Editor's Note: Various media sources have referenced the story of Dr. Gary Smalley walking into Bill Gothard’s Northwoods Retreat Center cabin in Watersmeet, Michigan—and finding a young woman in a nightie sitting on Gothard’s lap.
One recent account ran at MidwestOutreach.org. You will note that RG's version shares language from a common source. Here, we try to provide a clearer look for three reasons:
1. Gothard insists that his thoughts and actions, including his close proximity to and touching of girls, have never been sexual in nature (though he has admitted in his public statement that such actions were wrong/immoral).
2. For years Gothard has used Gary Smalley as a human shield, to bolster his own image through association with Smalley’s well known kindheartedness. Though reluctant to jump into the fray, Smalley has given permission for his statement about these events to be shared publicly. The following e-mails are between Gary Smalley and Tony (the former IBYC staffer who was assigned to investigate the 1980 Scandal), and between Gary and Bill Gothard.
3. Gothard remains silent on his well-detailed and unrepented sins though the 1970s and the Scandal of 1980. The IBLP Board also remains silent, though they have a stack of evidence that will hopefully be featured in the soon-to-be-released internal report conducted by frequent IBLP conference speaker and friend of Bill Gothard's, David Gibbs, Jr.
The Northwoods Setting
The Northwoods began as a Gothard family retreat and was repurposed and expanded for ministry use as the ministry grew flush with cash. Steve Gothard’s cabin was built in 1973. The first (smaller) lodge was built in 1974, and the Big Lodge was built in 1976. As noted in other articles, the retreat featured an impressive runway for IBYC’s corporate planes. The property is maintained to this day, and IBLP is proud to feature beautiful pictures of the buildings and surrounding lakes and trees.
A former IBYC staffer’s diary notes that Steve was eager to build a cabin for Bill in 1976 (Steve called it “Willie’s Cabin”). Reportedly, Steve was motivated to keep Bill busy in the woods and away from the work center of the Lodge. The two brothers surrounded themselves with attractive, young secretaries in that rich and remote location.
Updated 5/27/2014: This picture is a "tilted view" of Crazy Bear Lodge and its surroundings in 2014. The top of the picture is North. The inset picture is an overhead view of that lodge, which is about two miles from the Big Lodge as the bird flies, and over three miles by car.
Updated 5/27/2014: Crazy Bear Lodge and surrounding area, 2014. The top of the picture is West. Bill's Cabin is estimated to be at about 46°18'57.07" N 89°16'47.24" W. IBYC staffers remember going to Bill's Cabin uphill by dirt trail from the lodge.
An Email from Gary Smalley on August 9, 2007
Bill Gothard contacted Gary Smalley to ask him to help remove a reference on Wikipedia to a news article from the 1980 sex scandal that made public Gothard’s own sin. Smalley had to remind Gothard, in his response, that he (Smalley) could not make the claim go away because Smalley himself was the witness!
—–Original Message—–
From: [Gary Smalley’s email address redacted]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:49 PM
To: [Tony’s email address redacted]
Subject: Re: Disqualifications of Teachers, James 3:1
Tony,
I can now see why he is nervous about the “fondling and patting” statement on Wikipedia. I did see him with [name of secretary redacted] on his lap. She was in her thin night wear. And I told him the next day that if he continued, it could bring his ministry down. In those days, I was into protecting him from criticism. But today, it seems like everyone is going after him. I’m now glad that I didn’t do the curriculum with him.
Now I have to write him something. Lord give me wisdom.
Love, Gary
Gary Smalley’s Letter to Bill Gothard
Bill,
I think I found what you were speaking of the other night. Wikipedia…. “(Veinot et al. 2003, pp. 52-55) alleges that Gothard tried to cover up the scandal but “despite Gothard’s best efforts at containment…the story was reported in the Los Angeles Times.” In 1982 the Los Angeles Times also reported allegations that “Bill Gothard was seen by staff members patting and fondling women employees. Later, he admitted in staff meetings that these actions were ‘moral failures’ on his part.”[24
I am wondering how the current situation got started all over again after so many years? Are their (sic) pastors, Christian leaders or some of your followers investigating these allegations? It seems like so long ago, it amazes me.
And are these recent postings in Wikipedia? Sorry for all of the “dogings” that keep following you. You [taught] me that a leader is always being watched and held accountable for all his actions.
I think you know me well enough for me to say that my motives here are to try and bring glory to God from all of the “ashes” from the past.
Instead of me sending an email or letter to you sharing that “as far as I know from the girls I interviewed, according to them, Bill did not fondle any of them” But a more important question for me to ask you is, “what do you want as an end goal with Christian leaders and the body of Christ?” Is it just my opinion that you “didn’t fondle the girls?”
As I read the criticisms of you from many different Christian leaders, I wondered what your end objective is? Is it to add evidence that you didn’t touch any of the girls inappropriately? Remember I was one of the staff who saw [name of secretary redacted] sitting on your lap with her sheer night ware on. That alone was so inappropriate that a case could be made from just that one act I saw for you to take time away from ministry in order to be healed by God’s Spirit and renewed to purity. That one act would have taken Ted Haggard out of the ministry as his other actions did.
I am wondering what kind of legacy do you want to leave? What God has done through you is amazing, but you stumbled at times just like all of God’s leaders throughout history.
How do you want people to remember the steps you took after “failing” in your walk with God at times?
How can I help you reach your ultimate goals for your legacy????? Can we visit about this question the next time we talk on the phone or visit together? I would be willing to do that if the time is right in your life.
Thanks for entrusting this to me as a friend. God is faithful and able. It is He to whom I present this serious need and ask for His provisions.
Love,
Gary
Excerpts from an Exchange of Emails on September 18, 2007
Good morning Gary,
…My main concern is failing to warn someone who is asking for help and counsel. That seems to be a violation of ever[y] teaching in the Scriptures. Scripture is clear that we are to also be warning those who are not asking for help, lest their blood be on our hands (Ezekiel 33). More so for those who are seeking help.
…I was simply asking what counsel you would give to a Dad who is planning to send his young daughter into this close relationship with BG. And the only reason I was thinking of asking you for that counsel is because of BG’s recently asking you for counsel on that very question: How to erase or make go away accusations that he was caught with one of his young and attractive secretaries sitting on his lap in private quarters with her skimpy nightgown on, late at night. He wants someone to back him up that he never did have any moral lapses or that any morality weaknesses exist in his life.
Gary, as to your question about whether BG is involved sexually with any of his staff, it seems to me that he is quite involved personally and directly in the pursuit of this pretty little 14 year old, to bring to his headquarters office to work for him. How would it appear if you did the same next week?
My question remains: why does he not have a HR person working for these 70 ministries who recruits and trains employees, making sure they are avoiding all appearance of evil and working to keep him out of involvement with situations he has failed at in the past. Of course, no one on his current staff know of his past failures and likely do not know he was terminated recently in 1980 for this very failure and his deception and lying to keep it hidden from his Chain of Command.
I will, by duty to God, warn this church and this family and give to them some basic questions they should consider asking. That is the least I can do. For me to respons[d] that “I cannot help you,” or “Go pray about it on your own,” or “I can’t say anything lest I come under punishment by BG,” all seems pretty hollow and unChristian.
If you do not counsel against it from any spiritual or Biblical argument, I do think it is helpful to provide to many serious inquiries from pastors, parents and Christian leaders, a list of questions they can ask BG in their next meeting with him. Most of the inquiries I get personally are from men and women actually in meetings with him about one issue or another that has come up. BG can always choose to be truthful with them, or he can ask myself and others to stop answering people truthfully. Or he can someday choose to deal with these issues with his own true confession and acknowledgement of sin and resolve it before he meets God in person. I would much rather give a “good report” about this man and his ministry, but he seems quite unwilling to resolve any charges against himself and seems committed to trying to justify his deeds of sin and rebellion against the Word of our God.
I am enjoying Ezekiel 13-18 though it is most serious reading.
…Our home Bible Study is going through James verse by verse. James 2 is clear, “do not be a respect[er] of persons.” God is not a respecter of persons, judging all the high and the low altogether. That is why Ezekiel 18 is exciting for the worst sinner, and sobering for the most famous saints.
Blessings on you today.
Tony
Gary Smalley Responded
—–Original Message—–
From: [Gary Smalley’s email address redacted]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:58 PM
To: [Tony’s email address redacted]
Subject: Re: 14 year year old new employee
Tony,
I pray to God that if I ever do something inappropriate with a girl that you are still alive and you have my permission to go after me. You are the very best and Christ’s church is fortunate to have you. Yes, [name of secretary redacted] was caught by me “sitting on his lap in his private quarters with her skimpy nightgown on, late at night.” And you can quote me. But you have to add that Gary questioned her and all other female staff members close to Bill and all of them stated that he “never touched them inappropriately.” What you are [describing] is “inappropriate” behavior by Bill and the 14 year old’s parents should know this about Bill.
Blessings to you dear friend,
Gary
Tony Responded
Gary,
If you departed from the fear of the Lord that guides you today, I would come to you as a true brother, kindly, with great compassion, and with great pity, patience, and desire to beg you to consider righteousness (Jude 21-25). As I did for 1 1/2 years with BG. In the end he rejected righteousness and became blind and is incapable of seeing the Truth (I John 1:5-8). I do sincerely pity his soul and his great losses. Though I still pray and hope for his salvation. The rich man is much like a camel attempting to thread his way through the eye of a needle.
As to the deeds done in this case, many are tempted to call them “inappropriate,” especially the perpetrator! Scripture calls it by its true names:
–Lusting and adultery of the heart. Jesus said, “but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matt. 5:28
–Defrauding. I believe his operational definition is: “stirring up desires of the flesh that cannot be satisfied righteously.” Mic. 2:2; Mark 10:19.
–Making provision for the flesh. Rom. 13:14
–Breaking trust with the Dad and Mom who entrusted their daughter to a “spiritual man’s” care. Psalm 15:4; Deut. 22:28-29;
–Using one’s liberty (in Christ) as a cloak for vice. I Peter 2:11, 16
–Now, deception, lying and covering one’s sins. Prov. 28:13
It is hard to obtain forgiveness from God for “inappropriateness,” but it is quite easy and complete to obtain His forgiveness of iniquity if you agree with God on each point of our sin and rebellion toward Him. It is for this reason I completely hate the current terminology of Christian psychology and mushy thinking. It has hidden the Gospel’s good news of salvation from sin and sanctification towards God, without which no one will see the Lord! Hebrews 12:14; I Thess. 4:3-4.
Gary, I appreciate your giving me this freedom to quote you. I hope I do not have to, nor do I desire to do that. I will think this through carefully. I may find a way to make a strong statement or wording of a question that confirms there is witness to this, that will be sufficient for any Dad to work with. That is always my preference.
I will keep you posted on the decision this family makes.
Thanks, sir.
Tony
Interpreting Smalley’s statement
Smalley questioned only a few of the women involved in the scandal, with very general inquiries, and they were not comfortable sharing their stories with him. However, he and his wife, Norma, were aware of severe issues. At least one woman confided in Norma, and it was evident to them that staff women were hired in part for their susceptibility to abuse. Some readers wonder how these women and other staff members could be so manipulated by the Gothards. A writer for the Wittenburg Door in 1973, at about the same time the cabins started going up in the Northwoods, phoned Gary Smalley for “A Small Interview.” (click to read) In that article, we get a glimpse of excitement of the ministry and the adoration the staff had for their dear leader.
Gary Smalley is a direct witness to Bill Gothard “seeing and touching” a staff woman’s private parts, if you would define private parts as body parts that can be viewed and touched through “a skimpy nightgown” of a staff secretary, sitting directly on top of his lap, at 11 p.m. at night, in the middle of the forest in Gothard’s private cabin.
This young woman’s father had not given permission for Gothard to be physically, emotionally, or romantically involved with his daughter. If your pastor did the same with your own daughter, you would not turn a blind eye!
Smalley eventually left IBYC in 1976, having been manipulated and cut off relationally by Bill and Steve Gothard. What had begun as one of the best experiences in his life (the ministry) became one of the worst. This crisis in faith would become a source of his future ministry. And the yearning to restore a close friendship with his old buddy, Bill Gothard, would work to keep him in Gothard’s orbit years later.
Meanwhile, Tony carefully interviewed, in great detail, each of the 15 staff persons involved in the scandal. That detail was examined by the IBYC (now IBLP) Board of Directors—who were Bill Gothard’s chain of command—and was the basis of their termination of Bill Gothard as President and Teacher at the ministry on June 5-6, 1980, only to have him retake control of IBYC a mere 17 days later. At the time of his dismissal Bill was awarded $25,000 and his car by the Board for his contributions to IBYC. It is still unknown whether he paid any of that $25,000 back to IBYC upon his reinstatement two and a half weeks later.
You may rent Bill’s Cabin at http://northwoods.iblp.org/facilities/cabins/billscabin/.
The Wikipedia entry in question:
August 21, 2020
"I pray to God that if I ever do something inappropriate with a girl that you are still alive and you have my permission to go after me." ROFL!!
But seriously, am I to understand from this correspondence, that Bill is even now (or rather, before he resigned... That recently) seeking the company of a 14 year old girl to come to headquarters? As in, this was happening in the last year or two? Not surprising, but pretty creepy.
Not quite the last year or two, Hannah – these emails are from 2007 – but sill pretty recent,
Oh, right, I missed the date. Still fairly recent and pretty creepy.
So basically, BG had the nerve to contact Smalley and pressure him to recant his eyewitness account?
And why is anyone disbelieving that he would do (and has done) this with others that he has wronged?
P.S. It's just downright funny, the complaint that the allegations inhibit the sale of his "character curriculum". Ya think?! Hahahahaha!
So according to Smalley, Bill did touch the private parts of a woman. I suppose Bill's statement: I have never seen or touched the private parts of a woman.' may very well be true IF Bill is referring to touching the NAKED private parts of a woman, as opposed to private parts that are covered with any layer(s) of clothing, which in this case, his statement is worse because it is a deception.
Perhaps he could truthfully say that he has never seen or touched the NAKED private parts of a woman, but can he truthfully say that he has not touched the private parts of a woman at any time under any circumstances, regardless of what manner or how many layers of clothing may or may not have been covering said private parts?
Imho, it makes it worse especially for the Alfred(s) who are so very dearly hoping that all of this is a horrible mistake and desiring, like Smalley, to believe the best of a man they love and trust.
You cannot tell me that a man who teaches so extensively on propriety/purity/defrauding etc.. cannot know that any touching of actual private parts whether covered or not is dead wrong. He does know it on some level, else his actions would have been in the open, not privately. And when asked, his response would be, 'I have never...' knowing full well that any or all of it is wrong. However on a technicality he may convince himself that he is speaking truth, as it is possibly truthful that he did not touch the naked skin of breasts, buttocks, or vagina.
This point hardly matters, but I will throw it out there for consideration anyway. I have heard that in some cases, actual nudity of women isn't as appealing as ALMOST nudity. The mystery of it is the main appeal for certain types. I wonder if this could be true of Gothard. I am not interested in what goes on in his mind, and generally would rather not know, but because of the situation, it may be necessary to consider this. It may help some understand the situation better.
And all this time... I thought we weren't supposed to hold hands before marriage. If only I had known it was okay, so long as you wore GLOVES!!
Or kissed but had Saran wrap between our lips!
Lol! We actually did that (but it was a joke!)
Has the woman seen sitting on Bill's lap ever made a statement regarding the incident?
Didn't several of the women from the '80s sign a group statement? Or something to that effect? Perhaps she was one of those? Obviously no one is free to publicly release her identity, or they would have.
The thought of renting Bill's cabin, or anything owned by IBYC, makes me want to puke. I'm sure I'll get flack for this, but I think the whole thing is contaminated, diseased and founded on very sick motives and agendas. It's like black mold or worse and I wish the whole place burned to the ground - like you do to stop spread or disease or contamination. Ugh! Makes me sick to my stomach as it just makes me think of a place of pure evil, like Warren Jeffries in Utah - self-serving, prideful, unteachable, lustful, liars who are wolves parading in sheep's clothes.
Does anyone know of any other Christian leader who continually assures everyone that he has never kissed a girl, or touched, or seen, the private parts of a female? I have never ONCE heard this coming from any other Christian leader. But with Gothard, it is almost like a sign he wears around his neck.
On a related note, and this is just one personal anecdote but fwiw, many many years ago my mom worked in the Billy Graham office. I asked her if there was any hint of the kind of sexual tension in that office such as those who worked close to Gothard experienced (it affects both the favorites and the non-favorites). Absolutely not, nothing of the sort, according to her experience.
Matthew, that is because Billy Graham made a covenant with his wife to never be alone with another woman. Period. he always traveled with other men and was simply never alone with a woman. I highly respect Billy Graham and am disgusted with BG.
A good policy that protects both parties: he would not be inappropriately implicated and women would have peace of mind and not be treated inappropriately. Liability reduction: I'm a fan.
operative word: wife.
BG needed one many years ago - perhaps he would have listened to "her counsel" on some things :)
NO. Predatory behaviour has nothing to do with the absence of marriage. Bill Gothard is an abuser who gets a kick out of manipulating those who are powerless against him. He specifically seeks out multiple women, some of whom are under aged. This behaviour would NOT be satisfied within marriage. Sexual abuse and harassment is about power, not about sex.
There are men who never married who are able to never harm a woman sexually. There are those who are married who are also rapists. There is no correlation here. Bill Gothard is an abuser because he is an abuser. The only thing that would change that would be severe repentance on his part, with help from a real, qualified counsellor, and probably physical boundaries to allow him to never have an opportunity to mess up again.
@Tiarali: I have to concur that may God's grace be with those who are married to abusers and pervs. What a difficult relationship. The only "positive" that I can see from people like BG being married is that it may reduce the number of women being used inappropriately, but the wife will certainly pick up the tab. There are no quick fixes to problems as complex as this. To "fix" the issue, Step 1 would be that BG would need to admit to himself that he has a problem. I'll spare you all from laying out a 7-point step-by-step process by which he might be properly adjusted, but you get my drift. People must take responsibility for their own demons/battles, and not include others or project the problems onto others like BG has done so skillfully. A spouse, while great for support, is in no way responsible for personally fixing the issues or covering for a sicko.
@grateful: I think if BG had dealt with his own demons early enough in the game, his legacy and path in life would be so different - for the better. What I do find interesting, is that it seems he didn't really listen to any other humans on earth on the regular. From what I've gathered and from my own observations, his insights and notions come directly from God through his own private readings and meditations and such. With so many other educated theologians and evangelicals, why is it so distasteful to him to steal and idea or two from a colleague? He really needed to be balanced. We mortals can find such balance in relationships, to include marriage, but I do believe he was above that [sarcasm]. I think marriage would have "outed" him once his hypothetical wife reached her breaking point.
My intent is to further the thought regarding BG having companionship, not to target points of disagreement.
Brumby, I think the word you're looking for is 'accountability'.
@'Megan': Are you suggesting I condense my comments? :)
Brumby, No, not at all, just enjoying the irony of the moment. :)
Being married doesn't guarantee sexual purity anymore than being born in a garage makes you a car! I'm a lifelong single, and committed to sexual purity. I happen to be female, and in the latter part of my 50s. I prayerfully size up situations (like, not being alone with a gentleman in a private place-that covers everything from cars to my home to public spaces), keep myself in healthy relationships (majoring on women. I have men friends, too, but they are not my closest relationships), and watch my personal behavior and entertainment choices. I know I would have enjoyed marriage, but that,-up to now-has not been God's plan for my life. However, I wouldn't trade a moment of the life I have, especially the freedom I have to serve the Lord and enjoy my career. It sounds like Gothard never seriously took his singleness into account, and made no plans for how he would deal with impulses and urges as he got older. Singleness is a wonderful gift, and God can bless the single life in many miraculous ways.
great comment, thanks for sharing that!
"Gary Smalley is a direct witness to Bill Gothard “seeing and touching” a staff woman’s private parts, if you would
define private parts as body parts that can be viewed and touched through “a skimpy nightgown” of a staff secretary,
sitting directly on top of his lap, at 11 p.m. at night, in the middle of the forest in Gothard’s private cabin."
How incredibly misleading! Once again, if Bill is guilty of "fondling" in 1980 because the woman he was dating at the time was sitting on his lap - and the woman indicated nothing else ever happened - then, sadly, I am guilty too . . . future wife on lap while we were dating. But I am not . . . and neither is he.
And - again - let the record be clear: Bill has NEVER admitted, confessed to any "moral failing" with a woman, board or otherwise. "Defrauding" which he did confess to . . . was - again - having engaged in "dating" behavior that his standards not allow but is not uncommon among honorable Christian couples the world over. Being alone . . . nightgown . . . a lot of things that are cringeworthy for a man in his position, but we become untruthful when we use terms of commonly defined acts that in fact did not occur.
RG's own statement: "While the things that they did would not be terribly unusual for a dating couple outside of the Institute, Bill’s behavior was way out of bounds for a Christian leader and boss, and a clear double standard set against Bill’s own teachings on moral purity." https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/ruths-story/
1) If anyone had said this instead of Gary Smalley, you'd say they were being misleading: "Remember I was one of the staff who saw [name of secretary redacted] sitting on your lap with her sheer night ware on. That alone was so inappropriate that a case could be made from just that one act I saw for you to take time away from ministry in order to be healed by God’s Spirit and renewed to purity. That one act would have taken Ted Haggard out of the ministry as his other actions did."
2) I will not be surprised at all if you only accept Gary Smalley's words when they say what you want them to. If he disagrees with you, I expect you to spin and/or reject them. Because that's what you do with evidence: you are blind to any dissenting evidence and only see evidence that helps your case. (Confirmation Bias). (In fact, I have wondered if Bill himself one day finally confesses, if you would even accept that.)
The statements that are made BY Gary in this article are consistent with everything I know to be true from the various individuals I have spoken with. And consistent with Bill's statements to me, even this week. Why are we allowed to spin this? Nothing more than was stated here happened, as testified by the woman herself.
It is sort of funny . . . that Bill's detractors here are permitted to be moralists, allowed to equivocate lap sitting - apparently by lack of a millimeter in the amount of intervening material (judging types of nightwear material) - with "touching the private parts of a woman". THIS is the basis of the fondling claim that went out to the LA Times, and then to the world. If a "legalist" tried that - condemning a couple for moral impurity because she sat on his lap - there would be no end of the disgust.
Is Smalley so naive as to equate sitting on a lap with touching "private parts"? I totally took that statement by Smalley a different way. I don't think that statement refers to the sitting on his lap, at all.
But really, I'm disappointed in your logic, here, Alfred. I totally thought you would go with the "we need 2-3 witnesses in that cabin, before I'll believe it," defense.
I must say it is good to have Alfred back.
He has me convinced that on the right hand of God will be Jesus and on Jesus' right hand will be Bill.
hey wait just a miniute... I can't see Bill's right hand....
I don't know why. It is on his lap under a sheer nightie.
Alfred, have you ever thought for one minute that all of these things you "know to be true" might be from people lying to you, or even you lying to yourself out of blind loyalty to a false teacher? Is that even a possibility to you?
Because you seriously sound like a Jonestown resident about now.
I think the telling part is that the nightie was skimpy and sheer. Would YOU let your daughter sit on your lap in a skimpy SHEER nightie?
>>>>
Alfred said:
It is sort of funny . . . that Bill's detractors here are permitted to be moralists, allowed to equivocate lap sitting - apparently by lack of a millimeter in the amount of intervening material (judging types of nightwear material) - with "touching the private parts of a woman". THIS is the basis of the fondling claim that went out to the LA Times, and then to the world. If a "legalist" tried that - condemning a couple for moral impurity because she sat on his lap - there would be no end of the disgust.
<<<<
This is just another case of Bill saying "do as I say, not as I do".
I find it hard to believe that you think that a young girl/woman wearing sheer lingerie sitting on a man's lap in a cabin in the middle of nowhere is normal dating behavior for a "Christian leader". Why would Bill be in a secluded cabin with a woman in a nightie, especially when God blessed him with the "gift of singleness"? Alfred, if your Bible has this verse read it: 1 Thessalonians 5:22. This verse says everything about the "nightie incident".
Now please answer me this Alfred. What if your daughter was sitting in a cabin that was secluded wearing only a nightie with a man old enough to be her father or possibly her grandfather?
It is a shame that you Gothardites don't put as much effort into spreading the salvation message as you do defending Gothard, his teachings and his "dating technique".
"then, sadly, I am guilty too . . . future wife on lap while we were dating."
But was your girlfriend wearing lingerie, while you were alone in your bedroom, late at night?
I'm not saying such an act is unforgivable, because that is not the issue here. The fact remains that Bill has said that he had NO sexual intent in these encounters. This testimony from Gary Smalley confirms that all the evidence points to the fact that it WAS a sexual intent/act, making Bill to be a liar. In my mind, you're missing the entire point. Of course you have the constitutional right to free speech to argue that a woman, in her lingerie, sitting in a man's lap in his bedroom late at night is not sexual. But I'm guessing every other red-blooded male out there will choose to disagree with the fact that a beautiful lingerie-cladded young woman in a man's lap is not a turn-on. But seriously, even if the woman was full of grey hair and wrinkles and 60 years old, could Bill still say it was okay to have a secretary siting on his lap in a "non-sexual" way?! There's absolutely no way to excuse this.
EXACTLY. All we (as in, reasonable adults) are taking issue with in this situation is that Gothard just does not play by the same rules he sets out for others. And don't try to tell me that he is "above all that" or some other crock of bull.
Beyond that, I'd love to find anyone who thinks it is "harmless" for an adult male to have a 14 year old female sitting on his lap (who isn't his child). Like George Will says, this doesn't pass the straight face test.
Just for clarification's sake, in this circumstance, the female who for sure was sitting on Gothard's lap was not the same 14 year old who is also mentioned in this article. (unless I missed something.)
I noticed that too on a re-read...thanks for clarifying.
(not that it makes it that much better!)
REALLY, Alfred?! It is clear that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented, you will find a way to wriggle out of believing it.
If I found out that my young daughter had been sitting on the lap of a man 20+ years her senior, in a secluded cabin, in her "skimpy" or "sheer" nightwear, I would be outraged. I would bring harassment charges. I would snatch her home so fast that heads would spin. And I think any rational, reasonable parent would feel the same.
That problem is compounded by the fact that while he was enticing young ladies to sit in his lap in their nighties, and "patting and fondling" them, he was telling the entire rest of the world that it was a terrible moral failing just to hold hands with a person of the opposite gender to whom you were not married. That there were certain levels of friendship and certain stages of courtship, and that "patting and fondling" and seeing each other in revealing clothing was not appropriate until after the wedding.
The Bible says that whatever yardstick you use to judge others is the yardstick that will be used to judge you. That teachers are held to a higher standard. That we are not to have one rule for one set of people and another rule for another set of people.
And Bill was teaching all of us — ALL OF US — that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" and that we had to maintain physical AND emotional purity in our relationships.
Lap-sitting is NOT maintaining purity according to the standards Bill taught. I don't know what God thinks about it, since I can't find lap-sitting in my Bible. But according to Bill's OWN teachings, according to HIS yardstick, he was behaving in an impure manner.
And I got news for ya. The world at large DOES see lap-sitting as extremely intimate behaviour. I will never forget the excoriating tongue-lashing I got from the head of my major department at college when he caught me sitting in my boyfriend's lap. And we were in a crowded hallway full of people, fully clothed, and not touching in any other way. We weren't even holding hands or kissing. We were just sharing a seat between classes. But the way that professor acted, you'd have thought we were ... well, you know. He threatened to expel me.
This lap-sitting in a nightie is SERIOUS. It's not the little nothing you are trying to pretend it is. And in light of Bill's own teachings, it's defrauding, immoral, and grounds for disqualification from ministry. And it directly refutes his long-standing claims about his own sexual purity.
"I don't know what God thinks about it, since I can't find lap-sitting in my Bible"
Hmmm. . . I think 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 is close enough, given the context of the whole chapter, don't you?
Alfred, if this was such an innocuous event, then why did Gary Smalley think that it had the potential to derail Gothard's ministry?
Alfred, you overlook too much to be viable:
1. The article states that BG had no blessing from the father to date the woman. Not sure where you get the idea that they’re dating. But assuming they were, BG was lying to the parents and breaking his own rules.
2. BG said in his public statement, “My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust.” That word “wrong” has two basic meanings, “not correct or true (as in, not factual)” and/or “unjust, dishonest, immoral.” He is obviously not saying, “My actions…were not correct or true.” He is saying, “My actions…were unjust, dishonest, immoral.” Moral failings.
3. If this was a minor infraction, why did Smalley say anything about it at all? He cast the situation in a certain light. Either he or BG is a liar.
Did the fact that my girl friend/fiance sat on my lap (no, no nightwear, living room, parents present) constitute "sexual intent"? I would never have allowed her brother to sit on my lap. Please . . . I kissed her in ways that, well, I have never kissed anyone else. Passions are hot . . . that is kind of the point, the point of the rules. What will you condemn me of? I never felt any need to confess anything because . . . we didn't do anything wrong. Or . . . do you allege I did?
So . . . we all agree, Gary Smalley included, that having a woman who was in love with him, and he allegedly with her, on his lap in her nightgown in the cabin at night was dumb. A failure of his own very high standards. We agree! He resigned from the ministry over that. To twist that into "fondling" and "touching the private parts of a woman" and "sexual immorality" is simply wrong. It is a violation of truthfulness.
The girl you eventually married sat in your lap, "no nightwear, living room, parents present" --- and yet you equivocate that with Bill alone with his female employee, up in a cabin, at night, sheer nightie, no parents or anyone else present, and the entire existence of the "relationship" was a secret.
If Bill would have taken her out to an ice cream shop on a real date, and they had sat there in public playing footsie, and she had the blessing of her parents to be in this relationship, we would not be having this discussion today. As it is, this entire thing reeks of secrecy and exploitation.
Alfred, do you know the meaning of the word "sheer"? Anything that I would call sheer would have a very see-through quality that would leave nothing to the imagination. So a sheer nightgown would be "see-through". Maybe nightgown isn't the best word as it seems to cause you to think of a long sleeved, high-neck, flannel nightgown which would cause no impure thoughts.
Alfred, the fact you are ignoring is that BG wasn't dating this girl. If he had it would have been slightly different. You are applying rules that apply to dating couples to a man who want dating and didn't have the parents permission in the first place. And to add to that it was an employee. How can you be so dense as to not see how wrong this is? I pity you.
"After all, his own staff member had personally observed Bill with a secretary on his lap late at night (Bill insisted to the staffer that he was dating the woman at the time, although he later told her father that their relationship was nothing of the sort, and that he had never made any promises of marriage)" https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/the-scandal-1980/ The woman definitely had expectations that this would lead to marriage and accepted personal involvement consistent with that. Sounds like a man conflicted.
Eva & Matthew: "Shear" is your word, not used. If it was as you imply, then the statement quoted by RG about the activities being "not terribly unusual for a dating couple outside of the Institute" - the implication being a Christian dating couple - makes no sense. See through night gear is anything but "not terribly unusual".
"Sounds like a man conflicted."
Sounds like a man TELLING A LIE.
Alfred, you wrote: 'Eva & Matthew: "Shear" is your word, not used.'
You may have read the article too quickly. It is actually used. Gary Smalley wrote to BG in the email quoted above: 'Remember I was one of the staff who saw [name of secretary redacted] sitting on your lap with her sheer night ware on.'
'Sheer' is Smalley's word.
—
Alfred, I have no idea how your comments read to you – everyone sees the world from their own perspective – but this is the view of your comments from my 20 years out of ATI, relatively recent RG commenter perspective: If RG had asked someone to post as a parody Gothard supporter in order to undermine and/or destroy any pro-Gothard arguments, they could not have done a better job than you already do. (See Poe's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law) I write this hoping it sheds some additional light on why your comments receive such incredulous and vociferous responses. You certainly make the discussion lively, but from where I sit it looks like you are actually hurting your cause.
That is how it seems to me, too.
I can't spell, so that explains why I couldn't find "sheer" after looking for "shear". Apologies on that.
So I move to my other point . . . which gives an authoritative synopsis of these events and related: "the things that they did would not be terribly unusual for a dating couple outside of the Institute". I guess I have a hard time resolving a see through nightie with things "not . . . terribly unusual". The whole reason we are having this discussion is that very point. Which - I think - RG is well aware of.
The point of this article is not to spin on "shear". It gives the perspective of Gary, who clearly was concerned about such situations, but is also clearly not aware of ANY instance of what is commonly called "fondling", including this one. They also give Tony's perspective who was NOT there . . . who believes that woman on lap = "touching private parts of a woman" = fondling. I believe that to be misleading at best.
As to my personal reputation . . . let that be what it is. I am a Bill supporter, I still love and appreciate him. I happen to have met with him this week. As "family" would do, I tend to find the best spin in a situation instead of the worst. And when conclusions are presented as facts that Bill strongly denies, AND that have no basis in any fact presented so far, it really bothers me. I don't defend secretary alone with him at night in her night gear, whatever it was, on his lap. It just looks so bad, something that just needs to not happen, not for a major evengelical leader. Again . . . HE RESIGNED. It was a huge event, immensely humbling for him, devastating to the ministry, his legacy. I hope RG is righteous in continuing to pick at it. But the facts remain that the "fondling" charge picked up by the LA Times has no more foundation than the facts presented above . . . woman on lap with 5 instead of 6 mm of material separating their private parts. That . . . is not honest.
@Alfred: you wrote
I tend to find the best spin in a situation instead of the worst.
I would only state that this is not helping anyone, however well intended. Not Bill, not the victims of his abuse, not the kingdom of GOD. No one. Nobody. What Bill needs is a big plate full of honesty, especially from his friends.
Alfred, if you had used my spelling of "sheer" (and I do know how to spell) you would have found it in there. Instead you used the word "shear" which means to cut off or break off or as in wind shear. Or to shear a sheep or maybe even in stress shear like in an airplane damage.
"It just looks so bad, something that just needs to not happen, not for a major evengelical leader. Again . . . HE RESIGNED. It was a huge event, immensely humbling for him, devastating to the ministry, his legacy."
Alfred, you keep pointing out how seriously Bill Gothard took this event- that he resigned, as you stated about. This is nonsense. Did you forget that he stepped right back into power in just 17 days? How convenient that you just omit that.
Did you forget that he and his surrogates fired 2/3 of the staff, getting rid of anyone who might question his move back to power?
To act like these events were taken care of back then by his so called "resignation" is about as revisionist as one can be about the situation.
It was not resolved back that. That is why many individuals who were close to him took it to the church afterwords. He completely refused to be accountable for what he did.
He never should have stepped back into power after 17 days. You admit how bad this event was, even though you are putting your self admitted positive spin on it, and yet there he is back after 17 days.
So, if it was serious enough that it was appropriate that he should resign, what happened in those 17 days that suddenly made him above reproach?
Do you believe, after those 17 days passed and he stepped back to lead the ministry that he was above reproach at that point? What changed?
You think Christian women don't wear negliges for premarital sex? Pray tell, what IS the standard attire for that activity?
I'm wondering if BG himself picked out the sheer nightgown and gave it to her. Maybe he wanted to see how she looked in it.
Tangent, I believe we know enough without asking who bought the nightie. BG would lead young women into believing they were being seriously considered for marriage. BG would become disenchanted with them and send them to the Northwood campus where he knew his brother was preying upon them. We also know that he made a custom of hugging them goodnight after they changed into their nighties. We also know he claims to have special rhemas from God.
The ground work is set up for him visiting the Northwood campus and a young woman who he lead on concerning marriage showing up at his quarters there after being prey upon by his brother seeking to get permission from him to relocate to another campus. I'm not saying this is what happened. I am saying there could be many reasons for the scenario that Gary Smalley discovered without sexual intent on the young woman's part, or seduction as far as the nightie being sheer.
As for BG, he knew his brother was abusing the young women sent there and did nothing to protect them. He used his power to place them in a horrible situation ans used his power to keep them in that situation. He claims to have special messages from God concerning his teachings and how are those young women to know the difference between God's guidance in BG decisions and his self centered decisions?
While some here are focused on the sexual harassment/abuse I am more concerned with the abuse od power. Retread this article and the others in chronological order and his establishment of controlling others is very apparent.
>>>>
Alfred said: So . . . we all agree, Gary Smalley included, that having a woman who was in love with him, and he allegedly with her, on his lap in her nightgown in the cabin at night was dumb. A failure of his own very high standards. We agree! He resigned from the ministry over that. To twist that into "fondling" and "touching the private parts of a woman" and "sexual immorality" is simply wrong. It is a violation of truthfulness.
<<<
Alfred, why was he even with a woman if he had the "gift of singleness"? After he resigned, did he not get his "ministry" back after about seventeen days? Why do the accusations of fondling and sexual immorality keep coming up against the same "ministry leader"? Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19
We have three married children. If any of them had sat on their fiance's laps in our presence it would have made us very uncomfortable. All knew better than to do it. My husband and I engaging in that behavior, even though fully clothed, would also have made our children uncomfortable.
Alfred, also, you don't "date" an employee. She was his secretary, and he was in a position of authority and power over her. This is textbook sexual harassment. If his intent was to "date" her, with the possibility of marrying her, she should have been removed from his direct supervision.
There's no spin here except the one rationalizing this away as "normal" dating behavior.
^ Agree with the above comments by greg r, eva, kevin, & Mosessister.
Mosessister Disagree on "Sexual harrassment", since that involves something one party considers unwelcome. You of all people know that, right? I leave the rest. These are people in their 30s/20s . . . in a ministry they both believed in. I am sure you can think of romances that have started under similar circumstances and resulted in marriage. To call this an "employer/employee" relationship is a complete mid-characterization.
And . . . honestly . . . we need to stop equivocating this event between clearly marriageable adults to the matters that prompted the recent statement. "Sexual Intent" . . . wanting to marry someone is, I suppose, "sexual intent"? The terms are used very imprecisely. I wanted to - and in fact did - marry my sweetheart ... who ended up on my lap. He did - want to marry the secretary - even though he was much conflicted. The recent events were completely different in "intent".
@Alfred, you are coming perilously close here to the 'she wanted it' argument common to sexual abusers of all sorts (and those who justify them). Careful.
good caution P.L. I just want to add, that people who steadfastly defend sexual abusers often are.
not always, but often. Learned that the hard way.
Alfred, Gothard would have been around 45 at the time of this incident. While the woman's age isn't given, she is referred to as a "young" woman, so I think it is safe to assume she was at least 20 years younger than he. She was his secretary. He was in a position of authority and power over her, even discounting the age difference. The power differential is key to my characterization of the incident as textbook sexual harassment. Yes, this goes on in the workplace all the time. That doesn't make it right.That's why organizations have sexual harassment policies in place, because it's wrong and can cause all sorts of problems. I can't think of any org I've ever worked for that allowed a romantic relationship between a supervisor and an employee to continue once it became known. I'm sure this has been covered in sensitivity training in your workplace as well. It is irrelevant to me whether or not Gothard had sexual intent, although I feel denial is evidence of pathology. This was clearly an inappropriate relationship indicative of moral failure in Gothard, that clearly DQs him from ministry, and for which he needs to confess, repent, and make restitution.
Definition of power relationship: one where the superior holds enough clout to cause the inferior to fear their denial of advances would bring negative consequences into their professional life.
Watch A SINGLE episode of SVU, Alfred. Or read a newspaper. We aren't in 1867 anymore.
Yes. Right.
He was 39 when she started working there . . . so my math is off a bit. She was in her early 20s when this played out. Jacob was 84 when he married Rachel . . . Moses was at least 80 when he married his first wife . . . and if the black wife that Moses sister complained about in Numbers 12 wasn't Zipporah, then he was much older than that with that marriage. Anyway . . .
And to call him her "employment supervisor" in a ministry that he built is, again, interesting. Since the early 1990s the Gothard assistants have all been male, the model I am personally acquainted with. They rise with him at 4AM, study with him, travel the world with him, work with him, go to church with him . . . and at times live with him. "Discipleship" and "Ministry" is the model, not employment. Which is why many labored in the ministry . . . for free (room and board).
Your argument that this is not employment is ridiculous, Alfred. You've made it before, and I will answer you as before:
If he wasn't their employer, then he didn't hire, fire, or set organization policy, did he? Oh wait, he did.
We know from other stories of the women's experience:
Bill threatened with dismissal.
Bill would send "staff women to his brother for various training."
At least one "was punished by being demoted. She was given a choice: she could work as a clerk in the registration department (an entry level position) or leave Headquarters and go to the Northwoods property and work for Bill’s brother."
These are emphatically the actions of an employer. What you call Bill, or what Bill calls himself, are just your own labels.
spoken like a polished apologist, Alfred; and I'm quite sure that Bill blurred these lines as much as possible, with the 'employment' line the faintest, so more sweat could be wrung out of the slav.....ahem.... disciples. this does not make it right, even if it is what happened.
If (and that's a big *if), you are completely right in your assigning only positive intent, you are still defending a hypocrite who sent boys home for talking to girls in front of people at their desks and not even touching them. The ministry you defend sent my friend home because she was courting WITH parental blessing. Yet, Gothard let a skimpily dressed girl (we weren't allowed to walk in the halls on a GIRL's floor in completely modest pajamas) sit on his lap when he was alone with her in her bedroom. The hypocrisy alone should make anyone concerned with integrity nauseated.
So . . . the disciples of Jesus were . . . employees? The disciples of Paul, who traveled with him . . . he "fired" Mark at one point . . . he "hired" others . . . "rehired" Mark right at the end. Your response baffles me . . . unless you are unfamiliar with a ministry or church structure which is, as you know, every bit an "authority structure" as a business. Just . . . not employment.
Alfred, for obvious reasons, you would prefer to discuss what "fondling" really means or what "employee" really means and whether Paul had them than the subject of this post.
Jesus...Paul...really, Alfred? When Bill Gothard is an itinerant evangelist who is NOT overseeing tens of millions of dollars in assets, a legally incorporated entity, and a detailed organizational structure with a board of directors, get back to me. Meanwhile, I'm laughing.
And around we go, Ileata. Gary was VERY concerned . . . had I been there, I would have been beside myself. What Bill does affects me personally. Somehow that is being missed. And . . . the board acted, Bill resigned, he confessed to "defrauding", why . . . this very incident. We are acting as those this is unresolved.
The "defense" comes in when Bill is - based on statement in the Veinot book and the LA Times article - STILL accused of having gone a lot further than what happened. He stopped short of any behavior that would be worthy of, say, excommunication from his church.
Bill has not always done the wisest thing, especially with proximity to women. It has cost him, dearly. But for the record, and as unbelievable as it seems to some, he never crossed the line into "immorality". [and spare me the notion that all kinds of mean things are "immoral" - let's stick to the Biblical definition]
Alfred, you can parse it all you want, and I'm sure you will, my point, well one of my points is that you can't escape the fact that yes, they were employees, and he was their authority in an employer's sense. He was more than that, but he was not less than that. Of course even if a person was able to remove the employment angle, Bill stands at odds with the abuse of the power he had as a ministry leader, so this does not strengthen any of the points you are trying to make, Alfred. I'll leave this subthread alone before you remind me the Bill and his harem were like family....
I've said this before, but one sign of a particlularly evil person is that they do not recognize the limits and boundaries that 'normal' people, (even nonbelievers most of the time) recognize: to whit, when I ran my painting business, I did not play a 'ministry card' in order to get free overtime out of my employees. In fact I was scrupulous to pay them for ANYTHING extra, even 10 min. because I did not want them thinking I was taking advantage of them.
When I supervise charity painting, it's a whole 'nother ball game, but that's a different set of expectations altogether. Free, VOLUNTEER labor, people show up, and leave, when they want. Bill wanted the intensity of upper end painting, with the flexibility on his side, of charity work. Tails, Bill wins, heads Bill wins.....
Alfred, characterizing the relationship as discipler and disciple only makes it worse! Ugh. Any situation where legitimate power/authority is exploited for the gratification of the one in power is morally repugnant. I really find it difficult to believe that you... And Gothard himself can't see this. It is disgusting and clearly indicative of moral sin that has apparently never been totally resolved. Kyrie Eleison.
Alfred, please answer the question posed below regarding how BG would have handled the exact same scenario with a young man BG follower with the young lady dressed as she was where she was in his lap instead of BG's. What would BG's response have been?
Why stick to the "Biblical" definition now? Bill never did.
>>>>
Alfred said:
Bill has not always done the wisest thing, especially with proximity to women. It has cost him, dearly. But for the record, and as unbelievable as it seems to some, he never crossed the line into "immorality". [and spare me the notion that all kinds of mean things are "immoral" - let's stick to the Biblical definition]
>>>>
Why is Bill in the proximity of women if he has these problems? Perhaps he should have taken his "gift of singleness" more seriously and listened to what God had commanded him.
I would say according to Charlotte, his touches were immoral (according to the Biblical definition), therefore, he crossed the line. Oh wait, you said Charlotte was a liar...never mind.
"I would say according to Charlotte, his touches were immoral (according to the Biblical definition), therefore, he crossed the line. Oh wait, you said Charlotte was a liar...never mind."
Father With Daughters,
Alfred has painstakingly constructed a world in which Gothard did not behave immorally and tells the truth. When an account, and there have been many, pierces the fabric of this world, then the only conclusion that he can draw is that the witness is lying, in order to preserve the integrity of his parallel world.
So, yes, that means Charlotte must be lying. And remember that so much of this created world relies on Gothard's honesty- after all, he looked him in the eyes and said he has never touched a woman's privates. Now, if a proven liar said such a thing, one would not give it much gravitas. So, in order for this world to have integrity,and for Gothard to remain honest, all the accounts that Gothard has lied must be false.
There are an awful lot of people that one has to call liars and throw under the bus in order to preserve the illusion that Gothard is an honest man.
Sonic Bloom- flat out proven lies and deception. So, I guess the person who shared that testimony must also now become a liar. Bill Gothard's statements to the masses of the amazing, proven results, when in fact the study did not give evidence to this. Nah, must all be made up.
The fact that Gothard told Gary Smalley that he was dating the woman in the sheer nightie, but told her parents he was doing nothing of the sort. Hmmmm, maybe Gary was lying. Certainly not Bill. Or maybe, as Alfred calls it, Gothard was just conflicted?
What about the four men who confronted Bill Gothard in 1980 and called him out on the fact that he was lying when he claimed that he had just learned of Steven's sexual predatory behavior and fornication, when in fact they knew for certain that he had known about it since 1976, because they had confronted him about it then? I suppose they all must be liars as well.
The list goes on. It turns out that there is a huge conspiracy, and dozens, if not hundreds of people are creating false stories and lying, just to make it look like Bill Gothard is a liar.
Or...maybe...just maybe.... there is one central figure here who has a long, long history of lies and deceit who is the one who is not being honest. Oh, but then the make believe world crumbles, so let's toss that idea out.
If you and BG had even the slightest clue what genuine Christian "Discipleship" and "Ministry" really entailed, we wouldn't be here commenting on this thread in the first place. I'm absolutely appalled when I read the twisted rationalizations--the massive effort of straining out gnats and swallowing camels--that goes on in your reasoning! Decent people in the world are better judges of behavior that crosses the line of sin in a situation such as this than you and BG are!
"Poor Bill" one would think after all the years he has been around "liars", he'd figure out how to detect liars better and save himself all this trouble and bad publicity.
On a different note, anybody who was deeply involved in Bill Gothard's programs and knows about music, could you please give me an example of "godly music" and "evil music" pertaining to the beat. That has always confused me since I lack any musical talent.
Thanks
>>>
Kevin said:
"The list goes on. It turns out that there is a huge conspiracy, and dozens, if not hundreds of people are creating false stories and lying, just to make it look like Bill Gothard is a liar."
<<<
Oh, Alfred, you funny, funny man.
Alfred, I'm all with you that the proven behavior is consistent with a dating relationship, and not actual fornication. And I understand that you are reconciled to the lapsitting incident because Gothard has admitted defrauding. However, Gothard's most recent confession claims he "has not touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent". Your own description of your lapsitting experience indicates to me that you had sexual intent, albeit sufficiently restrained and under her father's gaze to avoid "immorality". I think that you, like me, do not consider sexual intent toward a covenant bride (or intended) is not per se immoral.
But Gothard categorically denies any sexual intent in any incident including his admitted defrauding touches. Do you believe that Gothard has never touched a woman or girl with sexual intent? Even if he believes he didn't, should he trust his own heart, which as he taught us all is deceitfully wicked above all things? Or should he trust the sincere and sorrowful judgment of every one of us, including you, I hope, that his proven behavior provides sufficient evidence to establish a sexual intent at least in nightgown wearing lapsitting of a dating partner? Can you imagine any jury of red-blooded human beings deciding that there was insufficient evidence to establish sexual intent? (I'm not saying there is a legal case here, I'm just referencing juries as our best known, most trusted fact-finding process.) If you have said something like, "yeah, he's likely lying to himself about that sexual intent thing", I missed that so I'm sorry for asking you to repeat it. But, as chief defender, we need you to let us cross-examine your position just as you cross-examine RG's. (BTW, I have never heard the explanation of what she was doing in HIS cabin in a nightgown, but such undisclosed facts are always hanging around when you cover up unresolved matters. Best case, as you seem to hopefully speculate at times, she was trying to seduce him, he was counseling her out of it and chivalry has covered up her foolishness.)
It is fair for you to nitpick the RG statements summarizing and characterizing evidence. But such attacks against the messenger result in redirecting attention away from the substance of the assertions and the actual evidence provided. I will accept your claims that RG unfairly characterizes some evidence. But Gothard's defense demands that the evidence be addressed directly.
You have represented yourself as very sincere and willing to be convinced by convincing evidence. I am therefore very interested in your evaluation of the conclusions of "Tony" in the correspondence above, with respect to Gothard's behavior. I believe it is represented that Tony had much more in depth interviews with the women involved circa 1980 than did Smalley. Tony's 18 month role appears to have included investigatory duties, if I understand the story correctly. Forgetting RG's representations, how do you respond to Tony's 2007 representations of facts and his informed judgment of unacknowledged sins including lusting and using liberty as a cloak for vice? That, for me, is the new material in today's posting. That, not RG's characterizations, has added to the public case that the church is being forced to judge (or ignore) because of Gothard's apparent refusal to make a full confession and demonstrate repentance at a time when you and others continue to rely on his questionable teaching.
Gary Smalley clearly loves Bill Gothard. Smalley carefully avoids stating anything beyond what he personally knows for sure. But he seems to be a lot less reconciled than you are to Gothard's integrity. I truly wish you could convince me that your judgment is correct. Then I could quit apologizing to my kids for being deceived by Gothard and start apologizing to them for not trusting Gothard. But you have a lot of convincing to do before I think I could encourage one of my or anyone's daughters to work for him. I truly admire your persistence.
BTW, to avoid confusion, I use "integrity" not to mean moral perfection, but to mean reliable honesty, and transparency, about all known imperfection.
^ What he said!
Thanks, Don, for a well thought out response. Here comes a longer response.
1) Sexual intent: I have heard males with a fear of God justifying prolonged gazes aimed at beautiful women as "appreciating God's creation - honoring God's creativity". Said with conviction. I say - take the hormones out, sir, and tell me where your gazes go. If you don't gaze as intently at handsome fellows, I vote sex drive, even if you are appreciating hair color and texture and other things besides sexual components. That is overtly not “lust”, by the testimony of the gazers, but they are somewhat deceiving themselves. If you corner such a male and accuse him of "sexual intent", he might react, a lot. Or he would issue a statement that he never had "sexual intent". For the purpose of establishing an overt motive, this is true. There are those that lust after women, know what they are doing, and why. I do NOT see the two as the same. One does not understand his own heart, the other is embracing the known base desires of his heart.
Bill is among those that does not understand his own heart at times. If you know him - if you only knew him - you would understand that to be exactly correct. That validates the feelings of the young ladies who felt "creeped out". It also highlights the reality that Bill lives in a different world, a world of transparent motives, as he sees it, while not always understanding what moves him at times. As recently as last year he said to those close to him that he needed to implement stricter boundary rules, "because of the appearance of evil", and NOT because anything was wrong. He really believed that. I have hope that this perspective has fundamentally changed.
Bottom line, the statement IS accurate from his perspective. He never had any “sexual intent” toward the young ladies that made his eyes light up when they walked into the room, to whom he gave his credit card to fix up their rooms, that shared their heart with him as he sat close to them, that he “relaxed” with while playing footsie, whose hair he admired as he touched it. If you, for example, asked him why he spent so much more time with the girls than the fellows, he said it was because girls are not afraid to share their hearts, making it easier to help them. He had reasons to explain his actions.
I would ALSO point out that this statement is geared for recent stories, not 1980. We make a big mistake to try to interpret his statement in the light of 1980 (and before). Those events are covered by a statement made to the Board before his resignation then, where he confessed to “defrauding” Ruth and others. Defrauding meaning openly considering them for marriage, implying that he loved a young woman and was planning for their future and, based upon which, she allowed him certain liberties afforded to one’s Intended.
2) Only intent in detracting from the intent of the OP is to make crystal clear, once again, that from all I know, based on every fact and statement that I have been able to gather, Bill NEVER crossed the line into immorality, not with “the secretary”, not since. So much is assumed by one, and then taken as fact by another. Things like, “He confessed to immorality to the Board”. Nope, he never did.
3) “I have never heard the explanation of what she was doing in HIS cabin in a nightgown” If you know anything about Bill you know he works incessantly. He – and those that work with him – are focused on projects from early morning until late at night. That his personal assistant was working with him at that hour would not be unusual – par for the course - and that was what he was allegedly doing. That his assistant was female, that they were alone . . . and with her in “casual wear” (yes, I am spinning this) would be a lot harder to figure out. I am left with her testimony that nothing untoward ever happened between them. And she had every motive to “take him down” when this all concluded.
4) I have had long correspondence with Tony. Tony’s interviews with the women are part of a record that is known to the principle players here. Tony is an immensely private person – I had trouble believing that he would allow personal correspondence to be posted in this way . . . but, if so, great. Tony has his opinions and perspectives. I have his statements to me that he considers “sitting on a lap with secretary in a thin nightgown” as equivalent to “fondling” per se, so he has no problem justifying that allegation. I disagree. He also believes a confession of masturbation to be implicitly “lusting after a woman in your heart” and so equivalent to adultery (so stated in a document of his that was posted to RG . . . and has since disappeared?) with every associated stigma and punishment. This allows him to make an accusation of “adultery” against those wrestling with that habit. I again disagree with his ability to freely take commonly defined terms and applying a spiritual twist to it – or the opinion of C. S. Lewis - and then making an accusation without qualification. This is the sort of “trick” that generally has the legalist-haters howling. The LA Times would not get his nuances, no more than they would understand Bill’s confession of “defrauding a secretary”.
Gary’s comments make clear that he has the ability to overtly declare that he personally knows of no instance of “fondling” or worse. He would be reluctant to do so because it raises his own public involvement in this to levels that would be disruptive to his own fruitful ministry. And . . . he wanted to be sure that the overarching issues were resolved, i.e. how did we get to this point anyway, as opposed to putting a band-aid over the incident.
5) Gary wants to help Bill, substantively, permanently. He is genuine friends with Tony and he is genuine friends with Bill. That is the kind of man he is. I admire that in him. I would like that same objectivity and integrity.
Thank you very much, Alfred. This is a very direct response and it helps me understand you and your perspective very well. As to my inquisition, I have a problem with one part of your long and near full response, that is your extensive discussion of gazing when the circumstances, and my inquiry, relate to Bill's categorical denial of touching with sexual intent. Your explanation that Bill does not know his own heart and that most men would respond with denial are honest and clarifying. I hope that you think he is mistaken and should probably be corrected and then make a more accurate confession before all this can be behind him.
But you did not answer my related question of whether Bill should trust his heart or trust our objective evaluation of the evidence. He did not say lust, he said sexual intent. He did not say "in the recent cases" he said he has never touched a woman with sexual intent. Never includes 1979-80. If he forgot Smalley's observation, maybe he forgot the lapsitting incident that you say generated his first resignation.
You raise an interesting perspective about sexual function. I am struggling with my own philosophy about personhood and sexuality. I'm being drawn toward a more unified, less tripartite view of human nature, largely through the teaching of Christopher West simplifying John Paul II's Theology of the Body. One aspect: we are bodily beings, created to reflect God's Nature and Glorify Him in our bodies. I Cor. 6 speaks to this. I infer, correct me if I am mistaken, that you believe a man can masturbate without lust. That a man's sexual function can be amoral like liquid and solid evacuation. To me, this seems a companion to "meat for the belly and the belly for meat but the Lord will destroy both it and them".
I suspect that such minimiation of our physical sexuality misses the mark. I am coming to believe that everything about marriage, in its Creation design, speaks wonderful things about the intimate, full, fruitful, faithful, freely shared Communion that IS God's Loving Trinitarian Nature. Treating sex as a physical need, treating marriage as a "legal" way to satiate that need, treating sexual function per se as amoral, treating contraception as amoral, are all common attitudes, but it is these attitudes in our culture, yes and in our churches, that lead homosexuals to ask the church why they can't get in on the functional equivalent. (I believe that marriage is no more a cure for lust than a banquet is a cure for gluttony.) If one can masturbate without lust, that raises the question whether one can have sexual intercourse or sodomy with a stranger without immoral intent, you know, just for bodily relief. Such self-deluded thinking has gotten many into all kinds of trouble. I testify from my experience that I cannot "function" without sexual intent. If it were possible it would still be a misuse of the body in direct contravention to God's Design (isn't design supposed to be important to Gothard's friends?) I testify from Scripture that sexual intent outside covenant marriage expressed in selfless intimacy is sin. Your body is not your own. It is your wife's. Sin is never completely absent (Romans 7) in sexual union, but thank God His Grace sanctifies committed Christian marriage (and every marriage that God has joined together, all without going through 7 or 10 steps to clear up the impurity). So much more needs to be said about these things, but I will stop here.
In Hosea 2, God says: "you will call me Ishi". This relates directly to the initiation of the one flesh union of Adam and Eve. Paul discloses that "...two shall be one flesh" is a profound mystery. It is a mystery that is betrayed and denied in non-spousal sexual expression. This Truth of God's Lovingly Intimately Communing Interpersonal Nature is bound up in our creation in His image as sexual beings. Song of Solomon shouts this with joy. (God is not "sexual"--sexuality is a pattern which is done away with in the Eternal Fullness.) "Every sin a man does is without the body, but the man who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body." Because the body (not only the mind and spirit) is for the Lord, not for sexual immorality (including self-centered relief). The truth is not easy or convenient, but it is Awesome! Flee sexual immorality and do not explain it away in any form.
Alfred, I meant "minimization" not "minimization". Also, I wrote my response to encourage you to love and good deeds, NOT to dispute. I have been changed in heart, mind, soul and body by the Theology of the Body and I highly recommend it. I truly appreciated your response to my inquisition. Such directness acquits you well.
Ahh, shades of Harold Skimpole...an aged man who maintains that he is a "perfect child", and comprehends nothing of this world.
"I covet nothing" says Skimpole, "Possession is nothing to me..." Skimpole is then arrested for debt.
But he is saved from the workhouse by his (truly naive) friends, whom he has (with his fake naivete) conned into feeling that they should be grateful for the opportunity of paying his debts, as he has allowed them to experience the luxury of being generous!
(Bleak House, Charles Dickens)
Your explanation that Bill does not know his own heart and that most men would respond with denial are honest and clarifying. I hope that you think he is mistaken and should probably be corrected and then make a more accurate confession before all this can be behind him.
Here is the statement: “My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.”
He acknowledges that foot touching – “footsies” – crossed the boundary of discretion and was wrong. I agree. What would you have him say beyond that? That he did it because it aroused him sexually? He denies this to be the case. I believe he is stating the truth. When he told a small group last year that this had to do with the “appearance of evil” and no actually issue, he was deceived. I am not sure what else he should say now.
“He did not say "in the recent cases" he said he has never touched a woman with sexual intent. Never includes 1979-80”
Boy . . . by this you, again, condemn me, one who had my future wife on my lap in her living room with her parents observing. I would not have put her brother there. What would you have me confess to? I did it “with sexual intent”? Please tell me. Had her father – whom a love and who loved me – known that I had “sexual intent”, he would have taken the strongest action, for he demanded that we remain pure.
“I infer, correct me if I am mistaken, that you believe a man can masturbate without lust.” “
Tony assumes no. I merely want to point out that adultery in the OT carried the death penalty . . . and “uncleanness” kept a male out of the temple and away from people for less than 24 hours. And Dr. Dobson, for one, has famously – infamously for some – come out to say that this is “no big deal”. Here is a man who would condemn adultery in the strongest terms - you can see that others would disagree with Tony’s conclusions. That smacks of our friend “legalism”, whom we all hate so much.
Sodomy was also afforded the death penalty. Premarital sex was punishable by marriage with no chance of future divorce. The law teaches us the way God thinks. All sexual activity outside of marriage wrong . . . but apparently not equivalent in importance.
If Bill "does not understand his own heart" then how come he thinks he can depend on his own heart to give him "NEW INSIGHTS" Oh how I wish I had seen that for what it really means. False teachings, among them. He claimed it was from The Lord but a man who "does not understand his own heart" surely can't be trusted to know who he is getting his insights from. And if he "does not understand his own heart" then how is it that you, Alfred, put such trust in him. He sounds like one tossed by every wind of doctrine if he can't even "understand his own heart". I've never hear anything like that said by anyone about another human being. For that matter it doesnt' even make any sense. Just more words to try to sidetrack the truth of his sin. The Lord knows our hearts and he says they are wicked and deceitful. DECEITFUL...
Alfred, you said: "Boy . . . by this you, again, condemn me, one who had my future wife on my lap in her living room with her parents observing."
OK, now you seem to be changing the subject from B.G. to you. I was not talking about you. As you quote, he said "never" "touched" "with sexual intent". We've already agreed that sexual intent is not always immoral, specifically we all agree that sexual intent inside marriage or in anticipation thereof. Can't you simply agree that Gothard needs to be corrected here, that he cannot deny ever touching with sexual intent, and at least correct his "apology"? This has nothing to do with our lapsitting experience. It is his written statement (one he had many weeks to prepare and make accurate, but said "never" when that cannot be).
You did not answer my last question: should Bill receive correction about his own intentions?
You also evaded my challenge about lust free self-stimulation, preferring to introduce the different topic of ceremonial "impurity". I've read the books of Moses many times and have never speculated the self-referential manner of a priest's "impurity". I my world, if I have relations with my wife, there is contact with semen and had I been an Aaronic priest, I would be ceremonially unclean. That is all those passages need to address. There is NO basis, in the context of all those verses about bodily fluids, menstrual flow, etc., to infer non-marital ejaculation as the impurity addressed. Can you just answer my challenge? Do you believe that a person can do that act without lust in their heart? Or shoudl I have read your diversion as an admission: impurity entails lust? If so, directness works better with me. But also, if so, you are then implying lust in marital relations which also cause ceremonial impurity for priests.
I Cor. 7 "your body is not your own" is all the Scripture I need to lead me away from self-stimulation. But you seem to have constructed a scriptural hierarchy of sex acts that treats sodomy, fornication and masturbation differently. Would you care to advise which sins are mortal and which venial?
God says flee youthful lusts. And sexual immorality is against your own body.
I recommend the Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West to find an entirely new and liberating perspective on our sexuality. God made it for good and for His Glory. Nothing else is acceptable, all else is sin. Selfless, fruitful, full and faithful love is the design and every other sexual expression is a lie about God's design and His Nature, which we are to image, not defile.
@Alfred,
Bill's confession:
Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.”
With scientific studies that show the number of times a day the male brain thinks about sex (many) how can you believe that statement?
I personally haven't blinked in 8 years, haven't even thought about it.
Alfred - For the sake of conversation, I read your posts from the viewpoint that you are right and all of the controversy surrounding Bill Gothard is wrong.
However, I can't make out in your writing how you prove that. I want to believe you. Can you perhaps address the question if all this is wrong and made-up, why would the Board remove Bill and continue to keep him out of leadership?
Why would they do this if it was all the product of ex-students with an ax to grind?
The "girlfriend" was 14! As in early teenager, as in she may have still played dress up with younger siblings!
If we loose everything else, the girl was a child not a dating partner that he may have gotten too intimate before marriage.
This should have been reported by Gary and Tony. I am shocked, just shocked. I don't know who atony is but to feel torn about recommending fathers send their daughters here should have been that BIG aha moment for him. He and Gary both let personality and BG power get in the way of logical thinking.
At the bottom of this discussion there is nothing more bask than this. Basic fail!
You are getting wires crossed, Sue. The 14 year old being referenced in Tony's comments never actually made it to HQ . . . so you can relax on that. Who this was, what the circumstances were that prompted Tony's cautions will likely never be known. That Gary got things really mixed up is clear, from his own acknowledgement this year. And Tony never cross checked beyond that. This entire account is a mess.
You're gaslighting Alfred.
"what the circumstances were that prompted Tony's cautions will likely never be known."
The circumstance was that Bill Gothard was involved personally in the pursuit of a 14 year old girl:
From the email exchange above:
"Gary, as to your question about whether BG is involved sexually with any of his staff, it seems to me that he is quite involved personally and directly in the pursuit of this pretty little 14 year old, to bring to his headquarters office to work for him."
You said:
"That Gary got things really mixed up is clear, from his own acknowledgement this year."
This is not clear at all. Only by your account and in your mind. This was your statement, not Gary's. You have previously shared with us that you drew certain conclusions based on Gary's non-answer to a question or statement that you posed in an email exchange with him. That is a flimsy way for you to draw such a conclusion at best. Yet, you make your comment as if Gary has made some sort of public acknowledgment that he got it mixed up. That's misleading. If Gary wants to acknowledge that he got something wrong in his past statements, I am sure that he can do that himself and does not need you to act as a surrogate for him. When you make such a statement, please be honest and say "in his private statement to me".
I have zero confidence that you have interpreted the communication that you had with Gary accurately, especially given your history of interpreting facts and statements you process in the most glowing terms for Bill Gothard.
" And Tony never cross checked beyond that."
Totally misleading. This behavior on the part of Bill Gothard is well documented. To suggest that it was based on Tony's reliance on one source with a mixed up memory is intellectually dishonest.
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/2014/08/07/bill-gothard-and-the-continuing-sex-scandal/
Please take your gaslighting somewhere else. It is offensive to victims for you to continue to try to re-write history, no matter how much you desire to wipe history to shape Bill Gothard's legacy. It is also harmful to Bill Gothard, to strain for gnats as you do, and then try to minimize what he did to these girls. As Don Venoit has said:
"Those who are trying to mitigate or absolve Bill of his behavior by looking for subtle nuances prevents what Bill most needs to do. He needs to publicly repent and begin the process of restoration."
How do you know that to be true?
I've been perusing this comment string for an hour and I think one thing has not been established. Was Ruth #6 in Tony's records? There has been much talk of Ruth lapsitting in the office. There also appears to be many women involved in the first scandal (which resulted in BG being fired, for 17 days).
What is not clear to me is that the "quarters" and "sheer nightwear" statement was referencing Ruth at all. It was about #6. If Ruth was #6, there is still the possibility that Tony's old collected notes ought to have referenced a different #X (there were apparently so many!) and would not be refuted by Ruth's never being in Bill's quarters and always being fully clothed.
What I recall Gary acknowledged to Alfred this year is that he has no present recollection (38 years later) of Ruth in shear nightwear in BG's quarters. Correct me, Alfred if he said no recollection of any woman in shear nightwear, no recollection of any woman in quarters. Gary has not stated affirmatively that his earlier testimony was "mixed up" or that he did NOT see any woman in share nightwear in BG's quarters.
If two stories were confused by a later story teller, it does not mean that the original stories were confused when originally communicated. There seem to have been more witnesses than Gary, another could have seen shearnightwearinBGquarters and another seen Ruth on lap in office. Proving Ruth was not in quarters or in shear nightwear only disproves the confused version it does not nullify the original stories.
I am not merely speculating. We have a contemporaneous written record of Tony that #6 was the girl. Tony's reference to that in 2006 might have generated a confused memory in GS's mind and no memory may be there now. The story to investigate is the story related in Tony's contemporaneous notes. Not the characterization in the e-mails 25 years later.
But then, Tony was investigating that story (and all of them) with the approval of the Board when he was fired and the investigation was aborted. Alas.
In the emails in 2006 GS confirmed Tony's representation so why would Tony cross-check further? That GS has not seen fit to refute the basis for the emails, as I've stated earlier, shows that he does not believe BG is innocent of the actions described, he may not be certain but he is not convinced BG is innocent. The confidential conversations of GS's wife with many more female victims in that early round of inappropriatenesses are many and likely very revealing of the true nature of BG's behavior then. (Ruth knew mostly about Ruth's experiences. Those were not the only ones. Remember the goodnight hugs in women's dorm rooms after they were prepared for bed.) I don't think they should be revealed today, but I do think they prevent GS from doing what BG asked him to a number of years ago: exonerate BG from accusations of taking sexual liberties. GS can't and won't do that.
Don, exactly. Alfred seems to be shoehorning Ruth into every episode of Bill's inappropriate behavior, and it appears there were multiple women Bill played around with back then.. We have no idea who #6 is, nor should we. Also, we need to remember Gary said "quarters" not "cabin" so the fact the cabin was built later and RG mentioned it in their title has no bearing on Gary's account. We don't know, but the most likely place Gary walked in on Bill and the woman in her nighty was in the lodge.
Note the mistake in the editorial note at the top of the article. Alfred very rightly noted Gary's comments could not have been the cabin, given the time frame, but that doesn't mean what Gary said was untrue. Alfred seemed to think at that point the whole story fell apart, except for the fact that many people could stay at the lodge, and there were sleeping quarters there as well, and Gary did not say the word cabin. And again, the woman Gary saw did not have to be Ruth.
Boy. I have a string of personal emails from Gary, confirmed by others who spoke to him this year, that he and Norma have completely retracted the account given, the very one he said Tony could go on record with. The cabin didn't even exist when Gary was there - that is a fact. And he told me - personally - that what he observed, as confirmed by his wife, happened at HQ, Bill's office. NO nightwear . . . he mentioned a "winter coat", then indicated that he has no recollection of what she was wearing . . . apparently irrelevant, normally clothed. It was Ruth. I asked him several times for any help to reconcile the comments he made to Tony, but he could not recall beyond what he said.
BTW There ARE accounts of Bill hugging young ladies in their night gear up in the Northwoods. Gary never witnessed this. I spoke personally to one of the secretaries there at that time (Northwoods), one of the ones involved in the entire saga, even preceding Ruth, ending as the scandal broke . . . her comment to me was that that was "a lie from the pit of hell" . . . then told me that it was, in fact, Steve that would knock on girls doors late at night. She was one who was compromised by Steve, and did give me permission to share that.
You, Lynn, promised the "other shoe" on this story some time back. I am still waiting.
And as far as "pursuing" a 14-year old . . . Bill pursued a lot of people, of both sexes. Pursuing people that he felt would be a help to the ministry. There is NO evidence of anything nefarious here, other than Tony's surmisings. Based - in part - on an account which he detailed to me as primary proof of Bill's sexual deviance and which . . . never happened.
Alfred, how does the 1983 transcript fit in with your version of the facts? Here are some selected quotes.
Dr. Radmacher: Yeah. Or when we talk about “inappropriate behavior.” …However, when [former staff woman] says that Bill came in to her room at 11 o’clock at night, knocked on the door, was not invited in, did come in; and she was in her nightgown and he caressed her and fondled her, then those words begin to turn lights on to people.
Rev. Hagenbaugh: They take meaning on.
Dr. Radmacher: You know, he can say in the seminar out there that he’s never kissed a girl. But what [else] has he done…privately? Now. What I’m trying to be is very specific. You can—Bill is great at playing word games.
Ruth Gabriel: What I question—I can back up some of those things. I can say, “He came to my door and knocked on my door at 10, 10:30 at night.” I can prove it by witnesses. I can prove it by the girl who lived across the hall that would hear him knocking. I can prove it by the fact that I used to complain to her that I’d have to lock my door because I didn’t want him coming in my apartment at night when I was on my way to bed, but the question is … about [former staff woman] giving you a statement?
... later on from "Rebecca" who is a former IBYC staffer...
“Rebecca”: … I think that people tend to assume that Bill’s impropriety was limited to the girls that Steve was involved with, but it wasn’t.
...And then from later on in the transcript...
Gary Smalley: No, he told me, Ruthie, that he was dating you.
Ruth Gabriel: Yes, but see, Gary, when it comes right down to it, that’s why I can’t trust his word.
Rev. Hagenbaugh: When it comes right down to it, he’s a liar.
Gary Smalley: Well, yeah.
Alfred you can stop waiting. I received private communications from Don Veinot, Ron Henzel, and through one of them, a note from Tony. I can't say what they shared, other than from what you are now sharing, they would disagree with you. Probably the quotes from Don from the 1983 transcripts are the best answer to to you.
Gary Smalley has not retracted seeing a woman in Bill's quarters, late at night, in a skimpy nightgown. Whatever he was mistaken about - it could not have been that, or it would have been taken down. We already know what Gary saw was not in the cabin, but Gary never said it was a cabin, he said "quarters." I believe him, and I don't believe you. I don't believe you on account of Gothard's continued penchant for abusing multiple young women over the years, already confessed, and that is the long and short of it.
*Probably the accounts from *Joe* (not Don, sorry)
I am going to post at the bottom of the article thread because I am tired of this skinny column.
FWIW, I'm not sure this map is correct. This seems like a small detail, but it really is not. Isn't that the 'Coach House' that is labeled as Bill's cabin? Bill's cabin is buried quite a bit more in the woods, if memory serves. Anyone else run around Northwoods with a Silva compass and topo map in days of yore?
My point being, if this event really happened at "Bill's Cabin" it would be 10X worse than if it happened in "Private Quarters" at Eagle View a.k.a Crazy Bear Lodge. For example, at Eagle View, bathrooms are not connected to the lodge rooms. Someone could be brushing their teeth then wandering around, etc before going to bed. Same thing at the main lodge (I guess). If it really happened in "Bill's Cabin" buried in the woods, then that pretty much does not leave any room for any misunderstanding of what was going on.
Not saying that scenario 1 is okay, just that scenario 2 is really, really, bad.
Bill's cabin has it's own little coach house.
Any clarification on that?
Daniel, intriguing. I was looking at IBLP's site and it doesn't seem to give the location for Bill's cabin. If you look at google maps, are you able to see the location you were remembering for Bill's cabin?
Matthew, I think it's the cabin in the woods that is about a quarter mile to the southeast of "Eagle View." (Someone double check me on this.) I do know for sure that it’s not on the main road from the lodge to Eagle View. Bill's Cabin is on its own private loop of road that allows access to both lodges, but is not on the way to either location, if that makes sense. Quite a bit of traffic flowed from Eagle View to the main lodge "back in the day." It is very secluded- kind of a dark, claustrophobic feeling- very closed in by trees as opposed to the rolling lawns in other areas. Not to make it sound creepy, but just to point out it is very private and secluded. Someone would purposefully have to travel that route to get to Bill’s cabin. I wonder if the young lady in question came up “missing” and Gary Smalley went looking for her.
By the way, Eagle View is slightly over three miles from the main lodge by road.
Just for clarification, though, did Gary Smalley say that the incident happened in Bill's Cabin? I didn't see that anywhere.
Tony said it happened in his private quarters. Did he have other private quarters on that campus?
"How to erase or make go away accusations that he was caught with one of his young and attractive secretaries sitting on his lap in private quarters with her skimpy nightgown on, late at night. "
@ Nancy 2. I'm sure Bill would have a suite at the main lodge, if not also Eagle View.
I just think we have to be careful saying it happened at "Bills Cabin" unless we have proof of that.
Daniel that is why I asked. I don't know, and didn't want to assume. I thought it would be prudent to post the exact comment, and hope someone could clarify.
@ Nancy2 ... The comment about clarifying was toward the writer of this article in general. I appreciate your finding Tony's statement. Just want to make sure that this important event isn't discounted because of faulty info.
If 1. The map is wrong
and 2. It happened at the lodge, not the cabin
It just makes the story seem trumped up, unless the story gets clarified.
5/27/14 RG, thanks for the updates to the maps.
"Good heavens!" I cried. "Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?" (Watson)
"They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside." (Holmes)
"You horrify me!"
"But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard's blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser."
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1892)
Location does indeed matter to this account...how did she get there, so late at night? She could surely not have arrived in the 'attire' described, so she must have changed...was this per the request of her employer? How did she get back to her own rooms or residence? The isolation of the site highlights this woman's vulnerability...and the advantage BG was taking.
@Alfred, just stop already with the story of your wife sitting on your lap when you were dating. It is in no way comparable to the situation documented here.
P.L. you are right "Location does indeed matter to this account...how did she get there, so late at night? She could surely not have arrived in the 'attire' described, so she must have changed"
This has always been the rub. Why would a young woman leave her quarters, to go visit a single man, home alone, late at night, wearing a skimpy nightgown, just so she could innocently sit in his lap?
If that was BG's idea of dating a young woman...dinner and a walk in the park might have been a better alternative.
His character is on parade here and some want to explain away major points!
Why throughout his career is BG SURROUNDED by beautiful young women (and teens).
Why does he frequently arrange so that he is ALONE with many of these women (and teens).
Added to this is the eyewitness account of his secretary clad in a sheer neglige, ALONE with him, ON his lap, at night.
Added to this is the eyewitness account of his secretary clad in a sheer neglige, ALONE with him, ON his lap, at night.
Forget for a second that this was Bill Gothard. Suppose that this is ANY other christian leader, or at least someone in a known, public ministry. Shoot, make it Beth Moore and its her male secretary on her lap.
All set ??? Now: what happens next ??
It is amazing, in hindsight, that so little became of Bill after this, that he was able to keep 'chugging along'. he needed lots of Alfreds in his corner saying "nothing much here to look at people, move along....move along.."
Greg r you now have me singing Switchfoot's "I Dare You To Move".
will have to check out the switchfoot tune...thanks
There is a mountain of evidence against BG. So many are waiting for him to answer in a very meaningful way that shows he understands the harm he has caused, not worrying about his legacy. What happens next? Needs to be some really straight forward dialog without all the pious Christian Speak. His ministry is in a mess, fallen on the floor. Maybe he can start by confessing he isn't an authority. He is just another fallen person, and point to the love of The Lord as the answer not his principles taken out of context.
Switchfoot - Dare You To Move Lyrics
Welcome to the planet
Welcome to existence
Everyone's here
Everyone's here
Everybody's watching you now
Everybody waits for you now
What happens next
What happens next
[Chorus]
I dare you to move
I dare you to move
I dare you to lift yourself up off the floor
I dare you to move
I dare you to move
Like today never happened
Today never happened before
Welcome to the fallout
Welcome to resistance
The tension is here
Tension is here
Between who you are and who you could be
Between how it is and how it should be
[Chorus]
Maybe redemption has stories to tell
Maybe forgiveness is right where you fell
Where can you run to escape from yourself?
Where you gonna go?
Where you gonna go?
Salvation is here
I dare you to move
I dare you to move
I dare you to lift yourself up off the floor
I dare you to move
I dare you to move
Like today never happened
Today never happened
Today never happened
Today never happened before
Nancy2 wrote:
There is a mountain of evidence against BG. So many are waiting for him to answer in a very meaningful way that shows he understands the harm he has caused, not worrying about his legacy.
while I appreciate Gary's question and intent, talking to a narcissist about his legacy is probably a conversation wasted: it's still all about BG.... better to talk about steps of restoration , and what constitutes a full and complete confession, or something along that line, imo.
Actually, it does sound pretty bad even to say that someone would wander around the common areas in a neglige before bed, and this would seem okay to anyone... I can't decide which sounds worse! But so far, I'm going with "Bill's cabin" on this one. Hope you get it cleared up.
I agree with you Hannah. Both scenarios are bad. I think we heard stories of him knocking on doors for "good night hugs."
It's just that the cabin is so secluded (and small). I think the bedrooms are upstairs in a loft like gable, so I just can't imagine someone being in a single guy's cabin with a nightgown on.
As a woman, you could answer the following:
Usually a nightgown implies a proximity to bed, right?
I was more thinking that a neglige implies proximity to a man... As a woman...
I did see a link with pictures of the cabin, though... Apparently one of the bedrooms is at least big enough to hold a double-bed. And even I admit, that the pictures of the interior looked very beautiful and romantic.
Good point about the negligee implying proximity to a man, Hannah. ha ha. Let's just say that my novel quickly gets gets a bookmark when my wife comes to bed wearing that kind of outfit.
Here is the link to the article on Midwest Outreach.
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BG-GS-Discussion.pdf
Charlie, thanks for sharing. This cabin looks different than the one on the map. Different roof line, etc.
Bill's cabin is much deeper in the woods. I think fixing the map would really lend perspective to this article.
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BG-GS-Discussion.pdf
This is a very informative article. In addition to links to a map location of some of the buildings at Northwoods & some interior shots, the 3-page narrative is centered around communication with an IBLP father (identified only with a pseudonym as "Trenton"). "Trenton" has been a part of IBLP a long time, and has also participated in RG's website. The articles contains specific facts clarifying Gary Smalley's part as a witness in the "Bill's Cabin" incident, and includes a 2009 correspondence from Gary Smalley to Bill Gothard. This definitely is worth reading.
I think this statement in the above comment was personal, was meant to intimidate "Mosessister" and should not be tolerated on this site:
Mosessister Disagree on "Sexual harrassment", since that involves something one party considers unwelcome. You of all people know that, right? I leave the rest.
Nancy, I think Mosessister has mentioned before in the comments that she works in HR. I think that's what Alfred was referring to, though without that context it does look strange, like he's saying she's been sexually harassed and should know better.
Thanks for the probable context. Yes, it does look strange. I hope that is all that was meant by the comment.
Thanks for the defense, ladies. :) I'm not in HR, but as a manager in a large company in the Chicago area, I do have knowledge of workplace sexual harassment policies. Perhaps that was what he was referring to. I'm not sure why he worded it that way, and it really doesn't bother me. I have a brother who is entrenched in IBLP, and I know first-hand how upsetting this is to him and people like Alfred. I am torn between compassion and frustration for such people, who are also victims of Gothard with their misguided loyalty and near delusional adoration of Gothard. Lord, have mercy. :(
Whatever that comment sounded like, it was nothing more than acknowledging that she has studied this topic a fair amount, bringing it up quite often.
Alfred, you and BG have something in common...you deceive yourselves.
I think Alfred doesn't consider, or want to consider that it's a million percent possible for someone to LOOK YOU IN THE EYE and tell you a bold faced lie. Pathological liars are exceptionally good at it. The only way you catch it is if you KNOW (probably from vast experience) what to look for.. I'll add it helps if you aren't head over heels in love with the person whose truthfulness you are trying to assess, thus potentially blind to ulterior motives. (Please note that I don't mean love in a romantic sense here.)
One thing that is very clear from these chain of emails is that the people who knew Bill and the female workers involved the best considered Bill's actions entirely inappropriate, whether there was additional 'touching' or not. That would be Gary and Tony. The people that were in the best position to know not only WHAT happened, but also the context and most clear understanding of what happened, these people considered Bills actions to be serious, and potetially ministry killing.
Captain Obvious here: this is a far cry from how Alfred has characterized the same set of actions.
One other take away from the articles previous to this post: it is problematic to ask forgiveness for 'inappropriate behavior'. You could add some of Alfreds favorites: naive, conflicted, clumsy, awkward..... I'm forgetting some of them. Forgiveness is extended for lust, the desires of the flesh, for abuse of power.... for specific admission of known wrongdoing, NOT for 'lapses'.
This should be a teachable moment for all of us on this one.
greg r, you make a good point.
The one consistent thing about all of Bill's misdeeds as told in these stories is that they happened in private.
If we had the same PDA in public, then we could take Alfred's explanation of fatherly/ culturally acceptable/ innocent touching. Since it only occurs (to this extent) in private, we can conclude that he knew it was wrong .
Exactly.
Gary Smalley. "How can I help you reach your ultimate goals for your legacy????? Can we visit about this question the next time we talk on the phone or visit together? I would be willing to do that if the time is right in your life."
I would say his legacy will be placing believers in bondage after Christ Jesus died to set us free. His never ending lists of promises "If only you would...God will give you His best." How anyone can kneel at the foot of the Cross and not already know God's Best has been given already is mind boggling."
Bill needs to remember one's legacy is in the hands of the lives one has impacted, for good or for bad. We don't write our legacy, we live our lives and leave a legacy.
YEAH. Legacies are left, not written. Thanks for verbalizing that so well. How often was I indoctrinated by my father of what his legacy is and will be to me, yet that yarn is not the legacy which I have now of him. To me, he was just dad... not letters after his name, not the image he projected on congregations, not how many people he'd "led to Christ," --- I don't have much to piece together of dad. The "important" parts of dad don't matter to me - I don't care about his education, employment, who he knows, who knows him... every one else in the world may care about that and judge by that, but usually kids don't. And in this case, I'm the kid!
I see parents so often minimizing the little moments with their kids/families, when indeed these are the moments that can impact them the most. There are a few moments with dad that I had as a small child that meant the world to me, and I doubt that he would even remember these times. At the time, he was just changing the oil, or just weeding the garden, but to me, I had him cornered and he was spending time with me. In those moments, he didn't seem like such a stranger and he felt like a dad to me. I wish I had more of that in his legacy which he's left me.
Back to BG - at this point for me, BG's legacy is "that one guy that started that thing in the 70s, and kept having scandals - and his brother, too! - and then he finally resigned." That's terrible. BG - you've always been in a race against time. Now, run faster than ever - change your legacy NOW.
I may get bar-b-qued here, but I do feel like I owe a debt of gratitude to BG and his ministry. The Lord did use it (Basic) many years ago in my life to challenge me in areas of my walk that needed challenging and allowed me to see the Lord in a more personal and powerful way. Also, I am convinced my wife would not have made the same choices in her life as well. So, to be positive, there are a few bright spots to his legacy (not withstanding the overwhelming amount of evidence coming forth of his ..... I'm not sure what to say, but his .....)
Legacies are never black and white. Like I said, "For good or for bad." But make no mistake legacies are weighed in the balance of history, and the scale will tilt toward the over all consistent impact created in one's lifetime.
Grateful, you shouldn't get BBQ'ed. You are just sharing your history.
No BBQ here, grateful, to me that is a testament to God's goodness, no-one else's. God can use anything He wishes to bring aid to His people. I am glad that you found useful, helpful things. I am glad you did not endure what many others did, truly.
Grateful, Perhaps the word you are looking for is: "Impropriety" ?????
To put it delicately.
"yech" comes to mind, but impropriety sounds better. this whole business just makes my stomach churn for many reasons...
Yech. .. sounds about right. . .lol grateful.
I can relate. I had a ministry leader (affiliated with Gothard) have such a positive impact on my life. He finally convinced my parents that what was going on with me was physical, not spiritual, and to take me to a Dr. who saved my life. I am very grateful for his positive influence. However, years later I find out he was molesting his daughter.
That fact that he saved my life and I am grateful does not disappear, because I find out he molested his daughter. However, I support her 100%. It's a similar situation.
The best sermon I ever heard was "God stands at the apex of history". The preacher explained it as looking down on a roadmap. God sees where you came from and wear you are going on your road of life. He takes the things that are bad that happen to you and turns them around into something positive. So if a person was born with a malady God can turn that into something positive.
Also when I was a teacher and had to bring a kid into the office, the principal would say to the kid, " the worse thing we can do to you is nothing. The fact that we want to discipline you should tell you we care about you, your future, how you turn out."
That said, how many "men of God" that have screwed up have a website like this lovingly telling them to straighten up and fly right.
Another Gothard thing I remember is that if you absolutely must sue someone in court, that you also minister to their needs, show them love and patience, not anger. That way you show them the love of God and their hearts will be changed.
Any guesses on what would have been Bill's response if any ATI staff guy had been caught with a young woman on their lap...in a long skirt,in broad daylight?
Alfred, Do you think the defense of "We're dating" would have given them a buy?
Fired, sent home and disgraced
That is kind of like saying, "What would Bill's father have done if he caught him with a girl on his lap in their home as a high schooler?" How does that apply here?
A sign of adulthood is taking responsibility for your actions.
That would be another great diversionary reply Alfred, except it makes no sense whatsoever. The point many are trying to make is that EVERYONE knows how BG would have handled any of his male followers (except his brother) if caught with a girl in his lap, etc... He would have humiliated them and sent them home in disgrace. Do you have a legalistic disagreement spin you want to add to that? If he was 1% of the man you think he is, he would confess his sin, apologize to the many he has hurt, and resign...
I meant to conclude with ...resign for good and go away.
Alfred,
No, It's "kinda like saying" that teachers incur a stricter judgement, not only for their words, but for their example. BG sent home young people for much lesser offenses.
It's incomprehensible that some are willing to let him get away with a "do as I say, not as I do " mentality, when actually he should experience far greater accountability.
It does him no favour to make excuses for his wrong actions or to support his denials. If you are indeed in contact with him, you could consider using your influence to encourage him to own his responsibility and repent.
>>>
That is kind of like saying, "What would Bill's father have done if he caught him with a girl on his lap in their home as a high schooler?" How does that apply here?
<<<
It applies very well here Alfred. Gothard is the "spiritual leader" to these people. He should set an example. 1 Peter 5:3
All 'shear' negligees aside, if my pastor preached long and loud that it was a sin to eat honey, and I caught him in his remote cabin OR room at the lodge with a big ol' open honey pot in his lap, I would go looking for another pastor........NOW! I would question EVERYTHING that he had ever said.
And put him on a no-honey diet like Rabbit did.
"NO...MORE....HHHHH-HONEY!!!"
Sorry, couldn't let that one go. :)
Exactly what the Sunflower person said
These 2007 questions were raised by a dad, quite rightfully concerned that Bill Gothard was "involved personally and directly in the pursuit of this pretty little 14 year old, to bring to his headquarters office to work for him", and reaching out for counsel from those who knew Bill well.
Nearly thirty years after the nightgown incident, Bill Gothard was pursuing a fourteen year old. For her mad office skills? And of course there are all the incidents in-between, as documented by RG.
Parsing the details of this single incident (details which may never be completely known) shouldn't draw our attention away from the fact that this is just one in a long series of sinful (I say again to Alfred of the 'high standards' and 'non-optional principals') SINFUL behaviors over decades. Gothard's enablers would love people to focus on a tree and miss the forest, that Bill Gothard is not above reproach as required by I Timothy 3, and has not been for many, many years.
Noone has a right to be in the ministry. If you cannot meet the requirements, you should be out. It's quite simple, really. And if you truly respected the commands of Scripture, you'd take yourself out, willingly, to uphold them.
"I'm not going to EAT it. I'm just going to TASTE it, " replied Pooh, smacking his lips.
Ahh...even A.A. Milne understood temptation and the appearance of evil.
Like! :)
If you study narcissism, this Alfred person, whoever he is, reminds me of my first husband. When caught red-handed, he would divert the discussion with details until you thought you were crazy and finally give up because you could never get him to talk about the real issue, the motivation, and the hurt that was caused. One day I realized that this was 'crazy-making', and the only way to diffuse that is to stop engaging. They want you engaged in their detours long enough so the enemy can sneak around behind you and get away. They would rather die (or kill) than admit they are wrong. This is the essence of legalism. Fighting unimportant details, windmills.
One book that has helped me greatly in understanding and dealing with narcissistic people is "Crazymakers" by Paul Meier MD and Robert L Wise PhD. This is a Christian perspective that helps us cope with having been victims of many types of abuse, whether it is emotional, spiritual, and/or physical.
Another great one is "Dealing with the Crazymakers in Your Life" by David Hawkins.
Yup. If Alfred uses these same tactics with his wife and kids when having disagreements with them, I feel very, very sorry for them all.
I think you described perfectly an addicted person! BG is addicted, and his many enablers, including Smalley, whom I have appreciated over the years have allowed this father, who was rightly questioning, and his daughter who was 14 be cast aside like their life and soul didn't matter. Counselors would call out anyone who didn't call a spade a spade. Including Smalley. Tragic.
I am assuming your husband was addicted to something, hence the crazy feeling you got when trying to get some truth. I am sorry for your grief.
Alfred: blah, blah, blah, small detail magnified, blah, blah, blah. The guy was targeting 14 YR OLD GIRLS, c'mon man. And I am someone who will still say that I benefitted from his ministry, BUT, he's got MAJOR issues and he should have stepped down long ago. enough already.
Ok, I feel better now.
In other words, Alfred is oohhing and ahhing over the emperor's beautiful garments while anyone with eyes can see that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
1973-1980 was NOT 14 year old girls! Far from it. The secretary was around 25 when the scandal broke.
I am at a loss to recall a 14 year old at HQ on any gender . . . and others less than 17 were an exception, far from a rule. Not sure what you are referring to, so . . . clue me in.
And . . . . targeting?! What does that mean? Targeting for a role at HQ . . . or for sex? For footsie? Your implications . . .
Alfred,
Please read the email exchange between Tony and Gary above. Tony was in the position of counseling the father of a pretty 14 year old who was being pursued by Bill to bring to his office to work for him. This took place in 2007. So, yes, he was targeting 14 year old girls.
"Gary, as to your question about whether BG is involved sexually with any of his staff, it seems to me that he is quite involved personally and directly in the pursuit of this pretty little 14 year old, to bring to his headquarters office to work for him. How would it appear if you did the same next week?"
I read it . . . it doesn't make sense to me. Is this a hypothetical counseling situation or a real one? I read it as hypothetical.
Again, I am baffled where the age comes from. I have heard of some 16 year olds being taken on "staff" in very special cases. I know he has counseled some younger, but . . . on staff? That defies reason.
14 year olds fellows and girls do go on the 10 day "Journey to the Heart", where they all see Mr. Gothard twice, once before and once after that 10 day program. My daughters have gone . . . never heard of an issue . . . from anyone . . . ever.
Gary Smalley said " What you are [describing] is ”inappropriate” behavior by Bill and the 14 year old’s parents should know this about Bill."
What about that seems hypothetical to you, Alfred?
And as to "My daughters have gone . . . never heard of an issue . . . from anyone . . . ever."
Your open support of Bill, going so far as to see you are comfortable with him playing footsie with your own young daughters, makes it unlikely that someone who did have a problem with Bill would talk to you about it. So the fact that you have never heard of an issue is pretty meaningless.
Alfred, oh for Heaven's sake! Hypothetical? Please read the quote I gave you from the email exchange, and then read it again, and again, and again. I know it does not fit into the make believe world you have invented about Bill Gothard an his actions, but Bill Gothard is pursuing a 14 year old girl- Tony writes of it in the email.
There is nothing hypothetical about it! In fact, he states it, as a matter of fact, in response to a direct question from Gary.
I know this reality hurts. But, your hero has pursued 14 year old girls, 15 year old girls, 16 and 17 year old girls and done immoral things with them. Your interpretation of this statement as hypothetical is a classic example of you refusing to see what is right there before your eyes. You only see what you desire to see.
Are you now going to say that Tony is lying? That Bill Gothard is not really pursing this pretty 14 year old girl?
Here is the quote one more time:
"Gary, as to your question about whether BG is involved sexually with any of his staff, it seems to me that he is quite involved personally and directly in the pursuit of this pretty little 14 year old, to bring to his headquarters office to work for him. "
Alfred,
I also wanted to say. It can be extremely frustrating to discuss/debate these issues with you at times. But, I am very glad that you are back. I do get worried when we don't hear from you for some time.
I don't mind having the debate with someone who sees the situation completely differently, frustration notwithstanding.
Um, I remember a blonde that was brought to HQ at the age of 13, and made very much of by Bill. Put her on stage and everything. Crazy how he fawned over her.
Alfred...in my 28 years of IBLP/ATI involvement, I can bring to remembrance immediately two staffers from my neck of the woods who were under 18 when they were summoned to HQ and selected for staff, working directly for BG as favored young ladies. One was almost 15 when she went, and she worked as a personal assistant, received a small salary and many gifts from him, and remained there until someone decided the relationship didn't look best and she as sent to another department. When he talked to her at a seminar, he offered her any ministry or staff position which she desired, and underwent counseling from him for sexual abuse during her stay as an assistant to him. The attachment on his part was great enough that when "appearances" came into consideration, he refused counsel to send her home and transferred her to a department where he would not encounter her as often. The second girl who comes to mind was there recently and was 16 when given a special invitation to come as staff even though her age was not the usual one which allowed someone to be a personal assistant/secretary. She received a small salary, transportation back and forth between home and HQ, and many gifts of money and clothes and other things while in his employ. I do not know about physical involvement, but I do know there was huge inappropriate emotional attachment on both of their parts. Appearances came to light in this situation as well and she was sent home last year....she knows your son and was involved with all the group serving there during the several years she was "selected". She also received several gifts of procedures to enhance her appearance. totally inappropriate. Always remember that just because you do not know of something existing and happening does not mean it doesn't. I think farther back to 1985 and remember a young lady in my church who from all appearances was a lovely Christian girl...very pretty too. She was not that in fact, and was having severe problems in an immoral relationship...BG looked up her picture in a file while talking to her mother on the phone and told her that he was looking at her picture and could tell by her countenance that she would be a real asset to the Kingdom and if she would send her there, (HQ), he would allow her to work in any ministry opportunity available and she would be fine..., and that he personally would "look after" her and that her problems would be solved in a very short time...she was 16 at the time, and when her Mother mentioned that fact, he replied that there "could be exceptions made." I was in the room listening to that phone call, so I know it was true. Now,, you personally know of people under 18 working as staff at HQ but you may choose not to believe me either. I am not sure you want to believe it is true.
I re-read my post and realize I wrote a sentence which was not clear...the first young lady I mentioned was not being counseled for sexual abuse at HQ while she was there, but had previously experienced sexual abuse in her home, and underwent counseling along with being an assistant during her stay. I realize it could have been read otherwise. Sorry.
Anon, your post and others on RG demonstrate a pattern of behavior that is extremely disturbing; a pattern that was apparently very well camouflaged and (sadly) enable by (hopefully unaware) associates. His apparent precision in targeting his prey is disturbing and sickening. We can debate Scripture and application all day long (and some debate is very much needed), but IMO the "stalking" and bizarre gratification of whatever was going on eclipses any misuse of Scripture.
Grateful, the creepiness is very upsetting. But if 100 girls have been targeted, these are common occurrences in all other walks of life. The teaching, however, has provided cover for probably thousands of worse incidents of wife and child abuse and authoritarian cover for rape and sexual bondage and denials thereof, and led many astray. I know two families of 10 or more that have been completely destroyed. If we all know 2, just count the cost of this teaching.
The works invalidate the teaching. But the teaching must be corrected or the effects will continue unto the third and fourth generation of those who are lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God. Look how Mormanism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science continue to deceive after 175 years. Be angry and sin not. Thousands have been damaged who never looked Bill Gothard in the winking, twinkling eye. How many more will come?
Don, Perhaps, but I feel the "abuse" can be better blamed on the wickedness of a man's heart. any teaching can be warped (interpreted) such that a manipulative person can use it to further their own sick agenda. This is not to say that BG did not misuse Scripture - I think at the minimum he is guilty of mixing pop psychology with scripture (with a touch of hocus-pocus thrown in at times). My point is that this topic is endlessly debatable, predatory behavior is not so debatable.
Lets put it this way Alfed....would Gothards behavior been ok if those would have been your daughters?
Alfred has been asked this question many times, and as far as I know he has never answered it....
Crickets...
He did answer on April 21 in this discussion:
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/04/bill-gothard-issues-public-statement/
Thanks "Father with Daughters". I had not seen this. Guess Alfred's response is what I would have expected. Certainly not the response most fathers with daughters would have...
So if it is not immoral because he wasn't 'doing anything', then pornography is not immoral. Right? Is that why people love legalism? As long as you can wiggle out of the letter of the law, you can do all sorts of things. Never mind the spirit of the law.
Ha! Pornography would have been more honorable!
Alfred quoted - "... (Bill insisted to the staffer that he was dating the woman at the time, although he later told her father that their relationship was nothing of the sort, and that he had never made any promises of marriage)"
and called BG a "man conflicted"???????
Yes, P.L., when one tells one person something and denies it to another, it is a man LYING!!!!!!!!! What can you not see here, Alfred??? Is it really necessary to define and debate "fondling," "sheer/skimpy," "employee," "harassment," "girl" vs. "woman," "lap-sitting," "sexual intent," and so forth? We can go round and round, but in the account you quoted above, he LIED. He LIED. And it’s right there, under your nose. Unless you want to say that these accounts were made up, which you didn’t mention when you first quoted them. (If you quoted something you thought was a lie, you would have taken off on the incoherence of the statement rather than what conclusions you drew about BG.)
Let's break it down ... BG had a motive in dealing with the staffer to (vainly) add a shred of legitimacy to the compromising position he was found in. Apparently the witness was too credible to get by with straight-up denial, and the compromising position was too obvious to make up some legitimate reason for her presence. (Not to mention that we only know what was SEEN ... wonder the chances of there having been more going on that nobody saw ... or a frequency that nobody was aware of ... not too far-fetched, really, but we don't have and don't even need those details.)
The best BG could get by with was to try to elicit a little sympathy from the staffer by claiming they were in a romantic relationship ... not a good defense, especially in light of the standards that he imposed on others and not himself (a trait of narcissism), but apparently was the best he could do when caught dead to rights.
Now the father was a different audience completely, and it was in BG's best interest to deny a relationship and probably try to blame his seductress daughter (narcissists deflect, by the way, in case you didn’t know). Of course, since he was only using her for physical pleasure, he actually didn’t have any intention of a legitimate relationship, so now the story of the romantic relationship is passed off as a misunderstanding, and probably a laughable one at that.
When I tell one person one thing and I tell another person the exact opposite … what do we call that, Alfred?
You said before that if Bill was lying to you, everything would change (I’m making that inference based on your actual statement that if Charlotte was telling the truth, it would change everything.) He lied. He lies. He will lie. When will your light bulb come on?
Another thing … the woman’s assessment of the relationship between her and BG was never described, at least to my knowledge. So you really have no right or basis to assume that she "definitely had expectations that this would lead to marriage and accepted personal involvement consistent with that." If you stand by that, could you explain?
It doesn’t matter if the nightie was sheer or flannel. Regardless the body surface area touching or the weight supported or the position of anybody’s body parts. It doesn’t matter if they were on a sofa, chair, or bed, or if the lights were turned up or down. It doesn’t matter if they were or were not romantically involved, nor the future intentions of either one of them. It doesn’t matter if they kissed or if they didn’t, or whatever else they did or didn’t do. What in the world is your obsession with defining points that really don’t matter? Power was abused, a woman was being used and emotionally abused, a covert meeting was taking place against everything the man taught and stood for, and he tried later to eradicate or dissipate the account of the whole thing.
Even if you try to rationalize the things you don’t like, you can’t get away with just calling the man conflicted (though I believe that also to be true). He told the staffer there was a romantic relationship, and he told the dad there wasn’t. It’s not rocket science, and I’m not a rocket scientist.
HE
LIED.
Elizabeth,
You nailed it. Once again, he is documented to have flat out lied. Thank you for calling it what it is.
Also, the pattern of minimizing inexcusable behavior has become absurd.
Things that get spun in the most favorable light possible:
"he lied"= "he was conflicted"
" he molested and/or harassed young girls" = "he had bad manners"
"he aggressively pursued pretty teenage girls to come work for him" = "looks matter more than we like to admit"
^^ What Elizabeth said!!
I should have mentioned that I do believe the details matter for different reasons ... legally, morally, etc. Just that they don't matter at all in establishing him as a habitual liar with ulterior motives of power and control.
Narcissists will tell conflicting lies to different people in different directions, and bank on the hope that they'll never meet. The staffer and the dad were never supposed to compare stories, and we certainly were never supposed to hear from them. I think it's fair to say BG never saw RG coming.
I don't believe he's some poor, well-meaning, misguided, unfortunate fellow sitting around in his old age, lonely and rejected, who - years ago - succumbed to a few "moral failures" and "judgement lapses" and is now being unfairly and unbiblically hunted down by people who want to ruin his reputation and Jesus'. I think he's sincere, but sincerely wrong. Legalism will not save him or us.
Elizabeth, you summed it up so well!
I shouldn't even try, as the tone as gotten, as we say, "nasty". But I can't resist. He lied . . . when? About what? About being in a romantic relationship? We do know who the young lady was. Her testimony is known. She is credible. And she represented the relationship as - to her at least - a romantic one, headed for marriage. She also has indicated that they never did anything wrong between them. Guess that would include the lap incident. So . . . I respectfully disagree.
Didn't the man look you in the eye and tell you he had never seen nor touched the private parts of a woman? Would you like to explain how he didn't see through the sheer neglige? Of course, he saw. He saw EVERYTHING! Definition of lying: making an untrue statement. The man lied to you.
Nasty????? Straightforward, to the point, and extremely simple. Not nasty.
I understand that the woman is known to certain people, as she was referred to by name in the emails. As far as I'm aware, though, her account isn't avaable to most of us, so I cannot evaluate your representation of her. But my point is that it doesn't matter what she said.
Yes, he LIED about being in a romantic relationship. If it is as you say and they were romantically involved, then he lied to her father when he insisted they weren't. If they weren't, then he lied to the staffer when he insisted they were. And in this case, she would have lied, too, but I don't know who "she" is, and "she" is not the point here.
There may be differences of opinion as to whether BG and the woman GS saw him in a compromised situation with were actually in a romantic relationship or not. Again, it doesn't matter. Either way, he lied to somebody.
So Alfred, I have to respectfully ask you what you're respectfully disagreeing with me about. I'm not asking anything about the woman.
1- Was BG truthful when he said he was in a romantic relationship with the woman? (Circle YES or NO.)
2- Was BG truthful when he said he was not in a romantic relationship with the woman? (Circle YES or NO.)
Or might you use a "conflicted" defense to claim truthfulness in both cases? Kinda doesn't fit with the accounts that he "insisted" in his claim, so please don't go there.
This is not the only example of differing accounts from your trusted friend. I'm not being nasty... just encouraging you to recognize what is plainly before you and loosen the grip of a man that clearly (to all but you) has you under his spell. If you evaluate the lengths you go to in defending your trusted friend, maybe you can begin to see that maybe it's a facade and he's using you to help prop it up. It will only drain you more to keep propping. And all the propping and reinforcement in the world won't change a facade into reality.
Being used and lied to - THAT's what's nasty.
Elizabeth,
Thanks so much for taking the time to express so clearly your thoughts. I agree with you completely.
Alfred,
I am not going to engage you is a further conversation beyond this post for personal reasons but you are totally WRONG! She never wanted to marry Bill or was ever romantically artracted or inclined! Because of the grooming and influence of the wrongly taught "chain of command", she was willing to marry him if God directed it through Bill, though she did not love him as a suitor but only as a friend. It was all part of the grooming and the way the young women were trained! There is way more to the story that I choose not to share.
Alfred you take too many liberties with taking partial truths and twisting them into an opinionated "absolute truth". For me you have crossed a boundary by proclaiming a false truth! I have been biting my tongue for the last 181 posts, I have finally had enough of your revisionist historical interpretations! You were not there nor were you her friend and you did not know her mind!
Larne Gabriel
Husband of the late "Ruth" 1980-1994.
Thank you, thank you, for stepping in, Larne. I wondered how Alfred could claim to know what the woman's intents were! But he also claims to have so many private conversations about this that I though perhaps he could feasibly know something more.
That's the nail in the coffin for me. Alfred, your credibility is ZERO. Shame on you for speculating about the heart of someone you didn't even know in the service of your OWN denials.
Larne, thank you for breaking the silence. Alfred, I agreed with RG when they took down the intrusive comments and questions about one of your adult children. Some of those entries contained insinuations not at all appropriate to the discussion at hand. Just as that was wrong, and was deleted, so I think it wrong to make claims about a person when you don't have the facts straight from people who could tell you such. I had always assumed you knew more information about this than I did, but now I see you do not. And I'm glad Larne spoke up, to straighten matters out.
Larne, it breaks my heart and it makes me angry at the same time, what your family endures. I'm so sorry. Blessings to you and your family.
Matthew,
There is nothing to get angry at, Ruth beat us to heaven and is sunning (her favorite thing) in the Light of the God she served and at the feet of her loving Savior. Alfred is just following what he believes. He is entitled to his opinion whether it's right or wrong. In this case about pursuing and being in love romantically with Bill, it's just wrong. There are many stories out there that have pieces of truth and misrepresented facts and this is one of them.(I am not disputing this lap story, we never discussed this specific incident but she did sit on his lap with she admitted in person and print and relayed in Ruth's Story. It's how they were trained.)
Actually I think the majority of the conversations here are far from "nasty", this one included. You can find other forums where the tone truly is nasty. I wont refer any links but a few minutes of searching will reveal them.
He lied about being in a dating relationship, either telling Smalley he was, or telling the girl's father he was not.
He lied in his most recent apology letter saying he NEVER touched with sexual intent.
He lied to you, Alfred, when he looked you in the eye and told you he was innocent.
I get confused, it's been a while: are we supposed to answer a fool according to his folly or not? And when?
Alfred's representation of the woman in the cabin sounded suspiciously like parroting a line he'd been fed, as we probably all suspected. Thanks to Larne for a much more credible account.
BG lied. All by himself. Completely independent of anything the woman did, said, or felt, or was coerced to do or say. But to deflect attention from his own actions, BG sent Alfred on a red herring chase with MORE lies about her. Alfred bought it and tried to sell it to us, and none of it negates that BG said the exact opposite to different people for different purposes. Then went on to lie some more. He LIED.
Alfred, BG has used you and will continue as long as you enable him to do so. That's what they do, and he operates in epic proportions.
I'm not trying to tear you down ... just the opposite, actually. I pray you'll be able to stand on your own and discern truth for yourself instead of falling hook, line, and sinker for the claims of a master manipulator. Your insistence that you know he would never lie to you and your acceptance of the crocks of bull he has shoved your way indicate that it may take a while yet. You've indicated that if he lied, it would change everything for you. If you could claw out from under all the crocks of bull, maybe you could see that he has. Epically.
May grace - and discernment - abound.
Alfred,
I am curious as to what your wife thinks about all this.
What was that? "tone ... 'nasty'"?!
Wow.
With this remark, I would say so. Characterizing Elizabeth and her well laid out and presented remarks by such words most clearly where this has turned "nasty".
And you have the GALL to claim this "nasty" characterization as respectful disagreement!!!!! MY WORD! Slamming Elizabeth as the one who has brought on a nasty tone while you claim yourself to be "respectful.
Have you not learned anything from the IBLP seminars?
With no respect left,
Sixty Year Old Father of Three Daughters, and a Son.
Alfred, of the many women who BG was romantic with shouldn't one of them have ended in marriage? Isn't this the point of courtship.... Marriage? Why was this one called off? Why did he not go through, but rather defraud her? Why did he not ask her father if he could pursue to court her as he taught in the seminar? Why? Why? Was his intentions not noble? Would not the whole of ATI and iblp have rejoiced he had found THE ONE?
Why did he choose to "court" them in their Jammie's and in his private place and without receiving the blessing of the girls father? Did he counsel young men to "court" girls in their private room and in their Jammie's to see if they were compatible for marriage? What page?
If that is the case I sure as heck missed some things in those seminars!
While my girls were at Excell we were told the boys were "dead" to girls and that is why they were allowed to serve. Billy shoulda gone to Excell to learn how to be "dead" because as a mom of 3 daughters I sure assumed Billy was dead!
No excuse would rationalize away an old man with a child on his lap and in their right mind think it was ok. None. No permission to court this babe of a girl, no idea on the part of the father at all! Totally overstepped the boundaries God gave this dad for his precious daughter. The union in no way glorified God. No good at all. In fact, the father would probably have felt it more normal if a teen boy had sneaked away with his daughter. He probably felt it was twisted..... Because it is.
Alfred,
After reading several pages of conversation threads in which you've participated, I think I've managed to narrow down the talking points to which you tend to return, what you generally believe about IBLP, and where the logic driving these viewpoints would lead:
1. Bill Gothard has been an immense blessing to you, your family, and your spiritual life. What wrongdoing he's committed or how many broken lives he and his teachings have left in their wake matter not. What matters is that you ended up okay, and therefore, your experience holds more weight than whatever negative experiences have damaged other people. And whenever anyone dares bring up the countless who have been beaten and bruised under IBLP, you can take comfort in knowing that somewhere out there, there are "just as many" families who are either happily enslaved under the bondage of IBLP or very skilled at covering up the abuse in their own homes that you don't know about.
2. Gothard's relationships with young girls, one of which involves an eyewitness account of a girl sitting on his lap in sheer lingerie, are not sexual in nature because no actual penetration is involved, and the female involved did not object. Therefore, if you were to see an underwear-clad boy sitting on Gothard's - or anyone's - lap, you wouldn't raise an eyebrow because clearly, that couldn't involve sexual intent due to the lack of penetration or any resistance on the boy's part.
3. Gothard's ability to look you in the eye and make a statement is an effective gauge of how truthful said statement is. As long as you can maintain the reality you've constructed for yourself in which Gothard is absolved of any wrongdoing that would deconstruct that reality, you can continue to push aside any evidence or indication that Gothard is a pathological liar, a narcissist, and an abuser by discounting any statement that tears the fabric of your reality while falling back on the comfort in telling yourself that he didn't go as far as to commit Sin X or that he worked to provide some degree of restoration after whatever mistake he made. Therefore, it doesn't actually matter in the end how "far" Gothard went in his sin; what matters is that he purportedly didn't go far enough for you to admit that you've made a mistake in placing a pathological liar, a narcissist, and an abuser on a pedestal for decades, and therefore, you can avoid admitting that.
4. Gothard's inability to adhere to the very regulations that he enforced with shaming impunity among the IBLP culture doesn't ultimately matter either. He's made mistakes that, for whatever reason, he's continued to willfully make over decades. Also for whatever reason, they can still be classified as mistakes. Therefore, this lack of consistency and the lives that have been shattered under it can be ignored. After all, you weren't affected by it, so it must be acceptable.
5. God hasn't spoken yet. One day, He will judge everyone and set things straight. In other words, He will honor what Gothard has accomplished and the legacy he has left - millions of broken lives, countless visits to counselors worldwide, and an empire of shame-centered, toxic theology - while rebuking the battered people who have frequented communities like Recovering Grace who are looking for the truth about Christ and speaking out against the abuse that is still perpetuated within IBLP even today. I shudder to think about what He will do to all of the brethren who have passionately served Him for centuries before Bill Gothard was alive or found spiritual freedom outside IBLP today and have gone on to do great things for Him.
If I'm the only one who sees something fishy about all of this, then so be it. But I'm willing to bet that I'm not.
EXCELLENT analysis, J.B. !!
Very we'll stated J.B.!
Alfred has said he is looking at the preponderance of the evidence, yet still holds firm in support of BG. He likes to throw in a few minor things he thought BG did that were wrong to make himself feel better. And he also says that if there was any "proof" that BG fondled Charlotte that would be a "game changer" for him. But anything short of video of the crime occurring is not proof for Alfred (and he likely would not believe a video either). But the preponderance of the evidence - the countless pages of heart breaking testimony by so many about the pain of BG's flawed cultish teachings over decades - is not enough for Alfred. And never will be, unless by the Lord's will the scales fall from his eyes.
May we all be mindful on this Memorial Day weekend, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us...
And be thankful for those who gave their lives so we can live in a country free to worship the God of grace and mercy.
BRAVO! Well said. It must be exhausting for Alfred to defend BG as a Full time job. Literally, full time.
The 'Bill's cabin' account should also be read in context with the other scandal stories:
"Individual witnesses reported that in the late ’70s, when Bill was visiting the Northwoods, he would wait until all the staff ladies had gone to bed, and then he would knock on their door to give them a long good night hug while they were dressed in their night gowns."
There is a reason these hugs weren't delivered, say, at the end of the work day, when the women were still fully clothed. And there is a reason all the girls hated it...they implicitly understood the intent that Bill Gothard has long denied.
A long close hug when a women has partially undressed for bed is 'touching of private parts'. Touch encompasses more than skin to skin contact, or the use of the hands.
And before Alfred jumps in, no, Bill couldn't possibly have been 'dating' them all.
That would be why, when I was a teenager (and single young adult) that my dad insisted I (being particularly well endowed) not allow guys to give me full frontal hugs, even quick ones. 'They love those things.' Those were his exact words, intimating them being able to feel my chest pressed into theirs. (I'm only spelling it out because apparently you have to spell everything out precisely around here.)
But remember some think that it is normal Conservative Christian dating practices to have them covered by just a sheer nightie while sitting on a man's lap alone in his quarters. They can't imagine most couples not doing exactly what BG was doing.
Your dad. Must have been over protective.
(Obviously intended with sarcasm)
Agreed Megan! And what would your dad have thought of your boss, 20+ years older than you, giving you long nightly 'chest to chest' hugs through your nightgown?
"When Bill would wait till the women were ready for bed or in bed, then knock on their doors to give them his “good night” hugs...these were not the hugs that you gave to your mother-in-law, your friend’s wife in church or your teen age daughter but “full body contact” long embraces that you would give to your wife. Something that could stir up a man...This was a common occurrence when Bill was up north and the woman hated it and tried to avoid him, but he knew just when to knock on their doors."
It's such an obvious and disgusting way to cop a feel.
Those poor women, dreading this nightly ordeal, all the while being taught, of course, that their role was to submit with a meek and quiet spirit, and remain bright-eyed in support of Bill's non-optional principals!
And yet Gothard's supporters continue to say 'no sexual intent'.
Probably the 'long, close, good night hugs' was part of menu-picking for the evening ahead. And that is why the abused hated it--one more reason, I mean.
Oh, how regurgitating.
Thank you, RG, for sharing--uncovering IBLP atrocities. May Godly Justice be done!
May these young ladies find needed healing and inner peace through the Truth revealed.
Can anyone share what impact (if any) these stories are having on current ATI families? How was the attendance at the April conference? The prominent families all seemed to have been present and proudly posting photos of fellowship on their blogs, etc. I heard minors were sent home from Headquarters. Has there been any other changes made? Any communication from the leadership other than the official statements posted on the ATI website and RG? Does anyone have any insight on the internal investigation? The silence seems so strange... like if there are serious allegations in a ministry you have built your life upon, don't you have SOMETHING to say about it? Either in defense of the ministry or in criticism of it? Or if you feel you can neither defend nor "give a bad report," wouldn't you at least withdraw from the program? Or at least step back and discern? Or demand more information? The high profile families have been silent, avoiding or deflecting direct questions. What does that mean? Is the ministry on the verge of collapse or is there still a lot of support from within? Can anyone offer insight?
In answer to the question about affects on current devotees.....The ones we have spoken with, state that the news is all false and just the methods of Satan.
We were too shocked to mention that fact that he has admitted to at least the basic charges.
Amy May, as a former ATI father I have been reviewing the ATI website and the IBLP website and it appears they have isolated the information flowing from Bill's situation at least publicly. The resignation news, etc only shows up on IBLP. I even attempted to sign up for updates on ATI but got no response. However, I have received newsletters from Bill up until several months ago, in spite of my appeal and resignation years ago. It is my opinion based on these observations that nothing has really changed in IBLP/ATI/Bill Gothard, etc.
I continue to pray for true freedom for all those currently involved, protection for those tempted to join, and most of all true grace for all those damaged in any way by this false religious system. God's love never fails! Kyle^
I agree Amy about the LONG silence and internal "investigation" being a problem. I am much more concerned about any and all girls they are questioning. How hard that would be for anyone of them. How disgracing and shaming the institute can be toward them when it is really Bill to begin with.
i'd say the long silence does not bode well, but we'll see. maybe the investigators are being careful, in the right way. The offenses aren not that nuanced, though, so it shouldn't be that difficult to at least come out with an initial statement. Also courteous.
It does seem like they are stalling. Hoping this will go away?
Misogynist.
Well I for one am disappointed in Gary Smalley. No wonder Bill Gothard keeps calling him back when he (Gary) is so mush mouthed and remains flattering to BG about what he has seen with his own eyes. Shame on you Gary.
Has Charles Stanley ever apologized?
Alfred you do a good job of playing the devils advocate but maybe you'd best quit playing. Your using the letters in this article to try to level all the charges when there is so much more testimony on this website to collaborate the many many other charges.
Alfred you said that you have talked with BG this week and as you are still so fired up in his defense I would gather that means that signs of repentance are not in evidence with Billy boy. It must be hard to have spent so much of your life playing up to someone who was seemingly important and now is not... hard for you to give that up.
Yes, I did talk with him. I understood that he had few visitors and because I personally care about him, I wanted to make sure the man - 79 years old - is OK. Forgive me for this. This was not an "investigative" session on my part, if you will, and I don't carry any special weight with him.
I have spoken with him in the past and base my statements on his consistent responses, and the extensive contacts I have had with others involved. I have been deeply blessed by Bill and his ministry over 41 years, the Lord using him in multiple specific ways in my life. He has earned my loyalty as a family member would have, a loyalty that would persist in one way or another through almost any mess. And so it perhaps affords you a punching bag in his absence.
Elizabeth wrote this several posts up:
"So Alfred, I have to respectfully ask you what you're respectfully disagreeing with me about. I'm not asking anything about the woman.
1- Was BG truthful when he said he was in a romantic relationship with the woman? (Circle YES or NO.)
2- Was BG truthful when he said he was not in a romantic relationship with the woman? (Circle YES or NO.)"
Alfred, you just said, "I have spoken with him in the past and base my statements on his consistent responses, and the extensive contacts I have had with others involved."
Bill's responses haven't been consistent, though. If what Elizabeth reported is true, then Bill lied to someone.
Also, Larne Gabriel has thoroughly discredited your claim about basing statements on extensive contacts you have had with others involved. Larne was the husband of the woman you were talking about, he had to endure helping her cope with the stressful aftermath of exiting the Institute, including her PTSD, illness, and death. He basically said he's been sitting on his hands and finally had to get it off his chest that you don't know what you are talking about, that you are twisting some things that are true and making them into a gross falsehood. But perhaps Larne doesn't count among "others involved" in your book?
4Alfred:
When I was first directed to this Website, I began to read, giving Mr. Gothard every benefit of the doubt, because I detest seeing any of God's servants falsely accused. Many years ago I attended the Basic Youth seminar and more recently the one on anger resolution. I learned quite a bit of useful information as well as seeing how much of what he taught could really help people. Therefore, I was going to need strong convincing by RG or anyone else. However, it did not take me long to believe the stories of abuse posted here. But unlike you, I am not a close, personal friend of Mr. Gothard. What others who have posted here seem not to be taking into consideration is that it is extremely difficult to believe accounts such as these about a trusted friend. Having been deceived and betrayed by people whom I believed to be true friends, I understand how hard this is. My first response to these experiences was to defend "my friend" at any cost. That is because the loss of a trust is a loss, and just like any loss, it causes a grieving process. The very first step of the grieving process is denial. I cannot convince you of the destructive wrongdoing of Mr. Gothard; neither can anyone else here. Only God can do that. I'm praying that God will give you the truth, and that He will prepare your heart to accept it.
As I would ask others to be patient with you and uphold you in prayer, so I would ask you to do the same for them. They are going through the grieving process too, only they are all at different stages. Some are at the stage of anger, and others have begun to heal, but all need our prayers.
God of the universe, nothing is too hard for You. You love each one of us more than we will ever know in this lifetime. Please bring understanding and healing to Your hurting children. Help us see beyond our own feelings and beyond ourselves and extend a helping hand to others who are hurting. Take what Satan has purposed for evil, and turn it into good. May You forever have all the glory and praise and honor. Amen.
Thank you, 4healing. May we all join in this prayer.
And may our loyalty not be barren of the fruit of a true friend's faithful wounds, including the tough love taught in I Tim. 18-20 and I Cor. 5:1-12. God shows us in Ezekiel 16 how true loyalty provokes corrective action while always proclaiming: "I will restore you to myself".
May God grant us leaders who are above reproach.
I Tim 1:18-20. Sorry.
4 healing, very good words. Alfred has also shared how he lost his father at a young age, so it is my perception Bill is not only a friend but also mentor and minister and perhaps fatherly influence in his life. Hence, all the defensiveness and attempts to discredit Bill's critics. P
BG lied to all of us. For many years. Someone preaching one thing and doing another is a lie. A huge lie. Period.
I apologized to Larne privately for causing him grief with unfounded statements about his wife's prior romantic inclinations towards Bill, and I appreciated his gracious response. I based my position in part on his statement in the prior story on Ruth that indicated that their behavior was honorable compared to dating couples outside the Institute, just not compared to Bill's high standards. Plus the assumption that the woman in the cabin is Ruth, based on comments that others have made in public and private. You can see how the two put together would de-claw this event. Larne apparently has no knowledge of this incident, if it was Ruth.
With respect to stating in one instance that he was dating the secretary, and elsewhere telling Ruth's parents that he had no such relationship, that contradiction is based on the assumption that the cabin secretary is Ruth . . . and, of course, that the information is correctly communicated in both cases. Something I will address with Bill when I am able.
I am out of my depth at the moment and need to get a number of things clarified. The last thing I want to do is trouble Larne whom I have found to be honorable in all my dealings with him. I also, believe it or not, am not prepared to follow Bill regardless of what I discover he did. Before I turn from him I will have spent the time with him to enable him to address the things that trouble me. Contrary to the experience of others, I have never dealt with a dodge from him yet on things I needed clarification on. I appreciate the support expressed to pray for me and encourage me as I proceed through what is for me a much more personally consequential matter than for some.
If you were as relentlessly devoted to the truth of the damage done to these girls (and others) as you are to defending Bill at all costs, Bill would have real reason to fear you.
Alfred, thank you for this thoughtful post. I can see that Mr. Gabriel's testimony has moved you to be more circumspect. The damage done to many should be a motivation to see things restored, but for those of us who are not more directly involved (I had my family in ATI about 8 years) with the incidents, we are more focused on the biblical standard for leadership: above reproach. Our reproach, the reproach that has come from the truth coming out, the reproach of "inappropriate touching", the reproach of feet sliding up young girls' calves under the table, the reproach of broken relationships, of false promises abandoned, all this reproach, is the issue relating to leadership qualification: RG's primary emphasis with respect to Gothard personally.
So I ask you to consider the facts and their effect on the community: Is Bill Gothard above reproach? And I recommend that you ask him these questions: Were you above reproach when you returned to leadership after 17 days in 1980? Were you and are you above reproach in how you dealt with the employees who were quickly dismissed after that return? Are you above reproach in your interactions with young women and girls? Are you above reproach in your frequent identification, selection, enticement to come to headquarters, and working with, counseling and traveling with pretty girls as young as 14 years old, your use of the terms "energy giver" and "soul mate" with such women, and your promises of protection to them and their parents? Ask if he believes he is above reproach in his own threats of lawsuits over the years, and his use of "bad reports" to quiet his critics. Finally, please ask Bill Gothard if he is above reproach in his accountability to the church, pastors and bible scholars who have respectfully offered correction with respect to the misuse of scripture in Gothard's teaching and materials?
You see, to defend him, you have to establish much more than plausible deniability for unconfessed and unrepented sins; you have to establish that he is above reproach, and positive spin is no substitute. If he would abandon all aspirations to leadership, set the Institute free to assemble a committee of trusted independent evangelical bible scholars and pastors to examine the teaching and correct everything that needs to be corrected (and identify every point where there is honorable disagreement), and simply retire quietly to enjoy the many godly friends he has accumulated over the years, then you would not have to defend him as being above reproach. You could relate to him as any brother with flaws, encourage him in the grace of God and the mercy obtained for him by the finished work of Jesus Christ and his freedom from the burden and bondage of success. (And if you want to, you can let some young virgin warm his bed in his dotage, like King David, and it would be no one else's business.) It is Gothard's denial of the legitimacy of the reproach of so many sincere Believers that sustains this pitiful standoff, and allows the world to gaze into Christian hypocrisy.
David Gibbs' report will be seen by those of us on the outside as Bill Gothard's report, they are presumed to have an attorney/client relationship. If it spins, denies and attacks credibility of witnesses rather than admit, agree and reconcile, it cannot be the basis for a future ministry of the Institute.
I fear lawsuits, national media attention, reality TV shows of "the girls of Bill Gothard", law enforcement closing the ministry, foreign governments expelling Institute programs, all flowing from one man's hard heart, well documented by RG. You and his friends should fear that God may be hardening his heart to confirm the falseness of the teaching and end it's propagation. If this conflict is not resolved, it will finally destroy the foundation of the work you are committed to.
And we should pray for you brother.
Very well written, don, especially the parts about effect upon the community. Of course bill is forgiven. That does not and should not mean he continues to lead. This is not the OT, we do not live under King Saul..
This response should be read and re-read by all. I was going to reply to Alfred's comment, but don't think I can add anything. I can only recommend the above comment be read a minimum of 3 times, and the content therein given the most thoughtful consideration.
Tried to post this over at Debi Pearl's blog, without success, so I'll post it here: disappointed at your blanket acceptance of Deb's 'exhortation'. Do you agree with her characterization of RG in general, and if not, I'm surprised you didn't correct her.
@Alfred: didn't intro my above comment: it belongs to you
http://nogreaterjoy.org/2014/04/24/debi-pearl-weighs-iblp-situation/
Here is Alfred's reply to Debi's accusation that RG is a bitter, vengeful site:
"Alfred Corduan
God bless you, Debbie. You are “right on”. Eternity will tell all . . . The devil has come to ‘kill, steal, destroy”. The Lord uses even him for His purposes. When God gave Israel into the hands of the Babylonians for a spanking, they were brutal and proud. The Lord came back to straighten things out. How we can sit and rejoice over men of God falling down is unconscionable."
It appears Alfred views himself as a missionary of sorts to Recovering Grace, when you consider what Debi Pearl said about RG and couple that with Alfred's unqualified amen to her remarks.
typical straw dogs over at no greater (hurl) joy: 1) you are ruining a great work of GOD (Bill has led millions to the LORD...no stat referred to) 2)Bill's opponents are all filled with bitterness 3)Bill's opponents are all the unwitting tools of the devil (that would explain my lust for wearing loafers to church, and the urge for U2 and classic rock that just doesn't go away...)
her hand wringing doesn't surprise me, but Alfred could have reined her in a little, or tried to: you can do better , Mr.C.
Greg, Debi quoted someone who said he or she was glad they had a part in bringing down the ministry. Then, Debi ascribed that comment to the attitude of RG overall. If the person Debi quoted is not part of the RG team, Debi is guilty of a gross over generalization. If that remark was made by a victim of Gothard's abuse, it is understandable, because such a person would think justice has been served and that Gothard would no longer be able to abuse others. It is my opinion that a victim of Gothard's abusive behavior can speak this way. I could not, but I will give a HUGE amount of wiggle room for abuse victims to say things like that. There is such closure and relief to finally see you are not alone and you have other believers advocating for you that I do not mind abuse victims speaking that way at all.
When Saul was killed, lots of people rejoiced. David did not. Remember: This is the guy that tried to kill him over and over, that killed people that supported David, even to the point of assassinating an entire city of priests because the high priest helped David on his journey. When someone came to tell David that Saul was dead, claiming to have killed him, David had him killed. David was a victim . . . listen to his attitude toward that man that had harmed him so:
"19 The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen!
20 Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.
21 Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you, nor fields of offerings: for there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil.
22 From the blood of the slain,from the fat of the mighty,the bow of Jonathan turned not back,and the sword of Saul returned not empty.
23 Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives . . . " (2 Samuel 1)
Sure, he lamented Jonathan, but it is clear that he had no delight in Saul's death.
No . . . I don't agree with the gloating, the delight in "bringing down" Bill Gothard. Don't think Jesus is in that attitude. David said to be sad, weep . . . that would be the response of a godly heart . . . EVEN a victim.
So - yes, I agree with Debi Pearl on that count.
Alfred, I disagree profoundly at treating Bill Gothard on par with a king of Israel whom God had placed in power. David had no problem making sure Joab was executed for what he did, and there is no problem with the maidens singing about slaughtering thousands, or ten thousands (David). Keep in mind there was plenty of rejoicing in the Old Testament when God's enemies were slaughtered.
I place Bill Gothard on par with the losing side in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Which means I place him in opposition to the Holy Spirit's guidance of the early church. For example, his original circumcision pamphlet, booklet said the only moral choice a parent could make was for his son to be circumcised. I know he tried to walk it back in subsequent online discussions, but the original booklet is still out there. Totally anti Acts 15.
We CAN rejoice to see this man, who has done so much harm to so many, being put in a place where he is neutralized. We CAN feel relief, and at the SAME TIME we CAN continue to pray for his soul. We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. And that is NOT bitterness. It is rejoicing in the truth that a sinner is exposed and can no longer harm any more victims. And because we can do both, I most vehemently reject Debi Pearl's tired old "bitterness" accusation, and your agreement with her. RG exists, IN PART, at this time, to make sure there are no more victims of abuse. And I applaud them for what they have done.
By the way, a shout out to "Recovering grace and freedom" -- Read Alfred's reply to my comment. Read how he equates the attitude here over Gothard's resignation with some ancient Israelites being happy about King Saul's downfall. You know - the "Lord's anointed."
Hmmmmm?????
I would recommend Ron Henzel's article again. It appears that there are many who support Gothard who equate him to being "The Lord's Anointed," because that is the comparison they make when arguing against Recovering Grace.
As a caveat, I would say that not all the comments here have been gracious. Mine included, and for this I repent. Don R. called me on one such comment. I do NOT see an ungracious tone in the main articles, nor do I see them in the comments when I recognize the authors of the articles when they make comments. IOW - the board and the authors of articles on RG are doing NOTHING wrong. Nothing wrong to say what you think false teaching is. Certainly nothing wrong with helping victims of sexual harassment and others to be able to articulate what they went through in order to STOP Gothard's horrible behavior problems being perpetrated on others.
Well said LynnCD.
Also, David was going to kill Nabal and all the men in his household for refusing them food:
1 Sam 25
34 Otherwise, as surely as the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, who has kept me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak.”
So, indeed, Saul received special treatment from David, over and over, as Israel's kind and God's anointed. Bill Gothard is not a king. He is not God's anointed, though many continue to see him that way.
Proverbs 11:10.
It's fun to spiritualise things, but, I think, a more straightforward reading of David's lament for Saul and Jonathan is that is was good politics. When Saul and Jonathan died, David was the outlaw commander of a mercenary army made up of people who were on the wrong side of Saul's government. Furthermore, David's army had recently been fighting for the Philistines. Though he had been anointed king, his ascension to Israel's throne was by no means assured. Saul reigned for 40 years. During that time he made some significant progress in turning Israel from a loose confederation of tribes into a nation state. David needed to convince the powerful people in Israel that he was the right man to continue the nation building project and secure Israel's freedom from the surrounding nations. A heartfelt lament written for the dead king could be very helpful in convincing the establishment that David was on their side.
Personally I think a good portion of the 'rejoicing' going on is that now Bill will not be able to hurt anyone else (hopefully), and that's what's making so many people 'happy'.
I prefer the term, 'grim satisfaction' myself.. grim because of what was done, but satisfied that at least the wrongdoing will (hopefully) be stopped now.
It sounds like this could be a pivotal moment.
Absolutely.Recovering Grace provided a shield for many formerly oppressed by Gothaardism to run to.A shield enabling the meekest most downtrodden to become eloquent for the first time.Maybe they could have gone somewhere else,but I doubt it.Those wanting to manipulate, disavow,reconstruct in their own context, would certainly have to blink a little upon even remotely glancing at these articles. FORTY years with the help of the IBLP machine!More and more disclosure,rvealing at least to me a black inner dehumanizing darkness.Even with Recovering Grace, the potential for exploiting by IBLP could still happen.But not as much.Bill "played" us all,some more than others.I can't imagine what some of these girls went through. ENOUGH!And enough from what anyone else went through.
Dear Folks,
To change the focus a teeny tiny little bit here and not to excuse inappropriate behavior of the part of anyone, it might be interesting to compare the IBLP/ATI principles with the old order Amish Ordnung.
The similarities are above coincidental, and might explain a lot about Bill Gothard. I understand that Amish "bishops" are considered "anointed" by God. Thanks.
Yes, IBLP/ATI isn't special. I agree there are other religious and non-religious groups that exhibit the same characteristics and exercise the same types of control and coercion.
The language of those email exchanges: yuck, yuck, oh yuck. Half of the time these guys sound like carefully scripted minions in a cheap Cyborg movie based on Christian "Bibleese" speak. They tread so carefully as not to overly enflame the situation all while pandering piety with this ingratiating non-sense. Can folks not see that this is all about maintaining power, influence, and money based on having already convinced their marks that the Bible gives them (I.e. BG, GS, and who ever this "Tony" is) to do so?
If you've spent much or all of your life in a fundamentalist cloister here's how the world works . . . "Top men" often gain access to the best-looking, most sexual desirable (and at some point MUCH younger) females. They use their power and prosperity to gain this for themselves. It both a status symbol (ego boost) AND "throw-down" on other males to show them who has the power.
Christian leaders are not immune from this and in my experience are able to project an effective "wall of denial". I don't care what BG says, look instead at what he DOES. He of all people should know how being in private company with nubile young females appears. If BG has so much intimacy with Jesus then why does he "need" these girls so?
The reports about cult like control and abuse of authority are true. I was part of a ministry that promoted and believed in Gothard's principles, and many that came into the ministry had a problem with the authority 'chain of command', and it was always viewed as them having the problem, the leadership, especially its founder, never would acknowledge they did one wrong thing, never gave wrong advice, never set one wrong example, like they were perfect. I left that ministry and it eventually closed. To this day the founder still blames the 'other' people not wanting to submit.
Alfred,
I worked in Indianapolis for six years between 1995 and 2001. I can personally assure you that there were many 14 year olds in Chicago and Indianapolis. Many of them who accompanied, were favored and worked directly with Bill Gothard. I can think of two of them off hand (it has been 15 years, so my memory is rusty. I know there are more). I know what I would have done if I had found my daughter sitting on the lap of a man old enough to be her father. I'd of beat the living daylights out of him. No matter how you spin it, your love affair with BG can not change the facts.
Agreed, Pamela, I would have done the same thing if I had seen my daughter in a position like that. Think "a mother bear robbed of her cubs."
I read Heather's story a while ago. For the sake of all that is decent, let's not have any more of this "touch not the Lord's anointed" garbage any more. Please.
Read Heather's story.
See her spiritual growth, both *because* of, and in *spite* of the ugly, perverted crap Gothard put her through as a child.
And those of you who still want to defend Gothard, and talk about how we should treat King Saul, and "the Lord's anointed," listen . . . get real close to the screen . . .
Are you watching??
Good . . . BECAUSE IT WAS *GOTHARD* WHO WAS *TOUCHING* THESE PRECIOUS ANOINTED LAMBS OF GOD, AND IT IS *GOTHARD* WHO, LIKE THOSE DAVID DISCIPLINED, NEEDS TO BE CALLED ON THE CARPET FOR DARING TO LIFT HIS HAND AGAINST MANY OF THE LORD'S CHOSEN ONES!!!
Lynn,
I know Heather. I was in the same EQUIP class with her. She aslo worked side by side with my sister. Unfortunately I had no idea all of the stuff she was dealing with. I am finding more and more of my friends were all living through different types of control. Including myself, not at Bills hands, but other controlling people in leadership.
I have been absent from the discussion for a while, not for indifference but because I frankly was confused with the posted account as compared to things that I understood to be different. When Larne indicated to me that he had no knowledge of this event I was really confused, since I had understood it to figure somewhat prominently in the investigation in 1980. In the intervening weeks I have checked with sources available to me . . . and now understand why Larne had never heard of “secretary on Bill’s lap in lingerie in Bill’s remote Northwoods cabin in the middle of the night” . . . because that event never happened.
Gary has confirmed to me, with the help of his wife, that the event which he witnessed was in fact not in the cabin but in Bill’s office in Oak Brook. The time was right – late at night – but they have no recollection of what she was wearing. It seems inconceivable to me that any woman would be out and about in her nightgown at HQ, something I have never heard of before . . . and the Smalleys - and Larne - are at this point not in disagreement. Ruth did in fact sit on Bill’s lap, as Larne has also reported . . . and Gary seeing this was understandably quite distraught and rebuked Bill. Norma spoke with her the next day and made sure that everyone understood that this was not acceptable.
What other accounts may have figured into Gary's statements is not clear to him at this point. All we know for sure is that the late night cabin nightgown lap sitting never happened, at least not from the Smalley's recollection.
You said:
"Gary has confirmed to me, with the help of his wife, that the event which he witnessed was in fact not in the cabin but in Bill’s office in Oak Brook. The time was right – late at night – but they have no recollection of what she was wearing."
Perhaps Gary Smalley should read his own 2009 letter that he sent to Bill Gothard to jog his memory:
From Gary's letter to Bill Gothard:
"Remember I was one of the staff who saw #6
sitting on your lap with her sheer night ware [sic] on. That alone was so inappropriate that a case could be made
from just that one act I saw for you to take time away from ministry in order to be healed by God's Spirit and
renewed to purity"
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BG-GS-Discussion.pdf
I read Gary's words, as cited here, back to him.
Oh, all righty then. So now that we know the "truth" about the nightgown, I suppose someone ought to give Bill a call and tell him that he is reinstated.
So if her clothing wasn't nightwear, and the location wasn't Bill's cabin, everything must be okay, and Bill is still fit for ministry. In other news, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
I agree, J.B., except that the assumptions that it was Ruth and happened in the cabin both took Gary's testimony beyond what he said. Like the O.J. trial, a little elaboration can destroy a true case.
What appears to me in all these statements reported over the years is that Gary Smalley finds it very difficult to confront anyone directly. He appears to me cowardly and easily made to backtrack. I do not fault Alfred for pushing such a witness to back into uselessness, an able advocate ought to push in such ways. But we are left with Smalley as a man who seems to have maintained some integrity in his public persona, who left Gothard over some incompatibility, who appears to believe that Gothard does not possess the moral authority that he pretended to exercise in our lives, and whose earlier testimony of observation of inappropriate behavior was sufficiently convincing to himself to raise against Gothard's request for exoneration.
Alfred you are to be commended for clearing up ambiguities in the stories, but you have not exonerated Gothard in any way. The bottom line is that no person should have trusted Bill Gothard to have a close relationship with their young single daughter. No one. Ever. His serial violations of such trust and of the innocence of the girls has damaged the Gospel and destroyed his ministry. We should be redeeming the lives affected instead of arguing over his lost integrity.
"All we know for sure is that the late night cabin nightgown lap sitting never happened, at least not from the Smalley's recollection."
No, actually, you have confirmed that it did happen, just that it happened at Bill's private office and not in his private cabin. Gary Smalley can no longer recollect what she was wearing, 34 years later, despite his written statement previously that it was sheer nightwear. He remembered what she was wearing previously and put it in writing. It is no big surprise that a person can no longer recollect, what they specifically recollected years earlier- memory fades with time.
This is not the "aha" moment that you seem to think it is. Regardless of location, he was engaging in behavior that he was teaching was totally inappropriate. He was a hypocrite and should have been made to resign immediately. He publicly humiliated and fired others for just alleged flirtation, while he was privately engaging in behavior way beyond what he publicly shamed and humiliated others for. Somewhere along the line, perhaps someone got the location wrong. This in no way changes what a hypocrite he was. Gary rebuked him at the time and held the view that he should have stepped down,taking time away from ministry to seek healing, per his 2009 letter. Nothing you have ostensibly uncovered changes the inappropriateness of what he did, or the fact that he should have had to step down because of it.
Alfred, if Larne or Gary want to talk about this incident, I'm happy to hear them. But you have zero credibility on these matters, particularly given your previous misinterpretation of Ruth, as rebuked by her husband in this very thread. Frankly, I don't believe anything you say.
He and his wife caucused and they only thing they were willing to affirm was that this happened at HQ. I asked him 3-4 times if he could elaborate on what she was wearing. He indicated they have no recollection of what she was wearing. I sent my statement to him for review before posting.
I am not so naive as to assume that he may have been blending several accounts, things he heard about. Maybe true accounts. But this is all he was willing to testify to as having seen in person in the 5-6 emails we exchanged.
"All we know for sure is that the late night cabin nightgown lap sitting never happened, ..."
So we can all go home now?
No, but we can strike a fairly significant incident off our list of "bad things Bill did". If and until, at least, it is resurrected from other sources. This particular story has been about as damaging to Bill's credibility as anything, making the "Wiki" page and also being cited to me over and over. This account represents the only story to date that has been cited to back up the "fondling" claim published by the LA Times, repeated in "the book", and presented to be personally by those who were part of the 1980 drama. There is no other account coming from the scandal in support of that that I am aware of.
A side note. It has been pointed out to me by those who lived "1980" that Gary Smalley departed the ministry in 1976. The cabin was not even built then. That alone would have been a big clue that this needed some more research.
Where were the sleeping quarters in the retreat center before the cabin was built? Anybody? If a cabin for private use was not the scene for what Gary reported, then what were the arrangements? Alfred, thanks for supplying a correction here.
Oh, never mind. What Gary reported took place at HQ, late at night. Sorry for not understanding everything right away. But by no means should this be stricken off "the list of bad things Bill did," because it was still a very horrible thing that went on, and basically amounts to the same story. Same people, same thing seen, same time of day, just a different location.
No, LynnCD . . . this is in no way the same event. It was not in a private, secluded cabin and it was not in a night gown. It was in an office that has huge open windows, if it is the same office I have seen him in often.
We are left with a secretary - Ruth - with whom he allowed liberties like that in a "courting" way, as has been reported on this website ("Ruth's Story"). Activities Gary rebuked him for and that he later confessed to the Board as "defrauding", and resigned over.
Larne has confirmed to me privately as he stated publicly that Ruth's consistent testimony was that Bill never crossed any moral line with her in all those years. It remained "lap sitting" and "star gazing" . . . fully clothed.
Alfred,
I found this site about five months ago. I've read a great many articles, some from two or three years ago. It appears you spent a great deal of time, defending your hero in many different threads. He has now resigned in disgrace, his board has barred him from leadership, and you still want to claim that a particular incident isn't valid because you can't confirm particular details. Did it ever occur to you that Gary Smalley and his wife do not want to be dragged back into this mess? And they don't want to dialogue with you? Give it a rest. Your hero is not who you thought he was. It appears you may have been building on sand.
I have made it my business to try and figure out the truth, Aila . . . Bill has meant an immense amount to myself and my family. No, I will not defend him "at all cost" . . . but I will go to great lengths to do so.
I had a 3rd party ask Gary if he would mind my making contact over some of these issues, and he readily agreed. He was very open with me, responding very quickly, except during the time they were away on vacation. He confessed to not recalling any detail about her attire - initially he mentioned a "winter coat", but in the end simply left it that they could not remember. He did not dispute my assertion that this fairly definitely eliminated the night gown.
So, you see, this was far from a reticent individual being "dragged in". He stated the same information to two different individuals in the past several weeks. So this is him doubling back and correcting the narrative.
"I have made it my business to try and figure out the truth, Aila."
If, by "figure out the truth," you mean "uphold a reality in which a serial narcissist and abuser is absolved of as much wrongdoing as humanly possible," then that statement will be more accurate.
" He did not dispute my assertion that this fairly definitely eliminated the night gown. "
I give a whole lot more weight to what Gary personally wrote to Bill Gothard in 2009, "I was one of the staff who saw #6
sitting on your lap with her sheer night ware"
than you your interpretation of Gary's alleged passivity in response to your "assertion."
If Gary makes a personal statement because he feels he wants to clear things up, that would be different. But, I am going to take anything that is reported through the Alfred filter with a grain of salt. From what I have observed of your behavior over the course of years, you don't have a very good tract record of observing information and then making accurate assessments of what you just observed. To say that you are biased and will skew the interpretation of information as far in Bill Gothard's favor as possible, would be an unstatement, and you have admitted as much in previous posts.
"understatement"
Well . . . Larne spoke to Gary, about this very incident, and repeated what I have said. So you may take the "Alfred-filter" out. Larne is adamant that Ruth never sat on Bill's lap in a nightgown.
Clarification: Larne confirmed that Gary said to him what he said to me. My involvement was not in play.
"Clarification: Larne confirmed that Gary said to him what he said to me. My involvement was not in play."
As I wrote previously, if Larne and Gary want to make statements to clarify things, they can do so directly, not through you as a surrogate. Well, we now know that you have twisted Larne's words so much so that he felt the need to rebuke you publicly. This is exactly why hearsay is not permitted as evidence in a court of law.
I doubt we will ever hear from Gary on this forum, but even from your own account, one strongly gets the feelings that you are putting words in his mouth. At the very least, you are taking liberties with drawing extrapolations that the facts do not allow you to draw.
Then it appears your time and energy here is being spent to clear BG. I hear your fervency and understand why you stay here, watching hoping to clear his name.
It seems what Smalley said originally, no matter where it took place, would be the most accurate and credible statement, given the years that have past. He gave RG permission to share the email. If it was not accurate enough in intent he shouldn't have allowed for it to be posted. Also notice the conversation flowed and the writers both knew what they were talking about. It was not vague to them then. It seems the basic parts to the letter do not change the bottom line. At all.
Alfred, 34 years later, it should not surprise that Smalley is unwilling to testify to things that he is no longer albe to clearly remember. That is why we have statutes of limitations because every memory fades and gets confused. It is clear that at one time Smalley was very offended by something he saw about a woman in skimpy or sheer attire sitting on Bill's lap, that Bill claimed to be dating the woman and therefore, at best, defrauded her by inappropriate physical contact and permanently damaged his relationship with Gary. This wrong is not part of Ruth's story, but then it represents an additional serious case of defrauding. That increase does not benefit Gothard's case. Gary's earlier written accounts are not refuted by his inability or unwillingness to provide similar details today. As Alfred admits, Smalley's earlier accounts may in fact be true.
I would really like for some of Bill's defenders to sincerely and respectfully interview some of the women involved, whose memories are likely far more acute than Gary Smalley's passive persona has preserved. That is why it would be most beneficial to the cause of truth for an independent investigator, such as G.R.A.C.E., to interview everyone and report to the community affected. The avoidance of real accountability all these years has effectively buried much truth and we are reduced to biased camps raging for and against B.G.
Don: For my part, I go on record that I would love to interview the four women who allegedly have alleged "molestation" if they would talk to me privately. Only one of them is publicly identified. I am absolutely convinced that Bill ever crossed that line. I would like to be convinced otherwise. I accept the other accounts - footsies, etc. - as given. Not appropriate for a man of God, not in IBLP.
Smalley was crystal clear in his recollection of many details of the event, including opening the office door, seeing them there, turning around in shock and closing the door without comment. He remembers exactly what he told Bill the next day . . . as Norma remembers what she said to Ruth. Between the two of them you would be sure that they would remember the nightgown. If that even made sense at HQ. They are both intelligent folks - sorry, you just don't forget something like that. Ruth was dear to both of them - Norma was a bit of a mother to her.
I assure you as well that Gary said some fairly stern things for my benefit about what Bill has done, should do, harsher things than I have heard from anyone else who is willing to talk to Bill and be a part of this process. There is no motivation on his part to cover things up. My only thought is that back in 2007 he blended accounts of things he heard, had discussed with others, with personal knowledge. The emails appear to be written hastily. Now he is man enough to try to straighten that misstep out.
None of these women should give you the time of day, Alfred, since you are so deep in Gothard-devotion that you said you'd be comfortable with him playing footsie with your own daughters.
If you're so interested in truth, why don't you spend the time and energy you've spent attempting to parse this story in encouraging the IBLP board to have a true outside investigation into these women's allegations?
"For my part, I go on record that I would love to interview the four women who allegedly have alleged 'molestation' if they would talk to me privately. Only one of them is publicly identified."
And that will most likely never happen as long as there are people in this world like you who frequent the place where they come to be validated while marginalizing them through your defense of the very person who abused them.
P.S. "I am absolutely convinced that Bill ever crossed that line." AMAZING freudian slip there, fella.
" For my part, I go on record that I would love to interview the four women who allegedly have alleged "molestation" if they would talk to me privately."
Alfred, you are the last person on the planet who should be entrusted with interviewing the victims.
" I am absolutely convinced that Bill ever crossed that line."
From your previous statements, we know that you meant to say "never". Why on Earth would a person be charged with an investigation, and interview the victims, who is absolutely convinced that the line was never crossed? If someone is investigating and seeking the "truth", they should be an unbiased individual whom the victims can trust. Why in the world should the victims speak to someone who has stated in advance that they don't believe them? You have stated many times that you think Charlotte is lying. And she is to trust you to interview her and treat her fairly? Are you serious? The scary thing is that you are serious. You actually think that you are capable of objectively seeking the truth in such an investigation.
Look how you minimize the accounts of the victims who have shared their stories of harassment. You invalidate the testimony of those who have shared by trivializing and minimizing the offenses, saying repeatedly that it was just footsie and so forth. When Charlotte shares what can not possibly be trivialized away, you call her a liar.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an invite to interview the victims. I don't expect that will ever happen. I don't think you have a clue of understanding as to why that won't happen.
What kevin said.
For the record, none of us who comment here should have any part of interviewing the women who have shared. I agree with Don - that is for an independent organization such as G.R.A.C.E. to do.
Yes . . "Never"
I was stepping forward in response to a challenge. Even if not me, I can arrange contacts if desired.
For the record, I understood from Dr. Levendusky that every effort was made to interview those who are alleging molestation. They were not able to secure that opportunity - access was not granted. It would seem to me the golden opportunity to declare it, have it addressed. Nobody over there is busy trying to defend Bill.
I laugh at being "the last person. I have for 10 years been "the last person". I have been given every excuse in the world that I am unworthy to examine the facts behind a salacious accusation. I am continuously amazed at what I find when I am finally permitted to push away the clawing hands and rip open the closet door with the boogeyman man inside.
Thank you, Albert, for that straightforward elaboration. It speaks very well of both you and the Smalleys. I have actually assumed that the differing interviews of Smalley and "the Aide" (name evades me at the moment) have been combined in various summations in ways that are hard for readers to unpack. I am also encouraged by your sobriety over the Smalley conversation. It would have been easier if you had just reported all at once rather than giving us the exonerating highlights of your conversation. But I understand and accept your defensive advocacy.
I for one can't get to worked up over "defrauding" in the 70's, by Bill as a young man working through his own marital calling, but it is the persistent, serial, decades-long "inappropriate behavior" that has disabused me of the man's pretended godliness and destroyed any authority or respect he might have retained in my life.
If Smalley sincerely desires to try, real straightening out that would help a bystander like me would be for those with first hand knowledge to publicly correct in writing any mistaken or falsified details, offer what relevant evidence they do have. I also include people like Stanley and MacArthur acknowledging being used to cover for unaccountability in the long past. And I believe Smalley has been used as a speaker and has likely profited from book sales through Gothard meetings over the years, if I am not mistaken, kind of a tacit state of peace between two "ministers" who disagree over one's unaccountability. I may be unfair, but I have heard Smalley's name so many times and never seen anything in writing from him that would clarify his relationship, his disappointments, his opinions or his knowledge. In fact, he would be far better if HE would write his clarifications on the lap incident rather than rely on you having to relate them to us second hand. Particularly since he broght the incident to light in his e-mails. The ignorance of the rest of us over these 38 years has damaged us while he kept important knowledge to himself.
You're being very kind, Don. I don't find Alfred's elaboration to be at all straightforward. But I do appreciate your patience with him.
"Now he is man enough to try to straighten that misstep out". Is Alfred implying that Smalley previously *wasn't* man enough? (an insulting turn of phrase, in any case) Is he trying to say that Smalley is now trying to straighten things out by using Alfred as his appointed messenger?
I think that Alfred is adding a heaping helping of his own interpretations to genuine efforts by Gary and Larne to assist his (Alfred's) personal understanding of Bill Gothard's offenses. I would be very surprised if either Gary or Larne feel that they are accurately represented by Alfred's statements here.
"I assure you as well that Gary said some fairly stern things for my benefit about what Bill has done, should do, harsher things than I have heard from anyone else who is willing to talk to Bill and be a part of this process"
Then why not share them, in order to fully represent Gary's views on the subject? Why only share the parts of the story that Alfred believes 'refute' the cabin-nightgown narrative? What else is missing in Alfred's selective elaboration?
"I think that Alfred is adding a heaping helping of his own interpretations to genuine efforts by Gary and Larne to assist his (Alfred's) personal understanding of Bill Gothard's offenses. I would be very surprised if either Gary or Larne feel that they are accurately represented by Alfred's statements here. "
Yes P.L, this is exactly what Alfred does and what he has done yet again. I call it the "Alfred Filter". And your question about whether Larne feels accurately represented has been answered by Larne, as he had to publicly rebuke Alfred over this recent twisting of the facts just now. This is at least the second time that Larne has had to rebuke Alfred publicly due to Alfred taking liberties with facts and making false or misleading statements.
Alfred, seeing that you did not respect the confidentiality of a private conversation with the husband of one of the young women whose stories have been shared here, I'm not the least bit surprised that none of the other young ladies is willing to share her story with you, much less give you the kind of intimate details that would "prove" the allegations to you. Your conversation with Larne clearly shows that you cannot be trusted to keep private discussions private.
" For my part, I go on record that I would love to interview the four women who allegedly have alleged "molestation" if they would talk to me privately. "
"I was stepping forward in response to a challenge. Even if not me, I can arrange contacts if desired."
Let me introduce you to my good friend, Mr. Carpenter, said the walrus to the oysters.
No, I don't think that any victims would be wise to be interviewed (interrogated and cross examined) by you, nor to allow you to be the one to facilitate such an interview. If it is done, it needs to be done by GRACE or some other organization that they women can trust.
P.L., I do not know any of these people well enough to assume anything so I'm stuck with the public record. Larne has shown himself willing to clear up things when he is good and ready, but I know of no situation where Smalley has made any public statements about any of this over 38 years, despite decades of involvement with both Gothard and his critics. If he allows Alfred to speak for him, that is his decision. But I strongly agree with the rest of what you say.
Alfred, my Aug 1 response was not to your July 31 post that appears immediately above it. That one makes no sense to me. Have you been some super sleuth uncovering some dark stuff somewhere? Are you a problem solver or trained counselor? Can you give references of some groups you have helped with this work? Unlike other carefully reasoned advocacy, that self-defense just rang like "so's your old man"--it made no sense.
While we are at it, your free-lancing could actually hurt people you are trying to help. By engaging Gary Smalley and others to clear up things that you think should be cleared up, you may actually be smoking them out about a lot of things you wish you didn't have to hear. If you really want all the truth to come out (I take you at your word that you do not fear truth) why don't you join us in requesting a true independent investigation? Can you give any reason why the IBLP community and mission might be injured by a GRACE investigation?
"I understood from Dr. Levendusky that every effort was made to interview those who are alleging molestation"
Except securing an independent third party with whom they might have felt safe speaking.
Blaming the victims yet again, eh Alfred?
I remember how Bill Clinton tried harder than anything he had ever tried to give us a middle class tax cut in 1997. Funny how effort can be used as a cover for abject failure.
"I'm TRYIN' MAMA!!" "I tried REAL HARD, Daddy!"
In case you've forgotten Alfred:
"It is also important to note that, during the course of this investigation, not one of the women who have shared their stories on our site were personally contacted by Gibbs Jr. or his investigative team, including Charlotte, who alleged molestation. While we would not blame any of these women if they were not willing to be interviewed by such a biased investigator, we find it telling and troubling that none of them were ever contacted personally by the investigation and given a chance to speak, even though their identities are known to people within the organization."
From Recovering Grace's response to the IBLP 'statement'.
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/06/our-response-to-the-iblp-board-statement/
Strange, PL, how different that was from the statement given me tonight. I shall follow up.
You might review what RG has said about attempted arranged meetings. I believe there was some attempt to meet, but the attempt was directed to RG and not the women involved, and, if I remember correctly, it involved some pre-conditions that RG had no reason or authority to agree to. This may be the trouble. They may have tried to interview the women under rules of engagement very protective of IBLP but not safe or fair to the victims. That may be what they are calling "every effort".
Tim Levundusky has always seemed to me to be a sincere and devoted man, but not apparently creative or necessarily able to imagine what "every effort" would actually look like. They likely mean "every effort that was commensurate with IBLP freedom from liability for any injury caused by the investigation or republication of private matters".
To me, "every effort" would include a written agreement to admit to and apologize for any complaint any critic might credibly make. But no lawyer like Gibbs would allow his client to agree to such humiliation eve if it was the only path to reconciliation.
Blaming the victims? Not even remotely. I have great sympathy for victims, including those pushed around and fired by Bill indiscriminately, and young ladies that found his "footsie" and other touching liberties distressing.
I am, however, most concerned with accounts that may be partially or even entirely untrue. That is a completely legitimate concern, right? The one published account of molestation seems impossible to me, based on all that I know of Bill and have learned of the situation. It would not be the first time I have dealt up close with a vivid account of abuse that turned out to be completely fabricated. Given the amount of unhappiness with Bill for many reasons unrelated to his treatment of women, the possibility of a fabrication to hurry the process along is real and present.
That is why we "fact check", validate. Given that nothing verifiable has been presented for the one account posted thus far alleging actual sexual content - other than that the young lady was at HQ receiving counseling during the time alleged - I have my questions. I find the notion of having to believe the vetting process conducted by others not entirely satisfactory. If it truly is a matter that the Board never contacted the young lady in question, that is unconscionable. However, I was told most emphatically that access to her was denied . . . no interview took place because they could not contact her. This I will clarify.
I agree with you that accounts that are not true, or are apparent contradictions need to be cleared up. For example, I first heard of Gary Smalley's account on the MCO blog: "Ruth’s Story is a glimpse into those days. He had a regular practice of going room to room each night after the girls prepared for bed and were in the nighties, to give them a hug. He was caught on at least one occasion, by then staff, Gary Smalley, with an attractive female, in her sheer night ware sitting on Gothard’s lap, in his cabin at night."
Now Alfred, it is not clear to me that this incident did not occur. I messaged Ron Henzel last night, and told him about these recent exchanges. I asked for clarification. Ron fowarded my message to Don. The reason I did this is because you are now claiming the cabin incident did not occur. If it did not, then we all heard a false report. If it was true, there needs to be some clarification issued. Because while you didn't say the term, the implication of libel is there. I would like some clarification from MCO on this matter.
"Alfred you are to be commended for clearing up ambiguities in the stories, but you have not exonerated Gothard in any way. The bottom line is that no person should have trusted Bill Gothard to have a close relationship with their young single daughter. No one. Ever. His serial violations of such trust and of the innocence of the girls has damaged the Gospel and destroyed his ministry. We should be redeeming the lives affected instead of arguing over his lost integrity."
Don R. said this above and I agree. While I am firm in desiring a clarification on what MCO stated, Gothard has already publicly confessed to enough that disqualifies him from ministry, and more than that, the healing and encouragement of victims is the most important thing. Just posting this to keep things in perspective. Alfred, what Bill said to you about his behavior is completely compatible with Charlotte's story, if Bill gets to define the terms. IOW, both what he said and what Charlotte said can both be true statements, depending on how Bill defines the terms seeing and touching. After what is known, I believe you are grasping at straws trying to defend him, on account of the serial sensual abuse that has occurred. The victims need strong encouragement, and Bill is a deranged person who needs to repent, and he also needs help.
Thank you, LynnCD, for your balanced response. You actually have been a front level motivation to get more information . . . You and I go back a long ways and I have always appreciated your love for the truth. I intend to be the same in response.
I welcome further attention provided by Veinot and Henzel and others. I do not fear the truth, because I know that God wins, no matter who loses. What I fear is that Satsn will use lies and misinformation to turn a fixable situation into an impossible quagmire.
As to disqualification, based on what they know, which mirrors what I know, the Board has found Bill unfit for his ministry because he is not "above reproach". I am not sure I would disagree with that conclusion. I want, regardless, to have the truth told. Bill has looked me in the eye on several occasions and stated unequivocally that he never touched nor saw a woman's "private parts" in his life. He has stated that to several others exactly the same way. Either he didn't or he is a violent liar. The latter demands a response orders of magnitude greater than the things the Board cited in barring his return. So you see why this part of the discussion is most important to me.
Alfred, yours is a very legitimate concern that many of us share. But you should maybe ask yourself WHY IBLP and Gothard do not wish to give a full answer to clarify all things? Why have they not sought letters from Gary Smalley clarifying such confusion? "Not responding to critics" has been a very beneficial tactic over the years, extending unaccountability for decades. But now that many damaging facts are out, it would be far better to make full disclosure, warts and all, than to continue saying, "we investigated, found a few things amiss and have addressed them" while possibly incomplete or mistaken stories continue to circulate without refutation.
I repeat what I have said elsewhere: the IBLP statement after the Gibbs "investigation" disclosed not one fact or conclusion that was not already confessed by Gothard's statement of weeks earlier. This means either, they wish to suppress facts for good or for ill, OR they learned nothing that Gothard had not put in his letter, OR they did not even talk to anyone with any knowledge. They should publish Gibbs' complete report to them (including identifying every witness by alias if necessary to protect the innocent) in the interest of full disclosure and integrity. They should also hire G.R.A.C.E. and let the chips fall where they might with an unbiased credible investigation by people the victims could trust.
I share your concern with fabrications, which is another reason an unbiased investigation is essential. The Board should have located and investigator acceptable to the victims. (And I would not advise the Board or an amateur such as yourself to interview a molestation accuser.) But you overstate when you say nothing verifiable has been presented regarding Charlotte (verification is of course problematic with respect to certain private details, the old he said/she said pattern makes corroboration impossible without a stained dress). Witnesses have corroborated Bill being alone with Charlotte, including regularly in his car at times such as "between 4:30 and 5:30 a.m." which establishes BG's very horrible judgment that exposed him to both possible temptation and potential fabrication. They have also corroborated by explaining how Bill alienated potential confidants from her. Now had ne never been alone with the 16 year old girl, there would be no such corroboration.
You also neglect RG's commendably cautious approach which has obviously protected them from a successful slander suit by Gothard. They may not be omniscient, but they appear to have a reasonable basis for everything they have published.
The burden of going forward with evidence has long since shifted from accusers to an accused who has offered nothing but unverified categorical denials ("never...with sexual intent")(uncorroborated, I might add) and partial admissions. He seems to have been seeking evidence in December. But he has offered none. And we should all be exhausted by now by his reticence.
"That is why we "fact check", validate."
No. That is why we hire an experienced, independent, and trustworthy third party, to conduct an investigation that is as above reproach as possible. Investigation of abuse is a job for trained professionals, not bystanders like you and me.
What, should these women be expected to repeat their story to every ATI dad, who like you Alfred, feels they have a right to question them? No, never.
IBLP had a chance to set up an appropriate investigation; they were encouraged by RG and many others to utilize the demonstrated ability of the GRACE organization. IBLP were the ones with the 'golden opportunity' of which you speak.
Instead, they chose to use a discredited lawyer with thirty year ties to their own organization whose history of protecting abusers (not the abused) is so egregious that he has been discredited by his own son.
The IBLP investigation was a laughingstock, and deserves to be scorned. Any woman who refused to participate was smart not to engage with a process that was set up to discredit her, not to seek truth.
And yes, Alfred, you DO blame the victims. All the time.
You and I have a differing opinion on whether the law firm hired by the Board is "experienced, independent, and trustworthy", PL. Let's make sure they have all the access they need to accurately evaluate the claims out there. If they know things we know and ignore it, I will be the first in line to openly demand an explanation. Whether you believe it or not, I have found a literal handful of Bill supporters that think that what all agree he did do - footsies, touching, being alone, sitting close, buying gifts - is "no big deal". The overwhelming number are deeply grieved. This includes the Board, some of them remembering when Bill was unequivocally warned years ago to cease and desist. They are incensed. If you have any idea what it means for these folks, who love and respect Bill deeply for all he has meant in their lives, to openly and without reservation separate themselves from him, you would know that there is no way they will ignore exponentially more serious crimes.
"This includes the Board, some of them remembering when Bill was unequivocally warned years ago to cease and desist."
Could you please elaborate?
Alfred,
Let me make this very clear. I communicated something with you privately this week and at the bottom of that email I made the follow statement: “This email is not for publication, posting or distribution!” I shared a personal view with you to help you on your quest of answering your questions, not for me to be used by you as your “witness.” This is a complicated story that covers over 40 years of Bill’s sin.
First: Your statement, “Larne has confirmed to me privately as he stated publicly that Ruth's consistent testimony was that Bill never crossed any moral line with her in all those years. It remained "lap sitting" and "star gazing" ...fully clothed.” Yes that is true but I also heard Ruth tell Bill that she could never issue a statement regarding that claim because she did not know his intent. This is contrary to Bill’s recent general statement to the Chicago Sun-Times regarding sexual harassment and intent.
Second: You state, “We are left with a secretary - Ruth - with whom he allowed liberties like that in a "courting" way, as has been reported on this website ("Ruth's Story"). Activities Gary rebuked him for and that he later confessed to the Board as "defrauding", and resigned over.” Bill has stated at times he was friend and like a father to Ruth yet at other times when under outside pressure he stated they had a third level friendship, whatever best suited the image he wanted to portray at the time. What was it, girlfriend or daughter? As a father I would not have my adult or even teenage daughter sit on my lap and as a spiritual leader this was way out of bounds especially for a man who held the puritanical beliefs Bill required of others but not of himself. In the corporate training I receive annually this is sexual harassment at its core. This behavior is completely unacceptable!
Third: There was not shoddy investigation by RG regarding this matter and the question of the location or attire. As I stated in my email to you, the 1980 scandal was a very complicated investigation. It involved many victims and witnesses, the events took place at the Northwood, seminars, Oak Brook, and other locations over many years. Some testimonies provided more detail then others yet together they formed a whole picture. When I personally met with Gary and Norma in June I asked them about the cabin story. I had not been aware of that story until last year. My question was to hear it from them personally, not to debate history. I walked away satisfied with their answers. Tony has a different view. Personally, I think, the who, where and what she wore are not as important as the inappropriateness of the event itself. In a statement Ruth made regarding lap sitting in general and other inappropriate activities, she states it was how they were “trained” (her words) or maybe encouraged coming to Oak Brook as young naive women. Those activities became the norm.
There are other stories out there that are a lot more damming than this one. But there are real people that would suffer from those stories and I will not be a part of that exposure. Ruth is an easy target because she is dead. Personally I am completing a task she started to bring openness and truth to the scandal and protect others from the abuses she suffered during her employment working for Bill. Again the real question that needs to be asked: Does any of Bill’s actions meet with God's standard, especially considering his position in the Christian world?
Lastly did the IBYC/IBLP Board do all they could to provide the necessary oversight of Bill’s actions based on the history of the organization?
Several of us are attempting to help Bill come to grips with his sin and for him to seek confession, repentance, forgiveness and restitution. We pray that the ultimate goal is to bring healing to those hurt and affected by Bill and his ministry, in the area of the spiritual, emotional and mental damage. I feel your attempt to protect Bill hinders that goal. Because of that I will not answer any more of your future emails because I feel it will impede the necessary process. Alfred, you need to come to grips that your mentor is a failure just like the rest of us. Remember Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I think you are misguided as you try to justify Bill's sins against those who were entrusted to his care. In the end you, like Bill, will have to answer for your actions before a Holy God just like the rest of us.
Larne
Thank you. I will be in prayer for all this weekend.
Larne: I am sorry that I violated your trust. I read "not for publication, posting or distribution” to keep me from posting your words, but understood the corroboration of information from other sources to be acceptable. That was the reason I sent the original post to you for review before posting it here, so as not to violate your trust, as it did cite things you told me in private. Again, I am very sorry.
This too is good news Alfred. It is too bad the Board has not been able to communicate its outrage, nor to clarify that BG will never again be given access to an underage female and never again allowed to teach or write on behalf of the Institute and announce that they have hired a seminary (or three) to carefully review all publications and videos to recommend corrections. That would be acts in keeping with repentance of the Board for its shame for his fooling them twice.
Alfred, it is a very simple matter that if there has ever been an attorney/client relationship between the lawyer and the accused or IBLP that it is impossible for the lawyer to act as an independent investigator (willing to disclose harmful information to others) and it would be a violation of his code of ethics to do so. No lawyer for a victim would have allowed one in Gibb's circumstances to interview the victim.
IBLP should disclose the contract under which Gibbs acted. I can almost assure you that it creates an attorney/client relationship and that Gibbs acted in a defensive manner as if preparing to defend litigation. Remember Perry Mason's investigator? He was competent, fair and thorough, but he was not "independent" in that he was working FOR one side. Well, Gibbs is the lawyer here, not even the snoop! He was not a judge or jury but working for the Board. He was their agent. He was THEIR lawyer.
Yes, thank you Don. And since Gibbs would be in an adversarial position to the victims (he works for the board, remember), they would each be required to retain their own legal counsel, at their own expense. I retain four lawyers, who charge me $300-$600 per hour for their various services. No big deal for the IBLP board and its $80 million dollar asset base, but a serious burden for a household budget. And all to simply be pushed aside (see "Former Bill Gothard Testimony Girl"'s statement) and disregarded?
Alfred says the board went to every effort to talk to these women? The IBLP board erected EVERY. POSSIBLE. BARRIER. to prevent their coming forward. As interim president, Dr. Levendusky is personally responsible for this sham. (I almost wrote shame. That too).
Alfred, you stated "there is no way they will ignore exponentially more serious crimes". They did just that by not hiring an independent, outside, widely respected firm to conduct the investigation. Which is what any board with integrity would have done had it wanted to know the truth. The path they chose was a joke, and quite frankly the board should be embarrassed. They chose the path to limit liability and sustain the life of the false teaching cult...
"David Gibbs III, the son of Gibbs Jr., recently asserted in an official statement that his father’s legal work “helps cover for alleged and/or eventually convicted abusers, or the churches or ministries they work for.” Gibbs Jr.’s historic role is not that of impartial investigator, but of an attorney engaged by churches to minimize their organizational liability in cases of misconduct and abuse.
Gibbs Jr. was a keynote speaker at both of the ATI regional conferences this year, and has maintained a long-term relationship with Bill Gothard and the IBLP organization since the 1980s. Only in the most technical of terms can the board can say that their review process was “conducted by outside legal counsel.” It was an error in judgment to entrust such a sensitive investigation to someone who has consistently demonstrated poor judgment when dealing with abuse cases, and deceptive to characterize someone so closely tied to and socially invested in their organization as an objective investigator."
Again from From Recovering Grace's response to the IBLP 'statement', dated June 20, 2014.
Make no mistake about it, Alfred, if the details that you so desire about these incidents have not been brought to light, it is the fault of IBLP's 'investigation', not of the women. Why didn't THEY get to the bottom of what happened in Bill's cabin? If they had, you wouldn't need to be here straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Alfred says, "If they know things we know and ignore it, I will be the first in line to openly demand an explanation. "
The below was posted on June 20. Have you openly demanded an explanation yet, Alfred?
"Former "Bill gothard testimony girl" June 20, 2014
Hi, as one of young women who was interviewed, I appreciate recovering grace's response. As mentioned in this response, I did alert them to criminal behavior: failure to report sexual abuse of minors and then sending them back to their situation, violation of labor laws, and sexual harassment in the work place....I wish the board would have acknowledge the victims and seek to restore them rather than to save their "empire." Their response has saddened me."
Alfred –
You have invested a HUGE amount of time and energy fact-checking in defense of your friend. There is nothing wrong – and everything right – with the truth, so while I’d never fault fact-checking per se, there is a MUCH bigger issue here. I’ll get to it later … much later, probably, because there’s a lot else to say, too.
You dismiss “the incident,” proposing in response to my question that “we can strike a fairly significant incident off our list of ‘bad things Bill did’” – not based on something not happening (because it’s still apparent and relevant that SOMEthing happened SOMEwhere at SOME time) – but because you have concluded (correctly or incorrectly) that the time and place WERE INCORRECTLY REPORTED IN THE PRESS. That’s actually what it boils down to, according to your posts.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, Alfred, but whether or not the LA Times or Wiki or “the book” are accurate have nothing to do with actual truth. It’s my opinion that these sources were probably well-researched at the time, and I hope you recognize that Gary Smalley has changed his story over the years, and that it’s entirely possible that the story told at the time could have been deemed from an appropriately reliable source.
Gary’s recollection HAS apparently changed (if you compare his email to what he’s told you), which doesn’t speak well of him, by the way. I have no opinion of the man’s character or reliability, but I consider forgetfulness or senility as possible natural explanations. Of course, the actual etiology may not even be natural … it could be intimidation or [gasp] even gaslighting. These are REAL possibilities, considering your friend’s narcissistic characteristics. (And I’ll remind you I speak from experience at the hand of a crazy-maker.)
Or the LA Times and Wiki and “the book” authors may have had vendettas. Or they were really bad fact-checkers. Whether there was error many years ago or error very recently … IT DOESN’T MATTER. Have you read the testimonies on this site and others, Alfred? (They’re not under oath in a court of law, so maybe they don’t count?) How many of THEM cite the LA Times or Wiki or “the book” in describing what happened to them? These sources could not even exist and they would be telling their same stories of manipulation and intimidation. Is the press to blame for your friend’s mishandling of Scripture, teaching people to blame victims, fabricating arbitrary standards to define “godly living,” and all the train wrecks we’ve read about? I’m siding with NOT.
Whether something was correctly reported in the press doesn't negate what really happened. If someone pulled a gun and shot someone else behind a nightclub, but the witness said it was behind a bank and it got reported in the papers that someone was murdered behind a bank, how would you feel as the family member of the person that got shot when the defense lawyer argued that it happened behind a nightclub and not a bank? It’s a reflection on the credibility of the witness, but IT DOESN'T MATTER … the victim’s still dead.
You seem to dismiss much of the gravity of “the incident” based on the young woman indicating that your friend never acted inappropriately, and that they were romantically involved. Well, that’s typical from a “groomed” victim, and the fact that she was groomed needs to figure in to the interpretation. And don’t you realize that by even acknowledging statements made from any of the parties, you’re acknowledging that there was in fact an “incident,” in spite of the fuzziness of where and when?
Then there was the inconvenient matter of your friend stating to one person that they were romantically involved and stating to her father that they were not. When I brought that up before and asked you about it as point blank as I could, you called my tone nasty and went off saying that since the young lady was trustworthy, somehow that means he didn’t lie … which still makes no sense at all. He said one thing to one person, and for the sake of convenience, the exact opposite to someone else. That’s called a LIE. To one or the other or both – HE LIED, and he planned on nobody ever comparing those stories.
I’m not saying facts don’t matter, nor that false accusations don’t matter. I’m saying that first of all, there are multiple reports of an incident that alarmed Gary Smalley and for which your friend was called on the carpet. You’ve indicated that it’s over – he received his punishment, paid the price, and we should move on. I believe most others are of the persuasion that it’s just a tiny piece of a much bigger picture that HASN’T been dealt with. We can argue where, when, and who, but IT DOESN’T MATTER. Beyond that, there are bazillions of reports of egregious behavior besides this incident … sexual and to a huge extent, otherwise.
I’ll quote myself from earlier in this thread … "It doesn’t matter if the nightie was sheer or flannel. Regardless the body surface area touching or the weight supported or the position of anybody’s body parts. It doesn’t matter if they were on a sofa, chair, or bed, or if the lights were turned up or down. It doesn’t matter if they were or were not romantically involved, nor the future intentions of either one of them. It doesn’t matter if they kissed or if they didn’t, or whatever else they did or didn’t do. What in the world is your obsession with defining points that really don’t matter? Power was abused, a woman was being used and emotionally abused, a covert meeting was taking place against everything the man taught and stood for, and he tried later to eradicate or dissipate the account of the whole thing."
Sooooo … No, there will be no striking this “fairly significant incident” off our list, and it was a little presumptuous to assume we would. But whether it stays on the list or not really DOESN’T MATTER either, because the list is actually volumes. If we don’t want to talk about it because our opinions differ, or until more reliable facts are brought to light, that’s fine, too, because personally, when I think of the “list,” this is wayyyy down on it anyway. I could do without ever bringing it up again, except that it seems awfully important to you. But strike it based on the true or false assumption that the evil press was wrong? No, thank you.
Alfred. Your friend groomed young girls. He conditioned them to accept his perverted advances – regardless of how “far” they were – AND taught them that it was wrong to do anything about it, AND threatened them so they wouldn’t, AND discredited them – lied to them and about them – in case they did. That's immoral, and at given points, illegal. Your friend coerced free labor out of countless employees. He conditioned them to believe that they were doing the Lord's work and shouldn't expect fair wages, AND taught them that it was wrong to do anything about it, AND threatened them so they wouldn’t, AND discredited them – lied to them and about them – in case they did. That's immoral and illegal. Your friend taught others to obey authority, but he broke plenty of laws – labor laws, sexual harassment, treatment of minors, reporting of physical and sexual abuse. He intimidated or fired those who might expose him, AND he discredited them to others – lied to them and about them – in case they might try. Your friend taught others how to behave morally, but he didn’t live by that, either. He intimidated or fired those who might expose him, AND he discredited them to others – lied to them and about them – in case they might try.
Do you see a pattern here? He LIED. He COERCED. He MANIPULATED. He ABUSED. S e r I a l l y. There are way too many deliberate and evil acts to list. Review some of the stories of young men and women in Alert or Excel programs and such. The abuse is not just sexual, and this isn’t about your friend’s purity or lack of it. Your friend is a sham. I imagine he claims ignorance and good intentions?? As well as you know him ... could that possibly be the case? No, he's way too intelligent.
The part that caps it all is that he accuses his own VICTIMS of damage to the cause of Christ. That alone should make us just vomit. Sorry to be graphic, but it’s utterly disgusting to a degree I can’t describe otherwise.
And I realize I haven’t even gotten to my point. This will have to be a 2-parter … sorry.
I will give you a preview, though … As much as what your friend has masterfully pulled off through the years disgusts me, and as much as defense of the same frustrates me, I empathize with you, Alfred. Really – that’s even an understatement. I’ll try to explain how, but unfortunately, I can’t right now.
Well said, thank you!
Larne
Thank YOU, Larne, for all that you and Ruth have done, and that you continue to do to bring healing.
Laurne,
I read Ruth's story and had tears of grief for her and you. That story touched me like no other story did. I think because it was abut the time I had gone to the basic seminar. I can't wrap my head around it. I do understand how Ruth and others were taught to submit and not think as I've been around many in ATI who are the same.
The only comfort here is that she is in heaven and free.
Blessings to you and your family.
Alfred,
It appears that you think I said you "would defend him at all costs" - I did not say that. I said that you had commented on many articles on this site, all in defense of Bill. As I've read the dialogues you've had with others, I noted that you jump around in your response, take insignificant details and focus on them rather than the issue being discussed. I never thought I would engage in a dialogue with you because you already have a position that you have staked out, and you are determined to defend it. Your position seems to be that because Bill is important to you, everyone else's experience and perspective is invalid.
I had not seen any posts from you in quite awhile, and so wrongly concluded that you must finally have understood the gravity of Bill's bad behavior. Obviously I was wrong. Heather's story was so horrifying, I thought perhaps you could grieve over the terrible things done by BG. Specifically I am referring to him insisting that she work for him and his family in exchange for him providing housing for her family. To use and abuse a vulnerable young woman this way is really evil. Bill made up his "principles" but what about God's requirements: "he has showed you oh man what is good, and what does The Lord require of you but to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God" Micah 6:8. According to the accounts of many many people, Bill has not acted justly, loved mercy or walked humbly with God. You seem simply unable to acknowledge this.
Your statement that "I have made it my business to try and figure out the truth" is admirable, but is that what you are really doing? It seems much more likely that you are trying to undermine any information that is contrary to your already established view. The truth is right in front of you, but you will not accept it.
You should read Larne's post again, and the Elizabeth's post again, and then read them over once more and try to understand what people are communicating to you -Bill's behavior and theology are indefensible.
AMEN to what Elizabeth D and Aila H posted!!!!!!
Well, since several days have elapsed since it was reported we can cross the cabin incident off our list, and neither RG nor IBLP have made any stir to modify the article above, it is more than a safe surmise that neither side of those close to the matter is crossing cabin incidents off their respective lists. It has been stated there are legal people very involved on both sides, and their response to this serious accusation has been to ignore it.
Alfred – I previously mentioned why I believe there is no “victory” in your conclusion that your friend was misrepresented in the press. The sense I get is that you feel that since something didn’t happen exactly when or where it was reported to have happened, then we can consider that proof that your friend is the victim of vicious lies (my words, not yours), and we can strike this whole incident off the list of bad things he did (your words, not mine).
When I look back briefly, I see that Gary Smalley offered at one time to be quoted on four points … that he saw Bill and a female (1) in private quarters, (2) late at night, (3) her sitting on his lap, and that (4) she was in a “skimpy nightgown.” If it got misunderstood or embellished somewhere along the way with a different locale and a different time period, we’ll just have to let those details be determined some other time. There may have been a “cabin” incident – or a dozen others – that got meshed with this one … there’s really no telling, considering the restrictions people felt about reporting anything regarding The Great Intimidator. And if Gary has withdrawn his offer, I would not doubt that he is the victim of either intimidation or gaslighting.
The hierarchy in your mind of what MATTERS and what doesn’t is very frustrating to others. To strike the “cabin/headquarters” incident would be a huge deal to you. Why? Because it’s one of the remarkably few problems you have with Bill Gothard, and that would substantially shorten your list. The only other problems you have are other allegations of SEXUAL misconduct, which you have whittled down to only four – those that include “actual” sexual contact, and which you deem categorically impossible based (only) on the trust you place in your friend and his straight-faced denial. ACTUAL sexual PERVERSION or ACTUAL sexual HARASSMENT besides contact of certain body parts – being “subjective” and all – don’t seem to bother you nearly as much as they bother the victims or the rest of us. And the four you know about are probably not all there are, by the way. And you were rightfully rebuked for your audacity when you said you were willing to interview them … when you have clearly stated that you don’t believe them. Really? What do they owe you, and what benefit would occur?? The only “benefit” I can imagine is your finding some “fact” that YOU can’t make sense of so that you can declare a victory of sorts as you keep whittling your list of problems down to zero.
So when I look at the gist of what you say, it seems to me that what MATTERS to you is entirely sexual. Beyond that, you dismiss certain sexual behavior as mistaken “fatherly” contact or as well-intentioned misunderstandings or as lapses in good judgment, so what it REALLY boils down to is a matter of body parts – which ones of whose were touched or seen by which ones of who else. Those are the ONLY things you’ve given weight to … the only things that would “make a difference” to you. ***They are incidentally (1) the most private, least-witnessed of behaviors (not withstanding Gary throwing a monkey wrench in one incident), and (2) the things that MATTER to your friend Bill.***
For instance, I’ve never heard you say that “If Bill broke the law by telling people to not report worked hours or not paying them for actual (non-volunteer) time worked, that would make all the difference.” Or “If Bill condoned locking up minors without parental consent or notification, or FOOD, that would change everything for me.” Or “If Bill knew about Steve and lied about it, …” Or “If Bill really told Jack one thing, and knowingly and deliberately told Jill something else, …” Or “If Bill really pressed that girl to graphically describe to him her brother’s sexual abuse while they sat thigh to thigh in his private office alone after hours, and made her do it repeatedly, and also made her ‘confess’ private thoughts of a sensual nature, and made her do it repeatedly, …”
You said plainly that if Charlotte’s story were true, THAT would turn things around for you, and you elaborated that – bottom line – IF Charlotte’s claims were true, THEN you would know that Bill LIED TO YOU. It’s worth noting that you never said, “If Bill assassinated Tony’s character (LIBELED), that would change everything for me.” Nor did you say, “Gee – Bill really did write a 19-page letter, even though he said he didn’t … I guess he IS capable of lying … pathologically.” It’s only the sexual stuff you seem to care about, as if other transgressions (sorry – “character flaws”? “judgment lapses”?) aren’t deal-breakers. Look at the difference … your attention has been diverted to the things that MATTER according to your friend’s dictates, and for which he has the fewest witnesses.
It’s not your friend’s propensity to lie in other contexts that’s important to you. The only one that you’ve said would “change things” for you is the straight-faced lie to your face about sex. He lied to you about what was done behind closed doors with people that he can discredit with fairly good success so far. (And if he can discredit the “press,” that’ll go a long way in discrediting the others, by the way.) He lied to you about where his body parts have been … something we can never really know for ourselves because none of us were there. Dude is no amateur … what he’s convinced you that MATTERS are the things without a paper trail or multiple witnesses.
Instead of trying to figure out where his eyes, hands, and various other body parts have been (which seems to be the sum total of your endless pursuit, and is costing you LOTS of time and energy in the meantime) and trying to reconcile that to statements of his self-declared “purity” (let me emphasize - what HE considers to be “pure” [gag]), I challenge you to look at the whole of his behavior and evaluate it FOR YOURSELF.
You’ve opened yourself up to manipulation by listening to this man’s statement regarding his “intentions” and trying to evaluate his behavior based on supposed intentions. If you claim you’re not under his spell, I’d propose that it’s because he’s THAT good at holding you in. It’s an almost invisible fence. Does it leave you dazed & confused? I’m thinking it most likely does.
Try looking at the big picture (and it’s a HUGE orchestration, really) – the self-importance, the Scripture-twisting, the rule-making, the manipulation by “godly” prescription, the coercion, the discounting and discrediting and disposal of the opposition, the sexual perversion and denials and cover-ups, and on and on and on. They’re NOT separate issues; they’re an intricately woven tapestry. You may come to a different conclusion about his intent – and it’ll be your OWN conclusion. You may conclude that – in spite of perceived personal benefits from his “ministry” – he was not honorable or truthful [gasp] or even “pure” [CHOKE].
Don’t let this man tell you his intention and make you evaluate his behavior with that presupposition. Look at the WHOLE of his behavior and see if you don’t discern an intention on your own.
What he’s been getting away with is telling YOU what matters, even if it goes against intuition or reason. Again – if you don’t think he has, it’s because he’s so adept at leading you to what he wants you to conclude “for yourself.” Then he plays a loyalty card at the same time so that YOU go on wild goose chases to his delight, and he maintains control. HE’S picked what MATTERS, and it’s conveniently the stuff that will keep you chasing those geese the longest … the things that have the fewest witnesses … the stuff he can leave the most room for doubt about … hmmm … and what would that be? The SEXUAL stuff.
If he hinges your trust in him on sexual incidences that need “indisputable proof,” he knows he can buy a lot of time. He’s already groomed his victims so that many of them probably still haven’t said anything. He already bought and cashed in on a bunch of time by teaching them not to give “bad reports” about him. He’s discounted what they’ve said by getting you to buy the notion that he didn’t mean anything bad. (And by “you,” I mean his faithful collectively.) The only stuff he’s still having a problem with is that some of it crosses the line of interpretation, and that one incident that was witnessed by what we considered to be a credible witness. THAT’s what makes this such a “significant incident” to you and would make your list considerably shorter. You REALLY need to look very closely at your list and see whose handwriting it’s in.
“Bill has looked me in the eye on several occasions and stated unequivocally that he never touched nor saw a woman's ‘private parts’ in his life. Either he didn't or he is a violent liar.” Add into that equation that like another famous “Bill,” you can’t rely on your own terminology … every minutiae must be explicitly defined, and even then, he will still try to lie around it … and that private moments were conveniently not caught on tape, so he figures you can’t argue with what he’s told you. Add to THAT your own sober reasoning that the whole of his behavior doesn’t hinge on this one thing. Then figure for yourself. Really – what he touched or saw is the only thing that would prove him a liar?? If that’s the only criteria, you really need to open your eyes to the bigger picture and realize that he can be a “violent liar” based on a lot more than what went on behind a door or under a blanket. THAT’s why I say these things “don’t matter” – not that they really don’t matter, because really they DO, but because whether the man is a violent liar and a sham is consistent with what he’s accused of in private, but IT DOESN’T HINGE ON IT.
You called this a “fixable situation.” I’d agree, really, but I don’t think we’d see the solution in the same terms. I hope you’ll reconsider what it will take.
I said there was a bigger issue, and what I meant was the whole issue of what “matters,” and who dictates that. I also said I empathized with you. I’ve been living for a long time in a much more private hellish environment than the one your friend has orchestrated. But I know what it’s like to have someone else frame “reality” for you, and to buy into it with the best of intentions. It’s crazy … literally. And I hope you can see your way out of it, as I’m finding mine.
Elizabeth, Thank you! As a victim of multiple (ah hum) non-sexual abuses over the first 17 yrs of my life, I can attest that literally "sexual contact of certain body parts" is a sham. The violation of trust, the distortion of values shapes ones psyche in a dibilitating way. I'm 64 now and it has taken me 47 years to make some sense of what actually happened. Alfred , wake up!
I would love to see this be a Recovering Grace article in its own right. I have had to learn to think logically, because other people were "framing reality" for me through false teaching and/or controlling behavior. Thank you, Elizabeth, for this well thought out reply.
Or in other words, 'The little foxes spoil the vine.'
Pingback : Midwest Christian Outreach Inc. Blog — Bill Gothard and the Continuing Sex Scandal
Agree with Elizabeth. Alfred, you may also want to consider MCO's response to your hopeful denial that Bill's behavior was as bad as Gary Smalley originally reported in those e mails. As Larne told you, this is a complex situation. There were many instances of sin, many witnesses, many meetings, and many years which have elapsed.
Here is the link to MCO's response: http://www.midwestoutreach.org/2014/08/07/bill-gothard-and-the-continuing-sex-scandal/
LynnCD, thanks for the heads up about the new Venoit contribution. It is very well reasoned and explains much about the ongoing misunderstanding about actual events. Facts, particularly from decades past, are extremely difficult to organize perfectly. But even in disarray, they can present a picture that is not pretty. As Elizabeth so well stated, a careful review of the facts without starting from the affirmations of pure intentions by the accused will necessarily lead to a very different conclusion.
I did read the comments and posted my own comment. I would note that the master researcher, the author of "the book", is repeating anonymously sourced 3rd hand information, posted here (on RG). I am just so tired of this. I have gone to Don and Tony and anyone else I could find for the past 10 years saying, "give me your worst - I am trying to get things straightened out". With every passing day my conviction grows that the "fondling and caressing" claims given to the LA Times in 1980 were unfounded, basically cobbled together from a series of inappropriate events with the belief that the "beef" would eventually be revealed. This "Cabin Story" as detailed here was cited to me personally by one of the main sources as Exhibit A. Exhibit B was "Impulsively wiping spilled Coke off a secretary after she and the entire cabin was sprayed", cited by Don in his recent article. He also cited an account based completely on a statement Dr. Radmacher - very much an "outsider" to the details - made in a transcript of a phone conference. It is notable that none of the "insiders" present stepped up to corroborate, suggesting to me that it was a rumor. Based on my experience so far, that is precisely what I expect I will find, if and when I am ever permitted to bring this to ground.
There is much fury directed towards me, along the lines of, "These are small things compared to the really big things we know Bill did." I disagree. If I were Bill and I were publicly slandered with major accounts and statements that I knew were false, coming ultimately from - and at the very least not corrected by - the very people I am suppose to respect before and submit to for discipline for some far lesser things I know I did, what would be my motivation to do so? Why, very low, almost nonexistent. Better to hunker down, ride it out, fix it up, do better next time. The people that have Bill's ear know that some of the key bits posted against him - the things that emphatically lead to outrage - are false. They look at the endless rage and mocking . . . some are concluding that there is no possible way he can actually correct the things that need correcting in this kind of an environment and are urging him to forget it.
So . . . yes, it really does matter. Nobody is served by untruths, lies. The means does immense damage to the intended end. Some here understand that.
Alfred, I see no fury. I see frustration, but not fury. Please give us your worst, identify the insiders you believe have refused to corroborate. I thought you said Bill corroborated the coke incident. What more corroboration need there be to take it out of the rumor category? Venoit quoted eyewitnesses, not just "third parties". You yourself have engaged in extensive defenses of lapsitting during a betrothal period, why do you then disbelieve the sexual nature of the corroborated act, regardless of where it occurred or the attire involved?
But my biggest frustration with your position is that Bill knows all facts against him. If he would make a full confession of all incidents that have given rise to these "rumors" and allegations, then he could begin to clarify any error outstanding. Instead, he ONLY admits parts of stories that can no longer be denied. He denies ALL but the undeniable. No transparent man has such a record.
YOU do not need to uncover the truth. Bill Gothard needs to make a full confession. Did he rub girls legs with his socked foot or only their feet? Rather than characterize the hugs, describe them in detail, let characterizations flow from the facts, not the story teller. If detailed descriptions of his counseling victims' sexual pasts and thoughts were good enough for them, it will be good for Gothard. He needs to come clean. (He admitted to defrauding AND to private solo immorality in the past, ask him to confess ALL his thoughts involved in those sins. When sinning alone, did he think about any employee? Did he think about any hugs, footsie, shoulder rubbing? It can get messy when you try to nail jelly to a wall.)
But up to now, he wouldn't even admit to very lengthy character assassinating published letters until confronted with incontrovertibile evidence. I do not blame you for wanting such evidence, I say Gothard has no right to wait for it to admit his faults. He is a coward and you are enabling him. No one but Gothard owes you any information. And all he gives you is denials, or else you are simply softening and characterizing his actual admissions to protect him from further ridicule.
Ask him how many employees of IBLP have sat on his lap. Ask him how many girls he has privately advised on their dress, makeup and/or hair style. Ask him how many females he has told privately that they were his energy giver or other such sweet talk. Ask him how many girls or women he has asked about their sexual histories. Ask him to name all these women and whether each relationship became broken at some point. Be as persistent demanding his full confession as you are about "going to the sources" and as demanding as is his own principled system of clearing one's conscience (i.e FULL confession). Don't simply present imperfect complaints and ask his comment--allowing him to dispute the errors instead of admit the truth--ask him to tell you everything. Then fully report to us just as you fully report the confidential things that Larne or Gary tell you. Don't characterize, don't soften. Report without gloss.
Please direct your intensity at the one witness who has refused to confess anything voluntarily. Ease up on your disputations with those to whom he has proven his unreliability. He had his chance with them. You can't help him if he won't help himself.
well said.
If you watch any of the reality intervention shows where a family confronts an addict (I prefer the gracious and direct approach of Kristina Wandzilak), it is often the case that the family is doing a lot of enabling. It can be as hard for the family to stop enabling as it is for the addict to stop using. In some ways, Bill acts much like those addicts and his cohorts around him act like an enabling family who refuses to accept outside input, choosing to believe first and foremost what the addict says above everyone else. Of *course* the addict denies, minimizes, excuses - it's par for the course. In the end, the enabling family does more harm than good to prop up the illusion.
Yes, MatthewS. It is telling that Alfred's responses here show how much he sees himself as a the champion of his own story: "I am finally permitted to push away the clawing hands and rip open the closet door with the boogeyman man inside", to save his hero. But actually he's harming him. Sad.
Don: Let’s see if I can get through this:
“Corroborated the Coke incident” : Inasmuch as it happened? Not that it was some evil thing. Like a friend of my detailed running headlong, full body into a young lady at one of the training centers. At what point . . . is this the “legalist” we hate so much?
“Veinot quoted eyewitnesses” : That depends. The “fondling” allegation made was most definitely not an “eye witness”. It was 3rd hand at best. Read it, it is in the “phone transcript” story on RG ( https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/1983-transcript/
“Lapsitting” : In the “transcript” are discussions of Bill stating that he was dating Ruth, privately expressed his interest in her. She indicated she understood expectations were that of a “boyfriend”. This is the only secretary I know sat on his lap. No, that was not consistent with his standards of courtship . . . but it was no more “sexual”, as you say, than what any honorable Christian couple is when doing the same thing. AND, for the record . . . he resigned because of this.
“Footsies” : I accept the accounts on those things as given. That was wrong, should not have happened. Even if he can argue that he did not understand the significance of this to the young ladies, he was warned about the appearance of such things repeatedly.
“Private solo immorality” : I felt it unconscionable for the one to have published that, regardless if accurate or honorably derived . . . which at this moment I am not sure is possible. Such a statement also makes a judgment against the mainstream of Christian morality, notably Dr. Dobson. The one publishing this completely equivocated this to adultery, with all legal, church consequences. Which, in the context of the evil villain “legalism” is just interesting. I am guessing we would indeed be getting desperate to go there.
“Full report” : Generally speaking witnesses bring their accusations and supporting evidence. I have no problem following up on such things. Here is the scriptural standard against “an elder”, a senior Christian leader: “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19) Much higher standard than ordinary believers. There is a reason God says every thing He says.
You cannot read a sentence without parsing it. So everything to you is something to twist and then ignore.
To the one point that I think you tried to make, while I cringe at mentioning unmentionables, Gothard denies touching with sexual intent, ever. His past habits prove he was not asexual, so his testimony is incredible.
Thank you for your criticism. It informs me that straightforward communication with you is an impossiblity.
Alfred, you didn't respond to the main point of Don's well-reasoned response to you, which was to point out that BILL is the one who should be questioned, and provide the detailed accounts of incidents that you so desire.
Direct your queries to him, and come back here when you have full detailed statements from him, about specific incidents, which you can quote.
Until then, you're just asking us to believe what you say, which has proven in this thread alone to be so unreliable that you have twice been rebuked by Ruth's husband, Larne.
And yet you couldn't resist bringing up her name, AGAIN. What is wrong with you? Leave the name of this godly, beloved woman, and her husband, ALONE.
And I again reply, he believes that he has (made full confession to others). So it remains for others to indicate otherwise. I am not his counselor or confessor. Far more qualified folk are busy at that. My self-appointed job is to address the stories that are posted as facts and see if they are. Exactly what we are to do with evil reports.
Alfred, Your assertion that you can evaluate these stories by requiring details from everyone EXCEPT Bill Gothard is laughable. You continually hold everyone else to a higher standard than you do your fallen hero. If he won't talk to you about the details of these incidents, why should anyone else?
He denies, Don, ever touching a woman with sexual intent. That would eliminate evil in spilled Coke and lapsitting, no caressing and fondling. I get frustrated as well. I at this point have nothing by way of confession or a verifiable or even believable account to so far demand otherwise.
And as to other things, sorry, I just haven't had the stomach yet to chase things down, with everything else on the docket. I am not willing to accept it as fact. That may be the difference between us. Many are content to accept guilt on any account, rumor until proven innocent, whatever it takes to "kill Bill". The "cabin story" was used to pummel, discredit Bill repeatedly in venue after venue. With that discredited, we are on to the next. Nary a breath. Whatever it takes. I do not believe that is the Lord's way.
"The "cabin story" was used to pummel, discredit Bill repeatedly in venue after venue. With that discredited, we are on to the next."
I, and probably most people here, do not consider this story to have been discredited. Your additional commentary on it is unreliable, as demonstrated by your rebuking by Larne.
Alfred, I apologize for my accusation above that straightforward communication with you is impossible. I have reviewed our May 22 dialogue and confess that that was very straightforward.
I also apologize for revisiting issues we fully covered back then.
You comments of recent days have been exasperating because your positions do not seem to be influenced by past accords reached in various matters.
I do request that if you are not Bill's confessor or counselor, please refrain from passing along his statements made to you privately. If he does not find cause to make confession to you then his responses to your inquiries are likely no more than self-serving excuses, explanations or rationalizations. Such add no light to the darkness.
Wowwww.
You continue dutifully on the wild goose chase your friend has commissioned. It's quite effectively occupying your time and energy.
Let me restate one thing. I will try to be perfectly clear, and please try to understand this time. What Bill Gothard has done to scores of various-age females is HUGE. NONE of it is a "small thing." Not even *in comparison* to the other things he has done. When I say that certain things "don't matter," what I mean is that we don't need to stop and hold court to determine so many things that seem to matter to YOU ... what Bill's eyes have seen ... what Bill's hands (and feet) and mouth have touched ... what Bill's done with other body parts. I'm saying that whether the man is honorable or a sham DOES NOT DEPEND on whether this body part touched that one, or whether he was here or there with who when … it DOES NOT DEPEND on whether his famous straight-faced statement to you is true or not. To continue endlessly in pursuit of these kinds of "facts" is to play into his hands; he knows there was no tape rolling when he did whatever he did in private. So HE has dictated that THESE things matter ... eyeballing you and asserting one TINY defense ... and into the endless cycle we spin.
The "cabin" is so important to you. But whether anything happened in a cabin or in some other private quarters doesn't change a thing about the scores of other accounts of horrific sexual harassment and spiritual abuse.
The “’fondling and caressing’ claims given to the LA Times in 1980” is a mountainous issue for you. The claims were either (1) true, or (2) wholly or partly false mistakenly, or (3) wholly or partly false maliciously. The published report was either (1) accurate, or (2) wholly or partly inaccurate based on false reports, or (3) wholly or partly inaccurate maliciously. There are tons of possible scenarios here, but to get an “I don’t remember one particular thing” from one witness – especially one who has gone so far in the past to offer in writing to be quoted about the very thing he can no longer remember – DOESN’T break any case. And even if it did, it ALSO doesn’t change a thing about the scores of other accounts of horrific sexual harassment and spiritual abuse.
Really, Alfred? Do you REALLY think that if you can discredit one thing reported in one news outlet one time, then everything presented against your beloved friend will come crumbling down? That seems to be what you’re saying, but I tend to believe it’s what you’re saying because it’s what you’ve been told.
You want to “straighten things out.” Although I think it would be a futile attempt, you could try straightening out what “I never saw or touched a woman’s private parts” means in narcissistic-speak. Seeing – is that just up close and personal, or does it include pornography? Is it fully revealed, or through a sheer layer? In good lighting, or dim? Does it count if he closed his eyes or it was pitch black dark or it was under a blanket or behind some other barrier? Touching – is that just bare skin against bare skin? Does a layer in between – sheer or not – like gloves or a sheet or clothes not count? Is it with hands/fingers, or do other body parts count? Is “touching” the same as “being touched”? Woman – is that just a female of a certain age, as opposed to a girl? Is it a female of certain character, as opposed to a lady? Private parts – what exactly are these? If a certain private part is internal and he didn’t go there, does the external not count? Or if someone else has already “conquered that territory,” can we consider it no longer “private”?? Yes, of course it’s insane, but I speak from extensive experience … these people will go to insane lengths to twist things beyond what you can imagine in order to lie to you with some degree of sincerity. I can’t emphasize enough … I KNOW what I’m talking about. I have been lied to as sincerely as you, and possibly more often.
ALFRED – just look at what he’s offering you to prove his “innocence.” It’s a TINY defense compared to what he’s done. Why does he limit his thesis statement to you to where his eyes and body parts have been? Why doesn’t he look at you with all sincerity and tell you he never lied about Tony? Why doesn’t he tell you he never lied about being romantically involved with a young lady? I’ll tell you why … It’s because he can only twist some things so far, AND there are multiple witnesses to refute him. He’s holding you under his spell with the statement that he’s never seen or touched the private parts of a woman. He’ll twist it far enough in his mind to convince himself that he’s not lying. He knows that what he’s saying and what you’re taking it to mean are two different things.
And why in the world do you need more information from Don or Tony? First of all, what do they owe you? ? Your time would be better spent deciphering who’s pulling the strings here, and it’s not them or any of the victims you work so hard to discredit.
You are correct in saying that there is no possible way your friend can correct things that need correcting, but it has nothing to do with his environment or his accusers, and everything to do with his depravity. There is only One true remedy, and it (He) is beyond your friend’s own capacity, although He is absolutely available and capable.
I said last week that defense of your friend *frustrates* me. I am not infuriated, nor directing any degree of fury at YOU. Quite the contrary ... I am hoping for your freedom from the toxic spin zone you're in. I hope you’ll be able to see one day that I really am on your side.
This is your second lengthy post for my benefit, Elizabeth D. I am a reasonably intelligent person, and I have no idea what to make of most of this. Obviously he is endlessly guilty to you, and your assumptions permeate every statement you make. If he were the father you love or your son, I wonder what your approach would be? Would you make the same conclusions, use the same words?
I will lift out one statement: ["the scores of other accounts of horrific sexual harassment and spiritual abuse."] THAT is what I am after, what I am trying to bring to ground. I am sorry but "footsies" does not rise to the level of “horrific”. The fact that some of the young ladies posting accounts mention being involved in the “foot thing” and thinking nothing of it would sort of take us out of “horrific”. I didn’t say it was not bad . . . should never have happened, and at least been corrected after the first concerns were raised. “Horrific” implies you believe a whole lot more was going on, which I am convinced was not. And would like to prove if I can.
I also have a hard time with the term “sexual harassment” since you know the standards for that are not up for private interpretation and have not been met on several counts. And “spiritual abuse” is itself interesting. We have some who felt crushed, others who deemed the time in ATI, with Mr. Gothard to be the greatest spiritual blessing ever experienced. In what manner is that not something to address, clarify, repent of, and fix? THAT is what I want.
The adjective "horrific" as I have used it refers to the nouns "harassment" and "abuse."
Read the stories ... what makes them horrific is not what he did to them physically, but emotionally and spiritually.
It's pretty clear that he figured he could keep himself "clean" if he limited the physical part. And of course when self-control didn't work, he passed off a bunch of copped feels as fatherly, innocent, accidental, or whatever he thought the girls - and now his accusers - would buy.
As long as you limit your scope to skin and body parts, which is what your friend WANTS you to do, you'll never see any horror.
Do you really not know what SO many people are upset about? Hint - it's neither skin nor body parts.
If I suspected that my father or brother was guilty of even half the things Gothard has been accused of, that male relative would be facing a very hot and angry me, and very likely the law too. I would DEMAND the truth, and I would get it. You can't claim to really love someone if you're willing to let them get away with anything, and if in the end they are innocent, well good, everything got cleared up, moving on...
Meagan: on this you and I are in agreement. Demand the truth. Don't stop until you get it.
I wonder if it was Alfred's daughter Mr. G was playing footsie with if that would make a difference in how "horrific" Alfred would think it was.
Alfred has already said in a previous comment thread that he would be fine with Gothard playing footsie with his daughters. That should be kept in mind when reading his disputations here.
@Alfred - P.L. reminded me of your earlier comment that you'd be fine with Gothard playing footsie with your daughters.
Are you saying that your relationship with your trusted friend is more important to you than the safety and emotional well-being of your daughters?
In my late 50s, I stopped going to a (married, my age) male hairdresser (I'm a single female) whom I'd gone to for 5 years. This was because at the completion of 4 of my last 5 haircuts he touched me in a way I felt uncomfortable (2-3 times, a pat on both shoulders, and 1-2 times, a touch on my back). Finally, though I really liked how he cut my hair, I realized I didn't have to put up with that touch that made me uncomfortable, so I went elsewhere.
If I, at my age, felt uncomfortable with inappropriate touch (the guy was MARRIED!! it would have been fine if he'd been single and I'd been dating him), how would your young daughters feel with Gothard (a very old man to them, and an authority figure) playing footsie with them?
You might be fine with it, but what about them?
UPDATE - I see my comment (to which this is a "reply") is still being moderated, while a later comment by someone else has been posted. I suspect mine is controversial and more personal toward Alfred than the ones you post.
Although I certainly believe all this, and would looooove to say it to Alfred, I can see it's not appropriate to Recovering Grace and the grace you and everyone else shows him. So please disregard it.
Thanks - "Becoming Free"
Let's straighten something out. I have never stated that I would be fine with Bill playing tootsies with my daughters. Please humor me and trot that out. I do recall saying that, no, I did not have a problem trusting Bill with daughters in general counseling sessions, working at HQ in close proximity to him. As we have. He is no sexual pervert. Have also trained my daughters to speak up - to us or whomever - any address any issue with any man that bothers them. Nobody has the right to invade their personal space. I am on record to condemn that behavior, footsies . . . Without assuming evil motives Bill was repeatedly warned about such things, what it looks like, feels like to many of those affected. I believe him when he declares his overt motives pure. I also find him guilty of pride in continually ignoring the grief expressed by others.
How can one repeat a conduct after being repeatedly warned that it is disapproved and do so with pure motives?
Alfred stated April 24, 2014:
" So . . . no . . . "Footsie" in and of itself, without a context of concern from my daughter or others, would not have tripped my alarm bells."
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/04/bill-gothard-issues-public-statement/
Well, we can all imagine what we might do, I guess I don't know. I also stated that how I grew up had footsies as a game, not a sex act. Call me naive, it is the way it is. My wife would likely have a immediate stronger reaction. The fact that some telling their stories told of being part of "the foot thing" and thinking nothing of it sort of allows that it is somewhat what you make of it, with the invasion of private space perhaps much more obvious to women than the men. I retain my conviction that he is not nor ever has been a "pervert".
Alfred yesterday you said
Let's straighten something out. I have never stated that I would be fine with Bill playing tootsies with my daughters. Please humor me and trot that out.
Then P.L. responded with a quote from you
" So . . . no . . . "Footsie" in and of itself, without a context of concern from my daughter or others, would not have tripped my alarm bells."
Then you respond with
Well, we can all imagine what we might do, I guess I don't know.
I was hoping your response might have been
Thank you PL for straightening me out and trotting that out.
As a side note, Alfred, as a father with daughters, you don't have the right or any business being 'naive'.
As another side note, you condemn his behavior in several places, but still don't think he's a pervert. How can this be? He's not a five year old who is still learning good manners and can be reprimanded and/or excused for ignorance.
If his actions had no wrong intent in any way imaginable, then all of them would have been very public, indeed, footsie, touching of the thighs and such he would have done in front of a girl's dad with no qualms whatsoever if his intent was truly pure and innocent. 'Evil deeds are done in darkness' and all that.
Alfred, "some telling their stories told of being part of "the foot thing" and thinking nothing of it" did not include a much older man rubbing a socked foot up a young woman's calf under the table at restaurants and IBLP dining halls. Some others involving discomfort do include that allegation, including Venoit's restaurant observers.
Did the footsie game you played in childhood innocence include running a foot up the calf? Gothard admitted "footsie" but has not denied the calf thing. Do you reject the calf thing allegations? Do you believe Gothard has admitted or denied the calf thing?
I am trying to gain important precision to the recurring discussion of "the foot thing".
I may be forgetting something, but I don't recall any of the victims saying they were not bothered by what Bill did with his feet. I recall them not bringing attention to it (or "crying out") at the time, but they were groomed before he started invading their territory (part of the *scheme*).
Alfred - you said that some telling their stories "[thought] nothing of" the foot thing. Saying nothing and thinking nothing are of course very different. Could you remind us which accounts these are? (Sorry to revert to a "body part" discussion, but I realize this is your bent.)
Megan,
You bring up a good point. Try to imagine any of the things that BG did with these girls being done in front of their dads. The foot going up the calf, the holding hands under a blanket on a plane. The hand between the legs. No way is BG doing any of these things in front of dads. As a father of daughters, I would be outraged, as I'm sure just about any dad would be. No, these things were done in private. They were done in private for a reason, and BG knew exactly what he was doing and the inappropriateness of his actions. For one thing, he had been confronted multiple times over these actions and he still continued the behavior. I think we can probably count on one hand the number of people who still believe that these actions were inappropriate, but innocent. And there may be only one person on the planet, who has actually read all of the accounts, and still still thinks the actions are innocent.
If talking to, or even looking at a member of the opposite sex (something exceedingly normal for 2 same aged teenagers) is grounds for public shaming and dismissal from a ministry program, shouldn't the horror scale and consequences escalate with a legitimate offense? How else could unwanted foot touching by an older man forced on a naive teenage girl entrusted in his care be termed?
As demonstrated all over this site, BG set himself up above his own law, totally disregarding the sensibilities of others that he himself heightened. Support for his actions is unconscionable and well, horrific.
I am not going to support those actions and am not sure I disagree with what you said. That is enough for him to resign and not continue on at IBLP, nor ever again have unsupervised contact with young women. It is behavior unbecoming a minister of The Lord Jesus. I simply can't stand unfounded accusations being flung at him which I know or am pretty sure are false. Let's limit our attention to what we know for sure. Otherwise the process of getting Mr. Gothard to fully assume responsibility for his actions becomes impossible. For those whose objective is to hurt him as much as possible, that is not a problem. For those who care about him and the blessing he has been to them and who wish to see him fully broken, recovered and reconciled, it matters a great deal.
So, you are saying pretty sure? I am following your posts and have a couple of questions Of all the accusations, you are arguing about some old story with the cabin and only this story is the one that you are questioning as untrue? Likewise, it seem like you have become a go between with Bill Gothard and this web site. I am sure Bill Gothard reads it. Why doesn't he just get honest and not use you to discuss all these issues? Why have you put yourself in this position as a go between?
Alfred continues to be oblivious to the idea that he's being used. I understand that he loves his friend, but it breaks my heart that he's being used by a master manipulator.
I hold out hope that he will catch on to the grand scheme, frame his own reality, and set some serious boundaries.
Bill does NOT read this site. He still has others read and prepare even his emails. He has no direct access to the internet that I am aware of . . . just for the record.
I am no "go-between" . . . I report to no-one. I said as much to Mr. Gothard, which he knows. I have assumed this task because I love Bill, because he has had a tremendous lasting impact on my life and family. I heard Jesus, not Bill in those seminars starting back in 1973. So this is way bigger than "hero worship". Paul said, "Ye have not many fathers", referring to a small group of people who have been used by God to deeply change our lives. Bill is a "father" to me. An imperfect man, but not one I can just walk away from as easily as others do.
But . . . I love and follow Jesus first above all. I want the truth and I was it acted on. And my family comes before Bill in any test.
Alfred, a true spiritual father may be accursed by true believers: (Gal. 1:8-9)
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." (That true gospel is explained in chapter 2, v. 21: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.")
The principal question raised by those you treat as motivated by hostility to Bill Gothard is whether your "father" taught a false gospel (by his words and his deeds). If he did, your loyalty to him is disloyalty to Christ.
Dear Alfred,
I'm glad you indicated Bill Gothard doesn't read this site or his emails directly.
Many of the replies, except for Matthew S who seems to write with less of a judgmental tone, make absolute statements based upon opinion. I sometimes wonder about those who make them. It reminds me of mob frenzy.
Mary Olive, thank you, I appreciate the kind word. In my opinion, this site is far from a mob frenzy. I have seen very few blogs that have maintained the high level of discourse available here. I don't mean that as a rebuke to you in any way, just entering my personal opinion on the subject.
Dear Matthew S,
Thank you for your opinion. I'm no expert on Christian blogs, so I appreciate your perspective.
I hesitate to write anything that isn't supportive of the theme of this site as I've seen what happens those who have attempted to do so.
It is, however, still my opinion the cover illustration of the book, A Matter of Basic Principles by Venoit, Venoit and Henzel is unkind and unprofessional, no matter what the contents may reveal.
Alfred, you want to "limit our attention to what we know for sure" but you do not seem capable of knowing anything for sure unless Gothard admits it. Therefore, all he has to do to keep you on his side is deny.
Feel free to correct me. Is there any evil you know for sure about Gothard that he continues to deny?
"the process of getting Mr. Gothard to fully assume responsibility for his actions becomes impossible... For those who care about him and the blessing he has been to them and who wish to see him fully broken, recovered and reconciled..."
In all sincerity, that is a good thing to desire but it makes a bad goal.
The "process of getting Mr. Gothard to fully assume responsibility for his actions" and to being "fully broken, recovered and reconciled" can never become impossible.
That is because it already is impossible and always will be. Not even God in all his wisdom and power forces such a thing. Every individual must make their own decisions between them and God. "Choose you this day, whom you will serve..." That is why it is not a good goal - it is not something anyone other than Bill can do. Only Bill can make that choice.
The best a person can do is similar to what God himself and his prophets have always done - we can speak the truth in love and point the way to the cross and the empty tomb. There is infinite love, forgiveness, and restoration available. God gives grace to the humble but he resists the proud, and it is each of our individual choices which approach to God we take.
That makes the commands in Matthew 18 and the end of Galatians completely meaningless, right Matthew? Seems like we have a specific, unavoidable and crucial responsibility toward our brothers to "recover" them.
"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20) Note that we have the responsibility of "converting" the sinner from the error of his ways, vs. the Lord . . . do you read it differently?
If you could force someone to convert against their will then a gun would be the missionary's best friend and the Holy Spirit would out of a job.
Our job is to tell the truth in love. We do our best to persuade. But the boundary line for the decision includes only the individual making that decision and excludes you, me, and everyone else. Back to the alcoholic analogy: you can beg, plead, threaten, cajole, teach, explain, demonstrate the consequences to the best of your abilities but at the end of the day you cannot make the choice towards healing and recovery for them. That's a choice they and they alone can make. Same for a parent raising their children: you can set them on the right road as best you know how but at the end of the day, it is they who walk the road they choose.
The alternative: we are all robots, constrained by God or other external powers, without freedom to make our own choices.
There is a surprising freedom in finally realizing that each person will give account for his/her own life to God. Nobody else will give account for me, and I will give account for no one else. Yes, we can influence other people and affect other people in significant ways and we will answer for that. But I can fire myself from the job of being the Holy Spirit for anyone else. My responsibility is for my walk with God and to help others as best I can, but the responsibility for their choices is theirs - I am neither free to wrest that job from them nor am I responsible to do so. It's a huge burden lifted when you realize you cannot and will not control the free choices of others.
Matthew,
Your response was much better than mine. It is just so frustrating to read Alfred's posts, as he discounts the harm and suffering Bill's teachings and behaviors have caused for so many people, especially young people.
Frustrating indeed. I do hope that Alfred eventually sees the light. To date, he has shown little-to-no awareness or concern for the wounds and problems created by Bill. To borrow a phrase, with apologies: "Where did you receive these wounds?" "I received them in the house of my friends." So many wounds received in the house of someone that was a respected and trusted person. Bill does not acknowledge or care about those wounds. Alfred does not acknowledge or care about those wounds. I believe that God does see them and that he does care.
As to Matthew 18 in specific, look again:
If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.
If they listen to you, [their choice]
you have won them over.
But if they will not listen, [their choice]
take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
If they still refuse to listen, [their choice]
tell it to the church;
and if they refuse to listen even to the church, [their choice]
treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
As to Galatians, "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. "
Restoring someone gently does not imply compelling them to admit they are caught and compelling them to deal with it against their will.
James similarly does not imply that you can force someone back against their will. If you reach out to them and they respond, that's a wonderful thing. No implication there that you have a responsibility to somehow override their decision-making freedom to force them back into the fold. If a person chooses to leave, that's ultimately their choice and their freedom to do so.
Alfred, "getting ... to" (your words) does imply more compulsion than "convert" (Bible word). I do believe, though, that it demonstrated your strong desire to see Gothard reconciled to his critics, and I admire your persistence. But in light of your many defenses, I do wonder: from what state of sin do you wish to convert Gothard?
I ask because I don't think you have acknowledged that he has done or thought anything condemnable other than what he has confessed.
Alfred,
If your goal is "converting the sinner", that should be your focus, not defending his actions to people who have been injured by him.
Gary Smalley has been a friend and a protector to Bill Gothard over the years. That is an easily demonstrable fact. Unless I am mistaken, Gary never said he saw Gothard in his cabin with a woman on his lap in sheer night ware. He used a more generic term than cabin, which could mean a hotel room, an office with sleeping quarters, a room at a lodge, a cabin, a trailer, etc.. Gary is doubtless aware of this conversation and so far is not retracting his claim of finding BG late at night in his quarters with a woman on his lap, and the woman was in sheer nightwear. Combining the first sentence and the previous sentence, with the common knowledge that GS is known for personal integrity, I have to conclude GS saw BG in BG's quarters, late at night, with sheer nightwear on, and it could very well have occurred in the Northwoods location.
Excuse me, the last sentence should read to include a woman in sheer nightwear on BG's lap. I did not intend to make a ridiculous joke.
Then, I guess it is safe to say that the story of BG being found late at night in the Northwoods location, wearing sheer nightwear has been discredited? Perhaps we can get Alfred to commence an investigation so that he can officially discredit it. lol
Alfred really needs to find out exactly WHERE BG was when GS saw the woman on his lap, who she was, whether she was a subordinate, how old she was and what exactly she was wearing. All these facts are missing from the otherwise true story. Only getting the truth on these facts will end all the speculation.
@kevin - very funny!
@Brumby - I'm glad I made you laugh!
Don, I agree with your statement that Gary Smalley accurately reported something he saw.
To recap:
A. Gary Smalley has always acted to protect Bill Gothard, until allowing this information to be made public. I presume that was allowed to give credence to and indirectly protect those coming out with their stories at this time.
B. GS never said he saw Bill in his cabin with a woman on his lap in shear nightwear; he said he saw Bill in his quarters with a woman on his lap in sheer nightwear. That is as specific as the language gets.
C. GS is a professional counselor who has maintained his integrity to this day. He has not denied what he said, nor has acted to take it down from the internet. It was others who used the term "cabin," not GS (AFAIK).
D. Therefore until such a time as we hear from GS, what he has said as to what he witnessed, I choose to believe is true. And it may very well have occurred in the Northwoods.
Also: GARY SMALLEY LEFT IBLP BEFORE THE CABIN WAS BUILT. It COULD not have been the cabin, if it involved Gary. Gary apparently held to his version of this story until he consulted with Norma within the last month or so. She was the one who confronted and counseled Ruth after the event. She straightened her husband out. Neither of them have any other recollections that would help with the cited attire.
And . . . if I were at liberty to disclose the contents of the emails, you would instantly lose any illusion that Gary is protecting Bill. It is hair singeing stuff.
@LynnCD: I'm sorry, LynnCD, but you have innocently just made my day! :) Thank the Lord for typos! I always have room for some comic relief.
Lynn: ALL of the source emails are at the beginning of the story here. He used the terms "private quarters", "thin night wear", "sheer night ware" (sic), and "skimpy nightgown". Those are his exact words.
To this day I have no idea why he said that, and neither do he and his wife. They are adamant - both of them - that this was his office at HQ, fully clothed (sounds like a game of Clue). All I can imagine is that in 2007 he was agitated and mixing up what he saw - and shocked him - with accounts that circulated about other events. I suggested this - He did not provide me any further information, even though we had about 3 rounds.
Waiting for whatever further information may be brought to bear on it.
You have in the past asserted only Ruth sat on BG's lap. Did GS say it was Ruth that he saw? Did he say it wasn't Ruth? Or did he imply he has no idea as you inferred he did about the facts he stated in 2007?
Yes, it most definitely was Ruth.
In reply to the other question, I pressed him several times . . . at least three, more I think . . . to help me understand his words (which I quoted) in the light of his current assertion. He repeated, and the last time emphatically, that they simply have no recollection of her attire. In the first email he mentioned something about a winter coat. My assertion that I would find it virtually impossible for a woman to be out and about at HQ in a night gown at any time was not countered.
NOW . . . Ruth did report (in the "transcript") that Bill would come and knock on her door late at night, when she was prepared for bed. She got to locking her door because he did just enter on several occasions. She cited friends who were in other rooms who would hear the knocking to confirm that this happened. So . . . the notion of Bill and Ruth in nightgown may have come into Gary's brain from those accounts (he was in the meeting).
That was not cool, what he did . . . but, again, as Larne stated in his published account - and I have seen corroboration that is indisputable - Ruth was adamant that Bill never took advantage of her, abused her sexually. So taking his questions late at night to Ruth's private quarters and even entering uninvited was another highly "inappropriate" act. But also one that did not result in any sexual mischief.
That is what I think happened in Gary's mind that resulted in his confusing statements to Tony in 2007.
Gary's "confusing statements" may have resutled from the fact that the violations were ongoing and habitual and not limited to Ruth. Maybe there were just too many to keep track of.
When Ruth reports Bill's unwelcome advances in the above mentioned transcript, it is to support the allegation that Bill caressed and fondled another former staff member while she was in her nightgown. Also in the transcripts, yet another former staffer "Rebecca" says "I think that people tend to assume that Bill’s impropriety was limited to the girls that Steve was involved with, but it wasn’t."
Alfred, good luck to you in your search for the truth. In the face of the mountain of evidence on this site, take whatever comfort you can in the fact that maybe only one girl sat on his lap and maybe she was dressed up in a winter coat, and maybe he really loved that one as a person. Maybe next time you speak to Bill, keep this in mind from a little later in the transcript:
Gary Smalley: No, he told me, Ruthie, that he was dating you.
Ruth Gabriel: Yes, but see, Gary, when it comes right down to it, that’s why I can’t trust his word.
Rev. Hagenbaugh: When it comes right down to it, he’s a liar.
Gary Smalley: Well, yeah.
Alfred, you're missing an important element of your analysis, which is whether or not we can trust your reports. May I remind you that in this thread alone you have TWICE been rebuked by Larne for not representing him accurately? I see no reason to believe that you are representing Gary any more accurately than you represented Larne. Therefore, all of your parsing of details and memories makes absolutely no difference to my views of the cabin/nightgown incident.
No, that is not correct. Larne took exception to my assumptions on Ruth's romantic inclinations toward Bill - for which I of course apologized - and he also resented being dragged into this discussion as a source when he was attempting to answer some of my questions privately.
So...yes, you have twice misrepresented Larne. In fact, he so disagrees with your commentary here that he has refused to communicate with you further.
"I feel your attempt to protect Bill hinders that goal. Because of that I will not answer any more of your future emails because I feel it will impede the necessary process."
Alfred, you are simply not the bearer of a trustworthy report in this matter.
Alfred,
as an outside observer, you are stating that you believe that Bill Gothard isn't on the internet personally himself even though he does have a web site with his name on it devoted to himself? So he has other people basically doing his email for him? How do you know what Gothard is telling you to be true? How do you know what he is doing by himself when you are not around? I understand that you are grateful to him for the things he taught and I think you want to genuinely help him but putting yourself on here, well it comes across as his go between and gopher. Yes, I accept that you are doing this on your own initiative. Whether one wants to split hairs here on what , where who and how Gary Smalley saw sitting in BG lap over 30-40 years ago is one thing but Bill was forced out basically due to his own behaviors with teenage girls and this does span all these years. At age 80, that is a pretty sad way to end one's ministry. For someone who built his ministry on emphasizing wisdom and making wise choices, spending time alone and surrounding one self with beautiful young women is beyond the foolish and just plain stupid, it isn't fleeing temptation, it is wallowing in it. Maybe he should have taken Billy Graham cues and not allowed himself to be alone anywhere with non-family females. I think if you want the truth, then let BG man up and put himself on this web site and start answering people directly to the hurt and pain he has caused instead of using you.
And if you knew the man even remotely you know the goofiness of your suggestions. I know he seemed stunned at some of the aspects of Facebook I was showing him on my iPad. I email things to him . . . he never answers. His assistant always answers. Assistants are in short supply these days. The website was set up for him by others - I know who. He is genuinely not tech-savvy.
I don't care too much what people think, Rob. I have been harassed and harangued since the first day I ventured on the then prominent Yahoo forum at the direction of Don Veinot. I have made it my business to walk in the light, stay in the light, seek the Lord's glory, seek Bill and ATI's best while refusing to ignore any accusation put forward. I researched "the book", I have read every (almost) article on here, I have made contact with those that would talk to me . . . on my own, back in the day when Bill was frowning on this kind of engagement. I have never, ever reported to Bill or anyone else. It was years before Bill could even associate my name with my activity, even to associate me with my son who has been on staff at HQ for 10 years. In the last year he knows who I am and what I have been doing and has thanked me several times.
But . . . those that know me know that I have given as much cause for those that believe Bill innocent of all charges to dislike me as I have for them to cheer me. I don't report to anyone but Jesus.
And, BTW, I do want to say that, whatever the experiences of others, I have been treated very courteously by the staff of RG, despite the fact that they largely if not entirely disagree with me. I really appreciate it.
You may not care what people think about you but you seem to overly care about what people who have been hurt by Bill Gothard either personally or by his teaching are saying. Yes, stepping forward on this site or others in his defense probably does open you up to negative reactions. Whoever this person was, however she was dressed or not, it is still indefensible to have non-family females sit in your lap. It flies in the face of secular and religious standards for anyone and anywhere. It flies in the face of Gothard's teaching on courtship which he himself couldn't seem to follow. It flies in the face of Gothard's big emphasis on making "wise" choices and decisions. It flies in the face of Gothard's emphasis on having a good name and character. It doesn't make sense and the sad part is that his ongoing sin and lack of change has ended his public ministry. I am sure that is very upsetting to you but the blame needs to be on Bill not some old story from long ago about an unnamed girl sitting in this lap and trying to guess who that person might be. Who that person was doesn't matter. What does is that 40+ years of ongoing sin is finally being brought to light and held accountable. If you desire the truth and walk in the light which I do believe you do, then that is why this and other blogs are doing.
Excerpts from Albert's dubious reportage:
"Gary apparently..."
"All I can imagine is that..."
"The notion...may have come into Gary's brain"
"That is what I think happened in Gary's mind"
This is so wildly speculative as to be comical.
Alfred,
all of the accounts I have read of the lap sitting incident have redacted the name of the young woman. Following your own investigation, you have come out and shared publicly that the young woman was Ruth. So, I have a few questions:
1. Do you have access to privileged data- have you seen the un-redacted letters that had the actual name of the young lady? Or did Gary Smalley or Larne share with you that the young woman was Ruth? If the answer is no to the above, it would appear that you are speculating about this woman being Ruth.
2. The name of the young woman was redacted for a reason, to protect the privacy of her and her family. If you do know for certain that it was Ruth, and are not just speculating, did you obtain the permission of Larne Gabriel and Ruth's family to share this information all over the internet? If not, you have a number of people to apologize to.
Ruth's identity was protected by all since the scandal at the request of both of them, and this has been honored for 30 years. Larne decided to break the silence and publish the account on RG as he felt that at this time this would best honor her wishes.
I do know it was Ruth and it is OK to say so. I have it confirmed from multiple primary sources.
You may well have the permission to disclose identity, but everyone should be reminded of Larne's opinion of Alfred's 'reading' of Ruth's situation:
"Alfred you take too many liberties with taking partial truths and twisting them into an opinionated "absolute truth". For me you have crossed a boundary by proclaiming a false truth! I have been biting my tongue for the last 181 posts, I have finally had enough of your revisionist historical interpretations! You were not there nor were you her friend and you did not know her mind!"
Alfred, after such a stern rebuke from Ruth's husband, I find your insistence upon trying to tell her story distasteful, disrepectful, and completely out of order.
Ultimately, the cabin story belongs to Ruth. She is dead. The sole representative of her story is now her husband. YOU CAN NOT TELL HER STORY.
And it is repulsive of you to try.
I don't think Alfred is trying to tell Ruth's story. Alfred is trying to control BG's story. Ruth is collateral damage.
Something I find particularly humorous today, after another week of debating lapsitting, is the absolute certainty that Alfred appears to have that only one female IBLP employee ever sat on BG's lap.
A dog returns to his vomit. Bill returned to footsie, shoulder rubbing, thigh to thigh counseling and "prayer" even after being rebuked repeatedly by the IBLP Board. Why should anyone believe that only one personal assistant ever sat on his lap? Particularly in light of all the proclaimed fatherliness with which BG treated or believed he was treating these pretty young things. "You are my energy giver!" (yuk)
Alfred's speculation on top of his "only what we know" fact inventories shows just how absurd and exhausting damage control is when conducted by politicians, pastors or other leaders. It merely drags out the merciless repetition of charges, facts and revised facts. Better to come clean and be done with it. Instead, this point/counter-point will go on until Judgment Day because the one who victimized has refused to come clean attending only to his own interests.
Larne reads this site, has my email, and may say anything he wishes both public and private. I genuinely respect him, and any rebuke of his hurts deeply.
Did somebody say "frustrating"??
Larne rebuked you in as nice a way as I can imagine. Yet it wasn't effective enough for you to cease and desist making statements about his wife. And you "genuinely respect him"? Words say one thing and actions say another. (You can go apply that elsewhere, too.)
Not only did Larne rebuke you, but he apparently was offended enough to do it TWICE. AND to write you off, in a respectable show of restraint in the second round. But you still entertain the notion that you will engage him??
So please don't refer to his wife again, - in this thread or any other thread or platform - regardless of what you "know." You have no place and no right and no authority. And don't prompt someone who's written you off. Bad taste, bad manners. Just really bad.
BAH, that's a hoot. Your actions speak louder than your words.
You continue to disrespect Larne and his wishes, and you continue to misuse PRIVATE communications in direct defiance of Larne's instructions TO YOU.
Don't you dare share something publicly, and then claim that "Larne didn't object so it must be permissible to share it." - that is such disgusting.
Larne already said that he will no longer communicate with you.
So don't even think about using his silence as proof that he approves or condones your future actions.
If you do you're just using Larne to get what you want, and demonstrating to all of us that you don't care for him, or respect him at all.
Nick,
Thanks for the support but Alfred and I have come to a complete understanding. I don't think he is using me nefariously. This issue is very complicated and involves many folks and goes back over forth years on some stories and the cabin story is at least 38 years old and probably older.
Larne
Thank you Larne for adding some clarification. I hope that going forward Alfred continues to respect the trust of those he has private communication with.
Alfred you need to realize:
You have ZERO business investigating this, you have severe conflict of interests, and your long standing with IBLP/ATI does NOT give you the right to determine "the truth".
Instead it actually undermines your believability because of your close ties with the organization and Gothard himself.
You have no journalistic/investigative research training, and you constantly make decisions that violate the trust of nearly everyone that you've communicated with, including Bill Gothard.
Multiple times you've been caught with your foot in your mouth... and making the situation worse. You harm more than you help.
Because of your past conduct, very few believe you anymore. Anything you say is immediately discounted and/or discredited simply because you said it.
Why not just step back and let God deal with it? Why is it up to you to make this "right"? Do you feel God is not acting fast enough here?
Dude, it's not worth it. Your health is at risk; you are putting yourself in a bad place physically, mentally and emotionally.
Close the book of IBLP/ATI and be OK that you won't be able to read the last chapter.
GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS to know what exactly happened.
Walk away from it. Leave it alone. Move into a new part of your life.
It's 100% okay to NOT KNOW! It's 100% all right to trust Your Father to make sure
So give it up, trust God to write the last chapter, and go love on your wife and kids.
Typo "It's 100% okay to NOT KNOW! It's 100% all right to trust Your Father to make it all sure in the end"
Well said, Nick. I've mostly stepped away from this website for those same reasons. I want to move on with my life and not have this hanging over my head all the time. I hang out and participate in conversations from time to time, but mostly I'm just moving on. I can't begin to describe how refreshing it is! So peaceful!
I will end with the reminder that Bill could of course tell his own story, but he has chosen not to, and certainly has not told his story to Alfred.
There really is nothing more to say here.
Supposing he had told his story to Alfred, that does NOT give Alfred the right to share it publicly.
I'm beginning to wonder if Alfred has ever been given explicit permission to share ANY of the information he's gathered.
I think he assumes his information to be already public, and proceeds to share more of it. This has backfired on him multiple times.
Ah well... vanity of vanities, said the Preacher, all is vanity.
Alfred,
After reading so many posts by you stating your intention to "seek Bill's best". I've come to believe this is not about Bill at all. It appears to me that you would like to prove to yourself that following Bill for 40 years was not foolishness. You know he resigned in disgrace, you know he's been barred from leadership. There had to be valid reasons for that. You however continue to make light of Bill's behavior, referring to things as "inappropriate" or "not cool". Your claim to be walking in the light, and reporting only to Jesus just sounds strange. I understand following Jesus, trusting Jesus, serving Him, resting in Him, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they "report to Jesus." It sounds like you either think that you have information to report to him, or that he is a military officer or employer that you report to. Jesus is the Good Shepherd who calls us to follow him, trust him, and rest in him. He is the only one who will never fail or forsake us. Our loving God is the one who has brought hope and healing to many people who were trapped in BG's legalism. He is restoring broken lives. You can see the fruit of that in many stories on this site. Please don't discount them. You have stated your appreciation for the courteous treatment you have received from the RG leadership team. They are an example of ones who are truly walking in the light. I don't think anyone really wants to argue with you, but so many people just can't understand why you dismiss other peoples experiences, and think that you are the only one interested in truth.
I would agree with Aila. While there is a non-Christian presence on this website, I'd say most of the participants here are born-again believers, and as such, we're all seeking truth.
Whoever is seeking the truth must be content with what the truth IS, rather than what they wish the truth to BE.
I've noticed Gothard supporters often say things like, 'When the truth finally comes out...' As if some future day, something will happen to debunk everything, and voila, he's totally innocent!!
Well what if everything that's coming out IS the truth? All things that are hidden shall be revealed, it could very well be that this is God bringing sins committed in darkness to light.
Exactly. Alfred keeps talking about God "hasn't spoken yet," but I hear the voices of the abused crying out each day. To avoid considering that He couldn't possibly be speaking through them is just another confirmation that the real issue here is fear of admission to clinging to a lie for decades.
JB, it could be the phrase "God hasn't spoken yet" is a "loaded" phrase having to do with God judging and punishing all of us who are rebelling against God's anointed (Bill.)
Consider chapter 12 in Hebrews. I just copied the vs 5 and 6 for a little context. Vs 25 is the one in question where I have heard it summed up as "God has not spoken yet." (so watch out)
5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
.......
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
Alfred,
You've mentioned time and time again that your interest lies in "seeking the truth," but a discussion thread like this one suggests otherwise. There's no real truth-seeking in applying such intense scrutiny to testimonies and statements that happen to disagree with your perception of Bill while not subjecting Bill's own interactions with and claims toward you to that same scrutiny. This is why so many on this thread have been frustrated in their conversations with you.
I'll repeat my comments toward "MJ" in the "Trapped in the Shadow..." article here: your previous responses seem to indicate that your experience in IBLP, as well as the purportedly positive experiences of those you know, drives your suspicion. Okay. Just think about what you're doing here. Are you really that callous enough to elevate your own experience above those who have been shattered by the program? Because that's what this is. You're basically saying, "I don't care what you have to say because I benefited from what hurt you. Either you're lying, or I have to admit that I was wrong. And I don't want to admit that I'm wrong." Do you see just how you're coming across to everyone else here? And in case it's not evident by now, this sort of attitude is precisely why more people who have suffered are not sharing their stories publicly. Do you know just how hard it is for these women to come forward? Do you know why some of them, even commenters on here, are using aliases instead of their real names? Have you even thought about this? Not only are they still afraid of the IBLP machine tearing down their lives like it tore down Tony's, but they're also afraid of people like you. People who will marginalize, step on their story, and dissect it, all in the name of maintaining the reality they've constructed where Gothard is completely absolved of any serious wrongdoing. Do you realize just how myopic this is?
This is at least part of what the others have alluded to when they reference "victim-blaming." To this date, I still have yet to see any form of deference from you toward them.
There is no more IBLP machine . . . relax. Your opinions are your own, and you are entitled to them. I get to keep mine as well. I will cite 20 years in ATI, a son on staff, daughters who are in ministries started by IBLP . . . as well as our own intense suffering for my right to speak. Surely the site can still tolerate one voice to provide a differing perspective.
J.B: "Not only are they still afraid of the IBLP machine tearing down their lives like it tore down Tony’s, but they’re also afraid of people like you."
Alfred: "There is no more IBLP machine . . . relax. "
Alfred: "The ministry -directed by the Board - will most certainly defend him legally..." (here)
Alfred:"There is a reason why there are defamation/slander/libel laws ... "Charlotte" has a responsibility to stand to her accusations... I presume she is prepared to do that." (here)
If I may Mathew, I would like to affirm you by paraphrasing a line I used yesterday:
Thank you Mathew for straightening this out and trotting that evidence out.
I thought I was done here, but I guess not.
Alfred says "...our own intense suffering" on a site that. details. abuse. and. harassment.
I call narcissist.
Alfred, is part of your motivation saving the jobs of your children? I understand any father would be concern but be honest about it, having 3 adult children working in the ministry or it's spin offs is likewise a natural concern but I don't think that Bill alone is your only motivation.
Alfred just confirmed everything stated by J.B. above...
Only if the IBLP program is shut down completely can you say, 'there is no IBLP machine', and even then I do not think it would be true. (I am not suggesting you are being dishonest, I am making observations on the nature of things.)
Even if the corporation no longer existed, the people who ran it still would, and it is unlikely that the majority of them would renounce the teachings, nor would many of the followers, most of whom are largely ignorant of the goings on there. As such, they still provide a huge wall of influence, disdain, word of mouth harming the reputation and intentions of the women involved in the scandals, and the women will in all likelihood have to face people who will not believe them for the rest of their lives. Any wonder that many of them seek anonymity on some level or other?
So with all that said, it is illogical to assume that the IBLP machine is gone simply because the founder is more or less un-involved anymore.
Alfred, what has changed at IBLP since Gothard's removal? Are employees now encouraged freely offer constructive criticism?
Speaking of any right to speak on websites, are you aware that IBLP is posting not one single comment on the "Transition" statement on their Web page? Why do they invite "comment" and then suppress the responses?
Have they ended the practice of sending young people away for minor violations after they are required to make public confession? Are they still extracting "volunteer" hours from employees to save on overtime? Has male counseling of young females in privacy ended? Have all abusive leaders been removed? Have the prohibitions on socializing between young men and women been lifted? Have the dress codes, pre-dawn rising and other oppressive rules been repealed? Have those who remain who knew of the "inappropriate" conduct of the leader apologized to the victims? Has any of the teaching come under review by credible theologians and non-Gothardite pastors?
What exactly "is no more" that was before? Are you saying BG was a machine? Because his removal is the only publically acknowledged change.
A lot of things have changed. My son lives there. Dr. Levendusky is one of the nicest people around. Staff is small but the morale is very high, from all I can see. It is plain to me that no one expects Bill to be back . . . The Board took a pretty definitive stance on that.
Alfred,
then do you agree with the board?
So interesting that you can be very specific in your critiques of others comments and posts, but your answer to the question, "what has changed at IBLP since Gothard's removal?" is "a lot of things have changed." No specifics there. You have always appeared to support IBLP as a solid organization that did not engage in any inappropriate practices. So which is it? Were things fine before? Were changes needed?
Alfred: "A lot of things have changed." What, for instance?
And why did they need changing?
So what "things" have changed? It would validate Tim's and the Board's leadership to bring good changes into the light.
Alfred "I will cite 20 years in ATI, a son on staff, daughters who are in ministries started by IBLP . . . as well as our own intense suffering for my right to speak."
Everyone has a right to speak. Period. No one needs a rationale to speak.
Alfred's rationale is a severe conflict of interests. Take 2 grains of salt before proceeding.
Alfred,
"And if you knew the man even remotely you know the goofiness of your suggestions. I know he seemed stunned at some of the aspects of Facebook I was showing him on my iPad. I email things to him . . . he never answers. His assistant always answers. Assistants are in short supply these days. The website was set up for him by others - I know who. He is genuinely not tech-savvy. "
He is savvy enough to have comments turned off on his websites. I Suspect he is involved on filtering (reading it at least since none is ever posted) this content, even if via assistant. I personally find it incredible that a narcissist who has nearly completely lost his audience, would not be glued to the forum that many of them are now expressing themselves in. Keep in mind he offered no apology for decades until his influence was threatened and now nearly erased. Interesting that his apology coincided with the blow to his popularity.
Funny that you are so sure of his actions related to internet use. Does he not own a web filtering company? I bet he is up late at night reading and re-reading these comments and other sources and preparing his spin. He has fooled many for years as to his late night actions no doubt. Trolling for others opinions of him seems like a mild activity compared to some accounts.
Do you realize Alfred that YOU are his web content filter. Whatever he wants others to believe, seem to find its way to your comments. It amazes me how he can continue to manipulate people. Does he seem overly calm when you ask him difficult questions? Do the answers flow like truth? They sound like total BS to most readers here. But you, wanting to believe them, seem convinced of their authenticity. Look at the mountains of testimony here. Forget evidence, that is what a manipulator wants you to focus on. Not the truth, but what can be proven.
This seems to be the only forum that BG or anyone is currently, consistently communicating through. Alfred you are there main mouthpiece, congratulations. And like most if not all other guilty parties who attempt damage control without repentance, he/they are attacking the character of the accusers in an effort to minimize the allegations against them. Sure you(Alfred)/he/they do it in a "respectful" tone, but when you minimize the accusations and marginalize the victims, you are making an underhanded attack on their credibility because there is no other defense.
You really seem sincere in your respect towards others. So I doubt you really see how you are being used by them. I believe just like so much else that is never left to chance, your involvement is extremely calculated. If you are a willing participant in this charade, then may God be merciful to you for the pain you continue to cause people. Either way, your involvement in this is quite pitiable.
I absolutely agree with your statement and despite what Bill may have told Alfred, he isn't doing emails and internet just through his assistants.
What Wolf hunter said x 1000.
Wolf: Again, we are left with our perspectives. I assure you I am not mistaken. :-) All of that stuff - web filtering, i.e. "CharacterLink", was handled by others.
BTW . . . Tony Guhr, of all people, is fairly non-internet savvy. He does email, apparently very little else. He was completely ignorant of the postings on this site as recently as last year, only commenting when contacted by others. Some people are either too busy for the internet, or they don't trust it. Bill is both.
Alfred, It's kinda hard to believe that Bill is now too busy to do his own "internet", but to say that he isn't on the internet personally himself because he doesn't trust it is little on the paranoid side. He is on the internet , he ministry, his own web page dedicated to himself, Facebook etc. Now, maybe he doesn't personally manage these things himself but to say he isn't on it because of "trust" really sounds like someone that is paranoid if not other mental issues. It is isolation at its best. A computer person like yourself ought to realize that this is not correct thinking. What is there not to trust? Really shows his state of mind.
I'm sure CIA and NSA spooks use the internet extensively but do not trust it enough to enjoy personal use. Maybe Alfred is saying that BG just exploits the Internet to take advantage of others' trust but knows enough to distrust it himself.
Alfred,
Thanks for responding. However as in many of your posts, it seems you are majoring on the minor things and concluding that all is well.
I was not trying to highlight if BG does or does not answer his own email and surf the internet without assistance. I WAS trying to highlight that you are a tool in his belt and are being used quite strategically (and a list of other things to that point, but start here).
You infer often that you have access to him as somewhat of an insider (and if we just knew him, others would see what you see). He continues to talk to you and is grateful of your defense even though he seems to have never read it. Does this seem logical to you? He has not been open with anyone else. Lots are seeking truth. You continue to get information. Why you? Why now?
Here is my theory: Others desire to report the truth and you are making a "good report."
Can you not see how calculated this is? That is what is pitiable. Not that Bill is (or makes you believe that he is) too busy, feeble and distrusting to use modern technology on his own, but that you and perhaps others somehow think there is something noble about this perceived "fact." And that he uses this to get you to do his bidding.
If you would consider this conclusion as a possibility, it might change your tone to at least be objective. As it sits, you discredit much of the personal testimonies and claims without any cross examination. You are such a pawn and you do not even see it.
Want to test my theory? Start reporting your suspicion of truth to much of these allegations. Quit calling footsie and fondling "not cool" and call it molestation. Quit agreeing that BG has taken full responsibility for his actions of "defrauding" and "crossing boundaries of discretion". This is not 10% of the accusations. He has made no public attempt to do anything but confess poor judgment, ignore most claims and discredit numerous people making claims against him.
I doubt you would agree with that statement because you are hung up on the fact that he is to weak, feeble, old, prude, holy etc. to use a computer. Until you realize how irrelevant this fact is, you will continue to see BG as a victim hiding in his bedroom and too tired to address all the evil reports against him.
The way I see it nearly all of his defense and response to these accusations take place on this site and are occurring through you. He has issued one or two statements on his website and the board has responded 2-3 times. Yet you have made numerous comments consistently over months in his defense.
If the tone of your comments changed, I bet your access to BG and his gratitude for your defense would as well.
Oh yeah...one more thing. Bill has to trust the internet to some degree. He has at least a couple of websites. More than that, he responded to allegations against him published on this site. If he did not "trust" it, why bother responding??
Alfred,
Your own intense suffering for your right to speak? Barring moderation, nobody is suppressing your right to speak on here at all. You're very much free to speak. We're very much free to do so as well and hope to persuade you to understand a differing viewpoint. In the meantime, your friend enforces the suppression of different viewpoints on his own web site, and countless young people who have committed minute infractions compared to Bill's own abuses have experienced intense shaming. And you want to complain?
I think Matthew's comment above says it all. Of course there's a still a machine in place. You've alluded to its components. It may be stripped of many of its gears compared to the state it was in back in 1980, but the core of it is still alive and well. You're just too close to it to see it for what it is. On top of that, the difficulty of recognizing your involvement as one of the gears is compounded by the compartmentalization that permeates IBLP. A skilled manipulator like Gothard will always ensure that one person's knowledge of other people and their actions is limited or clouded by deception.
Many of the testimonies on this site even reference this sort of information limitation as a integral part of the IBLP culture. Any psychologist worth his salt will testify that many of the behaviors Gothard exhibited are indicative of a textbook serial narcissist, and this is one that fits right into that profile. That's why it's not surprising at all for us to hear about these stories, these revelations. We've been on the receiving end of abuse at some point, whether from the IBLP culture or from our own families. We understand it. It's very simple for us to comprehend, and it can be for you as well - if you were indeed so inclined to seek the truth as you claim to be.
While you continue to dish out accusations of falsehood toward people like Charlotte, you've got to ask yourself at some point: do you really think you know everything there is to know about Bill? I'm being serious. Because over and over again, you talk about how "[we] don't know the man," as if you do know everything there is to know about him. Do you really? Are you that sure of yourself? Do you think he's revealed everything to you? Perhaps you think you know him more than we do because you've interacted with him more, but interacting with a deceiver through validating conversation can't possibly be construed as getting to know him more. It's just validating the deception more and enabling him to continue to deceive. Period.
See, Bill doesn't need to be "tech-savvy." He may not get on websites like this one, or use an iPad, or even ask anyone to speak for him, but why does he even need to? He's instilled loyalty in a dedicated band of supporters who are willing to do all of the above, to defend him and strike down any narrative that comes into conflict with the one he's constructed. Your continual commenting of "this doesn't fit into what I know about Bill" is the response you've been conditioned to give whenever a contradiction hits, just like Pavlov's dog.
I also think part of the dissonance here is that we talk about the diabolical nature of the IBLP machine's hierarchical structure, and the image that naturally comes to mind is of some evil overlord sitting on a throne. But unlike the Emperor in Star Wars, effective abuse of power and people is never obvious. It's not something you can see, especially when you're enabling it. It's subtle, insidious, and built up over a long period of conditioning where a person's reality is written for them to the point where they happily don't even realize they're enslaved.
As the Scripture says, 'the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it?' I take that to mean that we can never really understand ourselves thoroughly, (hence the constant maturing of the individual, you learn more about yourself as a person and how your mind/motives work etc..), how could we ever really know someone else, especially if that person is bent to deceit on any level?
My mother is a very strange and frightening person, whom my siblings and I have all observed over the years, and she is a constant topic of conversation as we try to figure her out, every time I think I've figured out some aspect of her, something new comes up and throws me off. It's very frustrating, I can never really pin her down.
From everything I've heard about Bill, from his supporters and contenders alike, my mom is the female version of him, the same narcissism, controlling, secretive person, who can lie to your face and you never catch on until you wise up and realize she was brilliantly, smoothly pulling the wool over your eyes for years. Even now, now that I'm aware that she does this constantly, she can still fool me occasionally.
Here's the thing. I lived with her for years (obviously). If, after all that time she can still get me, how much more can Bill 'get' people, especially since none of his supporters 'live with him' and see him on a daily basis behind closed doors when he 'lets his hair down' so to speak?
To this day, if I were to tell people what kind of person my mom is behind closed doors, I really don't know if most of them would believe me. They'd probably assume I had mommy issues and was just mad about something. She's REALLY good at making herself look good and holy.
Dear Megan,
I believe in prevention rather than cure, so I want to share a little story with you.
Thirty years ago I took care of a patient at the hospital, a pastor's wife, who, to the outside world was the epitome of talent, beauty and holiness.
Then, one day, she "snapped" under the pressure of "perfection". She came into treatment after she had literally "plucked" her right eye out. Eventually therapy and medication helped restore her to functionality.
I will never forget how confused her husband and children were about her behavior.
Is it possible your mom might be ill or have a disorder?
Just wondering.
Oh, most definitely. Unofficially diagnosed of course, but there's no way she doesn't have some kind of disorder/illness, probably several. I just pray it's not hereditary. Gulp.
Dear Megan,
If, as you say, in your estimation, you mom has an undiagnosed disorder or illness related to her behavior, then isn't it possible that Bill Gothard might also have an illness or disorder related to his behavior?
There are enough studies suggesting some disorders or illnesses are indeed hereditary, so I would encourage research on this. I'd look under ASD (autism spectrum disorder) which includes Asperger's Syndrome now, as well as under mental illness diagnoses.
Mental illness and/or neurologic disorders are frequently undiagnosed in adults. For one reason or another, people don't wish to address the issues, and quite frankly, I don't blame them.
Unlike physical illness, there seems to be a stigma still attached to mental illness or neurologic disorders, especially among older adults. Many of those affected prefer to pretend they are "normal" or "neurotypical" until a crisis occurs.
I'm no expert on this subject, but I do have an adult adopted son with classic autism and other developmental disabilities, another adult adopted son who's been treated for depression, and I've worked as a staff RN at the hospital on an inpatient mental health unit for a number of years now. Experience is sometimes the best teacher.
I believe it is highly likely that Bill has some form of mental illness. Imo that does not absolve him of whatever sins are laying at his door, and I feel the same way regarding my mom. I love her, but because I know so well how people in these conditions behave, I cannot let any pity or compassion blind my sense, judgement, etc when it comes to dealing with them. They are, quite simply, dangerous people. And I do not say so to be ugly about it.
Dear Megan,
I appreciate your response. It makes sense. I pray things turn out well for you, your siblings and your parents. It's definitely a tough row to hoe.
Thank you Mary Olive. :)
"And if you knew the man even remotely you know the goofiness of your suggestions."
Alfred,
I question whether you know him as much as you think you do. You've been a follower for 41 years, and he has meant a great deal to you, but you have also shared that he didn't even know your name until recently. It would appear that your "knowing" him was largely at a distance, as a follower and admirer.
You have several times referred to Bill Gothard as your father, even going so far as to call him "Dad" on this forum. I find it most strange that you would look up to a man as a father when that father did not even know you existed until recently. You seem to have a very strong need to receive validation from Bill Gothard in a most unhealthy and obsessive way.
From your recent statements, you seem to take great pride in the fact that he has personally thanked you for your recent efforts on his behalf. It is as though you are craving to hear the words: "this is my son, with whom I am well pleased." I believe you have put way too much stock in this man, and that ultimately this quest will not lead to fulfilment.
Megan,
I liked you comment that you feel (and I basically agree) that Bill may suffer from some mental illness.
I have often wondered about that myself. I also couple this with the fact that he repeated first grade and
was a poor student until he learned to memorize via the Bible memorization. Having a child with learning disabilities as well as a spouse that is a social worker, familiarity with DMS IV, leads me to these kinds of conclusions. This doesn't excuse his sin but may explain his repeated statements that he meant no sexual intent in touching teenage girls. He seems to have at least disconnected himself from his own sexuality, his teaching reflect such a robotic view of God as well as fellow humans beings. His distain for the mental health profession as well as any public education may be due to his own traumatic experiences in grade school. However, at nearly age 80, I would image that he would never seek out the help he would need to sort all these issues out.
This relates to a sub thread that has been rolling the last couple of days . . . up there, somewhere. Was getting tired of being forced into long, skinny posts way to the right.
Joe: “Alfred, how does the 1983 transcript fit in with your version of the facts? Here are some selected quotes.
Dr. Radmacher: Yeah. Or when we talk about “inappropriate behavior.” …However, when [former staff woman] says that Bill came in to her room at 11 o’clock at night, knocked on the door, was not invited in, did come in; and she was in her nightgown and he caressed her and fondled her, then those words begin to turn lights on to people.”
Yes, that is an interesting quote. I have passed that by others who were there that know the facts and have found no event – yet – that matches this statement. Not sure what rumor he was referring to. But . . . it is likely that Gary, who was there, took statements like that – of which he had no firsthand knowledge - and decades later mixed them up with the event he witnessed. What he witnessed was finding Ruth on Bill’s lap in Bill’s office at HQ late at night, fully clothed. Corroborated, confirmed by Norma, Gary’s wife.
“I question—I can back up some of those things. I can say, “He came to my door and knocked on my door at 10, 10:30 at night.” I can prove it by witnesses. I can prove it by the girl who lived across the hall that would hear him knocking. I can prove it by the fact that I used to complain to her that I’d have to lock my door because I didn’t want him coming in my apartment at night when I was on my way to bed, but the question is … about [former staff woman] giving you a statement?”
Ruth is not here to clarify. I did go to another secretary, close friend of Ruth, who lived across the hall from her. She told me – in a lengthy phone interview - that she had to have been the one Ruth was referring to. She – “Linda” – vehemently denies that Bill ever did that. She told me, however, of repeated visits by Steve to those same doors, late at night.
LynnCD - “I received private communications from Don Veinot, Ron Henzel, and through one of them, a note from Tony. I can't say what they shared, other than from what you are now sharing, they would disagree with you.”
Of COURSE they disagree! But let’s be clear . . . Tony has bad information, and he is the source for what Don and Ron know. I had this entire account in detail from Tony directly years ago. If he had bothered to double-check it even marginally he would have had to go back to Gary – and Norma – for clarification.
“Gary Smalley has not retracted seeing a woman in Bill's quarters, late at night, in a skimpy nightgown.”
Oh . . . yes he did :-) There are eyes watching this site to whom he said the same thing he said to me. Skimpy nightgown, private quarters NEVER HAPPENED, not anything Gary knew about. What he said to me is what his wife helped clarify and stands behind, and she spoke to Ruth the day after in great detail. Again, he may well have mixed up things he heard others state, and he is not denying that. So much hearsay . . . so many accounts mentioned by one, picked up as fact by another. That is part of what makes me really frustrated.
“Whatever he was mistaken about - it could not have been that, or it would have been taken down.”
There again you are mistaken. Gary is old, just having had a 5-way bypass operation. He has enough stresses to keep he and his wife preoccupied. There also was a fervent hope expressed that the other issues that have legs can be properly addressed, without distraction.
No, Lynn, this account is dead. It never happened.
“I don't believe you on account of Gothard's continued penchant for abusing multiple young women over the years, already confessed, and that is the long and short of it.”
Neither long nor short. Never happened, Lynn. You will regret having published that accusation when the sun sets. He never abused any woman . . . “saw or touched” in a sexual way. You know that I do not believe “Charlotte” for any number of reasons, included testimonies from a number who knew her “back then”.
Thanks for your reply. As I read it, they are obviously discussing someone in addition to Ruth, and "Rebecca" alludes to the fact that there are more than that.
The fact is that none of these sources from back then on either side are verifiable, but if we lend them all equal weight, one side is claiming that events occurred, and the other is claiming that - TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE - nothing did. Difficult to prove a negative.
Bill is not honorable in his personal life. He is a visionary and a leader who is completely unfettered by the truth. That failure has caused much grief to many people.
Correct, Joe. But . . . there were not an unlimited number of secretaries. In fact, they are all known. Particularly those that interfaced closely with Bill. Life at HQ has always been a microcosm, a fish bowl . . . such a major accusation would find "legs" soon enough.
The worst Ruth was aware of - and she was Bill's personal assistant this entire time, never far away - was the "familiar" behaviors she has referred to, sitting on his lap in particular, however often that happened . . . and she testified repeatedly - and I have seen it in her own handwriting - that Bill never crossed any moral lines with her. She was not aware of any such event as referenced by Dr. R . . . which seems inconceivable to me if this happened. That DID happen most definitely with Steve, not Bill. And at least one person with intimate knowledge of events at that time states that that was the root of such rumors that became attached to Bill.
In saying "correct" I am referring to the difficulties with accounts such as what we have before us. I do disagree that Bill is "unfettered by the truth". He is a good politician . . . he has done himself no favors by not coming violently clean on every detail when first challenged. The footsie thing remains hard to deal with. Stuff like that makes people that love and appreciate him turn away and stop believing him on anything. But . . . I have gained the confidence that the stories of sexual mischief will be shown to be false. His statement - that no act of his was with "sexual intent" - is correct. Meaning that some other stories "out there" are going to be coming apart.
You have confidence in Bill Gothard's freedom from sexual intent in any act of his, ever, when he was engaged in textbook sexual harassment. How can that be established by "some stories" coming apart? When he spoke of or implied marriage intentions toward at least two secretaries. When the foot went up calves. When he entered or remained unchaperoned in single females' hotel rooms. When frontal hugs were taken unwillingly.
The slander case should have been filed 2 years ago if stories are going to come apart. You are preposterous.
As far as a slander or defamation "case", seems there is some general concern with taking fellow believers to court, sort of forbidden. Jesus never took anyone to court . . . lots of slander. Maybe the Lord will deliver Bill, if He delights in him. If He doesn't, not much point.
But . . . Jesus points to us, generic believers, to initiate inquiries into fellow believers that sin . . . and present our findings as necessary . . . since we are to be judging angels some day.
Pingback : The Church Isn't Sexy Enough | James Patrick Riley
Pingback : How I Survived Homeschooling with Bill Gothard’s Program | lifeofgraceandpeace
For my part, I am struck by the simple fact that a young single woman owned a sheer nightie. Think about it; one of the rites of passage for fundagelical young women is they get their first "sexy" lingerie at their bridal shower with a lot of blushing--and it's generally pretty tame stuff, because the livelier stuff would, well, cause double embarrassment for the giver, since she had to buy it, too.
And so I would expect a young lady who was on board with IBLP would, you know, have some fairly well covering nightwear, something that probably would not be describable as "sheer." So I have to wonder whether she had that particular garment at the instigation of Gothard himself.
"And so I would expect a young lady who was on board with IBLP would, you know, have some fairly well covering nightwear, something that probably would not be describable as "sheer." So I have to wonder whether she had that particular garment at the instigation of Gothard himself."
Bert,
I think there is a very good possibility that she had that particular garment at the instigation of Gothard himself, as you suggest. It is very well documented that he controlled what the girls around him wore, often encouraging them to wear clothes to his liking, including types of bras, and wear their hair to his liking. He even went so far as to pressure them to get cosmetic surgery, to adjust their appearance to his liking. So, pressuring them to wear sheer nightwear would be consistent with his past behavior, based on many published accounts.
I think both of you Kevin and Bert make some excellent points. In addition to them, I wonder if the night wear was also bought for Steve, at his request and this was a late night confession thing with Bill, to show Bill what she wore for Steve. This all has a Peyton place perverted feel to it. Again, the DG site is making a big deal out of this story which was really first mentioned by Don and his web site. I honestly think it would be good if Gary would come out now and straighten it all out himself. DG web site has also alleged that it really was Steve's wife Norma that walked in on Bill and the unnamed girl at Bill's office and she was wearing a coat. I think both stories were witnessed by Steve and Norma and were two separate incidences with Bill. The one doesn't replace the other. Whatever email they have from Steve saying that his wife just walked in on Bill while the un-named girl just so happen to jump in Bill's lap just right before because "they were dating". Now either Bill just has bad luck and all these young women were just itching to crawl all over him or he really is a big hypocrite in teaching on thing about dating and courtship and physical contact between the sexes. Whether Gary really saw a sexy nightie, whether his wife happen see another sitting in his lap at his office, there is enough other damning stories from too many others to demonstrate a real pattern here that was always covered up and swept under the carpet. If some man is so stupid that goes around and teaches about having high "Godly" standards and then turns around, dates his staff and repeatedly has touchy feely with beautiful young women he surrounded himself with, really has no judgement at all and got what he deserved at the end. But, I also think it would be best for Gary himself to come out publicly and state the truth since it is being questioned here instead of leaving it to others to either question or defend him.
Sorry again, I meant Gary instead of Steve in a couple of places, Gary and his wife Norma.
One caution here; I am going to stop where I did, because I don't know exactly what Dr. Smalley means by "sheer", and it is indeed possible that a young lady was "precocious" by IBLP standards and did own such a garment prior to engagement.
And as far as I know, it could be that a Gothard did in fact buy that garment for her specifically for whatever lascivious reasons. I don't know for sure, so I won't even guess.
But if I (hint, hint) happened to be part of the group suing IBLP for how they didn't deal well with what was known about Mr. Gothard's behavior, I would definitely see what Dr. Smalley has to say about this specifically, and who else might know something about it.
I fear some may be projecting too much of their own experience onto this 40 year old story. Gothard introduced a bunch of hyper-modesty into mainstream evangelical circles that were not, in the 60s, all sporting grannie gowns. If your life has been immersed in hyper-modesty and sexual repression, you might assume all who were ever connected with B.G. had similar upbringings. Having grown up in the 60s, it would not surprise me a bit to learn in the mid-seventies of a single Christian woman in her 20s to be in ministry and possess sheer nightwear. ("The Total Woman", celebrating married sex, by an evangelical woman) was published in 1973 [look it up, it was 1 year after "The Joy of Sex"]) and did not scandalize the evangelical world.) Sex was "cool" right around then.
When we add facts not in evidence, based on our assumptions or personal presumptions, stories such as the cabin story move further and further away from historic fact and into fiction. It was so long ago that Gary will not even confirm it nowadays. Just leave it as the record reflects, allow for Tony or Gary or Norma to embellish based on the shock of B.G. being in the girl's presence with she dressed for bed. The details of "how sheer" are distractions absurd to focus on. (And I am not the "Don" mentioned by Rob.)
Don, there is way more to this story or combination of stories that have morphed one story. I believe for many innocent reasons that could be blamed on time, degrees of importance and volumes of information. There is no reason to take this story any further, not to protect Ruth or Bill but....! Having been married to Ruth for 13+ years she was always cold and slept in a long flannel night gown. Her feet were like blocks of ice and I still have the frostbite scars to prove it. When we were first married she couldn't go across the street to get the mail unless she had done her hair and makeup because of the Gothard's programing. For Ruth to go any ware in a skimpy nightgown would be completely out of character for her.
I was not aware of the "cabin story" till two years ago but had heard "another story" from Ruth and others...... I privately discussed the RG published story with Gary and Norma during a break in our 2014 Denver meeting. The disparity between Tony's story and what Gary and Norma shared with me could again be blamed on time, degrees of importance and volumes of information. The real take away is she was on Bill's lap when Gary walked in on them. This action was wrong and duplicitous on Bill's part regardless of who was the initiator. Now Bill's memory of Ruth sitting on his lap anytime was "fuzzy", (she told me it was common) but for "some reason" Bill is now claiming that she "just jumped unexpectedly" in his lap and Gary walked in! So on one hand Bill couldn't remember her sitting on his lap anytime until it became an issue and then he had a very strong memory to blame the action on her. I think we call all see through this lie, or to be more polite a "new insight" into historical revisionism.
For reasons I can't share (which does not involve Ruth) I think it would be best to put this story to bed.
Larne
Thanks, I'm so detached that I forget that your wife's reputation is tangled in this mess. You are a kind and patient man. I agree it should be put to rest. I only wrote because new people adding their own spin and speculation keeps getting it more muddled. Your summation here is about as good as any needed. The man was a phony and a liar. What any woman was wearing is as big a distraction as possible.
Thanks Larne for your insight in all of this. Alfred is making a big deal on his web site as he tried to here about the "cabin story" and claiming that one story negates or disproves the other. You pointed out what I think is more of the truth, that there are a number of incidences with a number of people where they walked in on Bill with more than one secretary sitting in his lap whether it was in his office or cabin or whatever. The real point is that having his secretaries sit in his lap is totally wrong no matter what and this pattern really didn't end in 1980 but continued with other such behaviors as he morphed in IBLP and ATI. I think Alfred latched onto this particular story because he sensed that maybe it was the weakest. But Alfred can't play one witness with another claiming the one disproves the other. The volume of such behaviors is overwhelming whether Gary "really" saw a nightie or not or whether his wife walked in on Bill at the office or not. 40 years and a bunch or witnesses support that Bill is morally deficient.
Don,
Thanks no offence taken, we have been dealing with this for way too long and truth is still truth. But this is not about protecting Ruth's reputation she was the first to tell her own story. She now sits at to feet of her Savior, forgiven and basking in His light.(BTW my Savior too) But this is not just about Ruth.
Don, your point on being cautious on what the description of the gown means is well taken, but I think you're overstating your case. The existence and acceptance of fundagelical works about married sex does not equate to the likelihood of single women wearing revealing nightwear with no one around to enjoy it.
But that said, even if we admit everything you said about the sleepwear, that still leaves open the point that it's really interesting that Gothard was in her company while that was her attire. For that matter, even if that sleepwear was not sheer, really.
Bert, I had sisters in the 60s, raised in a conservative Methodist home. My sisters had baby doll pajamas and light weight summer nightgowns. Outside super strict fundamentalist groups, such was normal. The seminars reached our mainstream church. One of my sisters could easily have wound up working at HG and had nightwear that you consider inappropriate before and engagement. Not everyone was raised in a legalistic home like we tried to do in ATIA. Also, women enjoy pretty things even when no one ELSE is around to enjoy it. They don't exist for the enjoyment of men.
As you say, Gothard's behavior is unacceptable regardless of what the women wore. Our fixation with attire is part of our damage from his and similar teaching. It is quite absurd and probably more distasteful to God than the most provocative nightwear. He made woman naked and unashamed.
Don, let's leave whether I think such clothing is inappropriate out of it and concentrate on a simple question; is it likely in a "fundagelical", fairly legalistic setting where, ahem, nighttime temperatures are only 55F?
Granted, people like pretty things no matter who is, or is not, watching, but there is a line that was observed in my Methodist circles in the 1970s and 1980s where people reserved "sexy" for in private for the most part. I certainly didn't see baby doll pajamas on youth group trips as a young skull full of mush.
Proof? Of course not, and I admitted as much from the beginning. But it's yet another indication that IBLP staffers had a lot of reasons to think something was amiss.