you are able to watch the Duggars every week if you choose. Far from perfect, but they also are far from the disaster you describe. I know, I know . . . “Their day is coming”, as has been told me . . . the Lord remains in charge of all of that. But it remains that there are not a few ATI families that have not walked the road to disaster you describe. I would agree that, say, half ending in disaster would be in itself a disaster . . . but to ignore the half that works is, well, completely unfair.
I am going to go out on a limb here, and may live to regret it. It is my opinion that the gap between success and failure ultimately lies at the feet of we as parents . . . not Bill Gothard. One thing I have noted in the ATI circles I moved (very little ATI contact out here in Illinois compared with So. Cal. . . . funny, isn’t it) . . . our So. Cal. Families had a bit of an “attitude” when it came to ATI. While we deeply appreciated Bill Gothard and his “stuff, it was our solemn conviction that Daddy was in charge, not Mr. G. We had our HSC meetings (Fathers meeting once a month, later including wives) where we actually rarely watched the video sent down from HQ for that purpose. Instead we focused on needs we had, supporting our families. While we appreciated most HQ recommendations, we regularly vetoed others.
In one instance we met just after a mailing from HQ arrived touting a family with 10 kids which traveled the country in an RV ministering, playing instruments . . . and when at home – and this was the clincher – the kitchen was vacuumed 3 times a day. EVERY one of our wives read that and sagged. And every one of the men were, well, unhappy. I wrote to HQ at that time and complained. The standard was set, but there was no strength to accomplish. In fact, in the account it asked: “How is this possible?” Besides saying that the wife had made a hobby of orderliness it quoted a verse along the lines of “The Lord is mighty and helped me”. Of course, our frazzled wives were wondering why the Lord hadn’t helped them. We officially “proclaimed” to our families to ignore that :-) Didn’t apply, had no bearing on us.
[Those who know history know that that same family soon was promoted to a high position at HQ . . . and the father ended up seducing a young assistant and divorcing his wife, stories of a Daddy porn addition. Our hearts went out to them – we are no better than they. I understand that some significant reconciliation has occurred in that family, BTW. Continue to respect the abilities and ministry of the wife]
Point remains that this was not isolated. Not every family in our large circle has seen everything in our kids that we desire, but it remains that it is far, far from the disaster you describe.
Matthew, I am getting to you :-) You put out a excellent post.
Alfred - while I appreciate your willingness to admit that the failure many ATI families have experienced is the fault of the parents, I'd ask what these parents did wrong? Most of them simply followed the teachings they were given.
This assertion that the parents are to blame, when they, for the most part, simply followed the teachings they were given, concerns me. This is exactly what I've seen throughout the history of ATI - the claim that the teachings either weren't applied enough, or they were applied too strictly...but it's really NEVER the teachings themselves that are blamed!
Could we maybe just say for once that the reason these families train wrecked is BECAUSE they followed BG's teaching instead of God's Word? The common denominator in all of thees families is, after all, ATI and it's teachings.
Take this family that you mention for example - let's say the father had come forward with his porn problem. What would've happened to him? Would he have been loved, helped, prayed for, grieved with? Not from what I've seen - to admit his problem would be to put the nails in his own coffin in many ATI circles. Furthermore, he probably had already tried most of the ATI "solutions" for dealing with his problem and still continued to fail in this area, so he probably eventually gave up fighting it. I know from personal experience that BG's teachings on moral freedom lack the necessary power to overcome lust - you can only defeat an addiction to lust with a greater addiction to the love of God, something that is twisted in ATI.
Thus, while this man is an example of a train wreck within ATI, I'd ask you if he was in a system that gave him even a remote hope for change and love if he came forward with his problem? From what I've seen of ATI, and esp. the inner circles near BG that this man would have run in, the answer is no.
I'd also caution you once again Alfred - you might not have experienced train wreck in the life of your family and the lives of your friends, but the story isn't over yet. Furthermore, just because something doesn't destroy the lives of your family and friends isn't proof that it's somehow good - you can't prove a positive by affirming the lack of a negative.
Bottom line in my opinion - a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I can share arguments, experiences, even Scripture with someone until I'm blue in the face, but that won't change the mind of someone who isn't willing to change. In my opinion, you have ample evidence Alfred, but lack the willingness to face the facts and their implications. I pray it doesn't take a train wreck in your life before you realize just how damaging legalism really is.
And that's not a threat or a wishing of evil on you - I just know that's what it most-often takes. Sadly, the result once the facts hit home is often disillusionment and a throwing in of the towel entirely when it comes to Christianity. It's one of Satan's greatest triumphs - people become so disillusioned they give up or are proud because they think they can do it. Either way, the enemy's got you, and the only solution is the cry of Jesus - "It is finished!" He gives hope because He's the only one who's ever "done it."
Alfred, I'd like to throw something out there - maybe something will come of this, maybe it won't.
First, I hear you about time with your family. Many of us here have families and can sympathize with the need to step back and spend time with family. These things take an emotional toll.
I see you beginning to repeat the theme of how much God has blessed the ministry. That's actually one of the issues that popped the bubble for me, when I asked Mr. Gothard how one would know if God ever were to remove his hand of blessing.
But here's the question I wanted to toss out there: Where are the 102? The original 102 families who met at Northwoods and were excited and thrilled at what great things that Gothard promised them God was going to do in their next generation - where are they today?
Did the promises made to that group come true? If so, one could easily expect say, 500 students from that group in their mid to late 30's, who all have large families of their own now, and who continue in the ATI way. It's something I heard a lot, the optimism about the upcoming generation. I'm sure there are second-generation ATI families but I think they are heavily outweighed by disappointed and hurting families. At the beginning, Gothard could promise the moon and there was no way to verify his system would work. But there are now generations who used the system, and we can now verify the results and ask, Did it work? Did all of this discipline and staying away from youth group and avoiding TV and doing wisdom searches at 5:00am and pulling away from family and friends... did it all work? The 'new approach' to life - has it proven to be any more effective than a placebo, so to speak? My way of putting a point on that is to ask, Where are the 102?
Alfred, you are a tool plain and simple and the fact that you would so strongly defend a sexual predator like Bill Gothard makes me wonder about you. Bill Gothard is a pervert and a predator! he preys on young women in the name of God. He is sick. One day he will have to stand before God and give an account of his actions thankfully. I hope that he will have to pay for them on Earth first though.
!! "Sexual predator" = playing unwanted footsie. Stroking hair and holding hands. Unwanted. In front of everyone, open windows. That IS the accusation . . . right? After 80 years and endless opportunities to do any number of things . . . this is it. Compared to Jesus, yeah, not so good . . . compared to a "Sexual predator" . . . come on.
Alfred, yes. Sorry to put it so baldly, but yes.
As has been pointed out, sexual predators do two things before they make their big move. They investigate the victim's "victim-ness" and they groom the victim.
Sometimes the two things can be done simultaneously, sometimes not. But it is an escalating behaviour pattern that explores how far the predator can go before the victim resists. Note Lizzie's story. At first, it was "innocent" helping them in and out of the van --- only with "extra" touching. Then it was a quiet, unobtrusive game of "footsie." Then it was holding hands (only this is not holding hands like you would with your daughter; this is hand-holding like you would with your wife/girlfriend --- there is an intimate air of "twining fingers" and "massaging" or "fondling," as described by various young women.) Then it was touching her hair.
You have been a student of the Seminars for a long time, so I don't have to remind you of the progression of intimacy that Mr. Gothard teaches. It's been a while for me, so I don't remember all of the intermediate steps, but I clearly remember that touching hands was the LEAST intimate, while touching the head/hair was the MOST intimate touch in the pre-sexual list that he goes through. Thus, according to his own teaching, Mr. Gothard has forced himself past some deeply intimate emotional boundaries by stroking these women's hair without invitation. And the women were not comfortable with it.
The problem was that because of the way they were brought up, and because of the person who was breaking these boundaries, these women were conditioned --- groomed --- to think that THEY were the problem, not the man who was behaving inappropriately.
I echo the question that someone else has asked previously. If this behaviour were being reported in conjunction with little boys, wouldn't you respond with horror and outrage? If Mr. Gothard were intimately holding hands and gazing into your son's eyes for ten or twenty minutes at a time, or playing footsie with him, or stroking his hair, would you not be demanding to know what on earth was going on? WHY IS IT DIFFERENT JUST BECAUSE IT'S GIRLS THAT THIS IS BEING DONE TO? Girls are people, too. Girls have feelings, too. Girls have rights, too. Or don't you believe that?
Alfred, so if my husband did those things with your wife, you'd be ok with it?
Isn't it actually Jesus we're supposed to be comparing ourselves with??
So, BG falls short of Jesus' conduct, but outperforms sexual predators when it comes to Godliness...what are you trying to imply by this comparison? After 80 years of coming close to the cliff, he's never actually fallen off - we're somehow supposed to feel good about that fact?
Come on Alfred - face the facts! You're making allowances for this man I dare say you'd hardly make for your own sons!
Pardon me, but you DISGUST me. I'm beyond grateful that I am not your daughter. If I were, I would feel as if you were not willing to protect me, in an effort to hold on to your pride, in not being willing to admit that who you follow is wrong. My dad's got all kinds of issues, but if BG, or any other man, had EVER touched me or any of my sisters like that, my dad would literally have beat the crap out of him and called the police. So in your opinion, it's not sexual predator until someone gets raped? Excuse me, I need to throw up.
As a female, I wouldn't even be comfortable with my dad, grandpa, brother etc... doing any of those things to me, that BG did to those girls. If I caught anyone doing any of those things to my 14 year old innocent baby sister, I'd flip a lid and put that person in the hospital, if not in the grave. Oh yeah, I needed to throw up.. Excuse me.
Ok, so that means I'll just ask my grandpa to do all those things to your pretty daughters, and it won't bother you a wink, right?
Alfred, he is stroking the hair, holding hands, playing footsie and staying alone in hotel rooms with underage girls. Yes, that is a sexual predator. It doesn't matter that he might have done other good things (though looking at the students raised under his teachings most don't seem like they think his teachings did them any good), he is still taking advantage of teen girls. Have you read the other stories in the comment section of the sexual abuse posts? He is still behaving this way. And it needs to be stopped and the best way is for people to stop supporting and defending him.
As Wendy has said this is "first base" in an calculated game for a predator. A warning sign. The tip of the iceberg. Keep digging and you find a corpse. I am holding out the possibility that he is living in this "reality bubble" that others have talked about, and really, truly thinks it is "this" instead of "that". Predators know what they are doing. Given the right opportunity they go for the kill. As mentioned, it took the former ATI Director less than an year to seduce his young assistant. And you dig around and you find a string of porn addiction. Perhaps more digging would have revealed more.
In Scripture . . . David slept with a young girl who was not his wife . . . and everybody was OK with it. The young girl later was a prize fought over by David's sons who wanted to marry her. It was clearly "this", not "that" ["this" was keeping the old man warm]
Perhaps it is best to leave this for the time being . . . I have my own investigations underway. I would hope we can avoid personal nastiness. And this is sincere: I ask you to forgive me for wanting to think the absolute possible best of a man who has meant a lot to myself and my family.
Alfred, most readers here understand your affection for Gothard, but in some of your comments you are striving too hard to justify his actions and motivations. That comment above Wendy's will cost you a lot of credibility, even in the instances where you focus on scripture. Please allow me to ramble about a few things I typed just before your last post...
You can't use Gothard's age in his favor or as an excuse. For one, we can find other men who have done better. But more tellingly, shouldn't he have grown in wisdom and self-control over the years? His pattern of sexual harassment (combined with spiritual abuse) has been ongoing for 32 years, at a minimum. Is he spiritually deaf or simply unwise?
Some people seem to think that Gothard has claimed the gift of celibacy, but to my knowledge that's not correct. Thank goodness. Because he definitely lusts with the kind of lust that desires possession of the women that catch his eye. (The Bible is pretty harsh about that type of lust.) Gothard actually seems quite the reluctant single, not one of those who "made themselves eunuchs for the kindom of heaven." (Matt. 19:11-12) For whatever reasons, it's come about that way, and his spiritual and physical struggle in that arena is of great importance to himself and his followers.
As Wendy relates, yes, Gothard's repeated modus operandi is both sexual and predatory; hence, "sexual predator." Would be interesting to have an FBI profiler analyze him. If he wasn't a public figure, he might well be sitting on a park bench watching children play. We'd all be better off if he would just feed pigeons instead.
Sounds harsh, but most people would say his actions speak for his inner man. Will he have ears to hear?
It is always good to believe the best about others, Alfred, in my opinion, and I know Gothard has meant a lot to your family. If Gothard turns out to be less than you had hoped, that will not negate all the good you've experienced. One of my mentors once told a class of students, "I only have a couple heroes left, so if you've got any dirt on them, I don't want to hear it!" He said it tongue-in-cheek, but I know how he feels. We want to believe there's no Achilles Heel in our heroes of the faith. I once heard a terrible rumor about a great mentor of mine, and said foolishly, "If that's true, it might as well be my own father." It turned out to be true. He still accomplished a lot of good in my life, but that didn't negate some serious sin on his part. I had to weigh the good with the bad. This is true of all of us, because all our heroes, like all of us, are 'simul justus et peccator'—at the same time saint and sinner.
For the topic at hand, I don't see a real difference between 'in-the-bubble' Gothard and 'malice aforethought' Gothard. Either way, the stuff we're reading this month is heinous. And it's hard to imagine that Gothard doesn't see 'this' as 'this' when we all know that far LESS than 'this' would have gotten anyone else kicked out of the program. The ingrained lessons of ATI such as 'avoid the appearance of evil' and 'respect parental umbrella of authority' are not being adhered to from the top, and that's very concerning when a leader lives by different standards than he/she teaches to others. Whether he's 'predatory' in the grossest sense of the term or not, we believe he knows what he's doing, right? And that he would act quickly and drastically against anyone else who exhibited the same behavior?
One more thing to the other readers of these articles and posts... We should take no joy in the downfall of a Christian leader. It's a tragic occurrence, and I hope we would be willing to pray for the 'best-case scenario' of Gothard's deep repentance and change of heart. But it would be far more tragic to allow these same stories to be perpetrated to future generations. These stories are finally being told, and assembled all in one place—the first time this has happened, I assume?—and that may catalyze a long-needed change.
So Alfred, I understand that these articles are tragic to you. BG has played a good role in your family. But isn't his behavior in these stories, and the effect it's had on countless innocents, equally tragic, especially if ten years from now new people are telling the same stories...?
Thank you Jay and Kevin for your thoughtful responses. Kevin, there was some tremendous insight in there.
I have had some similar thoughts to yours, Jay. About the eunuch.
I am still making my mind up about heinousness. Please accept the fact that there are a great many roars on this website - and elsewhere - that I have tested and found wanting. I am not so quick to dismiss these concerns. But before I bite I have some other steps to go through. Which include understanding from some men that I respect deeply who are happy to walk with Mr. G how they relate to this. Maybe they don't know the allegations. Some do know the allegations, in fact, walked through some more serious ones years ago.
I really didn't intend to open this can of worms here, but rather over on Lizzie's account . . . when I was ready. But it is what it is. One thing that continues to bother me deeply is why the "first-handers" and particularly their parents did not head for Oak Brook and deal with Mr. G straight on. Why it falls to some of us who are levels removed. Perhaps they did. For a vulnerable young lady that would be devastating . . . but not for her father and brothers, I would think.
One thing I learned from Mr. Gothard in my youth was the personal accountability of each believer to take up the failures of fellow believers and, rather than gossip, do the nitty gritty to see them delivered . . . first 1 on 1, then the 2 or 3 . . . then the entire "church". Everybody all along the way looks the other way and passes on. "Who is my neighbor?" Who is Bill Gothard's neighbor? Who is the "Samaritan"? Me?
Something . . . just . . . doesn't jibe.
I promise you all that I will not sweep these issues under my carpet. About the only thing I have left is a policy of truth and truthfulness, no matter how far short I may fall from it. That is the reason I picked up "the book" 7-8 years ago, because I HAD to. Nobody else in ATI has, that I know of. I will do what I must, whatever the cost. But I will do it carefully and deliberately. And I will not be hooted or bullied. I can stand and look anyone in the eye. And not blink. I don't have to.
Alfred, I would like to specifically address your question as to "why the 'first-handers' and particularly their parents did not head for Oak Brook and deal with Mr. G straight on."
I can speak only to my situation, and not to anyone else's, but I would guess that my situation is not too far different from many of the other young ladies'.
First, I want to exonerate my parents. When I told my mother about the hand-holding incident for the first time a couple of weeks ago, her first reaction was "WHY didn't you TELL us?! Your father and I would have been up there in a heartbeat! That's not acceptable!!"
Note that I said that the first time I mentioned it to her was a few weeks ago. SIXTEEN YEARS after it happened. Not much point in pursuing anything from my end now, is there?
Sixteen years ago, I was a very naive, very trusting girl in her mid-20s. I'd never heard of sexual harassment. And, if I had known what it was, I would never have suspected anything like that from Mr. Gothard. As I have stated before, I believed that my discomfort with his attentions was MY fault. That there must be "deep moral impurity" buried somewhere within my soul to cause me to find something objectionable in this quiet, humble, godly man's touch.
Like anyone who suspects that their behaviour or feelings are somehow shameful, I hid them. I never spoke to anyone about them. The conversation about the intimate hand massage and eye-gazing that I had with my former husband? HE brought it up. Not me.
It wasn't until I got the courage to actually talk about it that I realized that I was not alone. That other girls who had experienced the same behaviour had felt just as uncomfortable with it as I had been. And when there is a consensus of opinion like that, one suddenly realizes that maybe *I* wasn't wrong. Maybe the one struggling with "deep moral impurity" was not me.
Maybe the one with the problem was the guy doing this stuff to girl after girl. Maybe he was smart enough to keep it "innocent" enough that no one could object without sounding hysterical. Maybe he was smart enough to pick his victims carefully so that he didn't prey on loudmouths who would run telling tales to their parents, or who would make a highly public scene.
And in the patriarchal, fundamentalist culture that thrives around Mr. Gothard, who is going to believe a girl over an apparently godly man, anyway?
And then there's the issue of dealing with Mr. Gothard straight on. When I DID try this, on the issue of his sabbath-breaking, encouraging gossip and backbiting, and a couple of other things, I was put in my place right quick. It wasn't pretty, it wasn't pleasant, and it wasn't an experience I wanted to repeat.
I'm not too bad at expressing myself, but I found myself completely unable to hold my own against Mr. Gothard's skilled arguments. He's a very smooth talker, and a master manipulator. Despite my having the Bible on my side, especially on the Sabbath argument, I found myself on the losing side of the battle.
So confront him on the issue of making love to pretty girls? With only my own discomfort and the "it doesn't look right" arguments to back me (at the time)? No thanks. I'd have been mincemeat. And had I wanted to take it to my parents, had I thought it worth mentioning to them, they wouldn't have had much to go on, either.
WendyA, I hope you know that a lot of people are being helped by what you and other women are talking about now, including me. You said you're not too bad at expressing yourself. Yeah, no kidding. Maybe you didn't feel like you could hold your own in that situation as far as talking was concerned, but goodness gracious, you write like nobody's business. Awesome.
Yes. I was so "sheltered from the world," that I had no clue what sexual harassment was, or what steps to take if I experienced it. And I was taught to never question an authority, as they were ordained by God. To do so was to be in rebellion (= witchcraft), which would open me up to Satan's attack (terrible things would happen to me). See the progression, why one cannot cry out against abuse, when that abuse comes from an "authority" (especially one specifically "anointed of God", as bg always claimed to be)?
I did not know what sexual harassment was, until entering the workforce in my late 20s, and receiving on-the-job training.
WendyA, I happened to see another post of yours from a while back where you said that you have a B.A. in English, and a website in the same vein. So I can proudly, I mean humbly say that I totally called that.
Remember that he doesn't really answer to anybody. The board rubber stamped his whims for a dozen years and then when they actually stood up and asked questions he used politics to remove the people who asked questions. Hardly an environment that fosters speaking "truth in love." We have heard that some parents tried and were brushed away. I've seen first-hand how Gothard behaves when people tell him something he doesn't want to hear. It's not an issue of informing him it's wrong in such a way that he would finally understand. He already knows it. That's why it doesn't happen on stage and in front of moms and dads. It's an issue of him choosing to do what he wants to do even though he knows better.
"Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.[1] In most modern legal contexts sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by EEOC, "It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general....Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment
Cmon Alfred!!!
I know you know this, Alfred! You work for company, this stuff is taught to everyone in a workplace! Why are you defending illegal and inappropriate behavior by Gothard??
In Scripture . . . David slept with a young girl who was not his wife . . . and everybody was OK with it. The young girl later was a prize fought over by David's sons who wanted to marry her. It was clearly "this", not "that" ["this" was keeping the old man warm]
If this had been posted as parody, I would have assumed it was over the top. David was an ancient monarch, very old, and before modern technology (electric blankets and Florida). David did a lot of things that don't excuse us doing it, such as wiping out entire towns.
Notice, too, that "everybody was OK with it" is very different from doing this in secret and then manipulating her not to write home about it.
And once again we are treated to a girl being objectified (fought over as a prize). Alfred, you've yet to acknowledge in any of your comments that girls have souls. Just to clarify, you ARE aware that girls are human beings with souls, and that when their souls are attacked and damaged, that is a bad thing, right?
Even so, I understood the girl was basically a concubine, no? Which made it appear perfectly normal, according to the customs of the day. The fact that Lizzie and other girls were not legal wives, or even close, is what makes it all seem weird.
Alfred, my father did call Gothard after the San Jose trip and tell him to not touch me anymore, but he apparently phrased it as non-confrontationally as he could so as not to make me seem like a troublemaker (I wasn't around for the phone call, and this is the account I've been given in the days since my article posted). I was a loyal ATI student excited to go to HQ and work on this Telos project, and I thought Gothard's behavior must be some sort of extreme social blind spot, or maybe a way that adults commonly conducted themselves that I was not previously aware of. I was not a "touchy-feely" person, so I was convinced it might even be over-sensitivity on my part.
At Headquarters my father's request that Gothard not touch me was not honored. I stayed because I believed it was God's will that I work on the Telos project, and I thought I could manage the situation effectively. I self-censored in my calls home during the latter part of the San Jose trip, then later at Headquarters, because I was admonished that I should give a "good report." Eventually the accumulation and persistence of Gothard's actions with myself and other girls was no longer innocently explainable, and I avoided him as much as I was able until I returned home.
I understand the seriousness of the situation, and would not have told this story publicly if reports of this kind were not so persistent even after Gothard was confronted by the board in 1997 and by some accounts again in 2002, as well as privately over the years by various staff members. He may have modified his behavior superficially in not taking "co-ed trips," but by Emily's and others' accounts he is still pursuing young girls to surround himself with in a less-than-professional capacity.
My experiences with Gothard were not my father's fault. He would do things differently if he knew then what he knew later, but at the time he was much as you describe yourself now: a somewhat skeptical ATI dad who took much of the ATI/IBLP teaching and exhortation with a grain of salt (your description of the father's meetings was very like my dad's descriptions from the late '90s). My dad had a long face-to-face talk with the IBLP director who was around for my "recruiting" from the DTC, and who started working from Oak Brook a few months after I did. Before I went to HQ my parents arranged for an ATI acquaintance who worked at HQ to visit my family, and although the visit was friendly, they also politely grilled her about the working conditions there. She either was not aware of Gothard's conduct with young girls, or did not speak of it. Due diligence was done. Nevertheless, I still became a decorative object to be pawed at. This does not happen to every girl who works at HQ, or even to most of them. That in no way negates the stories of those it has happened to and does not happen to.
You'll find in the accounts that "Emily"and her mother "Liz" share that Gothard's message to Emily was much different than his message to her father. Even if Gothard's goal in so relentlessly pursuing Emily's presence at HQ was purely a desire to counsel her, there is no excuse for giving her and her father diametrically opposing expectations as a method of securing her residence in Oak Brook.
One can debate the objective morality and damage caused by Gothard's conduct in these situations, but not that he violates the very principles that he teaches.
I applaud you for investigating the matter. I think you'll find out more about Gothard's character and aversion to accountability than you'd ever wished to know.
I believe you, Lizzie. He probably handled it like I would have handled it. But - forgive me for saying this, as I place myself in his shoes - you had a responsibility to Jesus and your father that was bigger than whatever benefits and consequences awaited at HQ. Had you gone back to your father and told the truth, in opposition if necessary, to what you were feeling was required by Mr. Gothard, half of this website might not exist. Nobody gets unhappier than a violated father. Especially if your Dad had a bit of an “attitude” as well. If I am out of line, say so.
How does your father relate to all of this now? I am not sure how I should handle this - and my wife has her cautions on my throwing myself into this like I typically do - but if I were proceeding to take this up with Mr. Gothard, would your father be in a position to back me up . . . or vice versa, I suppose?
Jesus cares a lot about how we handle our beefs with others. "Open rebuke is better than secret love", so something is better than nothing . . . but He really cares. Public websites are very poor ways of fixing a sinning believer. They tend to do the opposite. Matthew 18 tells me that He guarantees His presence specifically when 2-3 are gathered together for the purpose of restoring one who is going astray. His authority, His name. Mr. Gothard is big, but Jesus is bigger, and the former reports to the latter.
Your father's experience and perspectives are worth 1,000 times what mine are. I defend Mr. Gothard furiously, but privately I have about screamed that this business needs to stop, taking whatever the most considerate position of misunderstanding I can find. For my sake, selfishly, let alone for all of the confused, suspicious girls . . . AND guys.
I do commend your courage to be honest at the expense of whatever offense this might cause to others. I am wondering what should – now – be done. If you think appropriate, and your Dad is willing, have him contact me [click on my name]. Mr. Gothard has a real pastor . . . perhaps he would like to be part of this too. And his sisters. I see them all of the time. Perhaps they would agree to participate.
I absolutely can't believe you're blaming a teenage girl who was the victim of repeated sexual harassment. It's her fault for not stopping it? Wake up. You're supporting a cult that is STRANGLING the life out of people. There have been too many casualties here... to many souls turned to atheism as a result of the legalism this man preaches. And on top of that, he's a pedophile? What do you need, Alfred? To actually SEE him molesting a teenager?
Sure, you've lost a lot of years standing beside this pedophile. But now that your eyes are opened, can you honestly continue to defend him? You know, Alfred. Don't choose stupidity to try to save face. Until you do, your conscience will NEVER be clear.
While I agree that old guys with particularly young individuals is troubling and possibly even repulsive, it's simply not pedophilia.
Pedophile--An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
Sure, but teens are only legally children, not biologically. This is why ages of consent vary from state to state, country to country. In Illinois, for example, the age of consent appears to be 17. The biggest problem here is the abuse of authority, not the age. (Though crossing states lines can be a huge no-no.)
You can't have it both ways. You can't exist in a world where teenagers are treated like children and not allowed to make any choices and then expect them to respond as adults. Aside from that, a teenager is still a child. Some of the teenagers we've been discussing have been as young as 14. This goes beyond sick. This pattern simply and indisputably shows Bill Gothard to be nothing more than a pedophile.
I don't care to have it both ways, but that's the way the law (and life in general) works.
Teens can drive cars and get married, for example, anywhere from 14-17 in various states, so they aren't kids. Yet they can't smoke, vote or be drafted until 18, and they can't drink until 21.
This might not be acceptable, but it isn't pedophilia.
It is legally defined as pedophilia, so whether or not you choose to recognize it bothers me not. However, if this is also your struggle, you should seek help.
Even if he did see it, I'm suspecting that he'd find a way to excuse it. "I must have misunderstood what was going on. Maybe I was seeing things from a weird angle..." Bleh.
Alfred, your latest response has completely destroyed any respect I had for you.
You are blaming a 17-year-old girl for being taken advantage of and for not handling it maturely. She was not even a legal adult. She was still a child. Of COURSE she's not going to handle it maturely. And you are blaming her?!
She was brought up in a system that taught her that the men were her authorities and not to be questioned. She was brought up to believe that it was her responsibility to protect men from their lust. That men of God were specially anointed and not to be attacked.
Lizzie's father told Mr. Gothard to stop pestering his daughter with his unwanted attentions. Emily's mother said "No, my daughter is not coming to live at Headquarters." And Mr. Gothard --- who teaches about the chain of authority and how children are supposed to obey and honour their parents --- Mr. Gothard ignored Lizzie's father's instructions to leave her alone and has done all he can to undermine Emily's mother's authority. He is breaking his own rules. He is not practising what he preaches.
He's all about authority until that authority doesn't line up with what he wants, and then he circumvents it. And he can turn the scripture whichever way he needs to in order to make whatever he wants sound SO right and godly. He's like the serpent in Genesis 3, beguiling his way in and convincing poor Eve that what she knew what was right wasn't. He wheedles his way in the back door of your soul, if you aren't constantly on your guard.
And you have the audacity to blame his victims and defend him. SHAME ON YOU.
Oh, and way to add spiritual abuse to the mix.
Now we've disappointed Jesus, too?
Really?!
Alfred, I know you're only acting based on ATI teachings in insisting that a teenager should act like a full-fledged, mature adult, but it is absurd to expect teenagers to do so. There is a huge element of maturity that comes, not from being right with God and having a clear conscience, but from life experience and time. Neither of those things can be rushed. Not only that, ability to speak up varies from person to person, even among adults. There are multiple perfectly legitimate reasons Lizzy could not have spoken up. To tell a TEENAGE girl that she should have spoken up is to tell her that she somehow should have figured out how to muster up maturity that she simply did not yet possess, and through no fault of her own! Again, teenagers, no matter how Godly, can only be so mature, because they're YOUNG and lack the EXPERIENCE and PERSPECTIVE that can only come with age. I'm 28, and people have always told me I act far more mature than my age would suggest. But even so, only in the last year have I begun to develop the kind of maturity that would allow me to deal with a situation like this. To expect someone 10 years younger to do it is nothing less than absurd.
Additionally, I'm sorry, Alfred, but no man really has any place talking to a girl about what she should have done when she was sexually harassed/abused/molested. Unless you have been there, in her shoes, which statistics show the vast majority of men have not, you cannot POSSIBLY understand what it's like for a girl to be the target of sexual misconduct. I have been there. I know what it's like. It was before our ATI days, and I was only 12. You cannot POSSIBLY know what it is like to be a girl and be objectified by the boys/men around you, in the midst of a society which already so freely objectifies women. Especially when the place you are so violated is supposed to be safe, and the people doing it/allowing it are supposed to be safe and trustworthy people who PROTECT you, not EXPLOIT you. The millions of thoughts and emotions which bombard a girl's being when this takes place are absolutely overwhelming, and processing them requires a maturity that no girl that age possesses.
I'll say it again, Alfred, you cannot POSSIBLY know what Lizzy experienced unless you experienced the same thing as a teenage girl in the same kind of situation. Which you did not. You said to correct you if you were wrong. Well you are wrong, and I am correcting you. As someone who has lived through what she lived through, I am saying that. I mean you no disrespect, honestly. But this is a truth which needs to be spoken, and even more, needs to be understood. Thank you for again proving one of the MANY problems with ATI. It takes the few genuine victims in a society in which so many people are quick to claim victim status, and makes it THEIR fault. This is so wrong. The Jesus you speak of? He is a protector of the innocent. Not a condemner.
Alfred - I was in ATI from the time I was in second grade until I was about 21 years old, and was very heavily involved with various ATI and IBLP ministries from the time I was about 16 until I was about 21. I'm now 30 and I think my time inside and outside ATI has given me some good perspective on things.
You have to realize that for ATI students (and many parents), Bill Gothard is almost like the Pope. My parents for example, went to the Basic Seminar before they got married, on their honeymoon, and went to well over a dozen Gothard seminars before they started ATI some 12 years after their wedding. For me, and many other ATI students, Gothard's teachings, books, CDs, and curriculum were treated in our family as basically sacred text, second only to the Bible, but certainly more authoritative than any other Christian literature and even our pastor or things coming from our church.
Each year instead of going on family vacations, we went to Knoxville or a Basic Seminars. Furthermore, ATI encouraged parents to "protect" their children, and keep them "separated" from the world. I know ATI families who wouldn't even allow the word "sex" (or any of its derivatives) to be used in their home, even when the children were teens and in their 20s. . .
There is nothing that was more exciting to many ATI parents than seeing their kids work with IBLP. Getting to work directly with Gothard was an even bigger deal, a huge honor and source of pride in the family.
So to expect a nieve, sheltered, protected, and inexperienced ATI teen who has spent most of her life at home without much wordly experience, who suddenly is thrust into the big and exciting world of the ATI ministry to suddenly feel feel comfortable expressing her apprehensions about a man her parents have treated almost like the pope seems more than a lot to expect.
Interesting logic: Gothard has done nothing wrong and Lizzie is to be judged and condemned by you for not stopping it, hmmm.
It's also interesting how the disciples follow the master. Gothard blames Abigail for David's sin with Bathsheba, he blames Dinah and Tamar for the crimes done against them and in their name, and Alfred blames Lizzie for "half this site."
I am committed to this effort not because I want to attack Gothard but because I want to be involved in healing, both for myself and others. But sometimes it's hard to refrain from pointing out just how messed up things are!
Like
I just can't grasp this...how can you, as a father, tell this girl she didn't do enough? This isn't a Matthew 18 situation here sir - we're talking about harassment, a breach of the law, something that Matthew 18 does not encompass.
Are you serious?!?! You of all people know what it feels like to have Bill on a pedestal!
I'm being reminded of a news article I once read. A building housing girls was on fire. The girls rushed to the door to escape. But outside some men who were Islamic extremists closed the door and locked it, letting the girls burn to death. Why? In their haste to get away from the fire, they didn't grab their head scarves. They didn't follow all the rules.
Alfred, that's basically what you are doing. If these girls didn't follow the rules exactly, then they get to burn rather than being rescued. As a friend recently said, "Legalism destroys compassion."
Compassion and justice would require that you forget the formula...forget whether or not they did it all perfectly, and help them out of the fire. Jesus would not have closed the door. He would have helped them out.
Our goal is not to "fix" Bill Gothard, but to expose and to warn. And to tell our stories. The "fixing" is not ours to do, not through this medium, anyway.
I feel like you are blaming Lizzie, the naive, sheltered girl, underage when this started, coached by the prophet Mohammed himself, to give a "good report" back home. A girl who never heard of sexual harassment, didn't know what it was. How does this girl dare to defy the Prophet, when she knows from all the diagrams that to defy the "authority", and even more so, the "anointed one" is to put herself directly in line of flaming arrows bypassing an umbrella to get to her?!
How about putting the blame where it belongs on this one, instead of on the teenaged girl who has been brainwashed and conditioned to have minimal to no response on to the advances? Can we possibly call on Gothard to put on his big boy panties and own his fault in the situation, vs asking the inexperienced girl to have responded differently?!
I'd almost think it was the opposite, that people are conditioned to have much stronger sensitivity to these sorts of advances?
ford prefect, not when it's coming from the untouchable Holy One himself. besides, I've heard from other testimonies that if they'd tried to raise a fuss, they'd have been accused of horrible things and sent home in shame. very confusing situation, especially for girls who were as young as 14!
Alfred,
Public websites are perfect ways of fixing a sinning believer that refuses to hear out anyone who tries to confront him privately!!!
I believe that you just can't allow yourself to believe and so you are making up all this nonsense against us.
When is it going to be Gothard's fault? When is it going to be Gothard's responsibility? When are you going to stop defending someone who needs you to confront him and make him answer us because countless phone calls and meetings have failed to do just that.
What Gothard did is evil. Who cares how evil? Do we all have an evil monitor to regulate? Gothards the one who sent guys home who simply talked to a girl.
Ugh!!!
It'll only be Gothard's fault when one of Alfred's daughter's gets hurt. IF he can be bothered to believe her. I am disgusted. For someone who quotes the Scripture so fluently, Alfred sure does seem to worship at the altar of Gothard quite alot! I wonder how many others are out there like him. Poor souls. I pity them.
Alfred, I am upset by your insinuation of blaming Lizzie for this. You have to understand the background.
First, many people (including Lizzie) thought Mr. G was such a great, Godly, humble man, and then to find out he does these sexually inappropriate things...that would be a shock to anybody.
If you were molested or handled inappropriately sexually, you probably would just want to keep it hidden, it's too painful to have it revealed. I find Lizzie to be very courageous in posting her story, and here you have to follow the standard ATI line of "blame the victim. The victim is always at fault." That's the philosophy of radical Muslims...who execute a woman who is raped, instead of the rapist.
Secondly, it's the teaching of authority. In ATI, you are never free to challenge authority, and BG has proven he doesn't take challenges to himself or his actions very well. Lizzie has these things happen to her, and she's thinking, "but I can't challenge authority."
Alfred, this is totally Bill Gothard's fault, and the blame rests squarely on his shoulders. For you to make excuses for his behavior, I would warn you, the Bible says "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord." I believe sir, that you are guilty of the former.
In a tremendous fit of irony, after teaching all about proper 'appeal to authority' Gothard sides with Oliver Cromwell, who thought killing the king was a great idea.
God forbid anyone else (except the Founding Fathers) should ever follow Cromwell's example. Gothard's solution (proper appeals, decapitating the king) wind up being little more than lip service to the idea that an authority might be a failure or present a danger. The most damaging part of his teaching is that we will always benefit from the suffering our authorities present (unless we are Cromwell or Washington), and should our appeals fail, stick it out.
This is fine for your average trials and tribulations, but fails miserably in anything more serious.
Alfred, to use your phrase, you are out of line.
I invite you to read the second article, as I addressed these questions there. One of the things I addressed is the massive power differential between a teenage volunteer (who later made a small wage) and the founder and head of the organization. I did not fail to report to my parents, I reported, but I constantly second-guessed myself in an effort to give Gothard every benefit of the doubt.
It is a classic fallacy to blame the recipient of unwanted and rejected physical attention for not doing enough to stop the physical attention. Were I to have a similar experience with Gothard today, as a woman of 32, I would not obey Gothard's direct instruction to report only the positive to my parents. As a teenager, I did as he advised. Under the circumstances, I think I was reasonably resourceful as a seventeen- and eighteen-year-old at the bottom rung of a rigid hierarchy with no reporting process, and I hardly think that I disappointed Jesus.
Take a step back and look at the standard of conduct you're demanding of girls in this situation: If they did not behave in every single respect as you think they should have, if they did not report according to your specifications (even if they did report), they must absorb any blame or at least absolve the older man in authority for any blame. You will always be able to find some imperfection in the behavior of the accuser, because the rules are periodically changed in Gothard's favor. This is a game, and no one should play it.
Gothard has stated to members of his staff that Matthew 18 does not apply to his organization because it is not a church. He made this statement in the context of abruptly dismissing and publicly shaming staff members without following these steps. Nonetheless, Gothard has received the benefit of Matthew 18 on the topic of his violation of his own code of conduct with young women. He has been approached by numerous individuals over the years, and by groups, and by the IBLP board at two different times, 1997 and 2002. This latter confrontation was forced to the point that he was prohibited from taking young girls on van trips, but he continues to persist in his behavior in other venues. He has had many years and numerous opportunities to reform, and has remained stubbornly recalcitrant and unrepentant. He has received every benefit of process denied to others, and yet still we have Emily's story.
This has to stop.
Alfred, I have always loved how the religious make sure that everyone else is fulfilling their "responsibilities" while ignoring their own. Please don't forgive me for saying this, but I took your advice, and put myself in your shoes. While in your shoes, I realized what an insensetive hypocrite I was and apologized to lizzie for failing in my "responsibiliy to Jesus" ,by heaping more shame and guilt on the defensless, rather than defending them..
"Had you gone back to your father and told the truth, in opposition if necessary, to what you were feeling was required by Mr. Gothard, half of this website might not exist."
Really, Alfred? Did you think before you wrote that? So had she run straight home to her Dad it all would have been dealt with (swept under the rug) and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on? Do you really believe what you just said? I am all for Christians behaving appropriately and working together in love. I am not, nor will I ever be, in favor of justifying abuses of power. Mr. Gothard has held significant power since the 80's. If we have learned anything from the past 30 years of American Christian Leadership, situations like this do not go away with a strongly worded letter from a parent, or even repeated phone calls of an angry father. People need to see that they have been fed lies. This is what we are about.
I don't usually comment on RG, but this kind of takes the cake. Really Alfred? I too was subjected to unwanted physical contact with Gothard. Not exactly what Lizzie experienced but extremely close. I was so naive at the time that I didn't even realize it was sexual behavior. At eighteen and extremely sheltered, I thought inappropriate sexual behavior involved nakedness. All I knew was that his touch made me feel uncomfortable and dirty. I tried justifying it away but the feelings continued. I DID report to my parents.There was no one to report to after that. I knew what happened if you told Mr. G 'no'...termination and the next flight home with no ability to defend yourself about whatever was spread around as the "reason" you were sent home after you left.
I fought back with the only weapon I had. I quit being friendly to him. I avoided talking to him, I wasn't around when he went looking. My parents agreed this was the best course of action.
After I left HQ, went home, married, and then - and only then, did I recognize what happened to me as sexual. I had no idea that men played with women's feet to get aroused. I was sick.
If you, in any way think that this is acceptable behavior, SHAME ON YOU. I am no longer the sheltered little girl I used to be. I have my own daughter and I would die rather than send her off to "serve" someone that took advantage of her innocence.
Alfred,
I have been watching this conversation from the sidelines for a while and feel compelled at this point to jump in for a minute. Let me state that foremost, I agree with the content and effort of Recovering Grace. At the same token, I do take a slightly different approach to the matter and I think it might be helpful to expand upon it in this case.
Your insistence in the mentality of Gothard's teachings are indicative of one who has accepted his teaching in many areas of your life. It is also indicative of one whose life experience does not understand nor comprehend the life experience of those who write on this site. I believe this can be traced to a couple of things:
1. I assume that you were a Christian before encountering Gothard's teaching. Subsequently, you saw something you felt was "right" about Gothard and began exploring his teachings. You have invested much in that philosophical/spiritual direction and your family has perhaps benefited from it in certain areas. This is what YOU see and have experienced.
2. You have a generational and philosophical gap from those whose life experience with Gothard is different from yours. Specifically, ATI parents do not understand what happens in the minds of ATI kids. The ideas that Gothard promote make a lot of sense to you, and from someone with your intellectual capability and previous Christian experience before IBLP, they are easy to for you to wrap your head around.
Having stated these points, it is an unfortunately reality that you (as an ATI parent and one who entered IBLP after living your life for a while) will never be subjected to the overwhelming influence of actually being raised under IBLP/ATI. Regardless of how much you (or our parents) filtered through what Gothard taught, it is/was still highly influential and damaging to us. Those of us who author on websites like RG have been through it. You will never experience what we have experienced and will never be able to understand it fully, even with your intellectual capability.
It becomes very clear to me that you are not able to understand our position unless you make an attempt to accept these stories as truth from our perspective. It is not so much YOU but rather your position (intellectually, philosophically, authoritatively, generationally) that will prevent you from understanding - unless you are willing to open up to the facts that are being presented. Another hurdle for you is that these facts are being presented by those of us whom you have historically viewed as inferiors. You will have to accept the possibility that what we present is actually superior to what you have previously believed.
Was Gothard intentionally harassing these girls sexually? I can't judge his motives. But what I can judge is how these girls felt and the simple fact that regardless of how "fatherly" Gothard feels he can be with the opposite sex, he violated them personally. I believe the reason you CAN'T understand or accept that is because you have not been in their shoes; you have not been subjected to the teaching the way we have; you have not been so innocent as to not be capable of making valid judgment based on the circumstances surrounding these incidents.
You are not us. You are someone else entirely and you are completely lacking the life experience required to understand these things from our perspective.
Consider that offensive if you wish. It isn't intended that way. But your arrogance in trying to pigeon-hole these incidents into what you have accepted from Gothard as truth is highly ignorant when you take a step back to realize that you don't have the capability to understand where these girls (and the rest of us) have been and what we have processed throughout our lives.
You can wax Biblical and spiritual. You can throw verses in our faces as well as Scriptural methods of reconciliation. Many of us (including myself) agree with these steps. The problem here is that the generational/philosophical gap between you (and Gothard) and those of us on RG is a wide one that can't easily be crossed. We've crossed it; we're on the other side. If you want to join us, you're more than welcome to. If you even start the fearful journey of crossing, you'll be met with much encouragement from us here. But be aware that until you make an attempt toward this end you are not capable of understanding everything from our perspective and many of your comments come from the very ideals that have hurt us and those like us throughout our lives. We get it. We want you to get it also.
Thanks for reading.
Thanks so much - I've never thought about my experiences in ATI this way, but it's so true. Those still in the system won't get it until they try to see things as we do. Like you say, there's a HUGE barrier to their doing that inherent in BG's teachings - they're the authorities after all, and God speaks directly to them and those under their care must submit. Wow - BG certainly put himself at the top of this food chain. Pity the poor souls who stand up to him, as they're just being rebellious and he, the authority, is, no, must be, right, and they're automatically wrong. Even if they appeal, he can turn down the appeal and then what option is left - submission? In ATI, all roads lead to submission!
Sorry to ramble - really got me thinking about why my efforts to show my Dad and step-Mom the truth have failed. God bless you for sharing the truth!
Thank you, Joshua.
Well said Joshua!!!!
Wow . . . that went over well.
There are a lot of pontifications that come to mind, but I doubt they would be appropriate.
Lizzie, I was wrong for insinuating that this was your fault. I am sorry.
I can't speak for Lizzie but I know I appreciate you saying so. Thank you, Alfred.
Thank you, Alfred.
Fwiw, my father did approach iblp leadership when he felt something was wrong (not regarding sexual harassment, but a completely separate issue). He basically got the "tarred and feathered" treatment. And I am still here, speaking out against the abuses and false teachings. Gothard has set up a system, such that, if he doesn't want to listen to you, he will show you the door in short order, and usually not very nicely, and many of the leaders under him will do the same. So I have a hard time believing that Lizzie's father could have made a huge difference, overall, in the organization. As of when I left the organization, I had already seen two immediate family members, or a full 50% of my family at the time, receive the "tarred and feathered" treatment, simply for saying, "I don't agree".
Alfred, what you just did took a lot of courage. I applaud you and thank you.
I am encouraged that you apologized to Lizzie, but I am also still a bit annoyed by your second paragraph. Oh well; baby steps, I suppose.
Baby steps Bob, baby steps... err Alfred.
Thank you.
Thank you Alfred. Your apology is accepted.
Ditto what they said. Thank you.
Pingback : Welcome ATI Families! | Recovering Grace
I was brought here after looking up info on the IBLP. I was involved in this cult very briefly back in the early 90's. One thing that struck me, was that the first thing Gothard taught was that rebellion against authority is the sin of witchcraft. Day 2, he set himself up as an authority. This didn't strike me until after the second seminar I attended. At that point I fully tuned out.
One thing that struck me, was that the first thing Gothard taught was that rebellion against authority is the sin of witchcraft. Day 2, he set himself up as an authority.
You are one of those people who thinks deeply and speaks simply, aren't you? Your comment is profound and insightful. Would that we were all so perceptive as you were then!
Pingback : The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, Chapter 9: “Because I’m the Pastor, That’s Why!” | Recovering Grace
Pingback : Top 12 of 2012 | Recovering Grace
I totally disagree with the theological side of the book. THE authors and most on this site are using the claim of legalism to justify themselves.
Care to prove your stance from a theological point of view? Would you also care to tell us what we are trying to justify ourselves for?
And if you disagree with the theological side of the book, does that mean you agree with the rest of it, including the various things BG has been accused of?
John Doe: Straw Man
Wes: Pass the popcorn please.
Straw Man Illustration...
Wes: I believe the Sky is blue.
John Doe: I believe you're wrong. Blue is not a bad color.
Wes: What??!?
That's more of a straight up non sequitor. Strawman would be more like:
Wes: I believe the Sky is blue.
John Doe: Wes believes the sky is blue at all times even at night.
Non sequitor or straw man then... Take your pic John Doe. :-)
But seriously John Doe... Some of the questions put forth in the book for the meeting with Bill Gothard were as follows.
1. Is there a Biblical Basis for Bill Gothard’s teachings on the umbrella of protection?
2. Is there a Scriptural foundation for Bill Gothard’s teachings on “the iniquities of the father”?
3. Is there Biblical basis for Bill Gothard’s teaching on the order of the worship service? (BG had promised to take this out of his teachings in an earlier meeting.)
4. Is the purpose of the acount of the centurion (given in Matt. 8:5-13) to teach Bill Gothard’s view of authority or to teach who Jesus is and the importance of faith in Him?
5. Do Cabbage patch dolls prevent the birth of Children?
6. Does Bill Gothard teaching on authority imply that Jesus was a sinner?
7. Is it proper to impose Levitical ceremonial restrictions on sexual intercourse within Christian marriages?
8. Is it proper to impose circumcision as a Biblical mandate for Christians today?
9. Is it Biblically proper to say that Grace is earned?
Which one would you like to discuss first?
Pingback : Set Free by Grace | Recovering Grace