Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Gothard

10 January 2016, 20:56

Moderator

1311

Dear Recovering Grace Reader,

gracenotelarge

There has been a rather large development in the legal proceedings surrounding Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP). This past Wednesday, January 6, 2016, Attorney David Gibbs III filed an amended complaint on behalf of ten women who allege Bill Gothard sexually abused and/or harassed them, along with a conspiracy by Mr. Gothard and the IBLP organization to cover up the behavior.

This amended complaint is altered both in approach and content to the one filed back in October. The original suit alleged negligence by the IBLP corporation and the IBLP board, naming each member of the board as a defendant.

Most notably, the complaint now names Bill Gothard himself as a defendant, which is a change many of our readers speculated about following the first filing. The complaint drops the allegations against the individual members of the board, while the lawsuit against the IBLP corporation remains. The primary allegations in this new complaint now focus primarily on infliction of emotional distress caused by IBLP’s and Gothard’s 2014 public statements that denied anything of an illegal or criminal nature.

Another notable change is the addition of five new plaintiffs (and we are told that even more women will be joining). This new filing adds a detailed description of what the women experienced. Screenshot 2016-01-09 16.46.59In fact, the amended complaint provides much more information detailing what is being alleged.

Blogger Libby Anne has done a thorough job summarizing the allegations here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/a-summary-of-allegations-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp.html. Of particular note is that two of the plaintiffs (Melody Fedoriw and Jane Doe III) allege sexual abuse and harassment as recently as within the past five years, and another plaintiff (Jane Doe II) alleges that Bill Gothard went so far as to have non-consensual sexual intercourse with her.

Two other articles that provide in-depth overviews of the amended suit can be found at the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/06/new-charges-allege-religious-leader-who-has-ties-to-the-duggars-sexually-abused-women/) and The Investigative Fund (http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/blog/2196/new_charges_allege_rape_by_prominent_religious_leader/)

As our team has individually processed the events of this week, we have found ourselves experiencing a wide range of emotions. First, and perhaps foremost, we are saddened that things have come to this. Several of the allegations made public this week have been known by us for quite some time. In fact, we made the decision in 2014 to publish the articles that led to the resignation of Bill Gothard from IBLP because of the stories several of these women told us. Not all of them chose to publish at that time, but the sheer volume and sameness of their experiences, along with their individual timelines, informed us that the behavior was ongoing. We agreed as a team that, if we were in a position to influence a change, we wanted to help. We had hoped that these women would never have to be so publicly vulnerable as they were this week. This is why time and time again we pleaded with Bill Gothard and the IBLP board to handle things in a straightforward and appropriate manner.

In the midst of all of this, we feel proud of these women and are in awe of their courage. We know that, for these women, this suit is not about any potential financial gain, even though the financial and emotional costs of this kind of recovery can be great. Several of them have stated to us multiple times that they simply want to make sure that the truth is told so that these crimes can’t happen to anyone else. They understand that there will be friends, strangers, and even family members who don’t understand their motives and who will attempt to discount their efforts. We know that they have not entered into this lawsuit lightly. These women are well aware that Bill Gothard is trying to return to IBLP (as Bill himself stated in a signed affidavit that is included in the lawsuit), and that is something they do not believe should ever happen. The effect of this publicity forces these brave women to relive painful moments from their past, while those same moments are evaluated and dissected by individuals whose reactions may very well cause fresh pain. But to them, the cost is worth it, and we applaud their bravery.

Finally, we are disappointed — even angered — at the board of IBLP for their failure to stand up publicly and be counted as men of God at this pivotal time. These men could have shown even the slightest interest in uncovering the truth. They could have responded to our many requests to meet with them to share what we know. They could have hired a real internal investigator who wasn’t also on the speaking schedule for their next homeschool conference. Those who have followed Bill Gothard and his IBLP ministry over the past 40 years have waited without satisfaction for the board to step forward and publicly decry the behavior of its founder, as well as many of its damaging teachings. Those left at the helm of Gothard’s diminished ministry have uttered scarcely a word to their alumni, to Recovering Grace, to the mainstream media, or even on their own website, that would indicate that they grieve for those who have been damaged, much less that they consider it their role or responsibility to see those wrongs made right.

Our outrage at the lack of action by the IBLP board is tempered by the knowledge that Bill Gothard has always carefully selected his board members. The IBLP board has traditionally been made up of prominent spiritual leaders, public motivational speakers, and successful businessmen, all men who have been respected in their fields of work or ministry, who support Gothard or his goals, regardless of their ability to govern a corporate entity and provide an avenue of accountability to its leader. They were chosen for their ability to influence and for their devotion to Bill Gothard.

We have seen over the years that once a quorum of the board rises up against Bill’s behavior or direction, it then dissipates. Time and again, once the members realized they had no real authority to steer the ministry, they had to decide whether they could morally remain on board. And if they didn’t quickly resign on their own, Bill found a way to encourage them to leave. The board turnover at IBLP from its heyday in the ’70s to the present is remarkable. This dismal reality, however, does not absolve the current board of their legal responsibility as fiduciaries or of their higher responsibility to their sisters in Christ whom their organization has damaged physically, spiritually, and emotionally. There may be no other physical entity that could have a greater effect in healing, yet the board has remained mostly silent.

At least four board members resigned in the past year, and while we can only speculate as to their motives, it continues a pattern observed in IBLP board governance over the decades. It appears, from the investigation and the current board resignations, that the focus has been on protecting the organization as well as the personal interests of those still running it. The damage suffered by these brave women and their families remains the responsibility of the current and former IBLP board members for turning a blind eye to behavior that they knew was inappropriate. Yet not one of these leaders has stepped forward publicly to advocate for those who were wronged and to be held accountable. These women should never have had to put their names and families in the public spotlight, with the details of their stories fully available for the tabloids to use in selling their publications.

We hope that you will join with us in petitioning our Father in Heaven for the truth to prevail. Recovering Grace is not a party to the lawsuit, but we do love these women as our dear friends and as our sisters in Christ, and we feel fiercely protective of their personal stories. When we first started publishing their accounts, some of our readers (and our critics) assumed that if we knew more or if we had “worse” to tell, we would have done so. The fact is that we published the stories that the women who shared them were ready to tell. And we withheld the stories they wanted us to know but were not ready to share with the world. Our intention always has been to facilitate healing, and to stop the abuse from happening again, if we could. Each woman who has shared her experience with us is at a different place in her personal recovery, and we respect those who have chosen to litigate, as well as those who are remaining silent. We want these women to be healthy on their own terms, and we support their process. We do not know how this will all end, but our prayer is simply for the truth to be made known, for justice to prevail, and for God to be glorified.

The RG Leadership Team

All articles on this site reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Recovering Grace contributors or the leadership of the site. Students who have survived Gothardism tend to end up at a wide variety of places on the spiritual and theological spectrum, thus the diversity of opinions expressed on this website reflects that. For our official statement of beliefs, click here.

1311 Comments

  1. rob war January 10, 2016 Reply

    "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you"
    amen and amen

  2. Leslie January 10, 2016 Reply

    Prayers and love to these courageous women.

  3. Kristen January 10, 2016 Reply

    "...waited without satisfaction for the board to step forward and publicly decry the behavior of its founder, as well as many of its damaging teachings." How much good might be done by the retraction of even just the worst errors! How many people, who believed it initially because IBLP said so, might then change their minds (and their own teaching) if IBLP now said differently. Many of the alumni from the 70s and 80s are grandparents now, some with no internet access, fewer with facebook accounts, and little or no knowledge of any of this.

    "...for the truth to be made known, for justice to prevail, and for God to be glorified." Amen.

  4. nicole gardner January 10, 2016 Reply

    God bless these incredibly courageous women. And God bless all of you at RG for taking flak by retaining confidentiality so as to be worthy of this formerly private confidence of some of these & many more.

  5. Charlotte January 10, 2016 Reply

    Thank you,this made me cry.

  6. Betty January 10, 2016 Reply

    "It appears, from the investigation and the current board resignations, that the focus has been on protecting the organization as well as the personal interests of those still running it."

    My husband and I pleaded with one board member (as he presented the iblp response to the bg girls' testimonies to the ALERT staff in 4/2014) to require a 3rd party investigater, in lieu of a bg friend.
    As ALERT staff, we were told by ALERT leadership, that the bg girls' testimonies were a 'sham.' (Interestingly the iblp faulty investigation is called by the same name in the lawsuit!)

    My husband took time with almost, if not all, ALERT staff husbands to try to persuade them to READ THE BG GIRLS'TESTIMONIES, instead of blindly believing what ALERT/IBLP leadership told them! And to please speak up to this same group of leaders to employ a 3rd party investigator. Dead silence from the staff. Nothing.
    Then, my husband and I resigned as ALERT staff, so saddened by their lack of response. Their silence was not innocent. Their silence only traumatized the victims (bg girls) all over again. And we grieved for the girls. We still do. I was, and still am, angered at the iblp/alert silence.

    The quoted rg statement above is the reason, I believe, that the iblp board and alert staff remain silent. They argued that they were disconnecting from bg while allowing the 'ministry' to continue. They actually thought bg would not return. We tried desperately to persuade them to read rg articles to learn the history - and how it was about to repeat itself: ie., bg returns! But to no avail.

    So, we agree wholeheartedly with rg: justice through the TRUTH made known via this lawsuit. May the victims continue to come forward, and may each one find healing - at least partially - through this process. And may total healing come in God's Time, and in God's Way.

  7. Betty January 10, 2016 Reply

    And, as the bg girls have stated themselves, may this lawsuit alert (no pun intended) others who might otherwise become victims via new ati families with vulnerable youth.

    • Tammy January 11, 2016 Reply

      Betty, I know it couldn't have been easy for you and your husband to walk away from your position at Alert. Your actions are to be commended. So glad you recognized that something wasn't right and didn't just believe the lies that were being told you. Thank you for your bravery to stand up and walk away.

      • Betty January 12, 2016 Reply

        Thanks, Tammy.

  8. Linda January 10, 2016 Reply

    Bravo to the courageous women who willingly subjected themselves to even more ridicule from those still held captive by the erroneous teachings and persona of this cultic leader. I am grateful to see the prayerful discretion shown by RG in what to reveal when. May the legal action be resolved quickly and serve as a strong warning to all who would take advantage of others or attempt to silence justice. “You is kind. You is smart. You is important.”

  9. Lisa J January 10, 2016 Reply

    May the God of all Comfort be with these women and, apparently, at least one still young girl if I read the dates right. Bill Gothard and his brother Steve are sociopathic sexual predators that could only have achieved as much success in their career pursuits as they did, all the while engaged in evil, because good men did NOTHING! Shame on every single adult ATI/IBLP employee through the decades that knew what was going on and did not do everything they could to stop this hypocritical evil in its tracks. They had absolute responsibility to protect these children and very young women. We all hate that the Catholic Church covered up sexual abuse by priests and this is the very same thing. Christians have to be very diligent in not making ANYONE an idol. Only Jesus is Jesus. Everyone else is merely human and is subject to all flaws, mistakes, and sins. Bill Gothard had unquestioning followers who accepted, still accept, all his teaching as God's word. He is a narcissistic and oppressive deceiver. We must always discern between a standard of God and a human preference. Christians started following his formula instead of just adhering to and obeying scripture. I will pray for all these women. I know some have had success in marriage and life after leaving this ministry. My heart breaks for the ones who had abusive families as well. Will be praying diligently for them. Thank you RG for your ministry to these women.

  10. Renea Rosser January 11, 2016 Reply

    The stories I've read say the abuse was never to the point of actual intercourse by BG. If I understand correctly, there are women who now say that indeed it actually has happened? I have always expected that there was actual sex involved. So much for him never having kissed a girl... The sad part is how many Gothard-worshippers will STILL not open their eyes.

    • "Hannah" January 11, 2016 Reply

      Yes, it is detailed in the text of the lawsuit, I believe it is the allegations brought by Jane Doe II.

  11. David Pigg January 11, 2016 Reply

    "Finally, we are disappointed-even angered-at the Board of IBLP for their failure to stand up publicly and be counted as men of God at this pivotal time.These men could have shown even the slightest interest in uncovering the truth.They could have responded to our many requests to meet with them to share what we know....Those who have followed Bill Gothard and his IBLP ministry over the past 40 years have waited without satisfaction for the Board to step forward and publicly decry the behavior of its founder,as well as many of its damaging teachings".Those left at the helm of Gothard's diminished ministry have uttered scarcely a word to their alumni, to Recovering Grace,to the mainstream media,or even on their own websight that would indicate that they grieve for those who have been damaged,much less that they consider it their role or responsibility to see those wrongs made right.Our outrage at the lack of action by the IBLP Board is tempered by the knowledge that Bill has always carefully selected his Board members"....In the Spirit Realm a great explosion has taken place;an explosion caused by sin compacting,smoldering,putrefying,desperately having attempts made to cover up it's obviously reprehensible contents.Horrors went on,covered up,lids put on,eventually blown off by the tremendous concussional impact of the diabolical energy.Young girls encapsulated in their own loneliness carefully led out back entrances,having been totally exploited for any potential,to be replaced by another,dysfunctionally influenced,naive,trusting,innocent,vulnerable,now spiritually raped,emotionally raped,perhaps literally raped.Abused by abusive authority;misused by all encompassing insatiable desire to put another hapless victim on the alter.Can't you see that compassion for the innocent,and vulnerable,{from Heaven,},{Jesus},dare we use that name?, would eventually result in the eloquence of their cause,the eloquence of their cries?In the spectrum they thought they knew of knowing God,making Him "available",came this smear in the darkness.To His Name.The church has in this case a solemn commitment,against the almost justifiable position of the atheist,to echo the cry of the shepherd.And what of justice?No longer perhaps just a word.Possibly an action to replace the mesmerized entrenched attitude Gothard for far too many years inflicted upon the church.

  12. Gad to be free January 11, 2016 Reply

    A little vomit in my mouth... No one wants to believe people can do this, but it happens. After getting away from the Bill Gothardism , not Christianity, I found that what he taught was so twisted and wrought with error, I couldn't believe adult Christians fell for it. This is not even some basic doctrinal differences in theology! The blatant twist and additions to the story of Dinah was horrific.
    I too was raised under the '' Meek And Quiet'' BG doctrine. Women were to be seen and not heard. It makes it perfect to cover up sexual abuse. To blame women for defrauding men is a total coverup and contrary to all the warnings to men in Proverbs.

    I am so sorry these women went and are going through this. I have my own story coming from the abuse I suffered because of his teachings. God has restored me. He is a good God, and there are bad men who play Him and their time is coming. They have a greater judgement. Hugs to all these precious and beautiful women. YOu are not what he has done to you. I will be praying for you to have strength to do what is right in the face of doubters. It took me a long time to be that strong.

    • eva January 11, 2016 Reply

      One of the reasons we fell for it is because we weren't encouraged to bring our Bibles to the seminar. The first night we took ours and they sat on the floor under our chair because otherwise we wouldn't have had time to do all that writing. If it had just been printed in the book then we could have given a little more thought to what was being said but by making us write it all down we came home exhausted every night and in our case my husband had to go to work the next morning, some of our kids had to go to school and some were still at home - too young for school. I had clothes to wash, meals to prepare, dishes to wash, etc. It was all designed I think with this in mind. Keep us from thinking clearly about what the errors were. But I know better now and see my children still suffering from going to the seminars laster on.

      • David January 11, 2016 Reply

        BG sticks scripture references EVERYWHERE like every other sentence it seems. He even does it when writing a letter.

      • Joel Horst January 11, 2016 Reply

        I remember laboriously and conscientiously filling in the blanks in my Basic Seminar workbook at age 16. Indeed, there was no time for note-taking or Bible-reading beyond what I did with my workbook.

        Then, Friday night rolled around, and they handed out the textbooks. Imagine my chagrin when I paged through the textbook and discovered that all the blanks in my workbook were filled in in the textbook! All that note-taking for NO reason! Except, of course, to keep me from reading my Bible.

        Somebody please explain to me what other course you take where you get your textbook towards the END instead of the beginning?

        "Uh, sorry, professor, I don't have my textbook. I'll buy it a couple weeks before graduation."

        • Don Rubottom January 15, 2016

          It was clearly manipulation to prevent independent thought and "searching the Scriptures to see whether these things were so". Pitiful that we fell for it.

  13. Daniel January 11, 2016 Reply

    Does anybody have access to the bylaws of IBLP to see if there is a way to remove current board members?

    I think there should be a petition that could be signed by former students, staff, and families that would call for the removal of the current board and allow new board members from respected corners of the Christian community to be placed in their stead.

    I think a headline like "10,000 former students request replacement of board" would provide significant leverage to have the current board step down. Then there could be a new board appointed that would be tasked with finding out the truth and turning the assets of IBLP towards furthering the Gospel and healing the harms they have caused.

    Here is something along the lines of what I would suggest:

    1. Request that the current board members step down without prejudice to their own former actions. Even those that fall into the "more supportive" category can see that the current board members are mired in the controversy. Moving the IBLP organization forward is going to be weighed down by their personalities. The lawsuit can focus on them rather than continue to hold the IBLP organization down.

    2. Request that a referendum of former students, staff, and families be held 6 months in the future at Oak Brook to establish new leadership for the organization. Voting would be based on time within the organization e.g. if you were a student for 4 years, you would get four votes or something along those lines.

    • LInn January 11, 2016 Reply

      I think that, if the IBLP board members had any sense, they would have closed down the whole business long ago. It's like pulling up a weed--if you don't get the root, it will always grow back. Gothard will have to be dead before he ever gives up his "ministry." He is that obsessed with it.

    • Karen January 11, 2016 Reply

      Considering the content of the "wisdom" being sold by this Institute (many of the booklets contents highlighted at this site), why would we believe anything can or should be salvaged of this organization? An IBLP board with any real Christian integrity and Spirit-directed theological acumen would shut the whole thing down. You can't build something of integrity on a faulty foundation, and it seems to me if we are looking realistically at this organization and how it functions, it hardly needs to be said BG (not Christ) is this organization's foundation. God forbid anyone should pick up that toxic "mantle!"

      Somewhere else in the threads here, a commenter referred to BG's "near" heretical teaching (or words to that effect). There is no question in my mind that BG's teaching (in many or most of its parts and especially taken as a whole system) is heretical through and through. Just because BG holds to the orthodox Christian claims "Jesus Christ is God and Savior of the world" and that "the Bible is the word of God" doesn't mean that the nature of the "God" as he is described and depicted as behaving in BG's teaching genuinely resembles the God Who revealed Himself to the Apostles in Jesus Christ, or that BG has any idea of what the Scriptures really mean, taken in their full apostolic Spirit-inspired sense and context!

      As the Russians say, "A fish rots from the head down." Similarly, to pick up Linn's plant and root analogy, if the root is rotten, the plant and its fruit are doomed.

      • Daniel January 12, 2016 Reply

        I'm thinking primarily of the assets. I'd guess $150 - $200 Million in property. I'd love to influence the disposal of those assets rather than see it get eaten up in salaries and legal fees for a dying organization.

        I'm thinking a lot would go to scholarships for former and current students. I'd set up an endowment and a scholarship committee. Maybe some folks could finally get some of the Advanced Training they were promised.

        • Karen January 12, 2016

          That makes sense. Good thoughts, Daniel.

        • Don Rubottom January 15, 2016

          Daniel, in the first place, a corporation is not an organization owned by its customers or former fans. As a Walmart shopper, I have no right to assert any authority by petition, voting or any other means. I can ask for change. We have asked IBLP for change. But the corporation is run by its own by-laws and Articles of Incorporation which, in case of a non-profit like IBLP, usually is run by a board who alone can choose their own successors. The only exception is when the corporation is put into receivership or bankruptcy due to some temporary or permanent disability (such as monetary claims exceeding its capacity to pay its debts).
          To get where you want to get, some group of alumni and former ATI tuition payers would need to file an action for fraud and demand full refunds of all sums paid. If you will research this site and the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), you will find that IBLP had assets of about 70 million and lost 10 million in 2014.
          http://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=5453
          If 10,000 families sued to get back 10 years of tuition that would be in excess of 60 million in claims and could justify putting IBLP in involuntary bankruptcy, or temporary receivership to protect assets pending a determination in the lawsuit. The ground for fraud are the concealment of the lack of accountability, hypocrisy respecting purity and parental authority, and false promises of success, wisdom, educational superiority, etc. (Basically every express or implied promise made by Bill Gothard over the years.) Unlike mere contract claims, fraud usually enjoys a suspension of any statute of limitations until the discovery of the fraud.
          Don't try to imagine a new way to govern a non-profit corporation that you think should change. Also don't try to invent what you imagine to be an equitable resolution of harms (your suggestion of "scholarships"). Shine the light of truth, demand any compensation that you think you personally should receive based on wrongs done to you, and call on those responsible to take ownership of the problems based on truth. And Pray.
          Creative solutions are limitless if the Board would ever acknowledge the fraudulent and abusive nature of the operation under B.G.'s leadership and enter into settlement negotiations with those wronged (all of us). Unfortunately, that does not seem likely. Thus a total consumption of assets in litigation and payouts for sexual abuses appear to be the end result here, with no resolution of the false teaching problems that underlay every single problem exposed to date.
          Both Gibbs are likely to profit. But the truth will not be acknowledged or repented of.

        • Daniel January 17, 2016

          Don, the assets are listed on their filings at "book value" not market value. I think the market value is 2-3 times greater than book value.
          Regardless, my main point is that the IBLP leadership have their heads in the sand. I think they believe that the RG movement is a fairly small group of upset people. I don't think there is a huge chance of a "petition" being successful, as it has no real force other than making a significant statement. I do believe that statement needs to be made on a big stage... to wit, a huge majority of former students have found freedom and truth in Christ as they left the chains of Gothard. Nobody wants to go back.
          It would be a message to the current families that something big is wrong. It sounds like there are still a couple thousand families involved. They need to hear from those that have gone before. Would it accomplish much? Probably not, but it might be what those on the fence need to hear.

    • Lisa J January 11, 2016 Reply

      There is nothing that should be salvaged from this Institution it is satanic. A bad tree does does not bear good fruit. Mt. 7:18. Let God take this evil false teacher and his institution down. Get out of the way I say.

      • Daniel January 12, 2016 Reply

        Lisa, some parts of me just don't want it to die that way. Like it or not, we all had history with this organization. We all have the tattoo on our neck. I'm not into slight modifications, but I would like to see something good done with it, whether it is donating it to a quality ministry so that they can use the facilities or something like that.

        • Lisa J January 12, 2016

          That would be an excellent idea. Supporting a genuine Christian ministry. I was referring to this current institution remaining in any way, shape, or form. As a Christian, Daniel, you have the seal of the Holy Spirit not a BG tattoo. The Lord brought you into His Kingdom by the blood of Christ. The One who brought you to Him was the Holy Spirit not Bill Gothard. All false teaching and its teachers will eventually be fully destroyed.

        • Daniel January 13, 2016

          Thanks for your encouragement, Lisa. I agree with you that we need to find our identity in Christ.
          It's just that I find myself turning slightly red and speaking in rather vague terms when somebody says. "So why were you in ___________?" Now I feel like my time with the Institute should almost be listed as "unemployed" on my resume. I'm not super bitter about it, its just hard to immediately shake off something that was such a big part of my formative years.

        • Lisa J January 13, 2016

          Daniel your time walking with Christ is never wasted. You are not responsible for BG's actions. If you were consistently growing in your spiritual maturity, progressing from milk to solid food, then you were and are on the sanctification road. You were as you say in your formidable years, God is not going to punish you for that. I was raised a Catholic and did not hear or understand the Gospel message until I was an adult. In my first years as a Christian I even watched several TBN personalities, rather false teachers, on a regular basis. LOL!!! In Our Lord's grace He always has placed in my heart the desire to read His word every single day. I can tell you since I have been saved not one day goes by that I don't read His Word every morning. I say that not as a boast but that is how I came to learn that what I was hearing was not His truth. In other words, my continuing sanctification. If you were walking with Christ in those years count them joy. The Lord can use that for your continued spiritual discernment. You now have a much more sensitive radar to false teaching I am sure. This is a tool to benefit your household and others. God bless you as you serve Him.

        • Beverly January 14, 2016

          Very well said, Lisa. I have so many regrets when I think back to my years in ATI and the time lost/wasted. And yet nothing is wasted with the Lord. He let me experience spiritual starvation so I was ready to embrace His lavish, abundant grace when the time came. I don't think the Lord is ashamed of my past, and I am learning to not be ashamed, too. Do I wish it had been different? Yes. But shame is different from regret. If nothing else, many of us who are coming out of this background are finding ourselves with a desire to go into counseling (either professionally or as lay-counselors) so we will be able to help others coming out of spiritually abusive backgrounds too. Nothing is wasted.

        • Lisa J January 14, 2016

          That is true Beverly. The Holy Spirit uses our testimony and trials to minister to others.
          God is faithful and wants us to glorify His faithfulness.

  14. LynnCD January 11, 2016 Reply

    I have heard Dr. Murphy mentioned in a positive light on this site, and note his name and role in Bill's statement at the end. Is this an 11th hour, 59th minute attempt at mediation?

    • Kristen January 12, 2016 Reply

      I didn't see Dr. Murphy mentioned in this article, but I can tell you he's a great man. I've been to him for counseling. He's compassionate, non-judgmental, and doesn't employ the blame-the-victim tactic. He took counseling training from John Regier, a separate ministry.

      • LynnCD January 12, 2016 Reply

        Kristen, thanks. Go to the link in this article titled "amended complaint." The last pages contain an affidavit and further statement by Bill Gothard. He mentions Dr. Murphy in the statement titled "Exhibit B."

      • LynnCD January 12, 2016 Reply

        Thanks, Joe and Kristen. Kristen Exhibit B was written after Gothard signed Exhibit A. Therefore it was written on or after November 25, 2015.

        Hence, it is a recent note. That is why, among a couple other observations (Bill saying he disagreed with the board, etc.), I was wondering if he was trying to get Dr. Murphy to take the whole thing back to mediation, claiming he had no idea of matters that were kept from him, or so he alleges.

    • Joe January 12, 2016 Reply

      Dr. Murphy was a director at one of Bill's "training centers" and was rigorous in enforcing the letter of the law as sent from headquarters.

      • Kristen January 12, 2016 Reply

        I don't doubt that, Joe, but he had a change of heart later on. As I remember the timeline, after leaving the training center in Russia, he himself went through the same counseling he now gives and it made him a changed man. He told us about it personally. Part of the story is that he went to the seminar xx years and "forgave" his father every. year. Until he learned how to deal with his pain in a TRUE Biblical manner! Praise God for new endings to old chapters!

        • LynnCD January 12, 2016

          I like hearing this. Thanks for sharing.

      • Kristen January 12, 2016 Reply

        OK, just followed the link. Don't know what the date of that is, plus it was written by Gothard himself, so I don't necessarily believe it. See the RG article Failure to Repent: Tell it to the Church. It's an open letter to BG basically saying, "We tried to get you to repent, but you won't, so we wash our hands of you." In the comments, one of the authors of the letter (Larne Gabriel) states:

        "Thank you, they are kind words, but they really need to go to a host of others we worked with and couldn't do without. There were five of us plus Bill Gothard in the Denver meeting, Bill & Joy Wood, Gary & Norma Smalley and me. We were supported in prayer and emotional support by the staff of RG, Tony, some of the abused women, former staff and family. This has been a team effort not just by us but others running in parallel with our effort, Dr. Doty Murphy, Tony and others."

        I took this to mean Murphy was also "on our side".

        • LynnCD January 12, 2016

          Whoops, I hit the wrong reply link, in my comment to Joe and Kristen. See my comment above.

  15. BCM January 11, 2016 Reply

    Daniel, I think a petition is a great idea. I'm not sure what the laws are governing non-profits in Illinois (I practice law in Florida), but they are somewhat uniform state by state. If you are a not a board member, you cannot usually move to dissolve the board itself. There are scenarios where a Court or State can do it as a matter of law when there are crimes committed or there are other illegal activities taking place. One would have to review the bylaws to see whether there are grounds within the bylaws to dissolve the non-profit. If former students want to make a statement and put pressure on IBLP and ATI, a petition is probably the way to go. After obtaining hundreds and possibly thousands of signatures, you could then forward it to the IBLP/ATI board as well as the media. I am of the opinion that IBLP should have been dissolved a long time ago. From what I understand, there are moving the corporate headquarters from Illinois to Texas, in all likelihood to avoid future lawsuits brought against IBLP for Gothard's outrageous behavior. Texas is more business/corporate friendly than Illinois and provides more protection to corporations and non-profits being sued.

    • Lisa J January 11, 2016 Reply

      As a Texan I will pray that won't be allowed to happen. The other homeschool leader who turned out to be to be a perverted fake had to close his headquarters in San Antonio.

  16. BCM January 11, 2016 Reply

    Daniel - on another note, here's the link for the corporate filing info of IBLP - http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController. It does not appear the bylaws are filed in Illinois. In certain states the non-profit will file the by-laws and/or purpose statement with the department of State. The attorney for the women can get it through a request for production or subpoena.

    • Daniel January 11, 2016 Reply

      Good info, BCM. I was hoping that the bylaws would be available to see if there is a way to remove board members. I probably knew 200 families that were part of the organization at one point or another. Even the most ardent supporters in days of yore are no longer fans.

      There is probably no direct way to remove them, but I think they may be able to be convinced to step down. There is no real reason for them to continue running this thing. I think it would be good for the world (and them) to know just how many former students are angry.

      The most glaring problem is the stunning cowardice of the current board members. I actually hoped they would do the right thing once BG was out of the way. Their dishonesty in dealing with the situation was painfully obvious.

      On the other hand, a lot of us have legacy wrapped up in the institute. Blood, sweat, tears, relationships, school, memories, friends, etc that we're not completely ready to throw away.

      If the Board could be replaced, perhaps the organization's resources could be turned to something good.

      By my calculations, HQ could be sold and 213,675 hungry children could be fed for a year.

  17. Brumby January 11, 2016 Reply

    In 2000 or 2001, I can't remember which, I paid a reluctant visit to Indy for a couple weeks of unnecessary indoctrination (i.e. seminars and counseling). I have a burning curiosity that I hope someone else with more extensive exposure to Indy/BG than I can shed light on.

    I recall BG's office in the lobby having clear walls, at least on a couple sides. Thinking this was bizarre for client confidentiality reasons, I made a remark about it to another student who was a resident there. I don't remember her exact response, other than vague mutterings and a mumble about potential false accusations.

    Is anyone willing to disclose when and how the clear walls came about?

    • Daniel January 11, 2016 Reply

      Gothard's office in Indianapolis was a huge, multi desk office with several cushy chairs and a sofa or two (go figure). There was a private restroom and a refrigerator stocked with icecream and other favorite Gothard treats. This office was by far the largest in the entire place and he only used it a few weeks a year when in town. It was used from time to time for other things, but it was pretty infrequent.

      There were a couple of large windows in the front (to the lobby) and the side (to the exterior), but the chairs and ubiquitous ficus trees kind of obscured the view of what was going on in there. I don't think the statement is saying that the sexual incident happened in there. Also, there were always a couple of staff members at the front desk at all hours... especially when Gothard was in town. His private suite was on the 6th floor. . The suite was nothing fancy... just slightly larger than the normal room.

      • Brumby January 11, 2016 Reply

        Was this office designed with windows from the beginning?

        • Daniel January 12, 2016

          I think so. In later years, Gothard paraded around with young male assistants. These bright young fellas would usually go to bed before he did, though. Often they would work until 9:00 or so and Bill would keep going until midnight. Late night counseling sessions were kind of a thing around the Institute, so Bill's late night sessions didn't seem to be all that odd.

  18. BCM January 11, 2016 Reply

    Thank you for the link to Libby Anne's summary of the Amended Complaint. After reading parts of the summary as well as Gothard's affidavit, I am even more livid that current board would not even sit down with the women and their attorney to hear them out before they filed the lawsuit. I am dumbfounded Gothard provided the Plaintiffs with an affidavit (good move on the attorney's part pitting Gothard against the Board). Gothard's admissions will be his downfall in this lawsuit. I simply cannot believe he signed this affidavit and does not have an attorney. I think this shows his arrogance and lack of remorse. How can one "counsel" teen girls, hear about the sexual abuse they are suffering at the hands of their own fathers, and then take advantage of their trust and openness for his own predatory purposes. I am sickened by this man and his wickedness and lack of repentance. I pray the statute of limitations for criminal charges has not run as relates to the 13 year old he was grooming in 2012. He needs to be charged. IBLP assets should be liquidated and set aside to pay for the claims filed by these women and others in the future. The IBLP Board should be setting aside a "claim fund" for these women and future women who come forward (no doubt there are more). This rises to the level of what the Catholic priests were doing to the children in the Catholic church. I would have some sympathy for the current Board if they had at least met with the women and their attorney prior to the lawsuit being filed since these board members are new. They now have a responsibility to recognize and act on the overwhelming amount of evidence against Bill Gothard. Their attorney will have a field day deposing Gothard.

    • Karen January 11, 2016 Reply

      "I simply cannot believe he signed this affidavit and does not have an attorney. I think this shows his arrogance and lack of remorse."

      Bingo! BG does not live in the real world, but in one of his own creation, and this will be his undoing when he is forced to face the real world in a court of law. I expect to see him hang himself the way Jack Nicholas' character did in "A Few Good Men."

    • David January 11, 2016 Reply

      Where did you read BG's signed affidavit?

      • David January 11, 2016 Reply

        Nevermind, I found it. Some real gems in there for sure...

        --------------------------
        6. I have attempted to contact as many plaintiffs as possible in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17

        7. During the past seven months, God has allowed me to publish six new books that contain a powerful new message that I want to get to all of the [2.5 million] alumni

        8. I personally appointed the Board of Directors. They were selected for their loyalty to the ministry and MY teaching

        10. I temporarily resigned from the Board of IBLP to follow the instruction of Matthew 5:23-24. The Scripture itself AFFIRMS a return to the ministry once I had fulfilled as far as possible its instructions. The IBLP Board members made public my reasons for resigning that also affirmed my 100% intention to return.

        11. I have submitted to the spiritual authority of my pastor and local church, Rev. David Shoaf and the Bolingbrook Baptist Church. Pastor Shoaf agrees that it is time for me to be reinstated to the IBLP Board.

        -------------------------


        There's more obviously, but those little pieces stuck out to me. #10 for sure. This is the passage in question that "affirms" BGs return to the ministry once he has "fulfilled" it...

        Matt. 5:23-24 (ESV)
        "So if you are offering your gift at the alter and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the alter and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come offer your gift."

        • Larne Gabriel January 11, 2016

          David, do you have that link to the affidavit?

        • Elizabeth D January 11, 2016

          Larne - it's included with the amended complaint, link above. It's Exhibit A, pages 114-116 of the .pdf file.

        • David Pigg January 12, 2016

          I hope this makes a whole lot more than me angry.And even though I was never in close contact with BG,both his teachings and his distant "faint voice thru the fog" helplessness to understand our totally erroneous perceptions of his motives,[we're so far away from his sincerity],convince me he's guilty of everything including rape.He can barely see us or understand us with his"perfected wisdom".Anger.Absolutely.Sorry but that's it.Alfred can't comment here,but this may be about the final act in the splitting apart of so called kindred spirits.

  19. Lauren Vandermeer January 11, 2016 Reply

    Amen. Thank you for faithfully walking this path, RG Leaders. I am so grateful for you and continue to pray.

  20. J.B. January 11, 2016 Reply

    When we first started publishing their accounts, some of our readers (and our critics) assumed that if we knew more or if we had “worse” to tell, we would have done so. The fact is that we published the stories that the women who shared them were ready to tell. And we withheld the stories they wanted us to know but were not ready to share with the world. Our intention always has been to facilitate healing, and to stop the abuse from happening again, if we could.

    Thank you, RG team, for keeping your intentions pure and refraining from seeking to publicize the "juiciest" information. One of the most frightening thoughts through this whole process over the past several years has been that there are even more women out there with more terrible stories who haven't yet stepped forward. This was a sobering reminder of that.

    • huzandbuz January 16, 2016 Reply

      We pray that every young girl or women with 'a story to tell' will be given the courage from Our Lord and Savior to come forward to reveal the details of her pain. With the loving support that is provided by the Recovering Grace collaboration, this step will be the beginning of her healing process....... ^i^ ^i^ ^i^

      We also pray for all others who have been 'betrayed' but are clueless to the fact that help is available. Many may not have internet access. (I only became aware of Recovering Grace in May 2014 because I began researching the extent of the Duggar family's involvement with Gothard.) I, too, am grateful for this opportunity to read the comments of others and have the ability to share my own thoughts. Thank YOU!!

  21. Bcm January 11, 2016 Reply

    Larne, here's the link to the article on patheos.com. She has a link within the article containing the amended complaint and the affidavit is at the end of the amended complaint (attached as exhibit a)
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/a-summary-of-allegations-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp.html

  22. nicole gardner January 11, 2016 Reply

    http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/01/06/amended-lawsuit-against-bill-gothard-text/

    Entire suit. Gothard's affidavit is at the end.

  23. Bcm January 11, 2016 Reply

    Karen, Great points. IBLP was built on a faulty foundation and it cannot be salvaged at this point. I have been racking my brain trying to understand how Gothard can casually and continually lie about sexually abusing and harassing these women while attempting to justify that he is now qualified to return to this ministry He has no fear of a holy and righteous God and he's taught alleged Biblical principles most of his life. I would have the fear of God in me if I was 81 and in his shoes. How does this not bother him knowing he does not have much time left on earth?

  24. Jeff Gill January 12, 2016 Reply

    1. Reading through Libby Anne's overview, I felt so sorry again for not having/finding a voice to speak up about ATI abuses. I left in 1994 as a broken 20 year-old. (That was just because of ATI's ordinary 'Apprenticeship Student' junk. I didn't know anything about Bill's creepy sex stuff.) I was a jumbled up mess of being relieved to be away from ATI and wishing I could prove to ATI people that I was a good person even with my fashionable clothes and rock'n'roll music. I spent a few years getting myself sorted out and got on with my life without thinking about all the people still trapped in the Pit of Bill – until Recovering Grace came along.

    To everyone who was in ATI from 1994 onwards, I'm so sorry for not speaking up. I'm so sorry for forgetting you when I found my freedom.

    -----

    2. On one hand, the charges in the lawsuit are a whole new level of sickening. On the other, they are not surprising – and so all the more damning of those who could have helped but didn't – Bill did exactly what men like him do when they get power.

    -----

    3. My goodness! Alfred is LOVING his little Covering Disgrace kingdom. I wish he could discovered a passion for model trains or a sportsball team or any similarly innocuous hobby instead.

    • rob war January 12, 2016 Reply

      Remember that sports was a world activity in Gothardland.

      • Todd k January 12, 2016 Reply

        I'll sure miss their Tae Kwon Do team (LOL)!

        • Standing In The Gap January 13, 2016

          Hahaha!! Oh my goodness, Todd! That made me laugh so hard!!! Lol!!

  25. Christine January 12, 2016 Reply

    I certainly see why it was necessary to expose all of this garbage and the internet is the best way to do it. However, I sure wish Recovering Grace hadn't chosen to promote an atheist's blog in doing so. Libby Anne may have covered the story well, but she knows nothing of what recovering grace is all about—God's grace and it's power to heal and transform all this brokenness. Her website in general shows her bitterness towards God, I hope she sees someday that just because some blaspheme His Name doesn't mean God isn't able to work wonders in the lives of those who are truly captivated by His love and grace.

    • rob war January 12, 2016 Reply

      I read her blog from time to time. I obviously don't agree with her atheism or her views on morality but I also after reading enough of her things is that deep down inside of her, I thing she is searching for God. I don't see bitterness but searching. While it may be hard, we sometimes forget that many of those that have been raised like her totally leave belief in God. We should always try to leave the door open for conversation with such people and pray for them. She really did a great job summarizing out all of the legalese. That took a lot of time. She does talk about the family dynamics of large ATI and being raised that way which gives insight into such families for those of us looking on the outside. I know she still have contact with her parents and siblings because she writes about it. Pray for her because I believe no one is beyond hope.

      • David Pigg January 12, 2016 Reply

        Bless your soul for writing this.Hit the nail on the head;however its still one of the so called "triumphs" of Gothardism and seeming defeats from the pure loving holy perspective of the real Kingdom ....."After all is said and done Libby Anne has bitterness because she's a "rebel".Baloney.I heard that one of the most rapidly growing atheistic areas is Arkansas,after the burnout from Gothard's implemented programs thru Huckaby's endorsements.I'm so angry at the fundies for the caricature that makes controlling spirits go crazy.The flesh may have won a temporary victory thru natural religion,but then the Advent comes to the desperate.

        • Lisa Blake January 12, 2016

          I'm finding that calvinism. Is another thing turning Christians athiest too. It happened with our best friends. That very interesting to hear about atheism in Arkansas. Where did you get that information?

        • David Pigg January 12, 2016

          This is for Lisa Blake...I wish I could remember whether it was in relation to an article from a blogger concerning Midwest Christian Outreaches'" Basic Matter of Principles",[Don Veinot],an excellent book,where the Backlash that "wasn't published" came out from Arkansas thru a skeptical blogger.All of the promotions Huckabee implemented concerning Gothard's Programs were not so rabidly imbraced by every"Bible Believing Conservative Family".The caricature was not so dormantly lying below the surface.Not too long ago for sure you could get a" Gothard Zombies For Huckabee"bumper sticker though.

        • rob war January 13, 2016

          Reply to Lisa Blake,
          I'm not a Reformed or Calvinist and I don't want to start a fight here with them but what I think you might be referring to is the new hyper-Calvinism that is popular is some circles and is embodied in people like John Piper in that it takes God's sovereignty to an extreme and God then becomes the author of disasters and suffering and when people experience these things, God caused it with the express purpose to punish or the teach a lesson etc. This is like the double predestination with God purposely making people that are going to hell. It makes God the author of good and evil. So when Haiti had a terrible earthquake a few years ago, people like Pat Robertson gets on TV and claim it was punishment for things that happen 200 years ago as an example. When people follow this theology, eventual they can spin out of faith because who really want to follow a god like this. John Piper said similar things about 9/11. Bill Gothard in a number of ways believe and taught these things in his design and rights teaching. People like Libby on patheos that have had this kind of god taught to them and shoved down their throat do eventually leave any belief in God behind, who can blame them. This is probably what you saw in your friends that left the faith. I bet they were too deep into hyper or new Calvinism and it eventually burned out their belief in God. Despite what Alfred says over at DG, there is a lot of this hyper-Calvinism in Bill's teaching. It makes God out to be cruel, mean monster that no one with a shred of humanity want to follow. That's what I see in Libby, does she really not believe in God or does she not believe in the false god she was raised with and deep inside still seeking the real God. That is why sometimes when dealing with atheists, care and compassion on them is the best witness instead of arguments.

      • Lisa J January 12, 2016 Reply

        Lisa Blake do you have an article reference for the Calvinist example or is it just been your observation. Asking to learn not be contentious.
        Thanks

      • Betty January 12, 2016 Reply

        Agree.

        • Betty January 12, 2016

          Oops! Excuse me, but my 'agree' (above) was misplaced. I was meaning to respond to Rob War (above) regarding our athiest friend and her blog response to the bg victim vs bg/iblp law suit.

    • Leslie January 12, 2016 Reply

      In IBLP/ATI bitterness is almost seen as the unforgivable sin. I think in a lot of cases being unbearably hurt can make someone angry, unforgiving and/or numb. Sometimes the pendulum needs to swing the other way before balance is achieved. I still get very angry about what ILBP did to my daughter SIL and 8 children. I think we can learn from each other no matter where we are in our stages of healing. I know that Gid will meet everyone exactly where they are at.

    • esbee January 13, 2016 Reply

      there are some people who have been so wounded by legalism that they are crippled mentally and emotionally. Becoming an atheist is a way for them to rest and heal. It is like they were given a teddy bear filled with razor blades and nails. Other kids can hug their teddy bears and they feel soft and cuddly but the they tried to hug only gave hurt. I have read her column and find lots of useful wisdom in it. I may not agree with it all but her insight into religious matters runs deep. And remember God is not finished with her yet. He still has a plan for her life.

  26. David January 12, 2016 Reply

    What's seethingly outrageous is BG's desire to once more ascend to the throne as if all this is now "water under the bridge". I suppose that should be expected, given his level of arrogance and narcissism. My question is, putting aside the visual outrage this would naturally trigger in those he's victimized or negatively impacted, would his ascension back to his former position of power and authority be very much "power" or "authority" by this point? His "ministry" and himself are mired in controversy visible to all. The voice of opposition both inside and outside the church has only grown (by several orders of magnitude just within the past year). Even 10 years ago, his seminars could barely fill a school gymnasium. Now, if restarted, I don't imagine they could barely fill a classroom. He often boasts of 2.5 million "alumni", but I imagine most of that number have joined the voice of opposition (if they haven't passed away already). In his mind, does he think he's going to reassemble his empire with this "powerful new message" he supposedly wants to get out to us "alumni"?

    I suppose the bottom line concern is, can he still inflict further injury to individuals and damage to the church at large if he once more rises to "power"?

  27. rob war January 12, 2016 Reply

    This is my reply to Alfred on his latest article which is waiting moderation. I am not sure if he will publish it but wanted it out there in case he doesn't or edits it:

    You must be really desperate for you to try and call differences in number form different time period of women who have come to them in privacy to tell their stories as not adding. up. These easily could have been 30 more come to them between the March quote of 34 to the June quote of 60. The later quote does not negate the earlier number. Likewise RG does not publish any story unless they have permission and the women are ready to go public. But whether there are 30, 34 or up to 60, the number that counts right now is the 10 that are in the law suite and those are pretty damning as well as the statement on RG that there are going to be more women going in this. The credibility isn't on RG, it's on Bill and IBLP. You are blowing smoke and trying to make something out of nothing in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible. Since you have access to your friend Bill, you need to ask him if he is still a virgin, not if he ever kissed someone. You can rape without kissing and his related build statements to news media that he never "kissed" is a cover up of immorality on his part.

    This is actually what I wrote to Alfred from my print screen. See what he does with it.

    • LynnCD January 12, 2016 Reply

      I was very tempted to tell him to stop quibbling about numbers. On that comment thread he had the nerve to respond to Larne that Bill's touching of the women or young girlswas merely affirming taps. What I wanted to say, but refrained, was that if Alfred said the truth, then Bill Gothard lied in Exhibit B, because Gothard came out and said he put himself in the place of God in these young people's lives, by trying to make them be bound to him not God. Gothard said the touching he did was evil, not affirming. Both Exhibit B and Alfred's claims of affirming touching cannot both be true.

      • Daniel January 12, 2016 Reply

        Let's walk through the logic of the footsie, shall we?

        1. It is common knowledge that playing footsie with someone under the table is romantic in nature. It is traditionally practiced by members of the opposite gender and communicates that there is a SECRET bond of affection going on between the people involved.

        2. Gothard knew that it was not acceptable, because he always did it in scenarios wherein others would not see it. He always did it with young, attractive, single women. We don't have stories of Jim Sammons getting footsied.

        3. The women who alleged this behavior have been validated by his own "confession." The girls said it happened, Gothard said it happened- HE DID IT.

        4. It was affirming of something secret between him and the girl, at least he hoped so. Couple that with his comments. He was hitting on them. I still think there are girls out there that went all the way with him who have been afraid to say so. Some of them are probably married.


        Here's just a thought... Didn't Gothard arrange some marriages for his favorites? I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone, but it seems like a likely way to cover his wrongdoings...

        • Julia Fetters January 12, 2016

          Jim Sammons getting footsied! LOL! Sorry. But having been in this yuck for so long, it is good to laugh!

          On a more serious note - I finally see why Gothard spoke SO much about rape and crying out. Whoa. He kind of camped on that and now I am sad and shocked I did not see it. He also spoke and had others speak on sex WAY too much (I am not Victorian in this regard). Now as I look back, it was in excess. And to mixed company. We went to Knoxville for YEARS and I am just seeing this. I wish - oh how I wish - the men around him had shut him down. And that Dumbrella teaching HAS to go. There is nothing between my soul and the Savior - even a husband. (and I have a good one!)

        • Standing In The Gap January 13, 2016

          If you google "playing footsie" all kinds of things on flirting come up. Here is the wiki page on playing footsie;

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footsie_(flirting)

        • Daniel January 13, 2016

          Julia, so you can't imagine Jim Sammons getting footsied. Why not? Think about it. Why didn't he footsie adult women "affirmatively?"

          He has flatly denied sexual touching.
          It's more along the lines of "Gorsh, I got a little too friendly and fatherly with some of those girls. Sorry, didn't mean to send the wrong message."

          That's a steaming pile of you know what.

          He was devilishly sly and cunning, not buffoonish, or touchy feely. He wants his sins to be seen as those of a Labrador puppy that knocked over the kiddos. He was cold, calculating, manipulative, used his charisma, power, influence, spiritual position, etc to get what he wanted for himself. He's like a spider lurking for prey, not an untrained puppy.

    • Lisa J January 12, 2016 Reply

      You are absolutely right rob. The overstating of their " innocence",I.e. " I have never even kissed a girl." This is a common tactic used by sociopathic liars. They exaggerate their innocence to distance themselves from their actions. Why does he not say I have never had sexual intercourse or forced myself on someone or deny any other specific charges? This is a common manifestation of the personality of sociopaths.

  28. rob war January 12, 2016 Reply

    Roger Olson on Pathos evangelical blog wrote a very insightful article Jan 10th called "Reflections on the Bill Gothard Phenomenon and Scandal". He is a seminar professor and his observations and rejection of Gothard are very insightful of the rise and influence of Bill and Roger's objections and concerns at the time (70-80). It is very good.

    • Becoming Free January 12, 2016 Reply

      Would it be possible to supply the link? Thx.

      • Karen January 12, 2016 Reply

        Here it is:

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/01/reflections-on-the-bill-gothard-phenomenom-and-scandal/

        • Becoming Free January 13, 2016

          Thx.

    • Lindsey77 January 15, 2016 Reply

      Thank you very much for that link.

  29. nicole gardner January 13, 2016 Reply

    Alfred mentioned on DG last month that, regarding the rape of the Levite's concubine in Judges 19 & 20: "Bill always refers to this story as the people needing to fast & pray more; that only then would God grant them success." He stressed that, because Gothard limited his interpretation to this, that that's all there is to be gleaned from that Biblical history. Alfred also stressed that these were not qualified to bring about justice. That they needed to take time out from pursuing justice to become qualified, that this was the only moral lesson from the story. It's an awful lot like the 1-to-10 scale of how much a person loves God.

    Now that we're seeing that a girl at the time reported Kenneth Copley raping her, I wonder if this is another one of Gothard's teachings that he invented to silence one making a report.

    After all, the only fault with anyone that he points out in this Judges account is a supposed fault on the part of those already commanded by God to go up against a rapist's stronghold. The Bible doesn't say what Gothard says, though; in this passage it says the rapist was indeed to be gone up against.

    Gothard ignores what God says in his Word about penalizing rapists while inventing nonexistent substance in it that he claims is proof that those seeking justice for rape need to pause. For this reason alone, I believe that Gothard himself knows he has the guilt of rape on his own head.

  30. LynnCD January 13, 2016 Reply

    I have been interested in Exhibit B for the past couple days. Over on the DG site moderator Alfred (I presume) said he helped Bill write that statement.

  31. Elizabeth D January 13, 2016 Reply

    Don't forget that BG re-defines words when he defends himself. I mentioned this to Alfred a long time ago on here - how does BG define "girl" as well as some other words? Charlotte says that BG kissed her deeply on the lips. He could have kissed and/or mauled and/or raped others, depending on definitions, and still be "truthful" about it in his own eyes.

    He's never kissed a GIRL? Does a female cease to be a "girl" when they turn 13 or 16 or so? Or when they're "impure"? (Please forgive me for using this term - it's his, not mine!)

    Or as Alfred's claiming over at DG now, he's never seen or touched the "private parts" of a woman? Do private parts cease to be "private" when someone has been there before you have? It's worth noting that BG's targets disturbingly seem to be those that have been abused already. There are multiple reports of him asking intimate, detailed questions about girls' sexual experiences. Perverted jollies? Selection process? Both?

    There are all kinds of ways liars get around statements. This is one of the most crazy-making, speaking from experience.

    Alfred's now saying that he has too much "respect" for the old man to ask him indelicate questions. If it's so important to find out for himself, he may need to define where BG's OWN body parts have been rather than describing his alleged targets in any way. Sorry to be crass, but it's what he's made it come down to.

    • Karen January 13, 2016 Reply

      God forbid that love of the Truth should interfere with Alfred's sense of "delicacy" with this white-washed sepulcher of a false god he has made out of Gothard and the twisted alternate spiritual universe Gothard insists on living in. On the other hand, perhaps this is a clue Alfred is more aware of the possibility of coming into real contact with the stench and corruption of dead men's bones in Gothard than he lets on (even to himself). Who wants to try again to break it to Alfred that it's impossible to avoid infection with that soul-destroying corruption while constantly immersed in and playing with it?

    • rob war January 13, 2016 Reply

      Of course, Bill was just trying to show "fatherly" affection so when he laid one on poor Charlotte's lips, he was just showing reassuring affection that any father would do in saying good-by to Charlotte. (following Alfred's defense here).

    • Lisa J January 13, 2016 Reply

      Oh, how very Bill Clinton of him!
      Depends on the meaning of is is. Lol - too much

      • Daniel January 14, 2016 Reply

        Those same thoughts definitely crossed my mind.
        I never kissed a "girl." Maybe "woman" is different?

        • Elizabeth D January 14, 2016

          Yeah. When a manipulator tells you something, it's helpful to listen very literally, and try to think in their terms instead of interpreting their words in your own terms, which is what they expect you to do. Also, when something is stated - and especially repeated - in an odd way, such as Bill's strange "private parts" statement (when most people would just say they're a virgin or have never had sexual relations), it's worth picking apart to see what they might really be saying or not saying.

          My experience is that a liar will first try to manipulate words so that what he says can be true at least in his own head. Then when that fails, they'll just flat-out lie, of course, but it's not typically their first choice.

          So IF Bill said now that he's a virgin and/or has never had sexual relations (notice - I wouldn't even define "sexual relations WITH ___"), he still can't be taken at his word.

        • Larne Gabriel January 14, 2016

          Its all in your interpretation of words and their meaning to you and your true intention to be truthful or obfuscate. Similar to Billy Clinton and his words. The other thing to ask is to change the gender and restate the question which expands the possibilities. What is the meaning of sex? Old Testament does not always indicate a formal ceremony or "license". Genesis 16:3 Sarai(Sarah), Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram (Abraham) her husband as a wife. Bill lives in the OT law and see himself as David, the king who took Bathsheba. Who knows what in Bill's mind?

    • Lindsey77 January 15, 2016 Reply

      Elizabeth D,
      I always appreciate your insights into the narcissistic mind. It is educational and very helpful.

      • Elizabeth D January 15, 2016 Reply

        Thanks, Lindsey. Girl, the stories I could tell would curl your toenails.

  32. Sunflower January 13, 2016 Reply

    On the subject of playing footsies:

    http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/01/13/it-only-takes-a-wink-or-a-glance-to-abuse/

    Also, can you imagine Jim Sammons ever playing footsies with a girl or woman? I never knew him personally, but I highly doubt it.

  33. esbee January 13, 2016 Reply

    What is it with those Gothard boys? How were they really raised that all this evil is in their hearts? Another Gothard brother is being sued for bilking the elderly out of millions (ala Madoff) With Steve Gothard and his sexplots and now this guy, that makes 3 for 3.

    http://www.naplesnews.com/news/state-sues-naples-businessman-saying-he-bilked-elderly-people-out-of-millions-ep-840749414-332494442.html

    • eva January 18, 2016 Reply

      A few months ago I was looking for some genealogical information about Bill Gothard online. I found his family with his name, his father, mother, siblings and then links to Mr. Gothard Sr.'s father and mother and Mrs. Gothard's father and mother. I wish now I had saved it (it might be on my computer but I'm on my iPad now). Anyway, here's what I saw. BIll Gothard's maternal grandfather was an immigrant from Mexico in something like 1902 and his name was Manuel Torres. He married the daughter of immigrants from one of the Scandinavian countries. Their daugher was Carmen Torres who became the wife of William Gothard Sr. BG's paternal grandfather was born in England and apparently lived with the Gothard family for a time during one of the census times (seems like maybe it was 1940). Now that I write this I don't remember anything about his paternal grandmother.

      I don't know if any of this could explain your question about "what is with these Gothard boys" or not but for some reason I just keep thinking that BG didn't like having a Mexican grandfather. I remember him talking in the seminars about his father and mother. They even attended some of the ones I went to in Kansas City. But I don't think he ever referred to his grandparents. I'm probably way off in this but these things can affect our lives adn might answer your question.

      • rob war January 19, 2016 Reply

        It think that has been mentioned before that Bill's mother had a father from Mexico. But I'm not sure pointing this out has anything to do with the problems with all three boys. I don't think you meant this as all, but this could have racial implications. It seems like maybe Bill's mother had nothing to do with the rich Mexican heritage. But that is another story. I think it has been has been pointed out that Bill's father worked long hours and seemed like he wasn't around much do to working. Now, if he was gone a lot do to work, he probably didn't spend much time with his sons. That would be a more reasonable explanation for their woes and adult choices than Bill having a Grandfather from Mexico that he never mentioned. From the snippets we have of Bill's father, he seemed like a rigid, hard man, steeped in fundamentalism and his mother overwhelmed with raising 6 kids often alone. If Bill's mother was raised Catholic, do to her father being from Mexico and left it to become a fundamentalist Christian and married Bill's dad (this is all guessing and speculation on my part), she could have broken with her family and that is why her parents are not mention. Again, I'm just guessing here and we would need someone from the family to shed light on all of this.

        • LynnCD January 19, 2016

          Eva, I agree with rob war about speculating about a person's ethnic heritage here. rob war, I also think we don't need to look that far back at their upbringing. Bill's father was around and involved with IBYC during the 1970s to 1980s. If I were looking into this I would look no farther than how Gothard Sr. conducted himself back then with respect to his sons. I tend to believe there are demonic influences at play as well, which we cannot see but must pray against.

          But they were all well into adulthood at this point, and responsible, so I just evaluate their own teaching and conduct with no regard for their upbringing. Back in the 1980s, news traveled much slower, so I knew nothing of the 1980 scandal. Bill and his associates could not have foreseen the internet and social media, along with all the adults who were hurt as children having no qualms about broadcasting not only about the scandal, but also their experiences in ATI for all to see. If I did have access to all this information, I would have not given one thin dime of money for seminars and materials.

        • eva January 20, 2016

          Rob, I was not intending to make this have racial overtones as Mexicans (as we usually think of them being Latino) are caucasian as am I. So no, I didn't intend any racial thing at all. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it and your comments about long hours etc. could be at play but many people of that generation worked long hours. They had to to keep the family going. So while that could play a little role I think there must be something else. But I have no idea what. My grandpa was a farmer and sometimes they worked from sun-up to sun down. But not every day of course. We will probably never know. But thanks for your comments to give another perspective.

        • rob war January 20, 2016

          No problem at all Eva! I honestly didn't think you meant anything racial or that you hold such views yourself. I am just thinking out loud and of course it is all speculations about Bill's home life and childhood. A father that was working long hours and gone could have played a role but is pretty typical of the depression time.

      • rob war January 19, 2016 Reply

        Thank-you Lynn. There have been a number of people here that have wondered about Bill's upbringing. What I mean about Bill Sr not being around due to working all the time as the children were being raised. That is not too untypical for families in the 1920-30s. That doesn't mean that Bill Sr was not involved with the ministry later on because he was. Bill's childhood and upbringing probably have influenced his views and teaching that is why a number of people have speculated about it. If someone is working all the time and long hours does mean that they are not around and involved at home with their children.

  34. BCM January 13, 2016 Reply

    Whatever happened to Steve Gothard? Is he still alive? I know Bill's sister and niece's family really well, but did not know he had a third brother.

  35. nicole gardner January 13, 2016 Reply

    If Steve Gothard is no longer alive, that would doubtlessly be because the defense has had him knocked-off; he was a plaintiff in the last suit. I can only speculate why, as he could have turned himself in to a psychiatric hospital for his compulsive sex-plotting; relying only on his admittance of some of these to his brother got him no help but he instead was assigned additional victims. Maybe Bill figured that if Steve raped enough women, he'd find one to settle down with; just like Bill's own toned-down version of the exact same sport.

    • rob war January 13, 2016 Reply

      I believe Larne has stated that he is alive and is living a repentant life. I asked Alfred on DG if Bill still has contact with Steve, and according to Alfred, Bill and Steve still talk regularly.

  36. nicole gardner January 13, 2016 Reply

    Maybe Steve is encouraging Bill to repent. I hope it works.

    • Larne Gabriel January 13, 2016 Reply

      Bill is the ongoing problem not his brother. Bill was in charge and failed to protect his employees.

  37. Larne Gabriel January 14, 2016 Reply

    According to a tweet by @DefendTheSheep (Julie Anne) and spiritualsoundingboard.com today (Wed)the lawsuit was amended to 14? Half way to 28! Where there's smoke there's fire. Is this the beginning of a wild fire?

    • rob war January 14, 2016 Reply

      Yes, the lawsuit has been expanded to 14 and anyone that wishes to join has till Feb 17th to do so per spiritual sounding board.

  38. Julia Fetters January 14, 2016 Reply

    I wish I could put into words, as a parent, how rotten I feel about all of this. Yes, we went in with good intentions. Yes, we thought we were following Jesus. What does that matter when I see the ruin and hurt it has caused in my children, my marriage, and the lives of the young people we met or saw at different functions who were being hurt and even abused?

    I guess to say, I feel like a criminal who has received mercy from Jesus and now lives with the scars. The only difference is motive - we parents never meant to hurt anyone. I am sure our perfect Lord could point out to us "Ah, but underneath there was lurking a pride that helped you to enter this domain". Yes. I am sure and will willingly confess that some sin(s) made me open to such strange fire and rotten teaching.

    Girls, I thought you were happy. I thought you enjoyed your "training". I saw how you were helping others. I just saw the smiles and saw you as the lovely girls you are. I wish I had known and helped. I certainly understand your 'keeping up appearances'. Who would believe you?! And when you did tell, they didn't believe you so you were affirmed in your state of secrecy.

    1980 board and in-the-knowers: You missed it. We followed. (1993-2004) I am sure you have valid or semi valid reasons for not shouting from the house-tops. It looks like I am trying to find someone to blame in bringing you up. I only wish to find the chinks that let these girls down.

    Girls (I know you are women now), most of the parents on here would have ripped into or ripped apart the man/men/women complicit to these acts. You are the precious gifts God gave us, your parents.

    All of the young men, also. From those in families, to those in programs, to those working at HQ - I am sorry for this mess. As a parent, I did not see. I wish I had. You are worth more than gold to us and we would not see you used, abused, or misled. You have endured one, two, or all of these.

    May we all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

    He is the one we wanted you to see and know.


    (I hate to but need to add one comment - our marriage suffered due to the dumbrella teaching. It is fine now.)

    • Julia Fetters January 14, 2016 Reply

      Correction to above comment:

      I should have said "I am sure you think you have valid or semi-valid reasons for not shouting from the housetops". There are none. If any of this type of behavior was known (which it was) it should have been shouted. period.

    • Rachel (Bruzas) Foster January 14, 2016 Reply

      Julia Fetters, I was an ATIA student for several years; our family was enrolled from about 1988 thru 2007, or so. (I don't know when my younger siblings actually quit the program.) Yes, there has been SO much damage in so many ways in our family and literally every other ATI family we know (maybe one or two exceptions). I will not go into details-- people just get very messed up when they have been raised on BG's interpretation of the Bible and his rules for other peoples' life. However, just to hear a parent say the words you have just expressed (and my dear Mama, my one living parent, has expressed the same thing; my dad, before he died, said many of the same things, too) is very healing in itself. You parents were just trying to do the best you could because of your great love for your children! Now, as a parent myself, I see that more clearly than ever. Yes, there has been terrible hurt and confusion, and yes, we 'children' have struggles, but there is healing happening too, and parents admitting their ignorance and blindness and failing is a BIG part of that healing for us 'children' who had no say in being in ATI.
      Please, I beg parents: if your eyes are being opened to the damage that has been done to your children, to your marriage, to your relationships, to your walk with God or your childrens walk with God because of your involvement with BG and ATI, please humble yourself, tell your family that you were wrong, and begin the healing process. Your honesty and brokenness can be the turning point in many lives. And maybe your children will need to see you walk in humility and repentance for awhile before they are ready to accept your apology-- give them that space and time. Pray for healing, but don't try to force it. There have been so many years of damage-- but God is bigger than that! And God is bigger than BG-- He wants to bring beauty out of these ashes. It can be the beginning of learning about true grace.
      Praying that this hideous situation will be the beginning of healing for many families who have lived in hurt for so long. . .

      • Julia Fetters February 27, 2016 Reply

        I have just reread this, Rachel. Thank you so very much. God is good and there is hope.

    • LynnCD January 14, 2016 Reply

      Julia, thank you for expressing your feelings so well. There are so many of us parents who relate to what you said, and as Rachel said, for a former student to read what you wrote is healing as well.

    • Tammy January 14, 2016 Reply

      Julia, So much truth in what you shared! While many of us parents had different reason for getting into ATI, I think most of us only wanted and hoped for better for our kids than what we had.

      I grew up in a home where both of my parents had been married before and each had children from their previous marriage. I was the result of their marriage and their only child together. From my earliest days I remember feeling unloved and unwanted from my half-sisters which as you can imagine caused deep hurt which to this day I have to deal with as the memories rear their ugly head. Because I was not close to my sisters and my childhood with them was hurtful, I wanted so much more for my kids.

      As a new Christian, I was introduced to BG and his seminar from a family that seemed to be so close-knit and godly. I wanted so desperately for my children to have what I didn't growing up. When I would attend the seminars or go to one of the training centers I would see the bright smiley faces on many of you thinking how wonderfully happy you must be, but not having any idea what was really happening to you. It has been so heart-breaking and sad to learn the truth.

      My family got a glimpse that all wasn't well while volunteering at the OKC training center. This began our questioning things along with reading the book, "A Matter of Basic Principles." We've been out of ATI for well over 10 years now, but it hasn't been an easy process deprogramming and learning "what is the truth?" regarding Scripture, BG's teachings, etc. Even after all this time, we are still healing. Regrets? We have many!!

      I know that some of you still have parents caught up in Bill's legalistic, unscriptural teachings and refuse to believe otherwise. My heart hurts for you. I pray that the truth will come out in this lawsuit and that their eyes will be opened and that they will have a repentant heart. However, it all turns out, I applaud the bravery of each person who has been willing to come forward and share their story!

  39. David Pigg January 14, 2016 Reply

    I'm still angry after reading the 114 page manuscript.Jane Doe upon the very day she was sent away by her adopted parents was struck over 100 times.That is there for all Gothard adherrants to see and deny,struck over 100 times!With the quiet affirmation of the Great Suppressor,teachings bend and twist the human psyche,to conform them ultimately with the character of the teacher.So as we move on to Jane Doe 2,Gothard asks Doe's father publicly over an intercom if the allegations of his raping Jane Doe are true.Gothard then threatens a 16 year old who was subjected to multiple incidents of rape, beatings,belittling interrogations,hair pulling,to obey her father across the board,categorically.[Of course he denied the allegations].Who out there upon reading account after account would say that theses stories are contrived,and not have to ultimately face the inevitable conclusion that Gothard did rape this girl, based on his teachings,attitude,triumph of lust and power.And from these teachings,and attitudes built into them, come a crystallizing of all the esteemed values of life, to a callousness,hardness,legalism ;void of all compassion for those needing it the most.Gothard must for the public influence he has long had,for a rare event he can no longer control,come to grips with victims for years he discarded,let out back entrances,probably without even a blink at their abuse.He must actually give an account.And now wants to get back into the ministry.Some things involve the emotions tried to numbness.This has got to be one of them.

    • Tammy January 14, 2016 Reply

      David, I'm angry too! It's ludicrous to send a person back into an abusive situation unless, of course, you are also guilty of abusing.
      And seriously.... asking a father over an intercom if the allegations of rape were true. If he had said yes, what difference would it have made? From other testimonies, it wouldn't have. The young lady would have been instructed to "obey her parents." How utterly ridiculous!!

    • Lisa J January 14, 2016 Reply

      David, you might be asking for and wanting something that may never happen. In my layperson's experience and research Bill Gothard is a narcissistic sociopath and possibly also borderline personality disorder. Both can be easily, superficially albeit, online. A great resource if you google it is the Mayo clinic website. But there are many out there and blogs also. The MAIN characteristic one has to keep in mind when dealing with this personality profile is that have NO CONSCIENCE.
      They are unable or unwilling, I don't know, to have any empathy or sympathy for others. They have no qualms about what their actions are doing to others. The lying, the grandiose ego, etc. are all also features, they are listed on many sites. But foremost is no conscience.

      • Lisa J January 14, 2016 Reply

        Meant to say researched online... And
        They have no conscience

        • DAVID PIGG January 14, 2016

          Lisa,now its come to the point that to speak out against Bill Gothard is to speak for the affirmation of human dignity,and worth;atleast from my conclusion of connecting the dots in the 114 page court indictment.To not acknowledge fathomless depths of evil done thru the guise of natural religion by this man is to denigrate human value to slavery/sex objects in a caste system.Thanks about the no conscience statement.Its all too believable.

        • Lisa J January 14, 2016

          I am sure his victims appreciate expressions of righteous anger on your part and others on this sight. It reafirms their dignity and sense of worth. It may be the only justice they see on this side of eternity. Only God knows. But they will know people cared and are praying for them. May the Lord use this to continue to bring healing to them.

  40. David Pigg January 14, 2016 Reply

    You see Gothard wanted robots;automatons,and when at last he didn't get the proper response to his programming, its our fault.The Libby Annes,Jerushas,Vyckie Garrisons are no more than natural acts of "rebellion" and are of minor consequence.The IBLP was in the end nothing more than a programmed machine.

  41. BCM January 14, 2016 Reply

    I am still concerned about the statute of limitations for the women who were abused by Bill more than 20 years ago. I'm concerned the court will knock their claim out on a summary judgment motion. Hopefully a few of the 14 claimants can survive the statute of limitations challenge.

    • Karen January 14, 2016 Reply

      The rape allegation is more recent (within the last 13 years or so). There's hope. Now 4 more plaintiffs have joined and we don't know their allegations yet.

    • CJ January 15, 2016 Reply

      BCM - read the lawsuit and you will note the primary allegations of tortious conduct is infliction of emotional distress from statements Gothard and IBLP issued in 2014 denying anything illegal occurred. I'm an attorney also and I think it is unlikely this gets knocked down in an SJ motion based on statute of limitations passing because the events that took place 20 years ago are mere background for the infliction of emotional distress.

  42. rob war January 14, 2016 Reply

    Larne,
    what is the "gut brain" nonsense all about and Bill's new insight that he must share with all the alumni? Does Bill really think some stomach cells are equal to brain cells?

    • Larne Gabriel January 14, 2016 Reply

      That's it! your reins/kidney, intestines and heart are your second brain. I believe he has taken a Bible metaphor about emotions and with his special insight and the first one in 2000 years has a revelation direct from God. Just another way to find gullible followers to fleece them of their money and undying loyalty. Sorry I'm a little sarcastic today. If I recall there is an example of a good person who got a heart transplant from a thief and they turned into one also, something that bazar and the foundation for new theology. Bad heart juju I guess! Don't quote me but I don't have the reins/stomach to look it up.

      • rob war January 14, 2016 Reply

        Thanks, if you dug further into it, your reins/stomach would throw up for sure. Sounds like he will end up in the JW camp with no blood transfusions and no organ transplants because you will become a bad person if you receive from a bad person. What a nut.

        • Larne Gabriel January 14, 2016

          My heart wasn't into it either!

        • LynnCD January 14, 2016

          Daniel said he was buying the book on the inner brain. I have asked him about it, and he has yet to respond. Perhaps he will, or perhaps he's changed his mind. I would be interested in hearing Daniel's take on the book, as I have read about the gut microbiome from Dr. Leo Galland, and Dr. David Perlmutter, and some from Dr. William Davis.

        • Daniel January 15, 2016

          Sorry I haven't had a chance to dig into the book much yet. It does look as bad as I feared though. It's just such a mess that it is hard to even follow the logic in the book. He definitely is trying to make the case that there is some kind of cognitive function in the "bowels" "reins" "heart" etc. They are the controlling force within the body, even more so than the brain. He is pulling his normal tricks of "discovering ancient/new truth" packaging it and selling it as if he has some kind of direct pathway to the God.

          The book has a lot of random stuff stuck into it. Here's something kind of sickening...



          “The Power of Deep-Rooted Love” published by Life Purpose Power Teams.

          7 Woes of Beautiful Women (pg.15)

          Sensual love is a particular problem for beautiful women. They tend to have internal preassures (sic) which cause them to marry unqualified, sensual men:

          • They are obviously aware that men are paying attention to them because of their outward appearance.
          • They resent that men are more interested in their outward features than in who they really are on the inside.
          • They compare themselves to other women and feel threatened when they see someone they think is more attractive.
          • They experience verbal attacks from other women who envy their attractiveness and look for any character flaws.
          • They fear that the one whom they marry will lose interest in them when their physical appearance will change with age and child bearing.
          • They often feel that they are unattractive and want to correct “unchangeables” in themselves.
          • Because of these factors they are very vulnerable to the flattery of sensual men and often marry one.




          At the top of the page are a few glamor shots of women in their 20's or 30's. I can just imagine him scrolling through images on Shutterstock to find the perfect gals for his book.

          I was just floored reading that after what he's done. Apparently he's an expert on the woes of hot women.

        • Beverly January 15, 2016

          Uhhhhh.... wow. It sounds like Gothard is projecting his own issues onto what beautiful women might be thinking/feeling. I can run down this list and see direct parallels to personal stories I've heard shared from friends where Gothard has done each one of these: He's paid more attention to their outer appearances and has not cared about their inner person; He has compared women with each other and told girls "You should be more like ___, who styles her hair this way"; He has spread lies among women telling them not to trust other women and trying to divide their friendships; He hinted to one young lady that he did not want to marry because he doesn't want to have a wife who grows old and looks ugly--and the fact that he prefers young women over women his own age would seem to confirm this; He has taken girls in to get elective surgery done on their faces for their appearances; And he has flattered them to gain their love and loyalty, and often dissuaded them from courting or developing relationships with other men, especially if they were his "favorites."

          I call B.S. If he speaks with authority on this subject, it's only because he's done each one of these things to women and he assumes their minds are just as depraved as his. As a beautiful woman made in the image of God (aren't we all beautiful because we're made in God's image?!), this list just makes me feel angry.

        • LynnCD January 15, 2016

          Daniel - on the woes of beautiful women. I guess that should be called "Exhibit C." Those are totally his own notions. Thanks for the response, btw, I did not intend to put pressure on you.

        • Helga January 15, 2016

          Thank goodness ugly women don't have these problems.

        • Daniel January 15, 2016

          Beverly, you are right. All women are made beautifully by God. Bill's particular tastes in beauty don't determine fate for a particular woman any more than the lines in your hand or the bumps on your noggin predict the future.

          It's interesting how its always "blame the woman" for Bill.
          Instead of saying shallow men go for beautiful women (duh) its beautiful women go for shallow men.

          I'm kind of weirded out by the whole concept of the "sensual men." God made men to be attracted to women. That attraction is one of the strongest emotional forces on earth. If a guy doesn't think his wife/ girlfriend is super hot that would be a bad thing. If your guy is more excited about your apple pie, or your Ph.D., than he is the wedding night, run away!

          Can we say NO MORE RELATIONSHIP ADVICE from the octogenarian bachelor? He doesn't know what he's talking about.

    • nmgirl January 15, 2016 Reply

      "Gut Brain" is a biological idea. There are multiple connections between the real brain and what happens in the digestive systems. Many of the internal organs release their own hormones and control processes without input from the physical brain.

  43. Elizabeth D January 14, 2016 Reply

    Wow - absolutely no words. Over on his own site, Alfred has referred to the victims as turning on Bill, "who frankly selflessly laid down his life for them."

    Lord, have mercy.

    • LynnCD January 14, 2016 Reply

      Elizabeth, I may go there and comment. After all.

    • LynnCD January 14, 2016 Reply

      Here is my comment which is in moderation:

      [start]“. . . who frankly selflessly laid down his life for them, to see them prosper.”

      Alfred, I presume you wrote that, and it was referring to Bill. I think you need to be much more careful, and here’s why:

      This claim about Bill laying down his life for the young ladies contradicts Exhibit B, which I thought you helped Bill to write. In Exhibit B, Bill says this:

      “Rather than appreciating people as Jesus did, and bonding their spirits to Him, I evaluated them by my criteria and bonded their spirits to me.” He goes on to state the method of the bondage he caused . . . “I was very wrong in holding hands, giving hugs, and touching their hair or feet. I was also wrong in making statements that caused emotional turmoil and confusion. My guilt is compounded by my hypocrisy of requiring standards for others but not following them myself. All of this can only be described as ungodly and sinful.” . . . He goes on to state the general consequence: “I have caused great destruction in the lives of many individuals and families.”

      I am NOT talking about the suit here. I don’t want to hear about whether you think it is right, or wrong for them to sue. Any response to this effect will deflect from my point in this one comment.

      You have put Bill Gothard on par with Jesus Christ when you said he laid down his life for the ladies who claimed he abused them.

      Bill himself admits what he did, he did for selfish reasons, and that what he did was ungodly and sinful. He said he pointed them away from pursuing Christ, and wanted them to be bound to him.

      What you said about Bill laying down his life in selflessness does not comport with his statements in Exhibit B. Be very, very careful in making the claim that Bill was being Christlike toward those who were subject to what Bill himself calls “ungodly and sinful’ acts.[end]

      • Beverly January 14, 2016 Reply

        Wow, well said. Thank you.

      • Larne Gabriel January 15, 2016 Reply

        Bill did a great job of laying down his life for Ruth when she ask to be emotional(spirit)released from him and he sent her to the wolf in the Northwoods(via a couple lousy choices)When she told him she was under moral pressure there he did nothing. In his mind he was probably saying "next". I am tiring of the misinformation presented in Discouraging Grace. It appears he has dropped a couple of my post too, but they could have gotten lost in the mess but I don't think so.

        • rob war January 15, 2016

          I thought deep down inside of Alfred, there was a glimmer of hope. But he really has dug his heals in, he plays games with people's responses to him, we can't even interact with each other, he is always in the middle, he shuts down conversations with "move on" when he starts losing the debate, he is putting out info that isn't accurate, he is being used by Bill in doing this and can't see that. He just accused me of "making it up". To Alfred, I don't make it up at all neither is anyone else but you can't keep defending this sick old perverted man no matter how much he may have meant to you in the past. He is using you Alfred and for all your efforts and devotion and defense of Bill, he will screw you in the end as he has done to everyone else.

        • LynnCD January 15, 2016

          Alfred's reply to my point -- that he is idolizing Bill Gothard and putting him in the place of Christ, Who laid down His life for us sinners -- was another tangent. Namely, Alfred said that Bill did not approve of his own words in Exhibit B. So I looked at billgothard.com, and sure enough, Bill has walked back the words of not only Exhibit B, but Bill's original statement which hit the internet, that his physical affection with the young women, which included foot touching, crossed a boundary, and was wrong.

          I know Exhibit B is more forcefully worded than Bill's original statement. But if you read billgothard.com now it is a flat out denial of any impropriety, and a denial of his original statement, and of Exhibit B. It's obvious Bill has had help getting that website up.

          Don Veinot said it well - those who are assisting Bill to deny the seriousness of what he originally confessed to are keeping Bill from doing what he most needs to do, and that is to repent.

          Not only that, but they are idolizing Bill, claiming Bill laid down his life so that those he harmed could prosper.

          I thank Elizabeth for pointing that comment out. Idolatry is a horrible thing, and that is why I broke my silence over there. But I'm done.

        • Karen January 15, 2016

          Wow, Lynn. It's frightening what being in bondage to an idol can do--how it warps one's mind--and how deeply entrenched a delusion can become. I was really relieved when Alfred got banned from posting here because reading his twisted reasoning and continual obfuscation at RG (mirroring that of his idol, no doubt) was crazy-making. It is deeply unjust to BG's victims to have to be subjected to such mental torture.

          At a certain point, God who is long-suffering in his mercy, gives such a reprobate mind over to reap the natural consequence of living such a lie. I fear at this point arguing with BG and his puppet(s) merely gives them the impression they may still be able to win the game--it does nothing to move them from their folly. Still, if it serves as a validation to only one other victimized soul to enable them to move toward freedom from the lies, it's worth it to keep exposing the red herrings, knocking down the straw men, and challenging outright boldfaced lies going on over there. Those who can--keep shining the light in this darkness.

        • Lindsey77 January 15, 2016

          rob war and Larne,
          I agree with all you say regarding Alfred. I had take a break myself.

      • rob war January 15, 2016 Reply

        Lynn, Alfred denies that he helped Bill write that confession. Did he lead you to believe that? You have a great response, it is thoughtful and well written.

        • LynnCD January 15, 2016

          rob war, thanks, but I misconstrued something Alfred said about Exhibit B. It may be that Alfred helped Bill get his responses up on billgothard.com, and that's what he referred to, but don't quote me on that. See my comment to Larne.

          My scruple is to stay out of commenting on the suit, because I wasn't a witness to anything, but Alfred heartily disapproves of Exhibit B, and did not help Bill write it. I take back what I said.

          Frankly, I felt hopeful when I read "B," but it appears that was a false hope.

        • LynnCD January 15, 2016

          PS - about my scruple about commenting on the suit. I wasn't a witness to anything, and neither was Alfred. I'm quite sure most of the plaintiffs are not talking to him. They haven't spoken to me, either.

          So picture me starting a site like DG. It would not be my business at all to do so. NONE.OF.MY.BUSINESS. We are only getting third and fourth hand "information" over there. No statements from Gothard, directly. Just rumors. Unlike over here, where there are published accounts of people who were involved.

          That said, Bill has said enough in his original internet confession to make me believe the women who have come forward.

          Frankly, I was so hopeful when I read the end of the amended suit, because I read it as a plea to go back to binding arbitration, or whatever the term is. But apparently, it is not, and I'm very confused at this point, simply because I don't have all the details. But neither am I asking questions.

          I apologize again for thinking Alfred had something to do with Exhibit B.

  44. LynnCD January 15, 2016 Reply

    I think this is important, so I will say it again.

    “. . . who frankly selflessly laid down his life for them, to see them prosper.”

    Alfred, by his own words, is committing idolatry.

  45. nicole gardner January 15, 2016 Reply

    Larne,

    Did Ruth let Bill know she was "under moral pressure" after Bill sent her up to Northwoods & she became a hit-on target of his brother?!?!?!?

    I trust your statement's veracity; I'm just making sure I understand it correctly.

    • Larne Gabriel January 15, 2016 Reply

      I could not give you the exact dates but that is what she told me.

  46. David January 15, 2016 Reply

    Those of you who have been regularly engaged over on Covering Disgrace... Have there been ANY other voices of continuing support chiming in? Or has it been almost exclusively this Alfred character versus "the world"?

    • rob war January 15, 2016 Reply

      There have only been a couple. I have some interaction with a David K who seems to be a friend of Alfred. 98% of the interactions are with Alfred. He claims that there is a team of 5 with 3 of them kicked off of here (RG). But, either they are behind the scenes or Alfred is just dominating and control the site. The supporters are very few in number and I think that Alfred might have expected and outpouring of love for Bill when he set it up as an alternative to RG. However, there is no love for Bill outside the very small diehard circle around Bill and Alfred.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. February 4, 2016 Reply

        Hello sister Rob, I just found you over here. I have never met Alfred, so he and I are not friends in the usual sense. But you can call me a Gothard admirer. I think Alfred does a pretty good job balancing the content over here at RG. I do not know whether there are many or few middle-aged Gothard admirers like me who browse both RG and DG. Of course we are the people described by BCM in a 1/15 post here. Your term (diehard) may also be a good description of us, hopefully in the spirit of "love suffereth long," etc.



        Peace,
        David K

        • rob war February 4, 2016

          Hi David, While we are not going to agree, I appreciate your response, clarification and wish for peace and I return that to you and yours

          peace

    • Lindsey77 January 15, 2016 Reply

      David,
      I agree with rob war's estimates.

  47. BCM January 15, 2016 Reply

    CJ, I hope you are correct. However, I am also concerned about the basis of the Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IED") claim being Bill's misrepresentations about illegality as opposed to the actual incidents of 20 years ago. To me that raises an issue with causation. It seems like he is saying the basis of this particular cause of action is not the harassment itself but the misrepresentation of the illegal conduct. I do not know that this rises to the level of outrageousness or recklessness that is normally required in an IED claim. However, I am not familiar with case law in Illinois which tends to be more liberal than Florida.

  48. Lisa J January 15, 2016 Reply

    Oh My Goodness!! My friend just posted this on fb.
    It is from belief net.com. 9 signs you are in an abusive relationship.
    This list is incredibly similar to all the girls testimonies. For instance:
    1. They isolate you. 2. Not only jealousy of other people in your life but you own goals and dreams. They want control of all areas of your life. 3.you are nervous around them because of their domineering threats over you. 4. You do all you can to make them happy. 5. You feel trapped and helpless. 6. You start thinking you are the problem.
    They listed a couple more things but these stuck out to me from their stories.
    WOW!!!

  49. BCM January 15, 2016 Reply

    In Alfred's defense, I can see where he is coming from to some extent as relates to maybe one or two of the girls who may have questionable stories and statements. I can understand why he would be quick to defend bill as to doubts about certain claims. The tendency though is for someone like Alfred to latch on to one person who may not be telling the truth and lump all the other victims in with that one person. However, I think the testimony of all the girls and the chronology as set forth by RG as well as some of the other witness testimony weighs heavily against Bill. I think Bill replaced Christ as the center of his theology and practical Christian life a long time ago with "Gothardism". I think he enjoyed the attention and "Gothard worship" he received over the years, especially from young, attractive girls. Additionally, I think Alfred is probably upset that the affidavit he helped Bill prepare may have been obtained by the plaintiffs' attorneys under the guise that it would be used against the Board of IBLP and not against Bill in the lawsuit. I am not saying this is the case, but I am trying to understand why he defends Bill to the degree he does. I think there are a lot of "Alfreds" out there(especially the older generation who have been going to Gothard conferences since the 1970s) who will not accept the testimony against Gothard, even if there are 100 women who come forward, unless Bill himself makes an admission as to a sexual sin and/or it's on video. I think Alfred knows that the "footsie" admission was sexual, but at this point if he admits this, I think he knows he will not be able to continue defending Bill with intellectual honesty. Alfred seems like a person who loves Christ but has chosen to stick with Bill until the end. There is no sense in trying to convince him otherwise.

    • rob war January 15, 2016 Reply

      I think Bill became the father or father figure that Alfred never had. I think his devotion to Bill is some deep seated emotional need that Bill has met in Alfred. This is gathered from reading what he posted here and on his own blog. I also think that Alfred devotion has given his access to Bill and this makes Alfred feel important.

      • Beth January 16, 2016 Reply

        Exactly. Alfred has said before that he lost his father when he was 8 years old, and Bill has been like a second father to him. Not sure how close they actually are, but Alfred has definitely attached to BG emotionally as a father figure. Alfred's lack of logic and seeing the obvious as well as defending BG makes sense when you see that this is more of his own attempt to avoid the trauma of losing a father figure all over again--inside he's an 8 year old boy again unwilling to part with his "Dad." It has become not just sad but tragic because this "father" he is holding onto is a liar, a thief, and most likely, to quote our Savior, "of his father the devil""--proved by his doing his father's work. And Alfred is now trying to lead others down this tragic path. So, so very sad and twisted.
        Alfred, if you're reading, I encourage you to carefully consider Christ's words: "Call no man Father (bio dads exempt!), except your Father who is in heaven." Is Bill in Christ's rightful place in your heart? Jesus is the only one who will never fail, never leave you or forsake you. You really can take Bill off of his pedestal in your heart and throw the whole weight of your soul and all of its needs into the arms of our living, loving, reigning Christ.

        • rob war January 16, 2016

          Yes, that kind of loss can be very traumatic for anyone. I do pray for Alfred. I think Bill takes advantage of Alfred's devotion and I am sure it is very one sided. He doesn't betray Bill by taking an honest look at him and realize many of the things Bill has done to others is evil. Alfred needs to be free from Bill.

      • David January 17, 2016 Reply

        For Alfred to even consider that Gothard could be guilty, or that Gothard could be a teacher of error, I'm sure, to him, this is too terrible to contemplate. It would mean that his entire concept of God is wrong. It would mean his entire Christian walk is in error. It would mean that his assumption that God led him to Gothard and has been teaching him from out of Gothard is WRONG. In short, his faith is in Gothard -- and if Gothard is wrong, then his faith is wrong. Where would he go from there?

        The fact is, all of the above is the Truth. It is that bad. But the good news is that if Alfred would actually see the Truth and embrace it, God would mercifully bring him into a true relationship with Christ. He has done that with others. It is his will for Alfred.

    • Daniel January 15, 2016 Reply

      BCM... you are hitting on a very important part of this issue. There have been false claims in the past against the Institute. The IBLP leadership love to stick their heads in that sand to avoid these issues.
      I'd be willing to bet that A FEW of the claims that have been aired are false, imagined, or stretched due to anger. Some people may be trying to piggyback and make some money. It is hard to tell in every case.

      I think some of IBLP's smugness relates to knowing that a few claims are false. They will try to focus on those claims to discredit the real claims.

      I hope the law team is very selective in the process of adding claimants.

    • Olivia Linton January 17, 2016 Reply

      I am one of those 1970's IBYC/IBLP folks. As much as many of the first crop might resist that their "sacred head" has fallen , it is difficult when presented with all the facts to not at least have pause. I know it is hard to be willing to see the naked truth, yet, when one allows the Truth really does heal and set one free. How the mighty have fallen. For us, it was a gradual awakening to having been deceived. We began to break away in the mid-to-late 80's when the advanced seminars just started getting weird and the problems with Steve were "exposed" ... I say that tongue-in-cheek since little was really exposed. Rather in true Gothard style, events were managed (mangled) to preserve the dynasty. We never applied for ATI though we homeschooled. I have to trust that those who are the Lord's, when presented with the truth will "eventually" ...hopefully sooner than later... respond as Aquilla and Priscilla did when Paul took them aside and told them of the way of God more perfectly! We certainly should pray to that end. I long for THE TRUTH to be revealed and know JUSTICE will prevail. How long, O Lord?

    • David January 17, 2016 Reply

      What were the Advance Seminars like? My parents (mostly my dad) took us through the Basic more than a few times growing up, but only him and my mom went through the "Advance" seminars, and more than once. Was that where you got your super-elite powers and cape?

      • eva January 17, 2016 Reply

        We went to the advanced in the 80s. We were in our early to mid 40s by then. I would say from my perspective it was similar to the basic except that it really seemed to put a spotlight on SEX. When you could have sex, where, how often, get that vasectomy reversed, etc!!!! I got rid of my books so I can't go back and recollect but it seemed that each thing was more weird than the last. We never went back to an advanced. And I think we scaled back then on our alumni attendance at the basic. Here's this man who said he had never touched a woman's private parts, or kissed a girl trying to tell us not to have sex on this day or that one. I have always wondered if he lays in bed at night getting his kicks out of thinking of all the people who followed his advice and were wishing they could have sex that night. We never followed his advice, thankfully.

        • huzandbuz January 18, 2016

          To: eva
          "who said he had never touched a woman's private parts"..... Hmmmm.....

          In his twisted, perverted logic, maybe he didn't.....
          Since it appears that the majority of the young ladies had already been sexually abused prior to reaching the institute and him, perhaps he felt 'their parts were no longer private'.....
          (This is not meant to be humorous.) :+(

        • Brumby January 20, 2016

          My mind is scarred from attending Advanced when I was 14. I had no idea that sex and periods were going to be discussed, and I was still quite ignorant about both topics anyways. How confused and distressed I was that week! Even then, as uninformed as I was prior to hearing BG's ideas, I thought to myself how strange it was that something (sex) that was supposed to be "ok" after marriage, was still not ok! Mixed signals here, people, mixed signals.

      • rob war January 18, 2016 Reply

        My husband and I attended in 1986 and we were newly married. Like others have stated much of the focus was on the marital relationship and roles and what a husband needs and what a wife needs. He further pushed his home schooling program because and according to Bill, it is the parents sole responsibility to educate their children and parents who send their children to any kind of school, public or private were abdicating their parental responsibility.

        Another area of focus was spiritual gifts especially the "motivational" gifts and their characteristics. The Charismatic Church I had just attended was very big into this list and our small groups went over it as if all of it was gospel truth.

        As a final comment when I saw your question, what I remember about the advance seminar what that on our way to it, we were in a car accident. I turned in front of someone quickly and they rear ended me. I also got a ticket from the turn so the first night we were late and I think we were both so upset and traumatized by the accident (no one hurt, thank God) that the seminar for the most part was one big blur. It was my first accident and ticket and it was very upsetting. Now looking back on it, the accident probably did us good in the long run because both of us couldn't focus on anything and any time I think about the advance, I think about this accident not about the content of the seminar.

      • Suzi February 26, 2016 Reply

        They only allowed men to attend the advanced in the beginning - then they let women come with their husband in 1977...

  50. nicole gardner January 16, 2016 Reply

    Larne,

    Thank-you for answering my query.

    If I went to my boss's district manager & told her:

    "I am a Christian & I have been resisting temptation to become sexually active for all these years. This is who I am, & who I am trying to continue to be." And then I state "I am under pressure to undergo a moral compromise", my district manager would respond by saying: "Hasn't your boss helped you to be all you can be? When you told him of this, did he let you know the resources made available to you through your store's HR department?" If I replied by saying "Well, I've come to you because he already knows this about me; it's obvious he knows because he's the one who's been systematically pressuring me to let him compromise me."

    My district manager would hit the fan at this point in the conversation. Of course, I guess it went differently in Ruth's talking to Bill; after all- he was the one who had started the grooming.

    So illegal, unethical, unjust, unChristlike........ downright evil.

    • David Pigg January 20, 2016 Reply

      In getting what he wanted Bill ripped open carefully woven tapestries;delicate fabrics of girls hearts,for a short time interval,very calculated,very hedged against the odds of discovery by any party other than himself.He would go on to tbe next one and the next,oblivious to their heart's inevitable cry;exacerbated by their naiveness,vulnerability,and helplessness.At last a chance for justice to be served for girls who passed out from the trauma of sexual exploitation,who suffered temporal paralyses on one side of their body,who shook uncontrollably.And what of the teachings so taught by this conscience seared,immoral,no holds barred,master manipulator;the infraction you suffered only affects your body,not your spirit;minimal importance.No beautifully woven tapestries,delicate fabrics knowingly violated,and covered up far too many years by yes men and puppets.

  51. nicole gardner January 16, 2016 Reply

    I just want to add: not only has every place I've ever worked considered a "safety zone" from being preyed upon sexually (with training to this effect), but, where I'm at now the HR department & security department also have open-door policy & counsel (or referred council) for any issues we have in our personal lives. If my personal autonomy is encroached upon by someone entirely unconnected to my place of work, they still offer support because I'm their employee. My safety is important, even off the job. If this person WAS connected at work- let alone my direct supervisor- they'd be dealing with it, & FAST, with no repercussions to me. It kills me that my secular workplace, even in a field that isn't at all connected to counseling, does better shepherding than the leader of Christian organization that touts himself as the most adept personal councilor.

  52. Julia Fetters January 16, 2016 Reply

    I know it is tempting to TRY to reason on Covering Disgrace but really, I believe it is time to move on. Just raises blood pressure and frustrates those who know the truth.

    Those who want to know the truth can find it on the net. Alfred may think he is a movie star with all this attention. Just mho.

  53. BCM January 16, 2016 Reply

    I think Alfred truly believes in Bill's innocence due to some of the reasons I stated in a prior post (concerns about the veracity of a couple of the female claimants, etc). Ultimately, at the end of the day, Bill is entitled to a fair trial. Don't get me wrong, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly against him. However, if I was representing Bill or if I was close to Bill and was hearing information from him, I could see how it would be difficult to not want to defend and believe him, especially if he is a father figure and mentor. However, this is no way serves as an excuse to dismiss every allegation from each of the women. Many girls/women in this situation do not speak out because they are afraid no one will believe them. However, there are those who may have a personal vendetta against Bill and/or are after a pay day, and so they will embellish or lie about their story. What strikes me is the number of women that came forward and the details of their stories that add up and correlate with the stories from the other women. It took a lot for these women to come forward and go public with this information, and it takes a whole heck of a lot to bring a sexual harassment lawsuit, knowing your personal life will be sifted through and you will be made into a public spectacle. This to me adds a lot of credibility to their stories. Emotionally my tendency is to want to jump on Bill, but I am trying to think through the allegations as well as his response. HIs admissions in the affidavit really do not help his case though. I am praying that the Lord will sift through the lies and that the truth will come forward as clear as day, either through the court process or another means.

    • Lisa J January 16, 2016 Reply

      Huh, just like another "fatherly" Bill is the news of late for the same reasons.

    • B Badger January 16, 2016 Reply

      Thank you, may the truth become known indeed!

  54. David January 17, 2016 Reply

    I am glad for the courage of these girls in filing the lawsuit. I believe Gothard is guilty of these charges, maybe even more. But I do have to say, at the risk of sounding like I am minimizing the abuse, scars, and hurts -- that if Bill Gothard were completely innocent of all charges and is as pure as he claims, that he is nevertheless a heretic and a false teacher of, "another gospel." His teachings, especially his Satanic teaching on authority, is what gave him his power, and thus, made possible all of these abuses. Twenty years from now, when Gothard is gone, and all of these events pass, there are still going to be those, like Alfred, who promote these destructive heresies, and shipwreck spiritual lives. That is the real issue -- the teachings. I would submit that had it not been for these revelations of sexual abuse that there be would significantly fewer people who care about the heresies of Bill Gothard and IBLP. I think it amazing what God has to expose to get the attention of Christian people. Back in the 1970's, there were some of us crying out against his teaching, and we were branded rebellious, stupid, and without reverence for God. And there was almost NO ONE in a highly visible ministry speaking out -- many of them, like Charles Stanley, actually supported Gothard. Where is Charles Stanley today? Does he continue to support Gothard's teaching? What a coward. Where is honesty and the desire to clear God's name? Well, here we are today. I would think, at the very least, that this evil that was allowed to continue ought to give those who should have known pause to ask as to why such false teaching was able to find a place in the body of Christ and hurt the lives of so many. Ignorance is one thing. That is excusable. But not all can make such a claim. Many did know and many others could have known -- and I'm talking, not so much about the immorality, but about the false teachings.

    • huzandbuz January 17, 2016 Reply

      David January,

      Until about six months ago, I did not know that Dr. Charles Stanley ever supported Gothard!!

      (I read here, via a comment from someone who was employed at the institute during the 1980's 'scandal', that Dr. Stanley, without investigating first, was extremely rude to the non-supportive staff(wagging his finger at them) as he defended Bill.

      I also read somewhere that Gothard counseled the Stanleys regarding their troubled marriage!! I do not know if this is correct. They divorced. Mrs. Stanley has passed away. Does anyone know what the relationship between Gothard and Stanley is now??? (Until a few months back, I enjoyed viewing his Sunday sermon. Unless I discover that Dr. Stanley is now one of those who understands the crisis and realizes Gothard urgently needs to repent, I am not interested in his ministry. :+(

      • Karen January 17, 2016 Reply

        "I also read somewhere that Gothard counseled the Stanleys about their troubled marriage!!"

        If that's true, it's a classic case of the blind leading the blind, and it's sad to think if they had gotten truly sound counseling from a qualified therapist, they may have found healing. My parents and in-laws love Stanley, but for me he's just another man who has made an idol of being that guy up in the pulpit with the admiring audience. You can only truly "preach the gospel" if: a) you really know what the content of the gospel is, and b) your life doesn't undercut the message you preach.

        • huzandbuz January 17, 2016

          To Karen:
          I always believed that Dr. Stanley was a sincere and dedicated man of God. I began listening to his sermons soon after my conversion in 2/79. I read his bio and was heartsick when I learned that his wife made several attempts to divorce him. He stated that he did everything he could to prevent the dissolution of the marriage. Ultimately, it was granted to her.

          In my relentless attempt to discover why Mrs. Stanley was so unhappy with him, I read everything I could find regarding their union. My intensity may come across as odd, but I felt so sorry for THEM, as a couple, especially considering his prominent ministry. I do feel certain of his sincerity desiring every person on earth to 'hear and understand the gospel message'.

          The following may not be true:
          When asked what the problem was from her point of view, supposedly she replied, "Charles left the marriage a long time ago". I determined that to mean emotionally he was not there for her or at least she did not believe he was.

          His dad died when he was a baby. Years later, his mom married a cruel man who was deliberately mean to him. Not having an appropriate 'role model' to follow, perhaps he truly had difficulty staying 'connected' to his wife. But maybe....after he became involved with Bill Gothard....something changed in his relationship to his wife....
          However, to my listening ears, none of Dr. Stanley's sermons ever reflected any signs of Gothardism. I just wish I knew what Dr. Stanley's feelings are regarding 'his old friend now'.....

          (I am sorry this text is lengthy.)

        • Karen January 18, 2016

          husbandbuz,

          Your account pretty much accords with what I have read as well. Though I haven't followed him much, when I have heard him I haven't found Stanley to be preaching Gothardism from the pulpit either. In fact, I liked him when I was an Evangelical (and when I had no idea of what was going on behind the scenes with Gothard, etc.). I have no animosity toward the man and I'm sure he has some noble intentions, but I believe he has erred if he has indeed put "preaching the gospel" (from the pulpit of a church) ahead of his family commitments to live the gospel out relationally (which is the only way any of us can truly effectively preach the gospel in its fullness to anyone). I believe there is a huge temptation in modern Evangelical culture for believers to derive our sense of worth and significance from what we apparently *do for* God and to delude ourselves we are indispensable in some "ministry" and that if we fail, the Holy Spirit can't get the job done. We are often explicitly taught things that reinforce this--e.g., how many of us have heard preachers tell stories about how someone died before he had the chance to hear about Jesus, though some believer had, had the chance to tell him, but didn't? How many of us has heard the only reason God leaves individual believers here on earth after they "get saved" is that God wants to "use us" to reach the rest of the world?

          The focus on "winning souls" for God and other seemingly great deeds of faith serves to displace the gospel understanding of Church as most essentially the *communion* of the saints established by Christ alone and into which we are incorporated by faith through the action of the Holy Spirit working in the Church. This gospel of the communion of saints instituted by Christ is replaced by the American utilitarian gospel of the individual believer as indispensable tool in God's hand, which only serves to inflame the desires and fears of our ego-centric selves--desires and fears which can only rest when our needs are met by abiding in Christ (which we never really learn to do). Thus the utilitarian gospel produces "believers" whose primary motivation in their relationships with others and for attending church is the need to prove their significance and worth in the eyes of others and of God. Whereas the version of the gospel that truly enables the one who believes on Christ to experience Christ's love in the communion of the saints enables our transformation so that we are motivated in relationships to "love because He first loved us." In my experience, when we abide in the love of Christ, we can't help but share Him with others (with words if necessary). But in this case it is God, not us, doing the preaching of the gospel and convicting others of its truth, and we don't need a pulpit and a large congregation to validate our sense of significance. We know Christ is the Savior of the world, not us!

          It's not hard to see how you don't have to subscribe to an all-out heresy like Gothard's system to allow this Evangelical fallacy to subtly tempt you to enthrone the needs of the insecure ego and destroy loving relationship in the process. It's also easy to see how this utilitarian concept of God and His Church can be the seed of a full-blown Gothard system.

        • Lindsey77 January 20, 2016

          Karen,
          This was very helpful to me.

      • JPU January 17, 2016 Reply

        Did Anna Stanley just die recently? The latest I saw on Charles Stanley is that he and son Andy are working on reconciling.(they were estranged for a long time and he openly stated he felt safer with his mom than his dad) And that was 2014. All else I know is that, unlike BG, Charles Stanley actually made an appearance on 19 Kids and Counting. I've also been encouraged by his snippet-sermons on my Christian radio station, but didn't hear full sermons or know much on his life besides what the Internet provides. But hopefully this is one step closer to him confessing his part in enabling what's been happening with IBLP/BG.

        • Melody January 17, 2016

          Anna Johnson Stanley, of Alpharetta, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta), passed away November 10, 2014. She was the mother of Andy Stanley and Becky Stanley Brodersen.

        • huzandbuz January 18, 2016

          To JPU:
          She went to be with Jesus on 11/10/14
          http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/newsobserver/obituary-preview.aspx?n=anna-j-stanley&pid=173134671&referrer=1878

          She was dearly loved by her daughter-in-law Sandra -
          http://sandrastanley.com/2014/11/my-sweet-mother-in-law/

          Dr. Charles' son Andy is an amazing man as well. It appears that they are now and have been for quite some time, at peace with each other. (Their ministry styles differ.)

          While listening intently to hundreds of Dr. Stanley's sermons over many years, I was able to glean 'tidbits' of information regarding his 'formative years'. He had a deep love, appreciation and respect for his mother and credited her for much of his abounding faith.
          I do feel great compassion for him as he made little references regarding the pain he experienced in his childhood. The inability to be reared by his biological father, created such a deep void in his life that he, curiously, for many years, could not embrace God as his Father in the way he needed to. Eventually, with the help of devoted friends, that was resolved. The heartache of living with a cruel step-father took its toll. I recall, during a sermon, he made a brief comment concerning 'a woman remarrying just because she was lonely'. That statement spoke volumes.

          Yet, he mentioned how he, in later years, approached his step-father apologizing for 'whatever he, Dr. Charles, had done to cause dissension between them. (Probably nothing. He was a child. Perhaps the step-father was jealous.) I believe it was this initiation of love by Dr. Charles that encouraged his step-father to seek Jesus. (My tears....)

          Only God knows why the Stanley's marriage could not endure. As a result, I am certain that thousands felt profound sadness. I truly feel that 'something was missing' in the marriage that Mrs. Stanley could not live without. Sad.

          Because the pain I feel runs so deep for all of those woman abused by Gothard, I just cannot abide with anyone who does not understand the severity of what has taken place. In addition, the individuals must agree that nothing short of a Godly resolution is acceptable. Yes, this includes Dr. Charles confessing his part in enabling any IBLP cover up. I truly desire to know the relationship that now exists between Dr. Charles Stanley and Bill Gothard. ^i^

        • David January 18, 2016

          I don't want to come off as insensitive, but Charles Stanley needs to do more than just confess his unfortunately support of Bill Gothard. There is a REASON why he supported Gothard, and that reason is that he agrees with what Bill teaches. He many not directly teach what Gothard teaches but he agrees with him or otherwise he would not have stood up and affirmed Gothard publicly. Unless he sees the error in these teachings and personally comes to terms with God about them, he isn't going to get far. Again, we come back to the teaching.

  55. rob war January 17, 2016 Reply

    This is my reply to Alfred who finally got the courage to ask Bill directly if he was a virgin and Bill's reply which was just "absolutely" per Alfred.

    Absolutely what? Is that all he said? So either he absolutely is or he absolutely is not. You, as a faithful follower will think he is affirming the first, me a no longer faithful follower interpret the later. Either he fully assaulted Jane Doe II which makes himself "not a virgin" by any means or she is lying. Considering the preponderance of all the testimonies plus 4 more added, it doesn't really look good for Bill to "still be a virgin" and he is skirting around the issue with his defense of himself as "never kissing', not touching with intent etc etc. He doesn't come forward with "I believe that God's perfect plan is to reserve sex for marriage and I have promised myself this and have always behaved in such a manner to save my body and sex for my marriage partner if I ever get married". He never has said that about himself. So again, absolutely what?

    • David January 18, 2016 Reply

      I don't think I know of any ministry, or leader of a ministry, who is so obsessed with sex -- especially obsessed with his own personal purity, to the point where he announces it. When is the last time you even heard any minister make public his own purity? If a person really were pure, they would not feel the need to announce it. And from the stories I've read on this site about the atmosphere at headquarters, and personal dealings with Bill, this is an obsession that was everywhere -- right down to often forbidding members of the opposite sex to be alone in the same room with each other. I think all Christians agree that sex is for marriage. That is a given. But it is the continual focus on this matter that, to me, seems like a over-compensation. When you feel the need to police every thought, every move, and every action with LAW -- and much of it having to do with, "eye traps," etc. -- this is often a reflection of something about yourself that you are trying to control or suppress. And we don't need to guess about that, do we? There was a huge problem. And in the end, all of the laws Gothard could muster up were not able to turn him from his sin, nor were those laws able to stop the abuses by his brother. Law can never control sin. Only faith in the Living Christ can -- not control sin -- but deliver us from sin.

      • rob war January 18, 2016 Reply

        I agree with you 100%

      • huzandbuz January 18, 2016 Reply

        To David:
        You certainly do not come across as insensitive. We are to 'speak our mind' and to share. Are we not? We learn from one another as we 'enlighten' and are 'enlightened' in return. We also encourage and support whenever possible. This is how I understand our purpose here.

        As Stanley obviously supported Gothard with much intensity during the time of the cover up, there has to be an explanation. (Apparently, at that time, Dr. Charles never attempted to investigate any allegations. He just believed Bill.) Does he really align himself to any degree with Bill's dogma?? Unless it is determined otherwise, it certainly appears that he did and perhaps continues to do so regardless of the fact that his sermons do not exhibit any hints of 'Gothardism'.

        The possibility of a continued camaraderie between the two of them is perplexing. If Dr. Charles Stanley agrees with what Gothard teaches, wouldn't there be some evidence reflected in his sermons?? What am I missing here.....??

        • Larne Gabriel January 18, 2016

          I sent Stanley, Swindoll and MacArthur a copy of our June 24,2015 "Failure to Repent, Tell it to the church" letter and I'm still sitting on the edge of my chair waiting for their response. It must be the slow mail service!
          https://www.recoveringgrace.org/?s=failure+to+repent&search=Search

      • Tom Neiman January 20, 2016 Reply

        From what you have just stated, these verses from Titus 1:15,16 come to mind. Quoting from the King James "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure: but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God: but in works they deny [Him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

  56. Lisa blake January 17, 2016 Reply

    David,
    Interesting to me that you outright say that gothard's teaching on authority is satanic. Those are powerful words. I'm not disagreeing, but would you clarify that statement? It would be helpful. Thanks

    • David January 17, 2016 Reply

      Satan is the author of all lies, according to Jesus, and certainly, THE deceiver, so at least in general, it is of Satan. But more specifically, Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man. Gothard's authority teaching -- and this is even seen right from the pictures he draws of it -- interjects authority as a mediator between the believer and God. It essentially denies that each believer has a personal, one on one access to God through Christ, and demands that we can only walk with God through an authority -- because that is how God works. That is not only what is taught -- it is how it is practiced, and those who have been involved with it know that. Horrible error. In addition, the damage done by this teaching is nothing short of Satanic. It is not of the Holy Spirit and this makes it of another spirit. If we read Galatians 1 we find what Paul has to say about such teachings. But I think in the church today we think these things are merely a matter of getting Bible verses straight or finding a sound theology. But God reveals that they are more: They are matters of walking in darkness or light. Many who years ago rolled their eyes and scoffed at any criticism of Gothard are now realizing that his is another gospel and right out of the pit.

  57. Lisa blake January 18, 2016 Reply

    Amen! ^^^ thank you!
    I feel the same way about the Calvinistic (satanic) idea that God purposely creates some people to send them to hell without a choice for his "glory" so popular today. But many would call that non-essential doctrine or interpretation.

    • huzandbuz January 18, 2016 Reply

      To: Lisa Blake
      "But many would call that non-essential doctrine or interpretation".

      I agree that this is hardly non-essential doctrine or interpretation!
      If an individual believes that Jesus 'only died for the elect', there is no incentive to witness for Him. I believe this encourages a live for yourself mentality as one of God's 'chosen'. :+(

    • Don Rubottom January 18, 2016 Reply

      I do not understand the inferiority of believing God made people for punishment compared to God purposely allowing them chose punishment when He is wise and powerful enough to stop it. Killing by neglect and killing on purpose are both culpable. That we don't understand God's ways does not make them satanic.
      @husandbuz, I am Calvinist and I do not believe Jesus died ONLY for the elect. But I believe that only the elect will receive the benefit. Do you read "elect" out of your Bible? If not, what do you do with the word?

      • huzandbuz January 19, 2016 Reply

        To: Don Rubottom
        With all due respect Don, I do not comprehend Calvinism. I am always open, however, to learn from others whose knowledge far exceeds my own.

        I believe everyone has a story to tell regarding the conclusions they have delineated and those gray areas that remain ambiguous.

        No, I do not 'read ELECT out of my bible'. But, that POWERFUL word, to mean 'chosen or singled out', combined with the elitist Gothard mindset, nearly destroyed me years ago. (Beset with this confusion, one son eventually walked away from the faith.)

        At this late date in my life, I have more questions than answers. I desire to put a larger portion of my story here for you to better understand my thinking, but it may be too lengthy. In addition, you may not be interested which is understandable. Ultimately, my story is not what matters.

        I do believe that only those who accept Jesus Christ as Savior will have any hope for an eternity with Jesus. Yet, I ponder if anyone can really be certain that they have eternal security. I also believe that Jesus died for every individual that ever lived.

        I do believe that the Holy Spirit 'must draw' an individual to Christ. But, I also believe that 'whosoever will may come'. I believe that these are truths that run parallel and God alone has the answer.

        I do believe that no one person has or ever will have the comprehensive understanding in every aspect of the Word of God. I believe we must continually study the scriptures. I believe that if any one person is convinced and professes to know it all from God's Word, he or she can cease reading the Word of God, and just 'worship the Book'.

        Lastly, I believe that many are aligned with much of the above.

        • Leslie January 19, 2016

          I think that way too many Christians try to "overthink" The Bible. I did that myself fir the 20 years I was in Bible Study and Bible College. You can keep it simple or you can make it hard. For me the simpler it is the closer to God I am.

        • rob war January 20, 2016

          I am currently reading a good book by Roger Olson, "Against Calvinism", I am in the middle of it. He is very careful in his research and points out in the chapters that I have read so far that Reform Theology is far from being a monolithic theology and that the TULIP schema which is what most people may think of when they think of Reformed theology or Calvinism was actually a later development at the counsel of Dort, it wasn't part of the original scheme of Calvin even though it incorporates his thinking. Not all reformed accept TULIP and even those that do, not all accept the L of TULIP and those reformed are called four point Calvinist. The L of TULIP is the idea of double predestination that essentially makes God the author of evil and disasters when one follows it to it's logical conclusion. Most people think or equate reformed and Calvinism solely with TULIP due to popular reformed teachers like John Piper, Josh MacDonald and the grand-daddy to them Lorraine Boettner. Roger in his book is raising his concerns about the later group and not reformed theology in general that don't subscribe to TULIP.

          I think that you are searching here and I would encourage you to do so. There are certainly other theological models than what you see in TULIP and reformed. I would start looking at early Church authors and fathers and there a number of good resources for this. I wouldn't give up your search and keep in mind that Christianity didn't start with the reformation in the 1500's.

      • Lisa J January 20, 2016 Reply

        We cannot dissect "elect" and "whosoever" from their context. The standard for the "elect" is faith in Jesus Christ. The standard for the "whosoever" is faith in Jesus Chirist. All in Him, the Elect One, are the election.

        • Karen January 20, 2016

          Wise words there, I think, Lisa.

        • Lisa blake January 20, 2016

          On point :)

  58. huzandbuz January 18, 2016 Reply

    To: David January
    Though we NOW know and recognize these truths from God's Word, it is so encouraging to be reminded of our true relationship to our Creator, Lord and Savior. Thank you. ^i^

  59. caroline January 18, 2016 Reply

    Has anyone suggested that he could take a polygraph exam? Or have any of the plAintiffs or accusers offered to do so?

    • Helga January 18, 2016 Reply

      Despite what TV and movies portray, polygraph tests are very unreliable. Many people pass lie detector tests while lying, and many people fail lie detector tests while telling the truth.

      • huzandbuz January 18, 2016 Reply

        To Helga:
        Years ago, a family member accused her sister's husband of stealing an (accidentally misplaced) item. He was beyond outraged!! He insisted that he be given a polygraph test 'to prove his innocence'. He failed it!!

        By this time, the sister-in-law was convinced, by his actions, that he must not be guilty. BUT, the fellow was so livid, he was not going to feel vindicated until he passed the polygraph. Certain that he failed the first time because he was so upset, he paid several hundred dollars to have the test repeated. He was retested weeks later when he had 'calmed down'. He failed again!! They found the misplaced item. The two have not spoken in years.

        This machine is designed to detect & record changes in physiological characteristics such as an individual's pulse and breathing rates. It has its merits, but it is not faultless.....

      • caroline January 18, 2016 Reply

        Agree. But that wasn't my question.

  60. Leslie January 18, 2016 Reply

    I think a polygraph is a great idea. I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned before

  61. Leslie January 18, 2016 Reply

    A polygraph would be a good starting place to weed out deception.

  62. BCM January 19, 2016 Reply

    Lie detector tests are not admissible in civil court due to their unreliability.

  63. Leslie January 19, 2016 Reply

    Nevertheless it would be interesting to see who would submit to one.

  64. Karen January 19, 2016 Reply

    I believe I have read sociopaths typically pass lie detector tests because lying produces no cognitive dissonance for them. Gothard has demonstrated enough sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies, I wonder about this.

    • huzandbuz January 19, 2016 Reply

      To Karen:
      Hmmmmm.....I wonder what scripture verse he would render to give credence to his opposition??

  65. BCM January 19, 2016 Reply

    I was a Calvinist when I was part of the Presbyterian church of America but I've sensed shifted back to being more of a traditonal dispensationalist as I saw myself trying to make scriptures fit into my Calvinist theology instead of letting scripture define my theology. My views on salvation and evangelism in relation to Gods sovereignty and election were really impacted by JI Packers book Evangelism and the sovereignty of God. I'd encourage anyone who has questions about this topic to read that book


    Back to Bill, the more I think about this case the more I am realizing the women's case may have issues. If Mr Gibbs was helping bill against the IBLP Board
    And got him to sign an affidavit under the auspices that it would be used to help bill against the board then Gibbs has conflicted himself out of this case. This will not be good for the women. This looks to me like a conflict of interest.

    • rob war January 20, 2016 Reply

      You have to realize that the info for this is from Alfred and DG and Alfred gets his info from Bill himself. Bill could be floating this out there to make G III look bad and the suit questionable. I wouldn't be trusting info from Bill via Alfred. This is what Bill would want the public to think. Now did Bill sign this for G 3 hoping to use it against the board at some point or to get back at them? Bill sign that thinking one thing even though G 3 might have told him the actual purpose and because this is what Bill thinks or hopes for, therefore must be true and he uses Alfred's blind devotion as an opportunity to float this out there.

      • LynnCD January 20, 2016 Reply

        Yes. Alfred also said Bill dealt with the issues leading to the the sex scandal of 1980 in a timely fashion. This effectively means Alfred thinks Ed Martin, Gary Smalley, and Ken Nair lied.

      • Elizabeth D January 20, 2016 Reply

        Exactly, rob. Alfred is certainly being manipulated, to put it lightly. So everything he says must be taken with a grain of salt. He has no idea that he's being used, so he repeats things in all earnestness. He "knows" many things, and isn't shy to stand anyone down about them. Doesn't make them true when you consider the source of his "knowledge."

    • Vivian January 20, 2016 Reply

      I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but it looks to me like Gibbs III has executed a brilliant legal strategy, and I'm pretty sure he is clever and knowledgeable enough to do it without disqualifying himself.

      If Gibbs III had ever presented himself (to Bill or to the world) as Bill's attorney, then yes, there would be a conflict of interest and a violation attorney-client privilege. But there is no way Bill ever could have thought Gibbs III was representing him. He gave his affidavit as a witness, but not as a party to the suit. The brilliance of Gibbs III's strategy is that he set up the initial lawsuit in such a way that Bill was neither a plaintiff or a defendant. I think Gibbs was counting on leveraging Bill's anger against the board for ousting him as a way to get him to make a statement that would ultimately incriminate himself. While it would not be ok for the police to do that in a criminal case, the rules are different for a lawyer in a civil case.

      If I had to guess, I would say that Gibbs III planned from the very beginning to amend the suit as he did, and that he set it up that way in the first place to draw Bill out. It was never about going after the individual board members; the organization and Bill were his real targets. Very clever.

  66. nicole gardner January 20, 2016 Reply

    Won't they have to get Bill on the stand in order to make any case of Gibbs having gotten him to do the affidavit under such auspice? Gibbs would never say such a thing about this possibility. Even though he's slick, Bill is/was obviously oblivious to the credence it gives to the girls' reports; he probably thinks the main issue at hand is him getting even with the board for finally worming their way out of his pocket. I. Would. Love. It. If. Bill. Got. Cross-examined. Would LOVE it. I have an idea that judges don't much care for a narcissist who doesn't much care what's being asked of him & is so used to having the floor that he just thinks being on the stand is his god's-given opportunity to get a message out to all his alumna.

    • huzandbuz January 20, 2016 Reply

      To Nicole:
      I agree with your thoughts above.

      Of course Gothard is responsible for this lawsuit now in place. He had his opportunities. I certainly do not feel that it is cruel or malicious to want to see him not only be obligated to be present in court but to be cross-examined as well.

      These abused women NEED for this to happen. It is all about them!!
      I know that their attitude would not be one of vindictiveness as he 'sits in the hot seat'. Real remorse from Bill would be the 'ultimate' outcome regarding the continued healing process of those so horrifically offended. The fact that he would be confronted by these women and his own sin, would at least aide in restoring them psychologically.

    • David Pigg January 20, 2016 Reply

      In absolute earnestness that the victim's horrific denigration may be seen through a non manipulated judicial system.There's a lot at stake;nearly cruelly suppressed by the heresies of one never in my mind having to face what he's done to the innocent,vulnerable,naive,and trusting.

  67. nicole gardner January 20, 2016 Reply

    I agree; the confrontation of him by his victims is paramount; whether he chooses to benefit from it by repenting is his to receive for his own good or else deny. I used to think, before I became aware of Bill's conduct, that the only way a person could awcknowledge sin was by asking forgiveness. But I've learned there are other ways to pinpoint one's own guilt. Blowing people off, maligning them, back-stabbing them, belittling, obfusticating, decoys, getting other(s) to do all these things & more.......

    • huzandbuz January 20, 2016 Reply

      To Nicole:

      My involvement with IBYC began in the spring of 1979 and continued thru the early 80s. Slowly, via various means, I began the long journey back to sanity. After all of these years, I have not yet 'arrived'. I do not expect to at my age. (As with multitudes, hurt and pain remain throughout my family.)

      It was mid 1980s when my sister phoned stating she heard rumors regarding 'sexual cover ups'. In fact, her baptist church was split apart due to 'opposing sides'. At that time, just the fact that Gothard was 'reported to having covered for his brother' was enough to shock me!! I had NO idea until May 2014 (when I began researching the Duggar family's affiliation with Bill Gothard, his institutes & programs etc.) what he is actually guilty of!! My investigation lead me here, to Recovering Grace. I am so grateful to finally realize that it was Bill's cunning and not my slow-wittedness.....that allowed me to be deceived.

      It has been nearly (8) months since the reality began to sink in.....The shock has not lessened for me since day one. In fact, the more than is revealed regarding his immorality and overall lack of integrity, the more I question, "Where IS the Holy Spirit in this man's life? Why isn't he being tortured from within?? Or is he??"

      • rob war January 20, 2016 Reply

        I am quite surprised that you did not know about the 1980's scandal. It was very much discussed at the Church I attended at the time. It was always framed that the problem was his brother Steve and that Bill was aware of this for a while but ignored it. The discussion was always framed with a sigh of relief that it "wasn't Bill" but his brother and that Steve was at the Northwood retreat where he and others had rented x-rated movies. Bill also got on his knees in his seminars asking for forgiveness. I also knew that former employees tried to sue Bill and the reason given was that he didn't follow his own teaching. I never found out what happen with the suit at the time. Only now do I have the real reasons. I do think the effect of this on this particular Church was a slow backing away from Bill's teaching and I think that was across the board and this pulling away was the impetus of forming ATI program. Now all of this was the pre-internet days of course and if you didn't have a TV or pay much attention to news, it could have been missed. I know the law suit was frowned upon when discussed. His ministry should have ended then and sadly too many pastors just didn't stop and re-evaluate his teaching. Don't beat yourself up over it in that you didn't know. I am just surprised but if the Church you attended at the time deemed all of this as "gossip" and an "attack" on such a Godly man and teaching, then that might explain how you missed this.

        • huzandbuz January 21, 2016

          To rob war:
          We became involved w/another baptist church, ten miles away, a couple of years PRIOR TO the 'scandal leakage'.

          Because of my own unrest as my once happy children, esp. my middle son, began to show signs of discouragement, I knew that something had to change. The 'Gothardites' at the present church were increasing in 'numbers & intensity'. By that time, my very insightful 15 yr. old eldest son had attended an IBYC seminar w/me. ('Saved' at age 6, an academically gifted child, he began reading the bible in earnest right after his conversion.) At the conclusion of that week's seminar, he requested an immediate chat with me.

          He began to make me aware of many biblical errors and agreed there were additional inconsistencies w/Gothard's teaching.)

          At the 'new' baptist church, there was no indication of anyone being involved w/anything Gothard related. We worshiped there for several years (until that church was involved in a split re: a youth pastor.)

          Interestingly, last month, I happened to speak to a former member of that latter baptist church. Not believing she had any knowledge of Bill Gothard, I mentioned my discoveries. To my surprise, she stated there had been a small group of dedicated Bill Gothard followers prior to my family's attendance there. And that even the pastor had been aligned w/the teaching!! No clue!! During the time we attended, more than half the congregation were age 50+ w/grown children & grandchildren. Apparently Gothard worship was contained within a few younger families. :+)

        • rob war January 21, 2016

          I am assuming this is the son that left the Christian faith then? He sounded very astute to see through Bill at age 15, that is very impressive. I wouldn't ever give up praying for him. I am wondering if he would be open to reading "Summa Theologica" by St. Thomas Aquinas because it sets up intellectually proofs for the existence of God. If your son is very intellectual it might speak to him. I have it on my kindle and is on my do to read list. In the early 1980's Tim LaHay wrote a book called "Battle for the mind" which bashes the intellect, thinking and Thomas Aquinas. The lead elder pushed this book when I was attending that Church. Tim LaHay couldn't have been more wrong as I learned years later. It fits with the anti-intellect of Bill Gothard as well and I wonder if your son being very astute at such a young age saw through all of this and said "no thanks" and walked off. I'll pray for him.

        • huzandbuz January 21, 2016

          To rob war:
          No. The middle son of (3) children drifted.

          The eldest, mentioned, graduated HS in 1984. He spent a year at WOL Bible Institute, NY. Less than (2) years later, he rec'd a BA in Interdisciplinary Studies from LBC, VA (now LU). The following year he accepted a Master's in Counseling Psychology.

          This year he & his wife will celebrate 27 years of marriage. He works within the school district w/troubled youth. Many are in foster care. Whenever they need him, he oversees the drug & alcohol rehab in a local prison. His wife teaches HS autistic children. (They do not have biological children; these are their children.) They reside in FL. I live in NJ.

          Bless you for your concern. I covet your prayers for my 'drifter'. I have not seen him in nearly 14 years. (He experienced a serious injury at age 17. He 'hung on' for several years before walking away.)

      • Lisa A January 21, 2016 Reply

        To huzandbuz,
        I just felt compelled comment on your teen-aged son having the spiritual maturity to see the errors in BG's teachings. A true Berean, may he serve as an example for us all!

        • huzandbuz January 21, 2016

          To Lisa:

          How kind of you...Such a nice compliment...I so appreciate it. :+)

          I wish I had asked him to attend that first IBYC seminar with me in 1979 (before I was manipulated by Gothard's dogma.) I was 32, (a single mom), BUT recently 'saved' and high on life!! However, within a few months, I became easily influenced with regard to 'the conditions of God's continuing grace'. Over many months, my son watched my easy going personality slip away as I 'clung to rules out of fear'. He was concerned about his brothers.....the spirited one, three years his junior, who could not understand why he couldn't go fishing after church on Sunday or learn to play the drums.....As a matter of fact, neither could I.....

  68. LynnCD January 20, 2016 Reply

    Just think it is instructive to lay these two communications side by side. One is an e-mail from Bill, and one is part of the affidavit.

    "May 2, 2015 5:54PM

    Dear Tony,
    Regarding your letter, I am sure that you are aware that I have resigned as the president of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. I have no plans or desires to return to those administrative responsibilities. In fact, if the Board asked me to return as president, I would decline. I am also not a member of the Board and have no decision making authority with its members.

    I am praying for you.

    Bill"

    And later that year, in November of 2015 . . .

    "10. I temporarily resigned from the Board of IBLP to follow the instruction of Matthew 5:23-24. The Scripture itself affirms a return to the ministry once I had fulfilled as far as possible its instruction. The IBLP Board members made public my reasons for resigning that also affirmed my 100% intention to return."

    "I have no plans or desires to return." " . . . my 100% intention to return."

    Since the affidavit was said under oath, then I presume he lied to Tony Guhr. Either way, one of those statements is a lie.

    A liar is not fit for ministry.

    • rob war January 20, 2016 Reply

      You rock girl! great side by side analysis.

    • Larne Gabriel January 20, 2016 Reply

      Good catch! I missed that. He told us the same thing in Denver 2014. On the third day of our meetings and discussions of what repentance should like. I asked him how he viewed the future for himself with this massive burden of repentance ahead of him. For the first time in three days he got excited and smiled. He had a plan but it was different then what we had talked about or what he had agreed to. His plan to return to the ministry, involved how to save Chicago and stop its violence plus he already had a billionaire backer lined up.

      After about 5 minutes of listening we all looked at each other in total disbelief realizing repentance was never his intension. Finally Bill Wood stopped him, and brought him back to reality of the real problem, Gothard's need to repent. We knew it was a long rough road ahead we just didn't know that he never intended on driving it in the first place. His future ministry plans changed but he still took a different road that did not involve what God calls each of us to do.

      Last night on DG I told Alfred: "Bill’s pattern of behavior goes back at least 47 years, the stories are the same, unrepentant sin, lies and cover ups all to protect his empire, his name and his money! Christ has become his marketing tool."

      • Lisa J January 20, 2016 Reply

        My summation of Bill Gothard is that he is just a sexual predator who built a very profitable institution with slave labor he used to feed the "beast" and covered the whole thing in a Jesus fish bumper sticker

        • Beverly January 21, 2016

          It's worth pointing out how a sexual predator operates:

          They put themselves in positions of power (often building organizations around themselves, or rising to positions of power and influence in the organization), rid themselves of accountability, and ensure they have full access to their targets. They MUST maintain a good reputation with the adults around them (who are NOT their targets) in order to keep their predatory system going, but will be quick to question the motives or accuracy of info of any adult who questions them, making people doubt that what they saw was really happening, or that there was a perfectly legitimate reason for the actions they witnessed. Once in a position of power, there's a deliberate grooming process of targets (an internet search on the term "grooming" gives more info), and once again they rely on their reputation and usually pass themselves off as having a paternal or grandfatherly interest in the target if asked about it.

          This is just one type of sexual predatory behavior. Sadly, most people assume predators are the crazy people off the street who kidnap their victims, but that is such a low percentage of likelihood. Most sexual abuse happens by adults (often in trusted positions of authority) who personally know their victims. Predators are patient. Grooming is a practiced art--it doesn't just happen accidentally.

          All of the above can be found through an Internet search or reading a book on how sexual predators operate. I wasn't describing Gothard specifically, but a sexual predator in general. But if the shoe fits... reasonable assumptions can be made.

        • David Pigg January 21, 2016

          While eroding away the consciences of any potential protester;through ad hominem attacks,elevating his authority to those already emotionally,financially,or in deceptive teachings based on "umbrella protection."Not a soul with an open mind could read the accounts of these women,see the decades involved of coverup,and mentally grasp the extent,the ultimate shockingly dehumanizing realization of casting a blind eye,looking the other way,quietly leading the vanquished,once naive,vulnerable,traumatized girls out the rear entrance,while new victims are lead with enticing flattering gestures of hospitality in the front.The spectrum,ranging from rape to overwhelming sexual advances.If ever there was a time to speak up, now is the time;silence.!?

      • rob war January 20, 2016 Reply

        He had a billionaire backer? Would that be the Hobby Lobby guy? I don't get if he thought he was going to return, why did he go ahead and start the Power teams? Makes no sense. Does he even know how to tell the truth? Then he signs this affidavit that is legal and then leaks through his lap dog Alfred that he meant this affidavit to sue the board to get his position? It is almost like he has lost touch with truth and reality. His affidavit is an indictment of himself. Does he know what he admitted here?

        • Larne Gabriel January 20, 2016

          He did not say who.

    • Vanessa January 21, 2016 Reply

      Signs of a classic sociopathic liar. In a church I attended many years ago, a charismatic man who had carried on a long-running affair (finally left his wife after his mistress was pregnant with her third child with him) was lobbying to become an adult Sunday school teacher. I told him I felt he wasn't qualified ("forgiveness is free; trust has to be earned"). He said he felt he wasn't qualified to be a pastor - or even a Bible study leader (since that post would be akin to pastoring), but teaching Sunday school would be okay. Within a month, this guy was leading a Bible study. It became apparent to me that he'd say anything to get people out of his way. He soon left our church and became very heavily involved in a much larger body. He caused a major church split within a year. He left a trail of destruction behind him everywhere he went.

      • Larne Gabriel January 21, 2016 Reply

        I never heard of church splits or major divisions in families as the result of Billy Graham message of repentance and salvation (not that he is perfect). With Gothard its all to common of a occurrence. I am reminded of three scriptures that speaks to all of us to seek to be holy like He in holy.

        Matthew 7:15-17 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit."

        Galatians 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,"

        James 3:17 "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere."

        • huzandbuz January 21, 2016

          I read the bio of Wm. Gothard Sr. He and his wife had (6) children. All (3) of his sons were 'wayward'. OMG! What happened??

        • huzandbuz January 21, 2016

          To Larne:

          When one holds to the patriarchal extremist view, those husbands already searching for an excuse to abuse have no qualms about becoming a bully. Under the umbrella of protection guise, that is.

          I would like to believe that Billy Graham expressed genuine love to his wife and children even when no one was watching.....

          Just what kind of influence WAS Gothard Sr. on his family?!?!

        • huzandbuz January 21, 2016

          And, Billy Graham purposed never to be alone with a woman other than his wife.....

          I think about the cunning and deviant behavior of Gothard, alone with a young lady, after he has 'groomed her', stating, "I just don't know what God has planned for us".....

          Imagine!!!!!

        • Larne Gabriel January 21, 2016

          huzandbuz:
          I always got along with him. His finance office was next to our office upstairs from Bill's office. He was not a chatty man that one could get to "know" and every conversation seem to focus around something spiritual. My impression was he was defiantly the patriarch of the family. Bill and he ran the "show" and made the big decisions, followed by Steve. My impression again, and some of this comes from comments from Ruth, was that everyone in the family was trying to meet his approval. Mrs. Gothard was different and very well respected by everyone and was not afraid to speak her mind, not that he men listened. On the night of the May 17, 1980 confessional Ruth stated she was the only one in the family who showed compassion for the women and apologized. I know Ruth always held a very special place in her heart for her.

        • Julia Fetters January 22, 2016

          huzandbuz - you brought up Billy Graham and his wife Ruth.

          No patriarchy there. Read the books It's My Turn and Prodigals And Those Who Love Them by Ruth Bell Graham. I enjoy those books so much I own them. She was a real. Christian. woman. She knew who she was and Who her Savior was. Oh yes. Read about the lipstick. So not ATI IBLP. She was just who Billy Graham needed and who her children needed. A strong, godly woman. I love reading her quotes. Such a zest for life and a go getter. I think she would have lasted in BG's garble about .3 seconds.

          She never changed her church affiliation.

          "She was a devout and lifelong Presbyterian, declining to undergo baptism by immersion even though she was married to a famous Baptist preacher."

          http://www.christiantoday.com/article/billy.graham.she.was.a.wonderful.woman/11168.htm

          I know this may seem a tad off-topic but it is not if you were a woman in ATI IBLP. We need excellent role models like Ruth Graham, Elizabeth George, Ann Ortland. Excellent women not under patriarchy who spur us on toward Jesus and not toward a false view of a humble woman who is gentle and quiet in a way that is not attainable (and that 'gentle quiet' is defined by your husband or the men around you. ummm. no. It is defined in the Greek and we do well to ask God to make us who He wants us to be). They are/were great women in the personalities God gave them. And, I might add, the personalities that won them to their husband's heart in the first place! (grumbling under my breath "bg, how could I have been so stupid, grumble, mumble..." )

          AND, I might add one more thing while we are on the subject... Patriarchal men - you keep your eyes on God and yourselves and quit trying to crush your wives and daughters into some box of your making and not His. You will be called to account and until then you will have an unhealthy marriage and unhealthy daughters - not knowing how to rely on God on their own and not look to Papa for their kudos and acceptance. Oh man I could write an article! And I have a wonderful husband. Long stories. The yuck I have seen and known closely over and over.

        • Rachel (Bruzas) Foster January 22, 2016

          Julia Fetters, please do write an article about your thoughts on patriarchy versus balanced Christian womanhood. There are many of us who could benefit from your experience and honesty and the things you are learning!

        • esbee January 23, 2016

          Julia Fetters, I second it and yes, please do write an article about patriarchy versus balanced Christian womanhood.
          I recently read a website called the 10 commandments (or is it more than 10) for Christian men and women. One of the commandments is that if you get married you are to have children. Another commandment is that if a woman is married she will stay home to raise those children. Only an unmarried or widowed woman can work outside the home.
          And I was told by the man writing this website that if I did different I was disobeying God's commandments for women. I wrote back and asked if it was a sin for a woman with children to work outside the home, then why wasn't it a sin for single or widows to work outside the home. It was still a woman working outside the home in the “evil wicked world”. Kinda like if eating pork is sin then why would you make imitation pork products to eat (turkey bacon or turkey ham)?
          On that same website a man wrote in asking how to discipline his wife for when she disobeyed him ---like she was a kid to raise instead of an equal. There is just too much of that nonsense going around and hurting the true cause of Christ.

        • Julia Fetters January 31, 2016

          I was not sure where to hit the reply button to Rachel and esbee so I hope this is ok...

          Rachel and esbee - I have not responded since we have been moving and I have been thinking...

          You would do well to read the writings of the women I mentioned. Ann Ortland and Ruth Graham are 2 favorites. Your eyes will be lifted to Jesus. There is so much great truth in their writings and in the recounting of things they have gone through in life. You will find a total absence of Patriarchy. They were married to men who loved God and were not afraid of or threatened by women. I also love the writings of Catherine Marshall. Timeless.

          As to me writing something - I will remain open to it.

          It would be great to have a forum of women who are on our Facebook page - ATI Parent Recovery. So many have seen so much and have come out of it with the wisdom of having gone through something like this. What help this would be for our younger women friends - a forum to encourage and answer questions.

          Just a thought. Keep looking to Jesus. Not the BG kind - the real Lord of all.

      • huzandbuz January 21, 2016 Reply

        To Vanessa:

        OMG!! Where was the 'Board of Elders'??.....
        I guess the same place they were at IBLP.....blinded.

        Regarding the local baptist church, (at least in the early 1980s) an individual could NOT teach Sunday School within that fellowship IF they had ever been divorced. I know as that is where I initially attended (and experienced my conversion.) They felt that was scriptural. There was really no controversy regarding it.

        • Vanessa January 22, 2016

          The young pastor, who was in his first pastorate, defended the adulterer saying that "husband of one wife" was better translated "one-woman man", adding that the adulterer was completely devoted to his new wife (of less than a year). Therefore, he was qualified to teach. I left the church.

    • David January 24, 2016 Reply

      Of course, when you read such statements by Bill Gothard, you have to realize that you are dealing with a liar who is an expert in crafting his statements so that he can have it both ways. You will note that he said he did not want to return to "administrative duties." But in the other statement, he mentioned a return only to, "ministry." I can promise you this wording is not an accident. In fact, Gothard has already completely side-stepped the entire issue and started a new ministry.

      • Beverly January 24, 2016 Reply

        Very good observation, David.

      • LynnCD January 25, 2016 Reply

        David, I see your point except for one word. "Temporarily." He temporarily resigned from the board. There is no way to construe what follows as a return to another ministry. He wants to be reinstated on the board. He could tack "emeritus" on the label. It still counts as deceiving Tony, which is the same thing as lying.

  69. nicole gardner January 20, 2016 Reply

    I echo that LynnCD made a very good catch as presented in that side-by-side! I'll bet there are others still to be caught.

    This particular lie was definitely premeditated. And for the purpose of tricking/manipulating everyone. Like his getting fired in 1980, he may have thought this time it would incite people's forgiveness, this paving the way for him to insist on coming back.

    Liars with manipulative intent set a lie-trap to effect a change in the other party's course of decision-making. They only count their own lying as successful if it thus effectively fools others as evidenced by these others' playing right into their hands out of belief in their strategic lie(s). The 2014 resignation was one such lie. Thank-you, LynnCD & Larne, for illuminating this as obvious!

    Molesters do this kind of premeditated lying. By the time they're strategizing a cover-up, (of what they've done by thus fooling/betraying their victims), these types have had lots of practice setting up a chain-of-causation hinged on a big whopping starter-lie. Like the one called out above. This time, he's not getting away with a cover-up; just don't see how he can do his avowed re-emergence without the deception he used last time. Just look at some of the molestation- 32 years worth- set in motion by his fake resignation in '80. The truth is finally more public than he is, this time around.

    • LynnCD January 21, 2016 Reply

      Thanks rob, nicole, and Larne. It is important to note that the affidavit does not reveal a change of mind from the note to Tony. The affidavit states FROM THE BEGINNING Gothard's intention to return to ministry. He wrote the note to Tony while operating under a 100% intention to return. It can't therefore be a change of mind from what he said in the e mail. This is kind of critical because it is a documentation of dishonesty.

    • David Pigg January 21, 2016 Reply

      You did a fantastic,wonderful,on the ball job of pulling back the facade off Bill's Lie Machine.Thanks for all your comments.

  70. grateful January 22, 2016 Reply

    i thought believers were not to sue other believers. am i mistaken? I suppose the argument can be made that one side or the other is perhaps not a believer (or believers). The whole thing seems rather ridiculous to me

    • rob war January 23, 2016 Reply

      People seeking justice is never ridiculous. God is a God of justice. Bringing accountability for wrong and bad immoral behaviors should be done.

    • Lisa J January 23, 2016 Reply

      Grateful, it is exactly your kind of isolated-verse response that has allowed BGs scheme to fester and flourish all these decades. Consider the ENTIRE counsel of God when making decisions. He is a God of justice and righteousness. His exortation in the OT and NT is to seek out a matter and find the truth to bring about justice as far as humanly possible.

    • huzandbuz January 23, 2016 Reply

      To grateful:

      Ridiculous to sue?? Are you aware of the facts??

    • Don Rubottom January 24, 2016 Reply

      I thought people who fear God and respect His counsel were supposed to settle with their accusers before they get to court, knowing that if they do not take that last chance to make peace based on the truth, they will be judged by the courts, if even a wicked judge based on the importunity of the victim. There would be no lawsuit if Bill Gothard acknowledged the truth and confessed his sins as widely as they have impacted the church of Jesus Christ. His denials and delusions are the reason that truth may be established in court.
      Who told you Christians should never sue? Bill Gothard told us that, but according to Tony Guhr, he threatened to sue his accusers for his legal fees 35 years ago. So Bill taught what he did not practice. Moreover, what if an accuser is not a Christian? Why can't she get justice for being harassed and abused? Should non-Christians submit passively to being fondled by Christian leaders?

      • Larne Gabriel January 24, 2016 Reply

        Rules only apply to the peons. The elite get special treatment, except in James 3:1 "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." Bill might have Hell to pay when he stands in front of his Maker. Literally!

        • LynnCD January 24, 2016

          "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." ~ George Orwell

  71. nicole gardner January 23, 2016 Reply

    @grateful:

    Say that, on a 1-to-10 scale of ridiculousness, a professing Christian suing another professing Christian rates somewhere on it. You pick which number. And then, please humor me & pick a number for the conduct of ANY professing Christian who has done everything in the RG account of Ruth, (including all Larne's testimony on her behalf) along with the accounts of Robin, Meg, Annette, Grace, Lizzie, Rachel, & Marcus.

    Before gauging this, please take careful note of the ignoring of Ruth's informing this person that she felt her faith was jeopardized by her supervisor prior to the attack it sustained, also note this person's mockery of Robin & her father for directly calling out inappropriate touching of Robin, this person then replacing her with a girl from another country who had no family to speak of stateside, & this person's lie that pretended that she voluntarily opted to sit next to him on the plane (knowing full well this was obeying a work order) because this person's plan to also have her get a blanket by which he planned on covering her after she fell asleep seemed better to him to carry out in the context of this particular lie, which blanket was better afforded by it so that this blanket could then afford the ultimate plan of sexual battery which, with every other stratagem finally in place, is what this person did. And orchestrated again. Along with other sexual touching that was much more grab-&-go than what multiple-step-formula this scheme required. Please also note the demands upon Robin & Meg that they undergo epidermal procedures to suit this person's personal taste for how he likes skin. Along with cosmetic demands about everything else about them. Also note: this person long maintained themself to be misunderstood & not at all guilty of having done any of these things but nonetheless wanted to be forgiven for everyone else's misunderstanding of his always-right motives.

    Grateful, after you have assessed such a person, please rate this person on the scale-of-ridiculous along with a believer who sues another believer.

  72. Larne Gabriel January 23, 2016 Reply

    Grateful, while I have not sign on to the lawsuit myself I support it for many reasons. Matthew 18:15-17 is very clear what we are to do. In verse 17 it says if the person will not listen (i.e. unrepentant) we are to tell it to the church and if he still fails to listen treat him as a “gentile and a tax collector” (ESV) or “heathen man and a publican” (KJV) that pretty much interpreted as an unrepentant unbeliever. Who is the church? That is a difficult answer with Para-church organizations. In 1981 Bill’s home and commissioning church failed to do anything because there were in a building project and failed again to deal with in 2014 because he was no longer a member or attendee. He is not a member of his current fellowship. His former board in spineless, and is out to preserve the cash. According to his spokesman on Discovering Grace Bill should not have to be accountable to them anyway.

    The next in line is the civil court system and their authority to deal with abuse of employees of a state controlled non profit. That is the basis of this lawsuit. No different then a workers comp claim or unemployment insurance dispute. The IBYC/IBLP Board failed to protect its employees! Since this is not a spiritual matter before the court, according to Bill’s chain of command civil authority/court system is the next in line. The Institute has exercised this themselves. In the 80s they sued the State of Illinois over an eminent domain issue regarding property adjacent to SR 83 and Ogden Ave. This is no different.

    Lastly and more important Titus 1:10-16 (ESV) Paul talks about false teachers in verse 11; “They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.”

    In verse 13 Paul tells us to rebuke them; 13”…Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,”

    In verse 16 Paul tells us they are unfit: 16; “They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.”

    Bill and the Institute failed to live up to their God given responsibilities to be Holy and state required laws to protect employees. They have failed to listen to the claims against them and have shown their action as heathens and publicans. (Unrepentant sinners) Galatians 6:7 says it all: “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” Bill and IBYC/IBLP have brought this on themselves and they could have fixed it 36 or more years ago. But Pride, Power and Money was more important then living a Holy life unto God and becoming more like Jesus. They now are reaping what they sowed!

    GOD BLESS THESE BRAVE WOMEN AND PRAY FOR THEM TOO!

  73. LynnCD January 23, 2016 Reply

    Regarding grateful's comment, were you around when Bill Gothard threatened to sue MCOI, the Christian apologetic organization?

    Did what MCOI do at the time warrant being threatened with a suit? (The IBLP claims were over libel).

    Now, at the time, approx. 15 years ago, MCOI sought legal advice as to publishing the threats, which they did, and IBLP backed down. There was no libel going on. It was just an attempt by IBLP to bully MCOI with a threat of a lawsuit.

    Was IBLP acting unscripturally in their threat to sue MCOI? As far as anyone knows, Don and Joy Veinot, and Ron Henzel are all strong believers in Jesus Christ. So this was a threat against believers.

    • LynnCD January 23, 2016 Reply

      I repeat my main question - was Bill Gothard and IBLP right to threaten other believers with a lawsuit?

      • LynnCD January 23, 2016 Reply

        Possible answers:

        1) "Yes, this godly leader was right in threatening to sue people who were attacking a minister of God for claims of libel! I mean, think of Paul, who appealed to the civil authorities!"

        OK. Then why isn't it write for women to sue over claims of sexual harassment and other abuses? Why can't they go to the civil authorities?

        2) "No, he had no right biblically to do that!"

        OK. Why then do you try to defend someone who is known for acting unbiblically himself, both in threatening to sue, and in his admission of being physically affectionate with employees/workers of a Christian ministry.

        • LynnCD January 23, 2016

          I may have missed something when I checked with some people at MCOI, but I do not recall Bill Gothard making a private appeal to the Veinots over this matter first . . . you know, like this latest round with the Woods, and Larne Gabriel, and others with Gothard.

  74. Elizabeth D January 23, 2016 Reply

    For anyone still following "duck poop alerts," I just found a guy by the name of D Helbling over at Alfred's site unmistakably waddling in it.

    He's terribly obvious, and it's telling that he thinks:
    (1) BG probably went overboard, interjecting personal preferences into some of the stricter teachings [this looks like it's actually his biggest regret - sad],
    (2) BG was lonely and should've gotten married [gag],
    (3) the victims are to blame for not "reconciling" with BG,
    (4) RG has a "bad spirit,"
    (5) RG's basic problem is with BG's teachings, and
    (6) "all those ladies'" stories are apparently not completely true.

    "D" echoes BG's known stance of claiming it's unreasonable to admit stories are accurate before BG will meet with victims. He personifies a website and considers it his greatest enemy. He's laser-focused on young ladies' credibility, but must've missed all the RG stories and comments of severe and widespread collateral damage on the lives of individuals and families beyond the "young ladies."

    Just one more of the man's many attempts to sway opinions, as if it would even help him at this point. Beyond sad.

    It's under the Exhibit B: Tua Culpa topic at discovering grace/ covering disgrace site for those who haven't seen it yet.

  75. kevin January 23, 2016 Reply

    Thank you to the brave 10 women who are showing their courage in filing this suit. This must never be allowed to happen again. Those who have committed these crimes, those who have enabled and those who have turned a blind eye should be brought to justice. There must be a consequence for those who have perpetrated these crimes and allowed them for 40+ years. Stepping down with a non-apology, apology, then going on to author 6 books and start a new and exciting ministry for the truly devoted is far from the consequence that justice demands. All will face eternal judgement when that day comes. Until such time, may everything be done within the law to see that those who have harmed innocent, trusting young souls are brought to account and not be permitted to ever lay a hand on another child again.

    A comment on the follow excerpt from David Gibbs III letter.

    "Melody Fedoriw – the Amended Complaint states: she was sexually molested by Bill Gothard at IBLP headquarters in 2012 at the age of 15. She made a report to the Hinsdale, Illinois Police Department. The conduct was classified as a misdemeanor and was not prosecuted, because the criminal statute of limitations had passed by the time the report was made and the matter was investigated. An associate of Bill Gothard’s had made a FOIA request for the police report back in 2014. (See paragraphs 166 through 180.)"

    Gee, I wonder who that associate of Bill Gothard's could be who made the Freedom of Information Act request in 2014? I can think of only one individual who has doggedly sought to obtain any and all such information. It would be truly ironic if this "friend" of Bill's ultimately plays a role in causing the suit to substantially succeed through his prying curiosity. No doubt, this individual was seeking information that they might try to discredit the accuser- poke holes in her story, as he has tried to do with the other women. A defendant who had knowledge of the information that would have been obtained by this FOIA request and then went on to publicly claim that there was no evidence of any crime, could have a big problem. There are many angles to this, and the case certainly does not rest on this information, but it could ultimately play a role in part of the suit prevailing.

    • rob war January 23, 2016 Reply

      Agree with 100%

  76. rob war January 23, 2016 Reply

    Let it be known, I have not and do not give Alfred permission to use any part of my actual name.
    I also think that the woman posters have generally been treated demeaning and poorly as compared to men on DG. I think that goes hand and hand in how women are viewed by those that follow Bill's teaching.

  77. nicole gardner January 23, 2016 Reply

    Boy, I can sure second what you've just said there, Rob.
    DG MO: A persistent refusal to acknowledge main points made by women (no matter how oft repeated) while being super chatty about the supporting points or calling attention to my sometimes poor gramatic structure. I gave up 'cause of these decoys after I had stated my main point straight from Scripture about 6 different times.

    It's a case in point for how females have absolutely no option to be heard in speaking the truth. Thus no option for mediation with a party who's wronged them. Even when we do speak for ourselves, in our own name, we get......... that.

    If it weren't for RG, I'd be muted, just like BG's victims would have remained so. "Theology" that twists the Bible to mean that women are to be condescended to as 2nd class beings is definitely what the deal is with that other camp. For the very purpose of muting our gender. Because speaking truth to those who don't even get it usurps the superiority notions these hold over those telling it to them. At least, it does when felt superiority includes silencing, along with all the condescension that goes along with assuming women's communication realm is not above animals. IBLP cronies are right; they've GOT to keep us mute to "prove" this presumption. DG's suppression of the truth stems from this fear of actually hearing it every bit as much from it's categorical denial of what IBLP has done to ruin itself. A ruin happening because of this same exact fear. Fear out of which evolved ever more suppression of the truth. DG might want to take a lesson from IBLP.

    • rob war January 23, 2016 Reply

      Jesus interacted and treated women as equally as men. This whole patriarchal emphasis is more in line with Islam which openly treats women as inferior to men. An example, a woman's testimony is 1/2 equal to a man's testimony in Sharia law and court. Of course when that was pointed out to Alfred, his response was that he didn't want to talk about it so "move on" because all he wanted to talk about is the Bible. However, his views which are really Bill's views are not in the Bible. They must see their wives as thoughtless idiots and Bill's new ministry which just focuses on men getting together only reinforces these ideas. St. Paul said that women are "joint heirs in Christ" and that in Christ "there is neither male or female". Jesus talked with women, He healed women, He let women touch him, He had women supporters that followed Him. In summation of Bill's teaching, he rarely really every focuses on Jesus Himself and how Jesus interacted and treated people. Bill side steps Jesus very much so. That's why I think an atheist country like Russia invited him to come in because his character teaching is void of Christ. Of course Bill was too full of himself to realize this and stop and ask himself "why would an atheist country be asking me to come when I claim to be a Christian ministry?". Well the answer is your Christian ministry is missing Christ.

      • Don Rubottom January 24, 2016 Reply

        I am thankful there are not 500 Alfred's out there defending, denying and deluding themselves and others.

        • Leslie January 24, 2016

          Amen to that. People defending BG on Covering Disgrace are pretty sparse.

        • rob war January 24, 2016

          A good reason to be against cloning

      • huzandbuz January 24, 2016 Reply

        To rob war:
        Thank you for your comments.

        Gothard's 'Christian' ministry certainly is, first and foremost, missing Christ!!

        OMG!! And, so much more.....Women play a central role as eyewitnesses at Jesus' death as well as the discovery of the empty tomb. The Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke clearly present women as such. The risen Savior then commissioned women to proclaim to men.....did He not?? The Bible exalts women and pays homage to them. Their roles in society and family are ennobled. The importance of their influence was acknowledged. The virtues of the women who were particularly Godly examples were elevated.....were they not??

        If Bill included Christ in His rightful place in his own ministry and teaching, then Bill would have to follow through with everything Jesus stood for and taught.....Then where would Gothard's rightful place be?? Hmmmmm.....

  78. Leslie January 23, 2016 Reply

    It makes me wonder why Bill Gothard and IBLP/ATI are so afraid of women.

    • Todd k January 24, 2016 Reply

      Leslie---It is for the same reason that they fear public and private dedication, rock music (even Christian Rock)' hippies, TV, pork, modern clothing (especially on women's), secular movies, small families (vs. barrel full or quiver full approach), intellectualism, non- gothardites, and anything different from their teachings. In one word---- drumroll--- insecure.

    • Renea January 24, 2016 Reply

      The patriarchy movement is based on the misinterpretation of Genesis 3 where God tells the woman that women will be ruled by men. This was a change from how their relationship was. No matter how wonderfully the church tries to paint patriarchy, mans rule over women is a result of the fall. Many 'biblical manhood' teaching is based on getting their identity on how well they can subdue a woman and keep her under control. I grew up with this teaching and saw it played out so I know what I speak. The purity and modesty movement is focused on women. There is much out their that exposes the hypocrisy of these teachings. One area that men feel threatened by women and can't control is in the fact that men are sexually attracted to women. They can't do without them and so they feel weak. And weakness is not a masculine character in the patriarchy movement. That is why there is so much shaming of women and women's sexuality is deemed evil.

      • Don Rubottom January 25, 2016 Reply

        More precisely, the rule of husband's over wives is a CURSE, not merely the result of the fall. Jesus clearly came to break the curse and this is why he pointed to Genesis 1 and 2 rather than Genesis 3 when discussing marriage. While wives are advised to "submit" as all Christians are to each other, not once are they instructed in the NT to "obey". And husbands are never instructed to "rule their wives" well or otherwise, but rather to treat them as co-heirs. The curse is broken.

        • Lisa J January 25, 2016

          Good word Don

        • Todd k January 25, 2016

          Don, I'm with ya! Yet along with that in Genesis 3:18-19 tells us that work is a curse! LOL! Of course what comment would you expect coming from a product of the 60's and 70's? Keep up the good work!

        • Don Rubottom March 19, 2016

          Todd: Just noticed this: work is NOT a curse. Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden told to tend it and to have dominion. Work became cursed (sweat of brow, thorns and thistles) or the medium of work (soil, weather and plant life) became cursed. But work was joyful and Godlike. Remember God rested from his "work" of creation. It is creative endeavor. Adam did not sit idly and eat manna before the fall. He tended the Garden, named animals, etc.

        • Todd k March 20, 2016

          Of course, Don it would depend upon how you would define "work." Where I come from, we have an expression, "A lousy day of fishing sure beats a great day of work!" Blessings!

  79. Todd k January 24, 2016 Reply

    Oops, or as my Norwegian grandma would have said,"Uph Dahl!" It should be public and private education', not dedication. I don't think baptism is an issue with them, or is it? "Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?" Taken from Chicago--- the band.

  80. nicole gardner January 24, 2016 Reply

    Because, you know, Jesus practiced the Essene religion as an ascetic (NOT), successfully muted His wife by which He begat as many children as her body would allow since such use is any woman's only real productivity (NOT)........... disowned John the Baptist from being His forerunner (since John was the 1st New Testament hippie), stoned the adulteress as He was expected to, made a shunning example of the former whore who had the alabaster oil as the men in the room expected him to- never having make her an example of honor- made SURE His resurrection had men as it's 1st witnesses (after all, the salvation of the world depends on these reports; they better not have been sounded out by women 1st), shouted & threw things at the worshipers at the Temple for allowing their temple offerings to be exploited by the money-changers, stated that little children & young believers whose trust has been betrayed have incurred a self-ruin worse than drowning, touted a might-makes-right religion & railroaded everyone He could. Yup. That was Jesus! N-O-T.

  81. nicole gardner January 24, 2016 Reply

    Renea,

    What you said is really insightful. I would like to hear more from you.

    At the Patriarchal church that a former boyfriend once insisted I attend for the 3 months that I could stand to date him, the pastor had another congregational member give me a message after I had finally walked away from this church in my forth & at-long-last successful break-up with my guy over his heavy pressuring of me for sex. (All four of these attempts were because of this boyfriend's sexual pressure). The pastor's message to me, that he had this woman call me repeatedly to get me to come over to her house so she could give it to me, consisted of 2 parts:
    Number 1: No woman can be saved without submitting to the man in her life, even if this man demands that she sin. Sarai was the example, how she was godly because she called Abram her brother (he biologically was), & would have been disobedient to GOD HIMSELF if she had admitted he was also her husband & was therefore not free to join another man's harem. "A woman needs to obey the man God has put over her even if the man is telling her to sin. Because, if that is the case, then it's no different than if God is the One telling her to sin. And we have to obey whatever God says."
    Number 2: All sexual sin is the result of the man listening to the woman's proposition. Since Eve ate of the fruit & gave it to Adam, & the curse was spread to all mankind through her original sin, therefore all sexual sin is a carry-forward of this with women as the instigators of it since we, not men, are daughters of Eve. Whereas men are merely sons of Adam. [This is in total disregard of what 1 Cor. 11:8 thru verse 12 actually says that ALL human origins are].
    So: It was my godly duty to go ahead & submit to my boyfriend's pressure. And, doing so would have been, in all cases, my fault in that I was the one enticing the guy to sin. Please hear me when I say I HAD DECENT BOUNDARIES THAT DID NOT ALLOW FOR MY GOING EVEN PART-WAY & THEN DOING THE "OOPPS, SORRY!" CUT-OFF GAME. That kind of game-playing was NOT it AT ALL!! My boundaries were fair to us both. And he would always compliment me on them, promise to respect them/me. A lot of the pressure was him refusing to stop messaging & fondling me, grabbing me & kissing me, not letting me get up from the couch by grabbing at my clothes when I tried to, shutting the front door & blocking it as I was grabbing my purse & keys in all seriousness in getting out of his apartment (because a series of these behaviors was not letting-up), sending me on "go-get-this" errands to his room where he would suddenly appear right behind me & start spooning me, pitiful lamentations as to why I didn't trust him enough to spend the night "on the couch", groping me in the car while I was text-messaging so that I had to hit him several times while he was driving down the highway. It got to be so our dates had gotten really short because I kept having to leave & run away because of all this. (Yes, I know I should have dumped him SUCCESSFULLY the 1st 3 times). It made me realize he didn't want to spend time with me- he would rather get what he could even though that always meant me having to get away from him; thus, he wasn't really into ME. Once I saw absolute sheer anger on his face as I slid out the door with him trying to close it on me before I got out.

    After we were done, I told the assistant pastor's wife about my multiple attempts to dump this guy over the sexual pressure this guy put on me. (She looked me up to ask if I was okay after the guy was spouting off in the church about me finally leaving). I do trust that she or her husband went to the senior pastor with this. And the response was what I've stated above. Just think: I could be the wife of this particular member of this church if I'd been submissive enough to entice him even more with my Eve's-daughter-monopoly of the phenomenon of becoming one-flesh. But I failed to obey God in submitting enough to this guy over which I alone held seductive power. Because, you know, it's always the required-to-be-submissive person who exercises all the power & carries all the responsibility by thus submitting.
    Huh?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
    This pastor direct-quoted Gothard from the pulpit (I told my boyfriend we needed to get a different church when I heard this, he went ape on me until he actually looked into Gothard), many congregants were still devout IBLP-ers, the church's membership still requires mothers to not be employed outside the home (according to their website). It's still a prairie-dress church. I was told that this is what woman wear if they're tired of being ogled. I'm not going to deny this as a solution to a real problem, as it's self-effacing & deferential-to-others ("be the change you want to see in the world"), but it's simply not an option for 99% of employed women.
    Like Mel Gibson: "FREE-DOM!!!!!!"

  82. nicole gardner January 25, 2016 Reply

    Renea,
    Your input is greatly valued here by me & no doubt many others based on your duration of 1st-hand experience with Patriarchy. I would like to hear more about the Patriarchal view that ALL instances of sexual sin (between adults, at least) is because the man succumbs to pressure put to him directly by the woman (rather than internal desire pegged in James 1:14). All immorality is the fault of Eve's daughters because Eve set, as a permanent status quo, womankind as always initiating any wrongdoing committed by both genders. According to patriarchy, this "sin originated with the woman" was/is re-enacted throughout all generations; it wasn't a one-time, impactful event. It set a precedent that has never since been deviated from in all successive male-female relationships. I've had this doctrine given to me straight from a Patriarchal pastor. From this same pastor, in the same sitting, I was given the interpretation that Sarai would have been disobeying God Himself if she had told Abimelech not to touch her, or told him she was Abram's wife. "Women are to submit to their husbands, even if their husbands are telling them to sin, because it's not sin for them if they do this; it's the only way to obey God in an instance like that."
    So: Sin isn't sin if the husband is the one demanding that it be committed. The wife's submission to him earns divine rescue of them both from it's natural consequence. But, other than husband-directed immorality, all sexual sin is the instigated sin of the woman involved. Thus, it is required that a woman has to be raped by a stranger in order to be properly submissive to her husband. This is a catch-twenty-two in light of her having been required from the day she 1st met any & every man she's ever known to have only maintained her dominance over them (as deeded to her by Eve) without her ever offering what is evil. (Sarai was ordered by Abram to do the "Eve thing" to Abimelech, was she not?) Women are evil replicas of Eve in causing men to sin. Thus, the only sexual sin that could possibly exist is that which a woman originates...... the husband/man's involvement in it is either not a sin to be objected to by the woman thus ordered to subject herself to it, or, if it actually is a sin, it's one that does not originate with him but rather with her.
    This is how a patriarchal pastor defined culpability for sexual sin to me. Do you have any familiarity with this?

    • Renea January 25, 2016 Reply

      Actually I do have some experience in this. I dated a guy right after high school who was a bit older than I. He was not a Christian which I knew was a mistake. However all the false teaching that I had about mans rule over women left me in the catch 22 as you say. If I listened to my boyfriends demands for sex I was sinning against God, but I was also sinning by not submitting to a male. This belief that mans word is equal to God's stems from the verse where woman are to submit to their husbands as to the lord. The implication is that man is as Christ to her. Which then means man is now equal as Christ. This is heresy and must be rejected as such. It has taken me along time to come to the understanding that just because something is preached from the pulpit does not make it true. That I can actually hear from God and it's OK to believe the BIBLE over mans word. One of my favorite verses that God has given to me is in 2 CORINTHIANS 2:11 where we are told that we are not unaware of satans schemes. One of his schemes is to twist a verse in the bible to mean something other than intended. He did this to Jesus when he was tempted in the wilderness. Satan also has done this with the above mentioned verse that men are as Christ to their wives creating a disastrous theology. But we have the mind of Christ and are told to take every thought captive unto the obedience of Christ and every argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. 2 cor 10:5. Yet patriarchy sets itself up against the knowledge of God by making a created being, mere man, as an equal to God. It does this by glorifying man and reducing the glory of Christ, even though God says that he is sovereign and has no equal and will not give his glory to another! As women we must obey God rather than man. We must give to God what belongs to him and him alone. Christ is our mediator to the father and we have no obligation to put anyone else in that position. One of the reasons I made the above statements concerning my thoughts as to why gothard and the institution are so afraid of women is from a book I read quite a while ago. I think it was called Raising Cain. It is a secular book but I was interested in the male view of raising sons. It was actually quite insightful. One thing it did was talk about the real fears of boys and men. (So as you can tell not written by a patriarch!!). The author mentions the extreme fear boys can have by being rejected by a girl that they like. That the 'power' they feel like girls have over them in this area (sexual too) is overwhelming. The author doesn't blame women but just acknowledges this fear and ways parents can help their sons so that they DONT turn on women because of their fear. Patriarchy condones the turning on women for their perceived fears. I checked to see if I still have the book but I don't. Maybe someone out there has the book and can shed more light on this. Hang in there Nicole and know that you have the right to think Gods thoughts.

      • Renea January 25, 2016 Reply

        Another thing that you might find interesting, Nicole , concerning the account of Adam and Eve and the culpability of sin. I was taught that eve 'told' Adam to eat the forbidden fruit , therefore, that is why men should never take a 'command from a woman'. However, that is another of satans schemes, the proof texting of those verses. The bible says that eve gave some fruit to her husband and he ate. It doesn't say that she said anything. However , we know she said something because God says to Adam that she listened to the voice of his wife. Just exactly what she said we don't know. So we can't say that she gave him a 'command' to eat. In fact, upon careful examination of the whole account, the serpent NEVER EVEN TELLS EVE TO EAT OF THE FRUIT. He only tries to portray God as someone who cannot be trusted and is holding out on them. The bible says that after Satan talks to eve that she looks at the fruit and sees it as good to eat and takes some (my paraphrase). Then she gives some to her husband and the rest is history! Just as the serpent never tells eve to eat, it is also possible that eve never tells Adam to eat. She may have just repeated the exact words the serpent said to her. Just as she made her OWN decision to eat , SO DID ADAM. Then he blames eve and God for his sin. Patriarchy continues to 'blame the woman.' I'm not saying that blaming the woman is now an inherent trait of all males now, no more than I believe it is inherent for all women to be deceived because of eve. I am saying that shifting the blame is a trait of the sin nature and it is not limited to any specific gender. The same can be true of any sin. My suggestion would be to constantly pray for truth and the ability and COURAGE to receive what God tells you. I know it can be scary because under false patriarchal teaching we are frightened into believing that questioning what we are told is sin and coming against God himself. However, God says to pour out our complaints to him. Psalm 144:2. We can ask him if what we hear is truth. We are told to compare what we hear with scriptures. (Paul commends the beareans for this) , and we are not to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14). Remember, satans ultimate goal is to be worshipped as God and to keep as many persons from coming to the saving truth that is in Christ. Patriarchy has been one of his choice tools as it keeps men and women from being one. He knows that 'a cord of three strands is not easily broken' Ecclesiastes 4:12. Jesus, man and woman together and united ,sharing the gospel would be a force so powerful it would change the world. Patriarchy blinds men, enslaves women , and turns off the world to the gospel. If we are ever to have a true lasting revival in our world , PATRIARCHY HAS GO TO GO! As you say, it is crap....

        • Renea January 25, 2016

          I forgot to add that when God says to Adam that he listened to the voice of his wife, that doesn't mean it's wrong for men to listen to woman. I know that is taught and you've probably heard that line of reasoning. The comparison is that Adam chose a voice over God (that which I've commanded you) . God was showing his right to be in charge of his creation and his sovereignty. It wasn't a lesson in gender superiority. Remember, God tells Abraham to listen to the voice of his wife. Check that out. Sin is when we listen to any voice that contradicts God, be it our own , the worlds or satans.

        • Don Rubottom January 25, 2016

          Interestingly, the only time a man is told to reject his wife in any way is when she says "let's go and serve other gods". Deut. 13:6. Jesus never talks about dividing husbands and wives as he does other relations. Paul instructs clearly to live with an unbeliever as long as they are willing. Thus, what these patriarchs ignore is the massive instructions for men to love their wives with their lives and never, never, turn to another. These men do not give their lives for their wives, but demand their wives to give their lives for them. "as unto Christ" works just fine as long as the man loves like Christ loves, sacrificially, sanctifyingly. Directing a wife to sin, blaming a wife for your own sin is as far from that as one can be. The depravity that invades our relationships proves for me just how holy God designed marriage to be: fully, freely, fruitfully, faithfully, covenantal as the relationship it was designed to image: the Trinity.

        • rob war January 25, 2016

          You preach it Don! I think they are in the wrong religion to begin with.

  83. nicole gardner January 25, 2016 Reply

    I thought my long, long comment was nixed. Hence the 2nd one. Sorry I went overboard. I don't hate the ex-boyfriend for treating me like I was attractive to him; I'm still mad at Patriarchy for condemning me as being responsible for what all this guy did but also still simultaniously condemning me for not being more submissive. It's crap.

    • Don Rubottom January 25, 2016 Reply

      And you should be mad at the patriarchy for not teaching him self-control and supporting your efforts at a sanctifying relationship. Thanks for sharing those trials. It is helpful to us all.

      • Renea January 25, 2016 Reply

        Before I was married I read a lot of books on relationships. I never read one that was not based on a hierarchical structure. Everyone taught that God designed the men to be leaders not only in marriage but even while dating. One such book then contradicted that notion by stating in the area of sexual purity that woman needed to take the lead as that men could not control themselves. This is problematic on many levels. For one, this is an area to which God did not equipped men to lead. It also contradicts the scripture where God promises us a way of escape for every temptation. It also puts women in the role of leadership which patriarchy says God never designed a women to be able to do!!! How one can embrace patriarchy and not be utterly confused is beyond me. There are constant contradictions, and amendments to try to make it all sound logical. It causes double mindedness which causes instability (the book of James) God says that he is NOT the author of confusion so patriarchy has to be the scheme of Satan as he is the author of confusion. When men are told that they get a pass because of how strong their sexual urges are compared to women,(that's a whole other discussion!!) it's no wonder that Nicole got an earful of how it was her fault and she was responsible for her boyfriends actions.

        • Renea January 25, 2016

          I meant to say "For one thing, this would then be an area to which God did not equipped men to lead.

        • Renea January 25, 2016

          Equip!! I'm tired and my brain is fried! Lol

  84. rob war January 25, 2016 Reply

    Quick question for Larne,
    If Bill stated to you and Tony G and Bill Wood that he was going to be under the "authority" of Dr. Murphy, then why is Alfred turning around and stating the "B" letter of apology was not writing by Bill but Dr. Murphy and that Bill didn't approve of "B" or the apology. If Bill is under Dr. Murphy's spiritual guidance and authority and this is what Dr. Murphy helped Bill write or on behalf of Bill, then Bill should be submitting to what this letter states if he is under Dr. Murphy's authority. Did I get that right? In actuality, it looks like Bill is under no one no matter what Church he supposedly attends or not attends and is still out there doing his own thing like he always has. This holds true for Dr. Shoaf as well.

  85. Larne Gabriel January 25, 2016 Reply

    In light of Exhibit "B" is a legal matter with a disputed history I think it would be best if I did not comment. Regarding what Bill told us, just to be clear our conference calls were between Bill Wood, me and Bill Gothard, while Tony was part of our advisory team he chose to remain at arms length due to Bill's distain for him. In the summer of 2014 Dr. Murphy was part of the "team" Bill stated was mentoring him. However, by the fall of 2014 Bill stopped mentioning Dr. Murphy. Bill has not been under anyone's spiritual authority his whole career. Those who disagree with him or question his teachings are quickly shown the door and quickly find themselves on the outside. They also find themselves recipients of negative innuendos. We have experienced both of these. Both when Ruth and I were engaged then again when married we heard comments Bill had share with others that Ruth was not obtaining God's best in her engagement then marriage to me. While I'm no great catch those type of comments are only meant to cast doubt on someone or something. Other experience the same type of behavior. In some cases Bill sought out churches where his dissenters attended, as evidenced in his "Agent of Satan" letter to Tony's church.

    I am guessing Alfred's comments about Bill not being under authority of anyone but God while the head of IBLP are from Bill directly. Bill's pride has always puts him a position above the rest of us, as part of the umbrella between man and God.

    • rob war January 26, 2016 Reply

      thank-you again Larne for your response. I think Ruth married a winner in you as evidence by your continued push for justice for her and everyone else who was involved. Bill's comments are just infuriating, demeaning and good old fashion gossip. What an empty suite he is.

  86. nicole gardner January 25, 2016 Reply

    Renea,
    THANK-YOU SO MUCH! I had honestly never before noticed at least 50% of the things you brought out of the Scriptures. I still get angry about Patriarchy, but I can feel the sound-mindedness of chaos getting ordered aright in reading what you wrote. I wonder what the guilt-level is when an equal- let alone a superior- actually tells the other person to take the sin that they're handing to them....... I guess we would already know the answer to this if bg had a conscience.........
    Am going to read all what you shared again because it is so helpful.

    ^^^^^^^Larne bg was trying to discredit you because he was only boy enough to try to trap Ruth, not man enough to earn her trust....... & you showed him up. He was feeling whiny about his favorite object getting put on display in a wedding dress. Held up as a PERSON who deserved such recognition & opportunity. When all he'd ever done was keep her in a little boxed showcase except for when he would unlock it from time-to-time to take her out on selfish whims. It is to Ruth's well-earned credit that we here on RG get to still see even today what a beautiful soul she is. She accomplished this for all of us in marrying Mr. Right.

  87. rob war January 25, 2016 Reply

    A question for the lawyers among us. I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the information that Bill seems to be passing on to Alfred to post on the internet concerning the impending law suit which include possible identities of the Jane Doe's of the case and their situations and about some of the attached documents with the case. I can't believe for the life of me that some lawyer of Bill's would stand by and let this happen and not be advising him to keep his mouth shut. It seems so inappropriate, unwise and plain old stupid. Would or could a gag order on Bill be appropriate? Am I seeing this situation correctly? DG is becoming increasingly pathological and disturbing. Don't you as lawyers advise your own clients not to talk about impending cases with others in order to post it on the internet?

    • Don Rubottom January 27, 2016 Reply

      Seeing that he is NOT a man under authority...

      • rob war January 28, 2016 Reply

        Yes, good point. I would think Bill is going to be a trip for any lawyer. I could almost think that he is so full of himself that he bypasses any lawyer thinking that God is going to tell him what to say in his own defense using some of the verses out of Acts and Jesus final discourse with the disciples that the Holy Spirit is going to speak through you in your defense.

  88. nicole gardner January 25, 2016 Reply

    Still finishing my rant on Patriarchy:
    One reason I had no church support in getting the boyfriend to respect my "no"s was because he said his church was more Biblical than mine so I had to start going to his a month after we met. A huge red flag was that he wouldn't then come to Sunday night service at mine (his had no night service). When I told him my church was a good one because they had 267 people receive Christ there the year before & almost 200 baptisms he said that was a bad thing, not a good thing, because that meant it must be "full of fake Christians". He said his church was all about quality, not quantity, & his pastor would say that he would rather preach a sermon that only 5 mature believers could understand than one that was dumbed-down enough to not be going right over the rest of the people's heads. This made me think that this guy had being a "mature Christian" as a personal goal, let alone finding it unacceptable to be a "fake Christian". He was adamant about not working on Sunday. As I argued with him about his "no-work-on-Sunday" insistence (a month into dating him) I thought to myself: "wow, this guy will surely never expect me to sleep with him before marriage if he's so against breaking God's ideal standard regarding Sabbath (a non-essential)." Based on my trust that he was very serious about obeying God, I submitted to him in applying for other jobs that would no longer have me working Sunday afternoons, as well as having completely switched over to his church. Now, his pastor had had my boyfriend over to his house the 2nd Sunday he ever visited, for a homemade hot lunch. He'd also met with him in his office to make sure he was saved. Every Sunday that I was there, this pastor would come talk with him a bit, moving on to talk with other men. I did shake hands with me twice, asking my name both times. I had started tithing by check by then. I went around trying to find women to talk to, since it was obvious that men talked to men & there were not mixed-group conversations. As stated on the website & in the church brochures, there were no Bible studies or any other kind of groups exclusively for females; only whole families could be signed up for a group by the man of the house. These were to supplement his spiritual leading of his family. All other Bible studies & life-groups were either all-male (there were 3 different weekly groups for men only). There were no women available to talk with on Sundays. There was no childcare to speak of there (no Sunday School) but of course there was a cry-room & a separate nursery (together as big as the sanctuary) where the mothers would each tend to their own quiver-full broods just as if it was any other day of the week at home. (So much for a day of rest from the work by which you have your livelihood, huh? Seems like, if my boyfriend was right that it was a day "set-apart", than maybe the women should have been in the service & the dads do the childcare........?) Anyway, 2 of the pastors daughters (he had 13 kids at that point in time) were 20 & 21 & so they worked at the church. They were very adept at being friendly with all the females & initiated conversations with me on many occasions in spite of being spread so thin. One even offered to go for coffee with me "to chat". I just didn't know how to tell her the pressures I was already dealing with. Especially since some of it involved my boyfriend telling me I was negative-minded in pointing out to him some of the Gothard-quoting that I was hearing. Also that he'd caught me several times trying to sign up for one of the life-groups on an evening that we both always had off & told me that I couldn't because "those are for families" & also I didn't know for sure that I could attend every single time. I went ahead & asked the girls if I could volunteer by cleaning the church since there was no childcare/Sunday school to volunteer with. I was told that would be fine & what day & time the cleaning occurred. I gave my phone # to the head of the cleaning committee and said I could start in 3 weeks due to scheduling conflicts. I touched base with these young women in the coming weeks, especially since there was a spiritual gifts series going on that emphasized that all true Christians serve the church body, saying I would be there as soon as I could. They repeated the day, time, & said "see you here" with smiles. That Thursday night, I pulled up, grabbed my rubber gloves off the passenger seat and went to the church door. I was greeted cordially when the door was unlocked & was told to stay in the foyer because the head of the cleaning committee would come there. I waited quite a while. The head of the cleaning committee appeared; it was the same 20-year daughter-of-one-of-the-elders who had told me which day & time to be there. I held up my gloves & joked "I hope nobody's scrubbed the toilets yet, I've come prepared!" Eyeing my gloves, she ruefully said that the bathrooms had yet to be done. I told her, as I had told her before, that I had volunteered with 4 others for a year-&-a-half at my old church, cleaning to save the church custodial costs. She told me that she had just informed her father of my expected involvement the day before & that he had replied to her that the commitment standard for Christian service was way too high to have anyone not solemnly committed to those standards do any serving. I told her I was free on Thursday nights from now on & would transfer my cleaning-allegiance from my old church to this one. She said that her dad had told her that he was very, very, convicted regarding there being a very high vision for commitment to accountability in service there at the church. She said that the personal holiness of all who served was required. She went on to say, no less than 7 times total, that I needed to not only commit to every Thursday night, but that her dad had told her to tell me that I needed to become a member so that I could be held accountable to such a commitment. She said he'd made clear that I could do no cleaning whatsoever until I had called or emailed the pastor to make an appointment with him, & that, after he'd gotten to know me, I would then fill out an application for membership. Once it was accepted, I would be made a member, & then I could clean. She stressed membership 7 times. In a way, I was glad; here was something practical I could hold up to by boyfriend & say "see? you've GOT to get back to respecting my moral boundaries; this is your church, after all". When I told him, he said, "wow; I'm not a member & I've been taking offering for almost a month now. I'm probably allowed to be an usher because pastor knows me, though; he doesn't know you." To this church's credit, my boyfriend was told that following Sunday that he wasn't actually supposed to be ushering since he was not a member. BUT, they told him to go ahead & do it to finish out his month of having done so. I had been begging him to have us both go meet with leadership about our relationship; he already often said he knew he was going to marry me. He would say, "What goes on between us is nobody else's business." Which meant, I presume, that he never bothered to bring this subject up with anyone in his all-male weekly leadership-training group, either. I wanted to go tell the pastors that we both needed accountability. But I knew that my boyfriend would feel terribly betrayed. He discouraged me from my required membership interview as well as from the "coffee chat" and, I later found out, turned down a lunch invitation that the Pastor had given him that had also included me. But, the leadership of that outfit responded the way they did when the assistant pastor's wife was told by me that I'd had to leave the whole situation due to being pressured for sex; if they'd known sooner I can't imagine that would have altered the catch-22 that they tracked me down to put on me even after I'd left that fellowship. I've gone on way too long, need to stop..... I know that many churches function to foster warm fuzzies to cater mostly to women. This is wrong, & also insults womens' intellectual capacity. But Patriarchy is just as wrong.

    • rob war January 26, 2016 Reply

      And your ex-boyfriend was worried about being around "fake Christians" while pressuring you for sex because you were suppose to submit to him. OMG, talk about twisted reasoning here. He ought to write a book about lines guys can use to get sex out of their girlfriends because he is quite the original thinker here.

    • esbee January 26, 2016 Reply

      and if you really want to uber rant and rave, check out what this guy is teaching, and yes he openly calls it patriarchy on his site...it is all based on scripture of course...and there is no debating the facts of scripture... http://biblicalgenderroles.com/ --I wonder if he has any connection to gothard as a lot of what he teaches seems to be gothardic.

      • David January 26, 2016 Reply

        "gothardic"

        Sounds like medical dictionary term, haha

        • rob war January 26, 2016

          Actually it is a new virus which has the effect of melting one's brain and common sense and turning the poor individual infected with it into little Bills. I believe once so infected to the point of a melting brain, there is no hope.

      • Renea January 26, 2016 Reply

        I just checked that out and felt like my brain would explode after only five minutes. I would not recommend for anyone whose wounds from patriarchy are still open and bleeding to check this out until they have had significant healing. Any truth that God may have brought into their lives ,Satan will use that site to try to bring them back into bondage. Until they have renewed their minds enough with the word, (Romans 12:2) and are determined Not to be brought under a yoke of bondage again (Galatians 5:1) I would say don't torture yourself. Even those who know the truth would do well to pray for the lords protection of their minds. There is no way that a person who is truly asking for Gods direction and understanding of the word can come up with what is taught on those sights. This shows to me that they are just repeating what they are taught without submitting it first to God.

      • David January 26, 2016 Reply

        Read through some of the page the link directed to, it was eye-rolling at first, then irritating, then offensive before proceeding to downright OUTRAGEOUS! I seriously wanna punch this "man" in the throat now! Very condescending and finger-pointing at women. He even goes as far to say in several places how a husband is the "master" and is NOT accountable to his wife for his actions and/or decisions.

        • rob war January 26, 2016

          And he doesn't even use his real name, he has no credentials in theology or therapy and brags about it. pretty sick stuff.

      • Retha January 27, 2016 Reply

        Esbee, that site is allegedly owned by a troll: Someone who tries to get laughs from offending people.

        He seems to be a non-Christian Bible scholar trying to collect data by trolling.

        http://unsettledchristianity.com/a-word-of-caution-on-biblical-gender-roles/

        • rob war January 27, 2016

          thank-you for this link. I kinda wondered because the person was open not using his real name. What is disturbing is that too many believe this garbage as well as that it can be mimic by non-believers as a joke. Kinda curious why someone has gone to great lengths to do this and why there are not more blog posts about this being a phony site. All of this shows how false these views of men and women are which are promoted by Bill Gothard as well as others as heretical teaching.

  89. Renea January 26, 2016 Reply

    I understand your need to rant. I can tell by your stories that you and I have a lot in common. I'm guessing I'm probably somewhat older than you are ( soon to be 50), but the situations you describe I can relate to. I don't want to see you carry the baggage around that I have all these years that I have from things that happened to me 30 years ago. As much as we want to believe that churches are a safe haven, they are not. Ephesians tells us that we fight against spiritual forces and church walls do not keep them out. The apostle Paul warns the young churches that Satan will infiltrate the churches with his own 'members'. He will also do his best to keep true believers in deception. That is what you've experienced. Your mind needs to be renewed. ( Romans 12:2.) A stronghold has been built up with this former boyfriend who was obviously very controlling. I understand as I had one of those too. Anytime we are in bondage (stronghold) , there is a lie operating there. You are already able to see that patriarchy is a lie and can see how devastating its consequences are. But ask God for wisdom as to where you still need to be set free. (James 1:5) ,(John 8:32). I have spent the last three years away from any church influence and have been reading my bible like never before. Cover to cover. My mind HAD to be renewed from all the false teachings that I experienced. Each time I opened my bible I prayed that the lord would have the Holy Spirit open my mind to see the truths of the word. (1 John 2:27. Look this one up. I don't think most people actually see what this says). I have grown more in the past three years than in all my years as a believer. Even though I have grown exponentially, I still am not where I need to be and still have areas where I need healing. The lord has shown me this just over the past couple of days and even more so as I've heard you pour out your own heart. Patriarchy has hardened my heart to people loving me. Especially Jesus. That is probably the most tragic result of all. So even though I've received a lot of ' knowledge' I'm lacking in love. I'm in a stronghold of fear. The lie is that I can't trust Gods love for me. See the devastation brought on by patriarchy?? There is a disconnect between what I know the word says, GOD IS LOVE, and what the old tapes are playing in my mind. But I'm asking God to show me how (and have the courage to) put on the full armor of God because this is a spiritual battle that can only be fought with spiritual weapons. I'm still learning too. I'm hoping and praying that soon God would open the doors for me to mentor young women who are walking where I once walked. And that I can comfort those with the same comport I have received. (2Corinthians 1:4). Would give you a big hug if I could !! Will be praying for you my sister in Christ.

    • Renea January 26, 2016 Reply

      That was for Nicole. I did not realize that I did not hit reply under your comments

      • Don Rubottom January 27, 2016 Reply

        Renee, Jesus loves you and gave himself up for you, that he might sanctify you, having cleansed you by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present you to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that you might be holy and without blemish. He nurtures and cherishes you.
        Let God be true and every man (and our own delusions) a liar.

        • Renea January 28, 2016

          Thank you. I need to read this again and again......

  90. nicole gardner January 26, 2016 Reply

    Rob, your wry wit is a boon to my life- yes, this guy probly could flesh-out an entire book on "Best Play-Lines To Use About Church". I've also wondered; since he obviously relied on a lot on deception, maybe the pastor(s) questioned him as to whether he pressured me for sex. And maybe got lied to. (That would have been quite the lie). Because something caused me to be tracked-down (that woman did not have my phone # from me personally) & my getting told the catch-22. Even though the only connection with anyone while there was about needing to become a member.

    Don R., you are a real man right up there with Larne. I'll bet both your guys' sons turned out to be real men, too. And I'll bet any & all daughters don't put up with disrespect from their male peers while on dates with them. They only have to compare such creeps with there dads to realize that the creeps are a couple of Corinthians short of a Bible.

    Renea, you always bring it back to the real issue- people's relationship with God, Bible as the authority on that. I'm really helped by you & would like to be mentored by you whenever you have a time to get that going. I read all your stuff multiple times.

    Thanks all. Think I'm finally done ranting........ about this, anyway. I will never be done insisting that bg needs to publicly repent, though. Not until he does. What he did to so many was so much more lecherous, obscene, pedophilic, an abuse of not just his de facto authority, but actual authority, & under a much, much more deceptive guise of false pretenses, predatory molesting (versus just predatory in a context that affords a limited such), & downright false-prophetish than any of what happened to me was. And there's no getting around that this ex-boyfriend WAS abusive. Just gross to contemplate what's actually worse.

    • Renea January 26, 2016 Reply

      I could give you my email but I dint know if RG allows that. This way any thing really personal would be kept private. Your comments towards me were healing too 😊

    • Helga January 26, 2016 Reply

      2 Corinthians short of a Bible hahahaha.... I love how that is becoming a thing.

    • Don Rubottom January 27, 2016 Reply

      Nicole, I only wish my daughters will all be so strong. Sadly, I raised them to fear boys so Gothardly that they have been slow to develop relationships. But so far so good, two married well to loving guys, the others clearly know they can say 'no' to jerks. Pray that non-jerks would show up in their lives.

  91. Karen January 26, 2016 Reply

    To the website master,

    For some reason, posts in the comments section of this article bleed off the right side of my screen, and I can't read the entirety of the comments. I can read the article fine. I've tried different settings and can't get it to reformat on my screen. Perhaps this is an issue on your end? Comments under other articles don't do this.

    • Larne Gabriel January 26, 2016 Reply

      My 2 computer are fine but my iPhone6 does that

    • David January 26, 2016 Reply

      same issue on my iPhone browser

  92. kevin January 26, 2016 Reply

    With respect Melody Fedoriw, it is puzzling that the statute of limitations would come into effect in just 2 years. I quote:

    "In March 2014, after Gothard stepped down from his position, Melody reported Gothard’s conduct to the local police department. The police department classified Gothard’s actions as criminal but did not prosecute because the statute of limitations had passed. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/a-summary-of-allegations-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp.html#sthash.gnn7UQKi.dpuf"

    It's puzzling, until one reads the information provided by the moderator at Discovering Grace. I believe they have a copy of the complaint via a Freedom of Information Request. It turns out that the assistant DA in Hinsdale decided that the charges were nothing more than misdemeanor battery. Molestation of a 15 year old girl by a grown man would be just a misdemeanor? Why did the assistant DA decide not to classify this as molestation? This appears to be a very favorable decision for Bill Gothard. Often there are a number of criminal charges that can be made in such cases. It is as if the fact that she was a minor was totally ignored, as well as the nature of the contact. It makes me wonder about the assistant DA. "Friend of IBLP" ?
    I hope that pressure can be brought against the district attorney to reconsider the way that this crime was categorized by the assistant DA, perhaps with public pressure and media attention. When a DA waters down such crimes it plays very poorly in the court of public opinion and the DA is an elected office. If the public in his district learns that his office categorized the molestation of a 15 year old as a misdemeanor, I would expect there could be a lot of pressure to reexamine the charges made.
    If the Bill Cosby case is any precedent, a DA can reevaluate a decision of whether to bring criminal charges. 12 years after the previous DA failed to charge Bill Cosby with a sexual crime, the new DA filed charges and he will now face trial.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/bill-cosby-sexual-assault-investigation-pennsylvania/

    I hope that the decision of the DA’s office can be brought to the attention of local women’s right’s groups in Dupage County and Illinois. I think they need to answer some questions why these allegations were taken so lightly and classified as they were.

    • Larne Gabriel January 27, 2016 Reply

      What's the Assistant DA's name? Who is he married to or related to? Where does he go to church? Does the Institute do business with a family member?

      • kevin January 28, 2016 Reply

        Larne,
        I don't have any of that information, but perhaps someone else does.

        • Larne Gabriel January 28, 2016

          Yesterday I tried and was unable to find Alfred's original DG post regarding going to the Hinsdale PD, actually I think there were a couple of posts. I felt it was important to see what he actually said. I seemed to recall he stated he talked to the Hinsdale Assistant DA, but he might have done some checking in DuPage County. I then did a search of the Village of Hinsdale's website and PD and could not find that Hinsdale had any form of DA. There is a DA for DuPage County, Robert Berlin, if Alfred got the two confused or I might be remembering the post wrong. I was going to call the Hinsdale PD this AM but forgot, maybe tomorrow in the AM too late now. (There was not a list of the assistant DAs on the DuPage County's website.)

        • Elizabeth D January 28, 2016

          Larne - I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for, but here are 5 instances of Alfred speaking about the Hinsdale PD report.

          Did He Do It? History and Scandal 10/17/15, article:
          Gretchen indicated she had given a report to the Hinsdale Police Department about a week previously [per Washington Post 2/28/14 article]. We made inquiry with the HPD for that general time frame three different times under the “Freedom of Information Act” and were told emphatically no such report exists.

          Shepherd of the Hills 12/8/15, in response to Incredulous:
          At the urging of RG one young lady filed a report with the Hinsdale Police Department last year alleging multiple instances of “boundary” violations against Bill along the lines of the public stories. In the official record the only charge the Assistant State Attorney was even willing to consider was “misdemeanor battery”, that with statute of limitations in Illinois of 2 years. Sexual Harassment was not considered and did not apply.

          Shepherd of the Hills 12/9/15, in response to Helga:
          As to the police report, RG apparently told her to file a report – Dr. Cornish told us emphatically that she had. She told the newspaper she filed a report. Yet after multiple requests, in person, we have a firm statement from the police department administration that there was no contact with Gretchen.

          Your Questions 1/7/16, in response to Sandy:
          One of these women has already given her story to the Hinsdale PD who got an opinion from the State of Illinois that it was not sexual harassment, sexual abuse. Obviously she might bring more details to the table in the lawsuit. But what she did allege pretty much everything that has been in the accounts on RG, besides Gretchen. From the officer who took the report: “On 03-18-14 I presented this case to DuPage ASA _______ . I was told the case was a misdemeanor battery, and was outside the statue of limitations.” Misdemeanor battery means, “You touched me against my will.” That is not a conviction of “misdemeanor battery” even if within the statutes of limitations, just the appropriate charge for the tale that was told.

          New Math 1/13/16, in response to BCM:
          The most recent and youngest participant has already filed a report with the Hinsdale PD alleging all kinds of uncomfortable touching. The SOL on “misdemeanor battery”, which was deemed the appropriate charge for those allegations, is 2 years and had already passed, hence the HPD filed no charges.

          Hope you find what you're looking for ~

        • kevin January 29, 2016

          Larne,
          It does appear that Robert Berlin is the State's Attorney for DuPage County. I, too, found no listing for the Assistant State's Attorney, but I imagine that Mr. Berlin's office could be helpful in determining who made the decision to classify the charges as a misdemeanor and why.
          I wonder what Mr. Berlin's view is regarding the molestation of a 15 year old being classified as a misdemeanor by his office?

          https://www.dupageco.org/States_Attorney/1960/

        • Larne Gabriel January 29, 2016

          Kevin,

          So how did the Bill Crosby case from being outside the SOL to multiple incitements? Was it political pressure? It looks like the Patheos statement is different from Alfreds (Thank you Elizabeth D) so the question is where does the truth lie? Alfred might have done his best researching the issue but would the police even take a complaint if it was outside the SOL or just trashed it once the complainant left, thus there would be no record. I was able to find that there are 80 Assistant DA in the DuPage DA office but no listing of names other then State DA Berlin. Should there be pressure put on DA Berlin office to investigate the whole IBLP issue not just Bill. Was there cover-up of outside or internal sexual abuse that was not reported and was someone's civil rights violated?

          Unfortunately politics plays into all facets of our lives. President Nixon was pardoned by President Ford "in order to put the tragic and disruptive scandal behind all concerned." During the 1980 IBYC scandal one of Bill's prominent supporters stated that the scandal could cost Regan the election and the "rebellious" staff needed to capitulate, they did not but were fired or resigned. We have all seen famous people in sports, entertainment, politics, corporate and religion not get the justice that us common folks would. Bill and the minions at IBLP will ultimately get God's Holy Justice along with the rest of us. But the question at hand is what is our responsibility today.

          Proverbs 29:27(NIV), “The righteous detest the dishonest;
          the wicked detest the upright.”.”

          Psalms 9:16 (KJV), “The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands.”

          “Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.”
          ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

        • kevin January 31, 2016

          Larne,
          The DA in the Bill Cosby case filed charges just before the SOL expired. His predecessor had neglected to file charges, but the new DA elected to do so. I believe that he probably was pressured to do so, as there was a lot of public attention being paid to the numerous reports of rape against Cosby that were flooding forth.

          Statutes of Limitations vary from state to state. For the state of Illinois, there are currently broad protections offered to victims of sexual assault, when the victim is a minor. In January of 2000, a law was passed which allowed for sexual assault charges to remain viable until the victim turns 28, if they were a minor at the time of the abuse. The SOL was further extended in July of 2003 so that charges remain viable until the victim turns 38. It should be noted that if the statute of limitations had already expired at the time those laws were passed, it would not extend the viability date for such cases. I am linking below the booklet from the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault. It has a simple flow chart to use to determine if a case is still prosecutable. With some exceptions, basically any sexual assault crime that occurred against a minor after January 1, 2000 can still be prosecuted.
          I would imagine that the opinion of an assistant state’s attorney that a criminal charge only constitutes misdemeanor criminal battery would in no way be a binding opinion. I would imagine that a state’s attorney’s office is free at any time to reexamine how they view and classify a criminal complaint.
          Here is a link to the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault handbook.
          http://www.icasa.org/docs/statute%20of%20limitations.pdf
          They appear to be an excellent resource. Here is their website:
          http://www.icasa.org/home.aspx?PageID=500&

          Per your question:
          “would the police even take a complaint if it was outside the SOL or just trashed it once the complainant left, thus there would be no record? “
          I believe that the complaint would still be on file. I do not think that a criminal complaint can be destroyed unless it is expunged by court order, and I see no reason why that would have happened in this case.

        • Larne Gabriel January 31, 2016

          Thanks Kevin

    • rob war January 27, 2016 Reply

      That makes me wonder about the courts and police in dealing with Bill and it sometimes seems like they were looking the other way. Even with the so called positive story with Bettina, why in the world is a judge assigning an abandon teenager to a single man, not related and running an international Christian ministry for custody? Why were so many troubled kids funneled to his ministries by the court and with the court handing over kids to Bill and his ministries are they and the police going to take seriously any young lady that comes forward with molestation allegations against Bill and others working there?

      • kevin January 28, 2016 Reply

        Good points and good questions Rob. In reading about the Josh Duggar case, it appeared that the organization had some very IBLP friendly law enforcement treatment, which allowed Josh Duggar to avoid criminal charges and get treated within the organization. Some good stuff they must have filled his head with there in that treatment program, right?
        It reminds me of the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They report the strange behavior of things going on in the town to the police, not realizing that they police to whom they are reporting to have already been snatched and are not one of them. There are IBLP loyalists all over the place, and you can't tell just by looking at someone if they have already been snatched by the organization.

        The misdemeanor classification also makes me wonder how many times this sort of thing has happened before with Bill Gothard. This case is getting noticed because of the media attention and ease of access in obtaining information via the internet and social media. There could have been many reports to the police over the years that were watered down and went nowhere that no one has heard about. Also, I doubt very much that it is mere coincidence that Bill Gothard has been besties with David Gibbs Jr for 40 years, a man who makes his living protecting Christian organizations from sexual abuse charges. What other tangles has Gibbs Jr gotten Gothard out of over the years?

        • Don Rubottom January 28, 2016

          Now you speculate. BG and IBLP had plenty of local enemies. If you want to know about all the reports ever filed, just do a Freedom of Information Act request on all complaints against Gothard and IBLP. No one files a police report on 80% of this stuff. It offends us because of the man's hypocrisy, but truth be told, women put up with such "inappropriateness" every day. There is now a rape allegation and there was Charolotte's molestation allegation that is 20 years old and was never reported to police. There is no police coverup here. Only a "Christian" cover up.

        • Don Rubottom January 28, 2016

          And I am NOT saying women should put up with harassment, but that harassment is not something that police are in the business of controlling. To blame the police is to redirect outrage away from the perpetrator of all the misery discussed on this page: Bill. Gothard. Fraud. False Teacher. Lecher. Groomer. Liar. False witness. Slanderer. Unrepentant. Unreconciled. Misuer of Scripture. Misrepresenter of the Holy Spirit. Pretender. Self-righteous. Narcissist.

        • kevin January 29, 2016

          Don,
          It is not speculation to suggest that there has been gentle treatment by law enforcement to charges of molestation by those affiliated with IBLP. There are two cases that were reported to the police that I am aware of involving IBLP, or those affiliated with IBLP. The 2014 charges against Bill Gothard and the case of Josh Duggar in 2003. Both appear to have been handled in a way that was very kind to the alleged perpetrators.

          The Gothard charges were categorized as a misdemeanor, apparently by the Assistant State's Attorney, per the DG moderator. The Josh Duggar report was taken by State Trooper,Joseph T. Hutchens, who just gave him a stern talk, rather than file a report. It does not mean that there is a conspiracy or that the police are to blame. I am a big supporter of law enforcement and DAs and I think that in the vast majority of cases they do an outstanding job of upholding the law in a fair and balanced way. But, in these two cases, there has been some very favorable treatment in my view. Questions have been asked and answered regarding the state trooper and why he handled it the way he did. I think that it is appropriate that the State's Attorney's office should answer questions as to why they categorized the molestation of a 15 year old as a misdemeanor. Perhaps there is a very good explanation. Perhaps not.

      • huzandbuz January 29, 2016 Reply

        To: rob war
        Whenever she would anticipate some illegal cooperation taking place, my mom would state, "They are all in cahoots!"

        For certain, Gothard and the 'authorities' were conspiring together. The more I realize Bill's atrocities, it becomes increasingly clear that he was a very powerful man with a multitude of deceptive cronies. :+(

        • Larne Gabriel January 29, 2016

          State's Attorney for DuPage County,
          Robert Berlin

          Phone: 630-407-8000
          TDD: 630-510-3611
          Fax: 630-407-8151
          Email: [email protected]
          Address:
          DuPage County Judicial Office Facility - Annex
          503 N. County Farm Road
          Wheaton, IL 60187

    • Don Rubottom January 27, 2016 Reply

      They also have to deal with the realities of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in any he said, she said criminal matter. It is easy to criticize law enforcement, but they are never engaged except after all our private controls fail, and the can only successfully prosecute a small minority of cases (many go free lest one innocent be punished). A case like this is worthy of review, to ensure that no favoritism was involved. But it is never a slam dunk to prosecute a 'respected leader' on one accusation.
      Criminal statutes of limitations are to protect the accused from stale charges. In the civil arena, the period usually does not run until the victim turns 18, to protect the rights of victims. (victims have almost no rights in criminal proceedings: those are the king versus the subject).

      • kevin January 28, 2016 Reply

        I agree that it is never easy to prosecute in a " he said, she said". But in the case of Gothard, as with Cosby, we have "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said....." on and on up to 50 times. Even if the statute of limitations has expired on the other victims in terms of those crimes being prosecutable, they can still be allowed to testify and confirm accusations that he has a history and pattern of molestation and harassment.

        • Don Rubottom January 28, 2016

          Agreed, but that is not the criminal case that was presented to the Hinsdale Police in the March 2014 report.

      • David Pigg January 28, 2016 Reply

        Don,anytime I go back to read the stories of the harassed girls,its difficult to entirely comprehend the extent of Gothard's evil.All your comments describing Bill,as good as they are,fall short in tying in the motive,utterly masked from the public with his supramoralism;with a depravity so difficult for even a grown adult to comprehend.The girls had in their naiveness,a buffer against the shock;only comprehending the extent of the horror much later,though some may have somehow known past a dread they'd rather forget.Hats off to you in venting a justifiable anger.May the probing of the cases bring forth the power of eloquence to expose the travesty for all that it is.Forty years...blatant hypocrisy.

  93. Renea January 26, 2016 Reply

    I'm having same problem

  94. rob war January 28, 2016 Reply

    This is probably my final post to Alfred at DG, I'm not sure if he will publish it:

    Pointing out the total of NT references to how Jesus earthly family played a part with Jesus and His ministry is human reasoning? If one looks at the totality of your blog and all the comments, the disagreements are with you and Bill and not myself Alfred. Throwing out insults at others that have tried in good faith to participate really is more of a reflection on you and who you support than me. When I read your reasoning, logic and use of scripture, all i can think to myself is TGIC and my time here a waste because it appears that I am only "throwing pearls before swine" and the Bible tells us not to do that.

  95. Daniel January 28, 2016 Reply

    Alfred really counterbalances his devotion with his snarky attitude and his win-at-any-cost style.
    Instead of leading anybody back to the fold, he further reinforces the worst stereotypes of what it means to be a Gothardite. There are a lot of folks even still in the Institute that are truly nice, misled people. They would be much better mouthpieces than Alfred for this type of thing. In their blind ambition to keep Bill unsullied, they show their disconnect from reality. People respond well to straight shooters. Even if they are not able to articulate it or win the argument with a character like Alfred, the slimy feeling isn't a great recruiting or retention tool.

    His site is more about feeding his own love for attention than it really is about even defending Gothard. He probably doesn't even know that himself, but it's pretty clear.

    • S January 28, 2016 Reply

      I agree. I've wondered for some time now how his blog would continue if we didn't respond to him.
      I feel like, as sincere a follower of BG as he is, he's had as many chances as any to face the truth that has confronted him, and yet he refuses.

  96. Renea January 28, 2016 Reply

    Something that might be found interesting. There's a series of articles being written at skywatch tv about Internet trolls. One can just google For whom the baals troll. Even if it doesn't totally fit ones world view, it has a lot of good points.

  97. nicole gardner January 28, 2016 Reply

    It's more like, "Whom the baal trolls"- speaking of people whose points bg's PR agent Alfred are always trying to bong.

  98. Leslie January 28, 2016 Reply

    I have not commented on Alfred's site. I do not want to encourage him. It looks like about 97% of the posts are against supporting BG and Alfred. For a very long time Alfred has been trying to make his point for BG. As far as I am concerned, the arguments should be done, the case closed. Only God can reach his heart.. I would recommend no more responses on his website, if he has nothing to defend and respond to, maybe his heart and mind will be clear to hear God.

    • rob war January 28, 2016 Reply

      agree 100%

  99. nicole gardner January 28, 2016 Reply

    I have no idea how big of a staff G3 has to be able to divert to research on this case, but it would be interesting if a FOI could be done on all the records of who all was sent to the Little Rock "rehab" or other IBLP "rehabs". And then, to FOI all the police dept.s in the home counties of these for police reports on any of these same "rehab" recipients. If there are none, or if there are ones like the Melody Fedoriw one that was mis-classified as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, this would seem to clearly indicate a deal made by IBLP with civil authorities. After all, if it took 5 criminal offenses in the IBLP-ruled Duggar household to finally get that boy off to bg's "rehab"........... what all other criminal offenses were mis-classified or never even reported according to the law? IBLP's "rehab" records likely hold the secrets of a lot of criminal negligence; that's what the failure to report a sex crime against a minor is. Criminal negligence. Obviously, bg is guilty of this in failing to report ongoing abuse of minors made known to him by victims themselves. And, bg isn't "clergy", so, "clergy-penitent privilege" wouldn't apply. (That only applies to minors in WA state & VA, anyway). Although he may be classified as a psychologist. Now THAT would be a real irony- "Physician, heal thyself"...... FOR REALS, MAN!!!!! And, go back & get a phd in predicting pedophilia while he's at it, so maybe he can warn all relevant groups ahead of time of which one among them he grooms next. I want to see a 7-step formula called "Am I My Sister's Keeper?" in which bg outlines tell-tale signs surrounding his having isolated one of his victims. Now THAT would be teaching practical Christianity for all people under his dumbrella.

  100. Elizabeth D January 28, 2016 Reply

    So ... over on DG, Alfred says this to rob -

    "Which suggests that Bill seeking to minimize some of what he perhaps saw as impediments by the corporate authority structure created by the government perhaps primarily so said government could get all the taxes they are due MIGHT not be as nefarious as has been often suggested."

    I'll admit I can't tell what in the world the whole sentence is supposed to mean (not the brightest bulb in the pack here - somebody's welcome to explain), but part of it stands out. Did he really just say that Bill tried to "minimize" the "impediments" of a government-created corporate authority structure? How, exactly, I wonder??

    Seems to be admitting that BG's above the law (correct me if I'm wrong), and apparently doesn't mind saying it in spite of also being asked earlier about the wisdom of speaking for Bill in spite of a pending lawsuit.

    Just wondering if anybody else noticed.

    • rob war January 29, 2016 Reply

      It's Alfred trying to "cover disgrace" and he has had a number of meaningless sentences like this that make no sense whatsoever. I think what Alfred was trying to say is that having a board or over type of structural oversize was a government imposition designed to get money in the end. That is way Alfred is arguing so hard now about the para-church and that they are justified in not being under anyone's authority. It also shows the arrogance of Bill in that he leaks info to Alfred to put on the internet despite a pending lawsuits against himself. You did a great job summerizing a number of Alfred's comments about police reports etc. To the current point about para-church type ministries. There is a big different between groups like Salvation Army which started out in the Methodist Church and whose main aim is not teaching but service and ministry and eventually became it's own Church organization and IBLP. IBLP sole purpose is teaching and spreading that around. Groups like Salvation Army, World Vision etc. are true service based organizations and they have oversight and a clear purpose of service not teaching. The para-church groups that are based on teaching ministries and a particular leader or teacher is what IBLP is and that is where problems lie with these "ministries"

      • David S. Knecht Sr. February 9, 2016 Reply

        Dear Rob,

        Your paraphrase of Alfred's statement about minimizing State hassles in Christian ministry seems fair. But I think you are partly mistaken in your Salvation Army example. Yes, they started out as 19th Century Methodists. But they were out to proclaim the Resurrection to a target audience of slum-dwellers. Their modern "service" emphasis evolved in more modern times. I am pretty sure that Gothard's ministry grew out of a college project on how to evangelize teenagers. Another examples of niche para-church ministries would be the Navigators and Officers Christian Fellowship, both of whom target military people. Niche ministries like these have weaknesses, but what works of men do not?

        Your point about ministries having oversight is well-taken, but the oversight will always come from allies. I do not know who supplies oversight to Pope Francis, but the overseer is probably not a Southern Baptist or a Presbyterian.

        Brother David K
        present Methodist and former beneficiary of Gothard, Navigators, and OCF

        • LynnCD February 9, 2016

          Brother David K,
          I, too, as well as many others, have benefited from some of the true and correct things Bill Gothard has taught. It is true that most of us would not have gone to seminars if there had not been some good ideas given we could apply to our lives.

          My difficulty on the DG site with Alfred's take on authority is at one point he (not Bill) made parents the supreme authority: "Not ANY authority, Dan, but that associated with the “first commandment with promise”, obedience and reverence for parents. When has he stated that the government, the employer, or even the church are the channels of God’s direction like parents and grandparents are?"

          Skipping past that Gothard disobeyed his father about marriage, the problem with Alfred's claim is two-fold. One, Gothard expressly teaches in the Basic Seminar about several different realms of authority. Secondly, I have heard time and time again from friends who were in ATI as students that parental authority was undercut by Bill. I also clearly remember a pamphlet cira 1970s where these youth were pictured who proclaimed Bill was not opposed to them getting married - he only wanted to make sure it was the right one. IOW - even at that time he was trying to forbid marriage, just as he did to his brother, and just as he disobeyed his father.

          Bill, it seems has wound up "doing what is right in his own eyes," and there is a Scripture about "men who forbid marriage."

          What a great blessing IBLP would have had to the world if Bill had listened to his own authorities, and had submitted to good counsel of those schooled in the Scriptures!

        • rob war February 10, 2016

          Thank-you for your comments and thoughts. Usually when I think of para church groups, I am thinking of those that focus on teaching as opposed to those that focus on service. And yes there are those as you pointed out that focus on a particular target group such as college ministries etc. But bill along with WOF type teaching ministries are what at least for me what I think of as I say para church groups and there often is no control over what is being taught and claimed as Biblical. You did make references to Catholic church and who is watching the pope. The answer and explanation is probably beyond the scope of this blog and there are many fine forums and blogs that discuss how authority works in the catholic church. I would simply say that pope is part of what is called the magisterium of the catholic church which includes all bishops, church counsel past and present etc. Dispute of what you may think, the pope does have others in the church review his own work and his office is not a top down dictatorship and they even go to confession, JP II went everyday. It is the collective magisterium that is the checks and balance. Bill did not have that at all. He did not use others to balance his work,he was a dictator with his ministry, his views were always right and called Biblical and true. That is the difference here

  101. BCM January 29, 2016 Reply

    I think Bill's M.O. is to try and pivot away from the allegations and history of sexual abuse when he is talking with those who are genuinely listening to him and considering whether his side of the story is true. I think Bill will try to overwhelm the listener and convince the listener early in the conversation that there is no way the allegations made by the women could be true because of all the ministry he is involved in and all the words the Lord is giving him. He will hold himself out as if he cannot understand why these women are saying these things about him. I think he does this by talking about all the new ministry and books he is involved in implementing and writing, and all the new "words and ideas" the Lord is giving him since being asked to step down from IBLP. I think he has his response to people who inquire prepared quite well, and he knows what he needs to say to cause other believers who are not as familiar with the allegations to see him favorably as a victim in this whole process. I think he has developed a method to emphasize all the "work of the Lord" he is involved in so that the person(s) he is communicating with/to will struggle in their mind with how this purported "man of God" whom the Lord is speaking to on a daily basis could have possibly engaged in the conduct he is being accused of. I think Bill is good at disarming those who listen to him by pitching the "I'm an old Godly man walking with God as Enoch walked with God and I can't believe these accusations and lies that have been hurled against me in my later years". I get the impression he will try to beat these allegations by convincing people there's no way he is capable of committing these acts because he is a "man of God" involved in the Lord's work. I think he can be very convincing as he has used this pattern over the years to distract from the core issues of his sin. I think this helps explain why Alfred is such a big defender of Bill. I think Alfred has known Bill all these years, constantly heard from Bill about Bill's ministry, observed over the years all the "successes" of the ministry, and he cannot accept that Bill could ever be capable of committing the acts the women accused him of. Alfred is one of the few Christians (other than family) that has as much detail and still stands by Bill. While Alfred may be willfully ignoring some of the evidence, because he is such a die hard Bill supporter, I think he will always ere on the side of attempting to discredit any woman who accuses Bill of these things. Most of the others who support Bill are automatically "disarmed" with all the books and ministry talk that has come from Bill over the years. I myself wonder if anyone has ever sat down with Bill and asked him face to face about each allegation he is accused of. I'm sure he's been asked about the allegations in general, but what I am referring to is a believer sitting down with Bill and point blank asking him "did you touch ....'s breast....did you rub up the back of ....'s leg with your foot while wearing only a sock....", etc. I pray this will happen in the context of confronting Bill for the purposes of Biblical repentance. It will likely happen in the legal context during his deposition, but I pray it will happen in the spiritual context for the sake of his soul, and not let him change the conversation or distract from it by talking about the latest book he is writing or the newest ministry he is contemplating. Perhaps the Lord would use this to bring a time of confession, repentance and healing. Maybe I'm hoping for the impossible.

    I also think Bill has literally convinced himself in the deep recesses of his mind that he did not commit the allegations made against him by the girls.

    • Mark February 23, 2016 Reply

      So perceptive. The first thing Gothard does in his motion is to trumpet the millions who benefitted from his ministry, including exhibits of packed-out conference centers.

  102. Elizabeth D January 29, 2016 Reply

    Pathological liars do seem to believe their own stories, although it is reported that they have guilty responses on polygraphs, so I think it's definitely a complex situation. There appears to be debate about how they actually process their lies (and not a lot of research, apparently).

    That said, I believe they do know the truth deep down, but due to their blatant disregard for the truth, they CHOOSE to overwrite their memories with their preferred version of reality. Even to the point of filling in details and assigning false motives to other people, so that they can believe their version of the "facts" more logically. Just my unprofessional guess, but it may be like someone that witnesses an event that involved a brown car, but hears someone else talk convincingly about the same event involving a blue car to the point that their own memory is revised. I just think a pathological liar can provide that convincing false version *to himself* to the point that the real story becomes blurred in his memory, but not that the real version isn't there somewhere deeper down.

    I am/was married to a habitual liar (our counselor's diagnosis was pathological liar). It was a HUGE step when I finally got the nerve to confront him, and it didn't go at all like you would expect a normal person to respond. I picked just four lies that were recent and that I had absolute proof about. He flatly denied all four, in spite of my refuting him with facts and testimony. One of the lies was about having watched porn via our satellite service. There were seven viewings on the bill. When the service was installed, HE had set the passcode for the account (it was in my name, so rest assured I reset it as soon as I saw the bill). Most of the times were around 1-2 am, when I and my children were sleeping. I had a debit card receipt from a store 30 miles away at the time of one of the viewings, and my children and I were about 3-4 hours away from home during another one. Yet he still continued to deny all four of the lies I brought up.

    Side bar - After the confrontation, life was hard ... he was over-the-top angry with ME. Please don't EVER second-guess what an abused woman should do. What makes perfect sense in an unaffected environment rarely works in hers. In a non-abusive marriage, if you catch your husband in a lie, you're justified to be extremely angry and confront him, and he'll crumble and admit it and beg your forgiveness and might even do something really nice to make it up to you after he stays in the dog house for a while. Not so in the world of abuse. First of all, you have to brace yourself for the anger (for some, it's physical, and even if it hasn't been before, you can never be sure that it won't be this time), then you have to deal with the insanity of differing versions of truth. Then you can expect to be in the dog house because you falsely accused him. It took me a couple of decades to get to the point of being that willing.

    I will say that over a period of time, having brought up the porn-watching issue twice with staunch denials, he did walk back in the room shortly after the second confrontation and said, "Okay, I admit it, I did watch the porn." He didn't apologize, but for some strange reason, he did finally crack and admit it. I said (calmly), "See, you DO lie. That's what I've been saying. I can't trust you." He refused to admit anything further and that was the end of that. The only other lie he ever admitted was when I was on the phone with someone who could verify the truth; this was after at least twice that I'd questioned him before, and he flatly denied he'd done something. He was listening to the phone conversation, and at the point I was about to ask a question, he apparently knew both what I was going to ask and how they were about to answer, and he broke in with, "Yes, I ____!" so that he wouldn't have to hear me get the actual truth from the other person.

    A liar prefers to lie about things you can't check or prove, or if it's something that another person would contradict, they will try to isolate you from them, sometimes by telling you something unpleasant about that person to the point that it's awkward to talk to them. I finally figured that out, too, and got over it. Of course, I'll never know who all he isolated from me by telling them God-knows-what. I think there are tons of similarities in BG's methods.

    As much as we'd love to see it, I'm sure a sit-down item-by-item confrontation will never happen. I'm just adding that if it ever did, there still wouldn't be a lot of truth-finding in it.

    • Elizabeth D January 29, 2016 Reply

      I should add that a disincentive to perjure oneself would yield a different result than an ordinary sit-down conversation. Not entirely, but hopefully to some degree.

      • David Pigg January 29, 2016 Reply

        Elizabeth D,and BCM,Forgive my ramblings,but I've got to reinforce the feeling of anger and present helplessness that your comments elicit from me,and I've only been exposed to his teachings.Now try to imagine what his victims are going through upon each denial,and any future denials knowing good and well he's got away with it ;discrediting the victims,already helplessly demoralized by his "system".And even wants to go back into the ministry,should he find the faintest loophole to do so.I so remember in 1987, at the Twin Cities IBLP Seminar Bill making one of his many blatant preposterous lies,stating that the the only person he knew who was unjustifiably persecuted was a 14 year old girl he was counseling.Imagine it!Seven years after stonewalling all previous acts,some of which he himself perpetrated;[what victim was he on then,17;maybe 18?]And he had the audacity to say he only knew of one 14 year old girl wrongly persecuted.Any of these calculated denials and ad hominem attacks,breeds incredulous anger,helplessness,and a certain desire to see right made rectified permanently[]from whatever channel?] it may come.IBLP in its intrinsic core had no conscience,puppet strings from the Master,and hypocrisy to look the other way from the battered being thrown out the back door,oppressed by a self invented,self appointed caricature of patriarchal darkness.They passively consented in the denigration of some of the most helpless of Christ's lambs;for temporal perverted gratification.How can one say that the organization deserves to stay intact,much much less its author?

    • Helga January 29, 2016 Reply

      I'm sorry for all that you have gone through, Elizabeth. There needs to be an organization/support group like alcoholics anonymous for women who are married to manipulative husbands.

  103. nicole gardner January 29, 2016 Reply

    I'm sorry for what you went through with him, too, Elizabeth! That is just craziness. I see parallels to your (ex?)husband & bg. And I, too, wonder what all bg will end up speaking perjury about. Versus what all he'll end up finally admitting in attempts to cut back on his perjure. Because, after assessing his own risk of having continued to lie, he is going to have to go ahead & admit some of what he's lied about. Then again, there are some lies he will likely stick with; he will have a hard time dividing all his previous lies into one these 2 camps. Hard to pick which ones to come clean on & then remember which ones these will be. In remaining staunch on the rest, he'll probably get caught as a perjurer, in at least a few of them.

  104. Lois January 29, 2016 Reply

    Long time reader and prayer warrior on behalf of RG - but infrequent poster. A question to those who are wondering about Police Reports being release/found given FOIA requests, isn't it likely because this is a minor child who reported the abuse, that the report is going to be held back or even denied? If prior juvenile criminal offenses are withheld in court hearings of adults, why would Alfred be thinking that he or anyone off the street can demand the police report of a minor child stating she has been molested or abused???

    I"m guessing that just because it hasn't been identified or released publicly, doesn't mean that an official report doesn't exist. Now, whatever reasons behind it not being prosecuted could be many, sadly.

    • rob war January 31, 2016 Reply

      Yes, excellent point and something that Alfred would ignore and then turn around and state that there is no report on his blog. That is also the reason the Duggars used when they stated that Josh's problems were not suppose to be released to the public, that he was a minor and minor reports were suppose to the sealed. I understand Don's points and concerns here but what I am curious about and question is that in the "positive" testimony that Bill and Alfred have on their blogs is that in Bettina's case, a judge did assign her to custody of Bill himself. In benefit of the doubt, the judge most likely didn't know about all the issues Bill had with teenage/young women and I want to think that if the judge did know all the things we have now, he wouldn't have given Bill custody. But Bill's ministry already did have a public sex scandal even though Steve was the focus of this scandal, the fact that Bill ignored Steve's behavior with staff girls should have raised a red flag for the judge in assigning anyone custody of vulnerable minor children to Bill. Obviously, this was ignored. Why are courts assigning any girls to Bill? Why did he have such access with a judge to such children? Did his character programs with municipals give such favorable views and the usual hoops people have in getting custody of vulnerable children ignored? Even if there isn't a real coverup by district attorney's of complaints about Bill and girls, I can see that if girls did come go and attempt to make such complaints and reports, they would be reassigned to lesser charges and ignored as reported in the current law suit. The fact that there was even a staff member as reported in the suite that raped more than one girl should alone be the reason to shut down the whole thing until proper review of all the staff is done. All of IBLP programs should be shut down until they can prove staff are safe to be with children. The whole thing is corrupted and sorry but I feel that they have been given a pass by the powers that be with governments

      • Don Rubottom February 2, 2016 Reply

        Consider that the most outrageous claims are made by the most troubled girls. If all allegations are true, Bill was very selective in who and how he groomed. Those who were less troubled really passed through the relationship believing he was honorable, only wising up later. Those alleging he actually molested them were girls who would have little credibility if they did complain: "She said the same thing about her father and both father and mother swear it was fantasy".

        • Leslie February 2, 2016

          Check out The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. Somewhat similar

        • rob war February 3, 2016

          shows a corrupted sick mind and his utter disregard for anyone's well being but his own and that all these girls were objects to him and the one's that have already been violated he felt even more free to abuse and violate since it was their fault to begin with (according to his sick teaching).

    • Don Rubottom February 2, 2016 Reply

      Actually, the minor may not have the same protection as complainant as they would as a juvenile offender. The purpose of public access to closed law enforcement investigations is to shine the light on the official acts of public officials. Even if the minor's identification has to be redacted under Illinois law, there is no reason to expect the report is not otherwise publically accessible. The same holds to sex assault claims in general, any required protection of individuals is done by redaction, not by suppression of the public record. It is plausible that they tracked down the record of the complaint in a closed matter like that.

  105. BCM January 30, 2016 Reply

    While anything is possible and the State Atty could be in cahoots with Bill and/or IBLP, I think the State Atty should be given the benefit of the doubt. They prosecute far more powerful cronies and criminals and are not swayed by talk that easy. I do not think IBLP has that much power to wield in the first place. We have to remember that the State has to prove these crimes "beyond a reasonable doubt". Sexual harassment which may qualify as a misdemeanor since it is, in the eyes of the law, a lesser crime, is not as difficult to prove as sexual battery or statutory rape. In most of these cases the State is dealing with alleged crimes that occured 20 years ago. Unless there is solid evidence the crime was committed, it will be very difficult for the State to prove the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". The civil standard is usually "greater weight of the evidence" which means even if the perpetrator is 51% likely to be liable, he is liable. The civil standard is a lot easier to pursue. The State has limited resources as well. If they can get a plea bargain on a lesser crime and save the time and money and emotional state of the victim, then a lot of times they will opt for this route after talking with the victim. Sometimes the best route to take is in civil court which is what is takign place right now.

    • Don Rubottom February 2, 2016 Reply

      Harassment is most often not a crime but a civil violation of labor laws and regulations, or a tort in civil court. It is more like a violation of contract than a battery. Asking someone on a date is not criminal but it can be sexual harassment in the workplace.

  106. nicole gardner January 30, 2016 Reply

    BCM it is super helpful to get your viewpoint on all this process of due process.
    The part about if an alleged perp is likely to be 51% liable is especially encouraging. I think this one is 99.99% likely to be liable of inappropriate "grooming"-based touching of single every one of these girls. But I don't think it's possible for any unbiased jury to have the time to hear but a fraction of the evidence of this guy's fetish for doing this. Not unless they can see the whole 40+ year career of grooming that he's carved out of figure-heading on so many levels. So, the 51% thing is encouraging.

    Law enforcement may want to try to partner with ministries & so-called ministries to try to fight the war on crime & corruption. Most churches are an ally in this area, getting drug-addicts rehabilitated, helping to reduce the welfare rolls, etc. So, maybe since the Little Rock "training center" took some of the load off the State, authorities thought IBLP was just doing the work of the church. Which it most certainly was not. But, I guess, how were the cops & other reporting officials to know this. I know that I sure didn't. But I do now!

    In the end, it's not going to appease his guilt in my eyes, even if a jury "finds" him innocent. And I'm certain this could only be done if it weren't for him personally selecting staff based on gender & looks, pulling these out of their communities into his own insular communes, the religious, whole-life control mascot-making as his advertising- his main answer to his own demand for profit (versus a productivity-driven work contract), shutting down all complaints about sexual abuse as they were brought to him, subsequently maligning all complainants................. oh, great, I can sense myself starting to go down the BG rabbit-hole again. I better stop while I can. It's just that, the sexual harassment itself is overwhelming. And this is easier to prove that the sexual battery. And, the circumstances were SO bizarre compared to most other sexual harassment scenarios. Scenarios that bg alone set up & controlled, layer-upon-layer of viability & primed defenselessness.

  107. rob war February 1, 2016 Reply

    Just read Libby Ann's blog on Patheos, Jan 28th called Bill Gothard's disturbing slavery apology. She reviewed an article posted on Bill's new Power Team ministry that basically excuses slavery and in summation, Bill's theory is that the Civil War would have been avoided if people just meditated and had Rhemas on God's word and taught their slaves to do the same. Bill's so called new teaching and ministry has become so disturbing that I honestly don't know what to say but shame on the so called Christian leaders that supported and promoted Bill all these years. This is sick and it is equally embarrassing that someone that is an atheist points it out. Where is the outrage with other Christians and their publications. I shudder to think what other sick ideas Bill is teaching. It makes me want to throw-up.

  108. nicole gardner February 2, 2016 Reply

    I'll hand ya the barf bucket- as soon as I'm done with it :P

    I searched for a long time on Patheos for that but my computer kept shutting down windows & sliding Libby Ann's site off of the screen.

    Regarding what you eluded too, though: I've always wondered why IBLP began condemning all forms of resistance to authority just a few years after the NAACP's illegal lunch counter sit-ins had begun. Those sitting-in were peaceful; it was those harassing them, trying to make them obey the law, that were combative. This violence against these Rosa Parks-types who were doing good in their resistance of authority, contrasted with the rioting that other "rights" groups were doing, makes it seem odd that Gothard didn't simply condemn VIOLENT opposition to authority along with violence put up against anyone. But no; his main message was against the CAUSE of Rosa Parks & her fellow NAACP-ers, lumping his condemnation of these right in with that against the beating of campus security guards & setting cities on fire. 1961 was right at the outset of the social revolutions of the sixties. Blacks had virtually no citizen's rights whatsoever. Since Gothard debuted his false teaching right at that point in time it seems he fancied his main message to appeal to anyone desiring to keep African Americans enslaved by segregation. Remember his partnership with Bob Jones. It would be no wonder to me that he thinks any & all slaves should have stayed (or should still stay) enslaved. It's totally in keeping with the Umbrella application of the "authority" one of the "7 Non-Optional Principles" that he trotted-out to make a name for himself 54 years ago. Thank-God that His will won-out, prevailing over IBLP interpretation of God's will in that blacks did successfully win the right to have rights. MLK's position trumping Gothard's opposing one was by the grace of God. No wonder BG's definition of grace severely limits grace.

    • rob war February 2, 2016 Reply

      I'm not good at links but it is www.patheos.com under atheist channel/love, joy feminism and the date is Jan 28th 2016. The link she has to the actual article gives a 404 error for me which means that someone at power teams web site pulled the article. They must have gotten pretty severe backlash. She does quote it and break it down and answers Bill's 5 points. It is pretty sick twisted quoting of the Bible and even history. The reasons for the Civil War are rather complex because it wasn't just about slavery even though that was the underlining reason but to make some blanket excuse that the Ciivil War would have been prevented if southern slave owners just memorized and meditated on Rhemas and even taught their slaves to do the same (ignoring the fact that reading was illegal for slaves to do). Then because slave owners did their rhema meditations, they and their slaves would have been successful and they would have had genuine love. I wish I could make this up because this is really out in outer space. This ought to be condemned in the strongest sense of the word in Christendom and not just pointed out by someone that is an atheist.

    • David Pigg February 2, 2016 Reply

      Rob War,Nicole Gardner,Elizabeth D..That no normal person could ever wrap their minds around all the contrived denials,calculated discrediting of the victims,I can't have a clue to his humanity. He himself subsequently despised in attitudes,and actions,all his most overtly violated victims,before ushering them out the back door,...Heather's story,Charlotte's story,Jane Doe 2,...dehumanizing.Just a few thoughts for sanity and justice.He was endorsed publicly,he must be denounced publicly.If not what could evolve from this heretical disease will suppress any potential future expression of love.You're trapped in a monstrous religious machine.No individuality,no creativity,no expression of the Great Gift of Life.

    • horse February 4, 2016 Reply

      Link to blog post about Bill Gothard's slavery apology: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/bill-gothards-disturbing-slavery-apology.html

      • horse February 4, 2016 Reply

        It didn't post as a link, but it does work if you copy and paste into your browser. I'll try one more time for the link.
        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/bill-gothards-disturbing-slavery-apology.html

        • Todd k February 4, 2016

          What was bg's point??!! I did not know whether to laugh out loud or scream "What an arrogant and pathetic notion this is!" For bg to declare that if everyone during the pre-Civil War era would have practiced his meditation thingy that there would not have been a Civil War. Ah...that is like saying "If pigs could fly, look out and put a helmet on otherwise something could drop on your head." Maybe this was a revisionist dream. "Woulda Coulda, Shoulda" (would of, could of, should of)and other guilt trips---so typical of bg's approach. This would be my proposition: Have bg go into a time machine and try to sell those "principles" and if it works, I'm all ears.
          Maybe there are really "Days of Future Passed!"

        • Todd k February 4, 2016

          Using bg's logic and thought process, I want to propose this: Let's all be hippies. Seriously. If everybody would wear tye-dyed shirts, bell bottom pants, choker beads---guys grow long hair and beards (oh,how I miss that era),wear red, white and blue headbands, wear sandals, sing folk songs around the campfire,and drop out of society--if that could have been applied before the Civil War, then there would not have been a Civil War. If anyone knows where a time machine can be found....

        • rob war February 4, 2016

          Todd, we will have to find someone like Dr. Emmett Brown and instead of a DeLorean, we will fix up Bill's blue Olds powered by plutonium stolen from ISIS instead of Libyan terrorists who will come to shoot him up and then Bill will activate the wrong buttons and then he will be shot into pre-civil war times where he can tell slave owners how to mediate on the Bible which in return will prevent the Civil War. Likewise, Bill can tell slaves how lucky they are that they are slaves because they are under an umbrella of protection with their slave owners.

        • rob war February 5, 2016

          I just realized that Bill already had a "scientist" working for him. He'll have math wiz Alfred calculate how to get Bill back to the future.

        • SiliconValleyGal February 10, 2016

          ToddK,
          Remember, this is the same guy who posited that Mt. Vesuvius buried Pompeii because the residents chowed down on Roman Wonder Bread. Equal Logic Fail on analyzing the complex events leading up to the Civil War, and explaining a geological occurrence as retribution of white flour consumption. Consider the source.

  109. jgfrank February 2, 2016 Reply

    Whew!!
    Have been reading, for the first time, this site. I am a born again Christian. I read, study and teach
    Bible. Having read MANY, MANY entries here, two things stand out:
    1. Bill Gothard is still innocent until proven guilty. (and...he may be!)
    2. Seems like nearly 100% of these posts JUDGE--- careful, everyone--you know the Sermon on the Mount.

    Having attended 7 times (!!--some got it the first time--!) and having taken many groups to the Basic Seminar, I, too, had to gain some freedom. I was not a "Bill groupy". In the seventies, a common book recommended for business leaders, which I was, (now 76 and retired) was "The 5-Minute Manager". In this book, the author encouraged counsel with employees followed by a brief touch of reassurance. That, now, is considered inappropriate behavior!! The times--how they change....

    • rob war February 3, 2016 Reply

      The same Sermon on the Mount in just a few verses later after the "judge not ..." talks about knowing someone by their fruits. Looking at Bill's fruits which include the results of his teaching and how it has affected others as well as his questionable behavior which has gone on for decades with numerous people approaching him about it is not judging. If you really read some of the article here, not just people's responses to them, you would have read how many people through the years have tried to approach Bill and document his behaviors. If Bill was so innocent, then why wouldn't have his own hand picked board brought him back since that appears to be the understanding Bill had with the board when he left in 2014. Trying to use some legal term "innocent until proven guilty" is a bogus argument. Looking at fruit and knowing someone by the fruit is a judgement and Jesus didn't tell us that we should consider someone innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Using some defunct book "The 5 minute manager" which encouraged so called brief touches for reassurance is likewise a bogus argument. The consistent testimonies which include those even not in the law suit was more that "brief touches" and Bill's behavior should have been above reproach and he shouldn't have been touching anyone, brief or not. Someone like yourself who has been to the basic 7 times and brought and encouraged groups and others to go is a pretty die-hard follower. In the end God will be the final judge of Bill as with all of us. But to misuse this "judge not" in order to protect heretical teaching and bad behavior is only covering sin which has gone on too long to begin with.

      • LynnCD February 4, 2016 Reply

        Does anybody remember the publication of an IBLP article on Hernando Cortez, assigning him some character quality that put him in a positive light for destroying the Aztec Empire? I remember e mailing IBLP at the time, I was so surprised at their positive portrayal of Cortez. This was probably in 2002. In the case of the Civil War, it is very easy to say if everybody acted the way Jesus wanted them to act, the Civil War would have not occurred. I am not a historian, and I could have told you that!

        • LynnCD February 4, 2016

          I remember it better now. BG praised HC for destroying his fleet so his men could not turn back. I forget what the character quality was. Cortez, btw, often disobeyed his authorities and lived most of his life accountable to no one.

    • David Pigg February 3, 2016 Reply

      jgfrank,Just a suggestion....Try reading the Scandal of 1980;then Ruth's story,Then Heather's story.If there ever was a case where the feigned righteous posturing was given absolute credibility over 34 women's testimony,it was in the investigation over 2 years ago.It was what the diehard Gothardites wanted to hear.Recovering Grace is a growing group,that at first was handled the same way any dissenting voice was handled by Bill Gothard et. al.,discrediting the accounts,then ad hominem attacks against the accuser.Then there's always our own sins and shortcomings,very much a tool in Gothard's bag of tricks.How dare we point the finger against established endorsed ministry.What right do we have to speak up for those denied credibility thru Bill's authoritarianism?It doesn't matter what was denied,obfuscated,stonewalled.We have no "rights";we shouldn't speak out against what was superficially beyond reproach in a hyped up religious order.I had to say something about my experiences,take risks in making comments,chance being vilified for the downtrodden the hapless,the suppressed.And maybe for myself as well.Recovering Grace took me in,,and I was encouraged to know from others comments,a God that just might have been falsely represented.A God you may well need to know yourself:a God that is Glorified more by what's inside than religious momentum caused by a hypocritical machine casting a blind eye as Gothard's victims were led out the back entrance.Each one of these,to Bill, were worth being sacrifeced for a cause much worthier than them.It doesn't matter what comes up;allegations of as many as 2 rapes,humility over dehumanizing sexual molestations.Threats of repercussions against families hinging upon Gothard blackmailing a girl for"service".For 40 years,there was too much "ministry to lose",too much invested in the props to see what's finally propped up.Now comes the afterward,when inventory should have been taken,not of money,but of hearts and lives spent.On what looked good but never really was.

      • Larne Gabriel February 3, 2016 Reply

        Amen!

    • Don Rubottom February 3, 2016 Reply

      If there was no shoeless footsie, no footsie in darkened vans, no lap sitting, no hair stroking, no thigh to thigh private prayer times, no one on one counseling, no beauty directives, orthodontia, dermatology, no serial selection of young secretaries for removal from home and isolation from others, no deep gazes into young girls' eyes, no discussions of marriage and of "energy giving" and "specialness", but only a tap on the elbow or shoulder, the Five Minute Manager might be a defense. But as you suggest it, it appears as an excuse, misdirecting the discussion away from the allegations to presumed actions and reasons that are not in evidence on this site.
      We have judged Bill Gothard by his own teaching and his own admissions. We have also confessed our sinful propagation of his false teachings and oppressive authoritarianism. So you see, we do not inveigh self-righteously, but only plead with him to meet us at the Cross, confess his sins and be reconciled to God. Like a brand out of the fire along with the rest of the redeemed.

      • LynnCD February 3, 2016 Reply

        "We have judged Bill Gothard by his own teaching and his own admissions. We have also confessed our sinful propagation of his false teachings and oppressive authoritarianism. So you see, we do not inveigh self-righteously, but only plead with him to meet us at the Cross, confess his sins and be reconciled to God. Like a brand out of the fire along with the rest of the redeemed."

        Yes and amen! Not a day or part of a day goes by when I do not turn to the Lord and acknowledge some sinful train of thought.

        A couple nights ago I watched "War Room" for the third time, in the privacy of my home. It ended with the verse from 2 Chronicles 7:14 -- "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

        I welled up a bit. Much prayer and repentance took place in a fictional movie, but how much is going on in the real lives of God's people all over the earth?

        To Frank - as Don pointed out, the time spent with the young women was often alone, for hours, and Bill has already admitted to giving them much more than a quick squeeze on the elbow. On another site, Alfred already has tried to make the footsie games out to be "taps of affirmation." Like that insane defense, the 5 minute manager idea just will not fly.

        And I have no comment on the suit. Many of the allegations are true, because Bill has admitted to such on the internet, and that's as far as I can comment on it.

    • Lisa J February 4, 2016 Reply

      jgfrank you have no spiritual discernment skills if you supported BGs propaganda ,as an adult, that much over the years. This lack of spiritual discernment has, apparently, stifled any practical ability to discern in other areas of life as well. Stick to only reading and studying the Bible only, not teaching it.

    • Elizabeth D February 4, 2016 Reply

      :::cough:::cough:::

      It was The One Minute Manager, and it wasn't even published in the 70's. It came out in late 1982, just sayin'.

      Normalizing behavior ... smells a little fishy (or ducky) to me.

      • nmgirl February 4, 2016 Reply

        But the 59 Second Employee was more useful.

    • Mark February 13, 2016 Reply

      jgfrank, I think you are confusing the American legal system with the Biblical legal system, and you are taking the teaching on judgment out of context. I'll take the first one first.

      The American legal system says, innocent until proven guilty. That is true. However, this is a CIVIL lawsuit, and a civil lawsuit is judged based on "the preponderance of evidence". That means, is it pretty likely that it happened.

      But Biblically, a judgment could be obtained with TWO witnesses whose stories corroborate each other. If you read the trial of Jesus carefully, they go through witness after witness trying to find two witnesses whose lies match enough to convict Jesus. When they finally find two that are kinda sorta close, then they try to force Jesus to answer the accusation. Two witnesses is enough to put someone to death. Now, if you've read the stories, it's not just two people, but many many people whose accounts are eerily similar. Perhaps they worked together to get their stories straight, but there's a lot of documentation that suggests otherwise.

      Now, onto judgment. You say you are a Bible teacher. How do you understand the Sermon on the Mount in light of 1 Cor 5:9-13 "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."

      So, if Jesus says we can never judge and Paul says we are to judge, either the Bible is inconsistent, or maybe one of these passages doesn't really say what we think it says. I'm going to propose that "judge not lest you be judged" is not an absolute prohibition against judging. In fact, it's in keeping with a passage like James 3:1 - "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." So, perhaps James clarifies Jesus. Instead of a prohibition against judging, it is a warning. Those who judge others will be held to a higher standard. In fact, that is what the next verse in the Sermon on the Mount says... "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."

      • Don Rubottom February 16, 2016 Reply

        Great comments, Mark.

  110. nicole gardner February 2, 2016 Reply

    I'm right there with ya, David P. And, bg's the one who REALLY has no clue to his own humanity- nor the Humanity of God.

    Thanks for the link, Rob, I'll try again

  111. Ron February 4, 2016 Reply

    Have folks here visited http://www.lifepurposepowerteams.com lately? There's still no About Us page or explicit statement who is behind it (it's my understanding that Bill Gothard is). There's now a Contact page, which wasn't there before.

  112. nicole gardner February 4, 2016 Reply

    This shows just how far Bill's new website's view on slavery differs from that of Christian thought:

    http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/12312

    • rob war February 5, 2016 Reply

      Yes, thank-you for that link. A couple of other quotes: "not the Christian religion only, but nature herself, cries out against the state of slavery" Pope Leo X and from Pope Francis, Dec 2, 2014, "Therefore, we declare on each and everyone of our creeds that modern slavery, in terms of human trafficking, forced labor and prostitution, and organ trafficking, is a crime against humanity. Its victims are from all walks of life, but are most frequently among the poorest and most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters. On behalf of all of them, our communities of faith are called to react, without exception, any systematic deprivation of individual freedom for the purposes of personal or commercial exploitation; in their name, we make this declaration".

      Slavery in the US was brought about by Dutch traders, that traded with Muslim Barbary pirates who were very active in capturing and selling Africans. Slavery is still legal in many Muslim countries even if they deny its existence and state otherwise. Again it's Sharia Bill here. Back to Pope Francis, "Every human being, man, woman, boy and girl, is made in God's image. God is the love and freedom that is given in interpersonal relationship, and every human being is a free person destined to live for the good of others in equality and fraternity. Every person, and all people, are equal and must be accorded the same freedom and the same dignity. Any discriminatory relationship that does not respect the fundamental conviction that others are equal is a crime and frequently an aberrant crime"

      That is the basic view of Catholic, Protestant and even Orthodox teaching. Bill again is so off base here. Since Bill loves traditional hymns, I think he ought to mediate on "Amazing Grace" written by a former slave trader that had an amazing conversion and then fought to end slavery in England. Real Christianity has always been an abolitionist movement.

      • Elizabeth D February 5, 2016 Reply

        NO, rob!! Amazing Grace is in 3/4 time!!!

        • rob war February 5, 2016

          My bad, good catch! :)

  113. nicole gardner February 4, 2016 Reply

    Thank-you, ^horse^, for this link! I repeat it here. Copy & paste into your browser to see Bill's new website's twisted take on American slavery of African Americans:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/bill-gothards-disturbing-slavery-apology.html

    Then compare it with this:

    http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/12312

    • Ron February 5, 2016 Reply

      When I go to that patheos.com page, and click on the “how the Civil War could have been avoided” hyperlink, I get a page at this site: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?842370 saying, "404 — Fancy meeting you here!"

      Does anyone else get the same thing, or can you see the slavery article?

      Thus far I haven't seen the original slavery article referenced on the patheos.com site.

      • rob war February 6, 2016 Reply

        Yes, I did mention that. I think it means that power teams removed it probably due to the negative reaction they probably received so instead of either stating that they have retracted it or made a mistake, they are giving the impression that it was never there which I highly doubt.

  114. BCM February 5, 2016 Reply

    Rob war, speaking of Bill's blue olds, type in "Bill Gothard's car" into YouTube. First video that came up is classic. Bouncing blue Olds. Must have been a "rebel" having some fun unless Bill's Olds truly has hydraulics

    As for bills new powerteams website, it looks like a repackaging of the wisdom book material. The fund raising pitch using the women's prison and military as potential targets for the powerteams material was really strange. It did not sit right with me. It looks more like am attempt by Bill to stay relevant by repackaging him self. He pitches the potential use of this material to reach women in prison and the military as a way to solicit donations for this new material.

    • rob war February 5, 2016 Reply

      Yes, I've seen the video, it's funny

    • Larne Gabriel February 5, 2016 Reply

      As a veteran when I saw Billy attempt to solicit funds on the backs of PTSD and the all to common associated suicides I was deeply offended. I thought it was just me, but I glad BCM was also offended. When Billy has a program in place that has saved hundreds of lives from suicide and helped thousands with a life changing program then he can advertise. We know Christ can change us, but dealing with PTSD and the emotional trauma these men and women have endured it a whole different arena that Billy is completely unqualified in. Until then its just his pie in the sky "Inner Brain" mumbo jumbo to get sympathetic donations under a false pretense. In reality Billy wants to deal with teens not battle harden and scared veterans of the never ending war.

  115. nicole gardner February 5, 2016 Reply

    Does anyone know how he avoided the Vietnam draft? Because, virtually every single American male was drafted. (btw I think drafting is abhorrent). But you know he's the expert on obeying authority. He wouldn't have burnt his draft card, or........ did he?

    • Larne Gabriel February 5, 2016 Reply

      There were all kinds of exemptions for the draft including college, theological, medical and farmer deferments for the years Billy would have been eligible for the draft ages 19-26. So his eligibility would have been from 1953-1960 during the cold war and prior to Vietnam. Billy is just two months older then Elvis Presley who was drafted in 1957. The possibility of Billy being drafted with Elvis and Army bunk mates bring up another whole range of historical permutations.

    • Don Rubottom February 9, 2016 Reply

      I believe no more than a third of any class was drafted for Vietnam. Gothard was actually too old to be drafted for that war. Before the Johnson build up, the draft was minimal between Korea and 'Nam. Reagan raised pay and made a peacetime draft unnecessary.

  116. nicole gardner February 5, 2016 Reply

    If I remember right, Elvis went ahead & let himself be drafted. So, I guess- according to IBLP teaching- Elvis was more blessed than Bill since he served their mutual authorities as he was commissioned to do.
    And, additionally, the US government might not have wanted Bill. It's one thing to gyrate one's hips to rock'n'roll. It'a another thing all together to creep on other people; especially minors. Of the 2 of them, I personally would have felt a lot better having Elvis as bunk-mate than if Bill was. What people do with themself is one thing. What they do to a bunch of everybody else-s is entirely another matter altogether.
    Regardless, we can rest assured that Bill would have expressed his deep felt concern for Elvis' spiritual well-being & would have asked him if he had any younger sisters so he could be put in contact with them to mentor- after he had seen pictures to make sure they were of the attractive sort that he had already been specifically called to "minister to."

  117. rob war February 5, 2016 Reply

    Bill is claiming on the power team site that 26 Vets commit suicide every day. So 26 X 365 + 9490 per year? Where is he getting his figures from? Likewise with the prison program, where was this so called prison that he supposedly did this program at? He also stated that it was several years ago but then he claims that prisons are urgently requesting his program. So if this happen "several" years ago and was so successful, then why didn't prisons request it then instead of now? Again, vulnerable populations are being used to fund himself. This just seems so fraudulent. What prison is going to let Bill in? There is no outreach for vets and they shouldn't be going to him for help in the first place. All of this is very disturbing.

    • Vivian February 6, 2016 Reply

      Tragically, the rate is about 22 veteran suicides per day.

      http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-veteran-suicide-20150115-story.html

  118. Julia Fetters February 7, 2016 Reply

    To add to my comment far above this one on Patriarchy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJsOlLqBEyo

    She is so gracious. Listen to her quotes such as her father (Jack Hyles) telling her "pleasing him (dad) is the best way to please God" (sick and not true. taken wrong) and her father "living one way and preaching another". This video defines, in a truthful, gracious way, hypocrisy. "You are only as sick as your secrets" Great quote.

    • Don Rubottom February 9, 2016 Reply

      Thanks. This led me to study the Hyles/Schaap cult. Who shows up as "investigator"? David Gibbs II! I Googled for final invetigation report and found nothing. After what was promised to be a "comprehensive" investigation. No wonder BG/IBLP got Gibbs to investigate. He knows how to do the Sgt. Schultz--finding "nothing"!
      This FBC Hammond neglect of victims is as bad as IBLP's. And there is clearly much connecting the organizations' common style of management, cover up, guilty victims/forgiven perpetrators. Evil. My Bible says it is better to have a mill stone tied to your neck and be thrown into the sea. KJV must have omitted that verse...

    • LynnCD February 9, 2016 Reply

      Julia, I listened to her, and was very impressed by her graciousness and her quest for the TRUTH. I was again sickened. Sickened by so much of the evangelical and homeschool movement where this kind of abuse proliferated. (To be fair, I am fully aware of other sectors where these sorts of things happen.) Sickened at my choices of those I listened to for "spiritual" teaching.

      Don, thanks for investigating this further. Very interesting that Gibbs II covered up for Hyles.

      • Julia Fetters February 9, 2016 Reply

        I find it so interesting and just like God to use the one thing in her life she had told her self to give up - her voice. She was taught to be quiet and keep all this insane behavior to herself and not tell anyone. At the right time God told her "It is time to talk." He is certainly our glory and the lifter up of our head. I appreciate Him so much and how He works. He makes the blind to see and the dumb to speak.

  119. nicole gardner February 7, 2016 Reply

    I looked up some of the sites out there on veteran suicides, too, & they say an active duty vet commits suicide every 65 minutes. This IS tragically unacceptable. And it would take a genuine, integrity-bound Christian to be able to find ways to minister the One [Jesus] authentic Answer [the power of the gospel] to the hurts of such compromised people. God bless our vets. We owe them gratitude & loyalty nearly as much as we owe these to Christ.

  120. nicole gardner February 8, 2016 Reply

    Over on DG (or, Covering Disgrace), Bill's defender has ardently claimed that Bill did not default to his parent's authority so as to avoid church authority &/or board of director's authority. Rather, it was supposedly a Bible mandate that he be under his parent's authority & no other. This makes me wonder; did Bill ever let those in his organization know that the board was just a prop to fulfill governmental regulations? Did the board even know that's all that they were? They know it now, for sure. Also, when Ruth & Robin & Robin's dad made multiple appeals to Bill to please realize that he had been physically inappropriate, did he refer either party to his father? It would seem that his lie of stating to Ruth that he no longer worked with young women anymore was to bypass his father's being presented with the truth. He dismissed Ruth's concern with this lie, never sending her to his father with it, although there was no way his father could have heard the truth unless Ruth had aired to him her personal experience as Bill's personal assistant. (With Bill lying about his close proximity with young women his father would have had to have heard the truth from another source). How could Bill's parents discipline him appropriately if (A): none of the people making complaints were aware (until now) that he was "Biblically" obligated to live in obedience to them. And,(B): Any action on these complaints was circumvented by Bill's telling complainants that he hadn't gotten enough negative signals in doing his inappropriate touching for him to have any incentive to stop it. So, according to what Bill told the complainants, any taking "up the chain" to his parents would have been nothing other than a confession of his victim's "failure." "Failure" for not making HIM stop HIS inappropriate touching. Robin's being lectured to this effect amounted to her & her dad, as well as Ruth & Larne, all being lied to. Why were they not instead referred by Bill to his father? After all, if such lies protective of Bill were deemed necessary to protect him, why was his umbrella of protection (parent) cheated out of these opportunities to tell the lies? (And thus be the entity protecting him in so doing? The umbrella is to be stayed under to get protection, not?!?) One would think Bill would have relied on his umbrella for protection. Rather than direct lying of his own. He must have really doubted that his parent(s) would have likewise banked on such dishonesty to protect him. In contemplating the what-ifs of instead leaving it up to them, he may have feared being challenged by them regarding his behavior; & why risk this when you can immediately rely on lies of your own?!?!? Hence, this was it; to keep this info from ever reaching them in the 1st place as well as blame-shifting guilt for his own conduct. Which means, he DID view them as authority of some sort, in thus bypassing their authority. He feared his parents, sure enough; his lies indicate this as yet another motive in his deception. But not fear enough to subject himself to them.

    Agree for a minute with DG that adult Bill had to have his parents as his authority, not in an avoidance of any other accountability, but as a Bible standard. If this was the case, then he failed miserably in the area of sexual expression, which is what reference DG uses to say he was thus obligated: Genesis 28:1,2,3,4,5,6,7. This one of the 2 passages referenced by DG. The other is Leviticus 19:3 "Every one of you shall reverence his mother & his father, & you shall keep my sabbaths; I am the LORD your God." This at the very least means to honor one's parents. It sure doesn't seem very respectful of Bill's parents that DG claims that he was under their direct supervision the whole time he carried on his inappropriate touching. Plus Bill's deceitful wrecking of at least several successful deliveries of information which his parents could have utilized to give him direction in this area. Which, had they had this necessary info, could have resulted in orders to change his behavior which he then could have followed.

    • rob war February 9, 2016 Reply

      Alfred deserved an award for best spin. The same Alfred also stated that Bill's parents wanted him married and Bill didn't marry in disobedience to the wishes of his parents. You can't have it both ways. Bill's father left the ministry in 1980 after the sex scandal blew up in their faces. He passed away in 1994. Alfred can't have it both ways and all of this shows how he is just grasping at straws and the hope that people won't see through his spin and excuses. There is a huge difference between honoring parents and obey parents. Jesus made is pretty clear in a number of statements to his disciples that following and obey God supersedes that of obeying parents. Jesus stated that following Him trumps one's family. This is just another excuse by Alfred the great, master of spin. It's sad because blind following of Bill has corrupted thinking, reasoning, logic and even honesty. I'm not sure when the Robin story happen but if it was around the time Bill's father passed away, I'm sure Bill Sr was in no health condition to appeal to to be involved, he wasn't apart of the ministry at that point and Alfred's appeal that Bill only had to "obey" his dad is so bogus, it doesn't even deserve the time of day or even night.

  121. David Pigg February 9, 2016 Reply

    Nicole Gardner and Rob War,Bless you both.Thank you so much for your thoughts,hearts,and comments.With Gothardism,[here I go again],the heart of [his] authoritarianism is a complete diabolical narcissism.Gothard has"rights",ours can be "maneuvered,"by his.His options for keeping us silenced;used before with brilliant calculation always gave him the emotional upper hand according to his contrived established attainment.I had to read the accounts of such girls as Heather,Ruth,and if that's not enough,Jane Doe 2,Jamie Deering.Blatantly dehumanizing,causing my or anyone else's anger against blackmail,degradation,indignity of the human soul,disregard to the vulnerability of the naive.No matter.As a slap in the face,he confessed in 1987,at the Twin Cities Seminar,that there was only one 14 year old girl suffering "for righteousness sake".What that could possibly mean at that time was a straw man invented to keep any "other"from speaking out.Gothard was there first and he established the spectrum of rationale,he defined it, based on his own wickedness and moral insanity.What is now,and was subliminally taught is for us to keep our mouths shut;to "suffer for Jesus",We'll be rewarded for it some day,but not now.Justice will be ministered some day, but not now.Give up your rights,[for they were already taken from you.]Infact they were taken from us all.Important ministry coming from his worthy attainment has been interrupted,and he needs to get back to it as soon as possible.You are in the way,I'm in the way,and if he never repents,that and that alone is the extent of his desperation.

    • Elizabeth D February 9, 2016 Reply

      David: "he established the spectrum of rationale,he defined it"

      Hallmark of a covert narcissist. I lived it, as have many others. And many still do, although only a fraction recognize it for what it is. It's the missing piece when outsiders look in to a situation and shake their heads wondering, "why does she put up with that?" or "why doesn't she do so and so?" They really can't imagine what her world is like.

      BG has established and defined the spectrum of rationale on a magnanimous scale, to a corresponding degree of detriment.

      • David Pigg February 9, 2016 Reply

        Thanks Elizabeth D.and Nicole Gardner;all you gals hung in there with Alfred;something I couldn't do,and that's along with Rob War.At that website over there.Another thing about Gothard's narcissism was the "world" he created.He was his own god,or should I say he was god in the "world"he "gave"to us so we could live and have our "being"in his "better" world.His world in exchange for the Kingdom;for his creation was superior to the world we could not quite understand.So he broke it down for us to understand;he reduced it;for life was so much more dangerous outside his"world";we exchanged our freedoms for the "guarantee" of protection.The thing is no one could protect us ultimately from the potential abuse of both his masked but unbridled flesh,and what he did with all accountability removed towards any he was exclusively entitled to abuse.We couldn't quite bring ourselves to protest against one who had our own best interests in mind as well as the burgeoning amount of young girls needed to mentor,I.E.spend on his lusts.The problem was all of us may not have been totally pliable enough to be shaped,molded,and ultimately turned into automatons.Always reserving the self appointed right to throw us out when new life was needed,We found ourselves expendable.We were expendable he was not;but now,his conjured kingdom comes to this;and after the trial,?None may find it possible to take one sober look,one serious moral appraisal at what transpired over all the years.

  122. nicole gardner February 9, 2016 Reply

    "Give up your rights.... they were already taken from you."
    So accurate of his schemes of selfish pragmatism. This is actually a contradiction: Saying one has to never fight back when their rights are taken from them in order to be laying down one's rights. There is no laying down of one's rights in such instance!!! It's like saying that if someone tries to abduct & beat you, you must die to self, that this situation requires this dying to self. You don't have to determine to die when you're already being beat within an inch of your life! Bill banks on this feeding pride so that it morphs into a martyr complex so there's claims of: "I died to self" in place of: "Someone hurt me." It's a ruse to trick people into not defending themselves. I believe he's fully aware of this pragmatism in what he's taught. His business interest has benefited more than enough from it. Seeing him in the very best light possible has him, at the very least, as Satan's emissary for indoctrinating by this heresy.
    btw, Rob & David, everything else you said is no less true, it's just this is what most stood out to me.

  123. nicole gardner February 9, 2016 Reply

    Elizabeth D: ^WORD^
    And very well put.

  124. David S. Knecht Sr. February 10, 2016 Reply

    Dear LynnCD,

    Thank you for your February 9 comment. There was no reply button, so I am replying here. My own opinion is that authority is difficult to get right. If Bill Gothard got it wrong, he is only one among many. Most of us probably err about authority. I think my libertarian political opinions are Christian, but my church friends think their conservative opinions are Christian. Our views are different enough that we cannot both be correct. The situation calls for love, not war. So I have an indulgent attitude toward Bill Gothard's opinions. When I was in ATI, I led my family as I thought best. The ATI unit studies seemed petty good, so I used them. But I may yet get busted. Perhaps one of my adult children are lurking here on RG and will pounce upon me with a vengeance.

    Even the Lord's apostles seem to straddle the authority topic. Consider 1 Peter 5:5, where Peter begins by telling younger Christians to submit to their elders (natural authorities?). Then he takes the opposite side. He turns around and calls for mutual submission in humility.

    David K

    p.s. If you remember Gothard publications from the 1970s, you must be a sister from my generation. Long live the generation of eight-tracks and pet rocks!

    • LynnCD February 10, 2016 Reply

      David K, yes, pet rocks, but all I had was a small battery operated am/fm radio and some record albums.

      My husband and I attended Basic Seminars, Anger Resolution Seminars, and our children went to a couple Children's Institutes. We did not get involved with ATI. I have seen the inner workings of the TC at Indianapolis. We did homeschooling for elementary education.

      As far as authority goes, I agree none of us get things right all the time. I believe Bill's evasion of accountability is much more serious than a difference of opinion. He has vilified honest critics of some of his teaching, and has vilified those who tried to deal with the original sex scandal. He has spent hours alone, sometimes late at night, with many young women, and he has admitted to inappropriate physical affection with them. I wish for his sake, for the sake of the women who were hurt, and all of us who followed some of the unbiblical teachings, that he would have shown himself to be a man under authority.

      There are men who have been involved in trying to confront Bill. A frequent commenter here is Bill's former pilot, Larne Gabriel, who has been involved in these endeavors. Larne, Bill Wood, and others who have been around from the beginning currently stand by their assessment that Bill is not repentant. I am persuaded by their testimony and their arguments. I do not wish anything bad for Bill Gothard. I pray and hope for his repentance.

    • Todd k February 10, 2016 Reply

      David k, LynnCD,

      "Birds of a feather, flock together!" Yes, those Pet Rocks and 8 tracks....You can't beat that era. David, it is nice to know that there is another libertarian in the crowd. I also am, uh, a "conspiratorialist," so I don't know who really runs the country,. All I know is that it is not me (LOL)!. I have also been anti-establishment (Remember "Question authority". Now I want to shout out "question bg's authority"----to which he has none in either direction). I know that when clergy (or quasi types like bg) harp on certain issues with hammer (and chisel?) fists, they more than likely have trouble with that area. This is apparent with BG not wanting to submit (I, too, hate that word in a gothardian context) to his board---at least it appears that way. In America, we do have our rights, our ancestors fought for them. We the people ARE the "authority". So where did BG come up with the notion of unquestioning obedience to authority as if we were living in some totalitarian nation? Uph dah! I think I will give up reading the Covering Disgrace site for Lent! Peace! Tk

      • David S. Knecht Sr. February 11, 2016 Reply

        Hello, fellow son of the 70s. If you are a family man like me, we probably agree on a distinction between libertarian and libertine.

        I submit that there really is a principle of authority which applies in natural and legitimate ways. I may justly rule the members of my household, but I had better do a good job or they may secede. The businessman may rule his business, but his employees can secede if he rules poorly, etc. Where there is free association there is authority but no real coercion. If we leaders are loving and just, then "love will keep us together," as our generation used to hear from Toni Tennille.

        But don't be unfair to Gothard, brother. I saw some of his material just yesterday. For all his deference to authority, we really cannot call it unquestioning. He may be mystical about God speaking through bosses, politicians, and wives, but he puts a fair amount of weight upon appeals, obeying God first, suffering for righteous disobedience, etc.

        Have a holy Lent,
        David K

        • Todd k February 12, 2016

          David S K
          Thank you for your comments and insights. At the "Basic Seminar" back in the early '80's. BG stated that you submit to the authorities whether they were wrong or right. BG, at least it appeared to me was just the opposite of what I learned, "Don't question authority." At that time, I knew I was right when the old 60's-70's slogan stated, "Never trust anyone over 30." Now that I am over 55 (AARP age), my new slogan is "Never trust anyone UNDER 30" LOL! Whatever, my slogan in the now is "Do not trust anything BG!" I do trust in God's Word, but not BG's interpretation of it. Peace, Love and Blessings!

          Tk

        • huzandbuz February 12, 2016

          To David Knecht:

          I am responding to your comment of 2/12.
          Youthful agility...chuckle; for me, it seems like a lifetime ago...

          You & your family appear to be well & happy. PTL!!!

          FYI:
          1n 1937, inventor Walter F. Morrison flips a popcorn lid to friends at a Thanksgiving gathering.
          In 1946, Walter F. Morrison sketches a design for the world's first flying disc and names it Whirlo-Way.
          In 1955, Walter F. Morrison's company PIPCO manufactured and sold the PLUTO PLATTER flying disc.
          In 1957, Walter F. Morrison signs all rights to the PLUTO PLATTER over to Wham-O.
          **Later in 1957, Wham-O changes the name to FRISBEE.

        • Don Rubottom February 16, 2016

          David and Todd, I think you both need to try to separate your political theories from your theology. Ideas such as secession really do not apply to Christians. We have ONE Lord. And we have no place else to go. Lincoln equated secession with divorce, equating the constitution to a marriage covenant. You can't secede from a covenant. It is a death pact. You have to die to get out of it. That might advise against being "unequally yoked" in business, political connection or otherwise. But if you think like a secessionist, you will never comprehend covenant: the foundation of God's full and faithful relationship with us.
          BTW, I am not my children's or my wife's "lord". I am my minor children's temporary guardian and my wife's partner, joint heir, co-regent of whatever piece of the creation the Lord has called us to cultivate.

        • Todd k February 16, 2016

          Don
          I appreciate your comments, and I know that we are on the same side with BG and the IBLP. But I don't quite understand what you were trying to get across with succession or what the deal is. I do believe in covenants (biblical). Unless you grew up in the hippie era, or was one ( to whatever degree) or both, It is hard to understand what our ( " forever young" ) gen is talking about or what we are made of. But fear not, we still love ya! As far as "submitting" ( I hate that word in a BG context), I still raise the question , " Who really runs the country? Are things really as they appear? For example, IMHO, I believe the last real president we had was JFK, and they ambushed him. Ever since then....Anyway, so I don' t get to far off the rabbit trail or down the rabbit hole, and back to the RG--- BG did emphasize total submission to authorities, which was so uncool. It is like the Bible ( yes, Bible thumping hippies were one of the best witnesses for Jesus, in fact the youth revivals of the 60'sand 70' s could not be beat ) says, "we must obey God rather than man." I believe that in the near future we will have our faith tested as the "government" is becoming more and more anti Christian. I'm not sure if you are are getting my drift or not, but regardless, I wish you faith, hope, and love. Tk

      • huzandbuz February 11, 2016 Reply

        To Todd K:

        I found your comment to David amusing:
        "It is nice to know that there is another libertarian in the crowd. I also am, uh, a "conspiratorialist," so I don't know who really runs the country"... (chuckle)

        I, too, consider myself a Libertarian & often a 'conspiratorialist'. Who IS really running our country??? Our ancestors surely fought for our rights!!! (Regardless, I continue to 'Stand with Rand'!!!)

        "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." (The Preamble to Our Constitution)
        WE ARE TO BE THE AUTHORITY!!!

        BTW, I am from the (Pluto Platters) generation. lol If you enjoyed playing 'Frisbee' at age 10, you were part of the 'in crowd'. Though we were economically poor...those were the days. :+)

        • Todd k February 12, 2016

          Amen!

          Blessings! Tk

        • Todd k February 12, 2016

          And in all these things, and in light of the Covering Disgrace" website, I have to wonder what life was like before BG, IBYC/ATI and all that stuff. Man o man! One would think that the whole nation (world) was going to you know where in a hand basket. That every follower of Jesus Christ was going down the wayward path and needed BG to be some type of proto messiah. Uph dah! (That is the Norwegian equivalent for "Oh no!"---kind of like Oi is in the Yiddish). Jesus said, "On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it." But we needed IBYC. Ah, well we needed it like a drowning person needs to have an anchor tossed to him or her instead of a life jacket. Mercy me, we have local congregations, we did not need that "basic" or "advanced" whatever. Jesus said, "The Kingdom of God is within you." Going to the basic and pastor's seminars, i felt insulted, patronized and condescended towards. The only silver lining in all that junk was that someone else paid for my way there (when I was coerced to attend such boring time wasters). I still am looking for the answer of the question, "What was the point of these seminars" outside of being put into bondage)? Peace, love and music to all of you! Tk

        • David S. Knecht Sr. February 12, 2016

          What fun! It appears that we have a spontaneous and nostalgic graybeard fellowship forming here. Brethren Todd and huz, you may be correct about the Gothard authority teaching more than thirty years ago. I attended the Basic Seminar back then, but I was in the military at the time, so I was pretty comfortable with a yessir attitude toward life. Over the next thirty years, Gothard may have softened from authoritarianism to more emphasis on godly appeals and courageous suffering.

          Or maybe the change was more in me. You know, middle age, discovering Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, etc.

          Anyway brethren, fatherhood is making this graybeard an optimist. Some of my children are in those lofty thirties, others in twenties and teens. And they are all more trustworthy than their father was at their ages. Jesus gets all the credit for this, but they probably wouldn't exist if it weren't also for Gothard. Their mom and I attended the seminar together in summer of 1981. Engagement and marriage followed, then the children. I guess we could qualify as gothardites to some degree back then, but God set up all the good outcomes.

          Pluto Platters doesn't ring any bells, but frisbee does. Our former youthful agility is a warm memory, but we compensate by being wise and thoughtful now, right?

          And thanks for the tip on Norwegian euphemism, brother Todd. I wonder when that might come in handy? It reminds me of that scene in the 1979 movie, Airplane. "I speak jive."

          Maranatha,
          David K

    • Vivian February 11, 2016 Reply

      It's interesting you bring up 1 Peter 5:5 and the surrounding verses. That is the second time this week God has called my attention to that passage - and I have a pretty good idea why, but that's a story for another day. :-)

      But I don't see a contrast or contradiction between the call to submit to elders and the call to mutual humility and submission. On the contrary, I think the call to submit can only be properly understood in light of Peter's instruction in the previous verses to the elders of the church. He warns them not to lord it over those in their care, and urges them to serve the flock and to be good examples. This is the kind of servant-leadership that Jesus showed with His disciples. Peter is painting a picture of the way things should work in a good, healthy church, where the elders care for the people and the people show respect and deference to the leadership of the elders. I don't believe it is intended as some kind of absolute command to submit unquestioningly to bad leadership in the church. As with many things in the Bible, if you take one sentence out of context, you get an unbalanced and distorted view of what he's saying.

      It's also worth noting that Peter seems to be talking specifically about the appointed role of Elder in the church, not a general call to submit to anyone who happens to be older than you, although the Bible certainly encourages showing deference and respect to the wisdom of age in general.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. February 11, 2016 Reply

        Hello sister Vivian. Nice coincidence that we were both looking at that 1 Peter passage. My take is similar to yours. I see a contrast (in the rhetorical sense), but not a contradiction. Of course the epistle is directed to church officers, yet there is plenty of material for application for us "elders" in contexts other than church.

        Peace,
        David K

      • Don Rubottom February 16, 2016 Reply

        Good points, Vivian. You helped me see that I Peter 5 parallels Ephesians 5 as it discusses husband and wife. First: submit to one another; Second: love and serve; third submit to that love. These authoritarians do not teach submission to sacrificial love, but submission to lording it over. Their "authority" is the inverse of Christ's servanthood.

  125. Julia Fetters February 11, 2016 Reply

    You know something that has bothered me for many years regarding this submission stuff? When you go to a church, if the pastor, elders, etc... believe this extreme view, you are under their authority.
    Ummm... I don't even KNOW or TRUST you yet. I can leave as I wish - 1 month or 5 years later - after I have really gotten to know the leadership and people here.

    If you do leave, they say "you are out from under authority". Well, what if I know you now and do not want to be under your authority? Can I say "God has other plans for my life"? Does that have to go through you? That is creepy. I did not sign up for you to be my lifelong conscience.

    I have seen that over and over and have lived it.

    This may seem simple and old hat to some on here but it really hit me one day when I thought "I can change this situation if I want to as long as God himself is not telling me not to. You are no more "over me" than the guy at the grocery store meat counter or a Dr. who I do not trust and leave his office for a second opinion.

    This "submission" strange fire sets up 2 very, very unhealthy things in the lives of those involved:

    1.It gives a power surge to the guy (and gals) teaching it. He ought to know he is no better than anyone at the church he works for and he has no more a conduit to God than they. The Old and New Testament get a bit mixed in these churches - the Moses thing and Paul.

    2. It encourages the weak or new or lazy Christian to rely on the pastor for their pablum. This is no way to grow strong in Christ. We need to gut out our own answers with the help of godly people, granted. We feed ourselves with the Word of God and good teaching and in fellowship with those we trust and prayer, we grow.

    No more of this nonsense in our home. We go to a healthy church where growth is encouraged and help is always available. They do not try to claim authority or live your life for you or gossip about you. Amen.

    • Grace M. February 20, 2016 Reply

      Julia,
      I know how you feel about not feeling right about a pastor or church wanting me to be under their authority, when it seems like it's not something of the Lord.

      I am wondering to what extent you *might* agree with my feeling that the whole system of churches with pastors in this sense, that we see today, is not really according to the Bible. I had and have that feeling. For a long time it was just a vague sense, but at a certain point, a number of years ago, I came across some books that gave a different interpretation of the Bible, on this point, that I believe is the correct interpretation.

      After reading what you wrote, I got motivated to write a brief explanation of that interpretation, which as I say I agree with, as follows:

      Where does it say in the Bible that there can be different churches on one street, each with a different pastor, and all of them are genuinely the "church of God"? (1 Cor. 1:2)

      Actually what it says is just that, "the" church of God "which is in Corinth." The use of the definite article indicates that there is only one church (church of God) in the city of Corinth. If you look at Revelation 1 and 2, you can see this kind of phrasing repeated: "the church in Ephesus." "the church in Smyrna." "the church in Pergamos," and so on for the other four churches in Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.

      Paul's other epistles refer to churches in the same way.

      On the assumption that the choice of words in the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, means something, it's necessary to ask why the definite article is used. What I read in those books I referred to is that "the church" in any one city referred to "all" the genuinely saved believers in that city. In those days of course there were no denominations. All the believers in any one city met together.

      I've heard it said that's it's like the moon. There is only one moon in relation to the earth. But people live on different places of the earth and see the moon from where they live, so you could say "the moon in Shanghai" or "the moon in Buenos Aires" or "the moon in Chicago." In the same way, there is only one church, one Body of Christ, on the whole earth, but since people live in different places, they have to see and participate in the church in the place where they live, so there is a need to say "the church in New York City." But since there cannot be division in the Body, you can't say the "churches" in New York City, just as the Bible never says anything like "the churches in Corinth."

      It is necessary for there to be separate churches only because of geography, because it's impossible to have all the believers who form the "church," the Body of Christ, on earth, gather together in the same place. They have to gather together according to geography. And the Bible consistently makes this separation by geography according to the city, designating one church to one city.

      In addition to this, it simply does not say anywhere in the Bible that any church should have a person called "the" pastor. Instead the Bible refers to elders, such as Acts 14:23: "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church...." Paul and Barnabas, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, appointed elders from among the more mature brothers in the newly formed churches in the cities mentioned in verses 20 and 21. The congregation did not choose the elders, either by voting or by any other means, and there was no one person among them who took the lead and was the "pastor." The elders, plural, who did not seek or choose their position but were appointed by the Spirit, took the responsibility corporately for leading and caring for the flock, the church in their city.

      Also, the elders are charged not to lord it over the believers, but to become "patterns of the flock," (1 Pet. 5:3), leading by example.

      This doesn't mean that there is no authority in the church, but that the elders are charged not to exercise authority in a "lording it over" way. If I as a believer realize within myself that the elders are right before the Lord and that the Lord's speaking is with them, it becomes incumbent on me to obey them because what they are speaking is from God. I accept the the speaking and the authority that comes from the Lord through the proper elders in the proper churches.

      Anyone who takes it on himself to stand up and say "I have God's speaking and you must obey me" needs to be tested as 1 John 4:1 says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

      All quotations are from the Recovery Version of the Bible, which can be read online at:
      http://www.recoveryversion.org/index.html This version of the Bible was translated by and contains footnotes written by the people who put forth the interpretation I tried to summarize above.

      • Grace M February 21, 2016 Reply

        Replying to myself to say that I accidentally put my full name in there! I usually use the username Grace M and hadn't intended to identify myself, but I did it anyway. Well, I don't know if anyone reading this is someone who knows me--I don't know of anyone. But if so, you're welcome to contact me if you'd like. The moderators have my permission to give out my email address to anyone who would like to contact me, actually, whether they know me or not.

      • Don Rubottom February 23, 2016 Reply

        Grace, I think a lot of us agree with a few of your assertions. I do believe you make a mistake in logic to interpet "the church in Ephesus", etc. as indicating that there CAN and SHOULD be only one "church" in any city. How large is New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago? What is the geographical area of Jacksonville or Oklahoma City? Why would the municipal boundaries of humans have anything to do with the church of God? All those references to a church in the first generation were simply references to facts, not prescriptions. Other churches are mentioned as "the church that meets in so-and-so's house"! Does that mean that the entire church must meet in that person's house or that all churches must meet in someone's house? Of course not. Even in that day, the church was already dividing into distinct groups: people left Jerusalem and established churches elsewhere. Paul and Silas divided over John Mark and went in different directions, establishing different churches. Paul had to chastise Peter. The tension between different perspectives, human frailties and the Truth of a Universal Church has always torn us apart.
        Yes, there is ONE church. (Catholics use that to urge us to join them.) But that does not mean we all can or should meet in the same place at the same time. Worse, how do you know which local congregation should close down, fire their staff and join in with which other congregation? Worse, those who proof text saying it can only be called "the church of God" or only "the church of Christ" themselves reject the many variations of expression in the New Testament and do not recognize that "church" is not a biblical term but an Anglo or Germanic term. Ecclesia is the bible term and most of the strict name crowd don't even use the English translation: "assembly".
        I urge you to keep studying the entirety of Scripture, respect the frailties of your brothers and sisters which keep us apart and work toward unity in the church without pointing fingers based on proof texts and narrow interpretations. There is no new dispute under the sun. Your argument is as old as Christianity. But Jesus said that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is there. That is my foundation. I pray it is yours.

        • rob war February 23, 2016

          good answer Don, I actually knew shepherding churches that proof text statements about meeting at different people's homes to literally mean that todays church should met in homes and not another building dedicated for believers getting together. I also point out that during NT times, the Church was very small and illegal, so those circumstance likewise added to the house church situation.

        • Grace M February 23, 2016

          Hello Brother Don,

          My first response is, oh, my. Did I come across as pointing fingers? Ouch. That hurts. Now I can look back at what I wrote and see that maybe I did take that kind of tone, so I appreciate your gentle rebuke there, and I apologize. I didn't mean to say anything at all against any individual dear believer who is my brother or sister; each one should take the way that they believe is right in the eyes of the Lord, as I'm doing and everyone who posts here is doing, and I nor anyone else have any right to say that anyone should do anything different. Each person is accountable to the Lord Jesus.

          I do still have an issue with any "system" that might take advantage of any of us, and that's what I was writing about.

          I was uncomfortable with the system (a typical denomination I was raised in) even when I was being raised in it; even though I am grateful to them for teaching me the Bible, and I was saved through them, something about it didn't seem right to me even when I was a young child. And when I came across this other way of seeing things, it seems far more in line with the scripture, to me.

          One of the things that I appreciate about the kind of interpretation that I was trying to explain is that it "is" inclusive. The church in Corinth included "all" the dear and precious believers in Christ who were in Corinth, without excluding anyone on any nonessential point of doctrine. We know what the essential points are, that Jesus is the Son of God, our eternal salvation is only through faith in His death on the cross, He is coming again to establish His eternal kingdom for eternity, where we will dwell with Him. This isn't completely thorough, but anyway, we know what it is.

          If someone doesn't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then that is not one we include in the church. But if they believe in, for example, a different method of baptism from what we believe is right, or don't want to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, that's not an essential point of doctrine and no one can be excluded from the Christian community, "the church of God," on that basis. If we are the church, we receive every believer and respect their portion of Christ and do not interfere with their private considerations about nonessential points.

          You know, Paul corrected the Corinthians because they said "I am of" certain leading brothers. We all know that. Paul desired that they all be one in Christ and not take a stand that divided them in any way. Do you think there's any possibility that this might be what denominations do? The Lutherans are saying "I am of Luther," the Methodists are saying "I am of Wesley," the Baptists are saying "I am of the doctrine of baptism," and so on? Of course we all love Luther and Wesley and appreciate their priceless contribution to our Christian history by their faithful following of the Lord's move in their time. Of course we believe in and need and appreciate baptism. But if we name our church after them, are we doing anything different than the ones in Corinth who said "I am of Apollos"? Paul was not in any way criticizing Apollos by exhorting the Corinthian believers not to say that they were "of" him.

          You can even see the generosity and inclusiveness of Paul's heart because after he rebuked the Corinthians for allowing the immoral brother to be among them, and after they took the proper steps to discipline him, in 2nd Corinthians he urged them to moderate their disciplining of him lest he be swallowed up by excessive sorrow. Paul desired to regain and restore even the sinning brother, not to exclude him.

          I once heard a story that a man met another man, a stranger. They were both believers, and one of them asked the other "What church do you belong to?" The reply was, “I belong to the same church to which you belong, the same church to which the apostle Paul, the apostle Peter, the apostle John, and Martin Luther belonged, and the same church to which all believers belong.” The first man replied: "that would be wonderful."

          Don't you agree that that would be wonderful? That's the point I'm trying to make, not to point any fingers at anybody. I can't point any fingers, as the saying goes, without having three fingers pointing back at myself. I'm not saying that I'm doing anything right and anyone else is doing anything wrong. I'm just saying I think this is the proper interpretation of the church in the Bible, and it would be awesome if it could be fully put into practice, and I do believe that that's the Lord's heart and intention for His church on the earth. If the Lord is carrying this out anywhere, His heart's desire for the church, I want to do my best to find it and be a part of it!

          Your sister in Christ, Grace M

        • Grace M February 23, 2016

          I need to add to my comment. I had referred to the immoral brother in Corinthians and that after he was properly disciplined Paul wanted to restore him. I should have added that not only was he properly disciplined, he also properly repented. I'm just adding that because I'm conscious of the primary discussion going on on this board. I had no thought of that person who is under discussion when I picked that example. I was only strictly referring to the record in Corinthians.

        • Don Rubottom February 24, 2016

          And I agree with all of this clarification. Thank you, Grace. Our call is to unity and we SHALL know such ONENESS as we cannot even imagine today! I suppose my solution to the problem of institutional control and abuse is maturity, confidence in Christ, and the kind of humility that Paul does demonstrate in so many ways in II Corinthians. (That's "2nd Corinthians" for you Mr. Trump!) Such humility disarms the dividers.
          Humility was false in Mr. Gothard because he was more than willing to categorically condemn anything inconsistent with "his way".

        • Grace M February 24, 2016

          Don,

          I actually did not experience any abuse that I can remember in my early years in a denomination. I have only positive memories. They were kind to me, they taught me Bible stories and Bible verses, helped me receive the Lord when I was in first grade, sang songs and played games with me and let me have little friends. I was happy either to go to Sunday School or sit in "big church" and sing hymns. (That was before our family was influenced and damaged by IBYC seminars, which happened in my teen years.)

          Nonetheless I can clearly remember, when I was all of seven or eight years old, having a sense of looking around me on Sunday morning and saying to myself, is this it? Is there not anything more meaningful than this? I felt vaguely uncomfortable, and the sensation stayed with me throughout my upbringing. I felt like I wasn't really receiving everything there was to receive from the Word. This feeling stayed with me after I graduated from high school and went to Bible college (not by my choice--that was my dad's choice for me.) I still felt "this is not bad, but it can't be all there is. There must be something more."

          When I was in my later 20's and received the teaching that I've been speaking about in these posts was when I felt like I began to touch something of life and reality. That was when I had the sense that "I felt sure there must be something more and this is it. This is where God's heart is. Jesus Christ is building His church. This is the correct interpretation of the Bible, and something that can genuinely be put into practice according to the Lord's desire for His church." This sense has never left me, but has only grown in me.

          I'm horrified by the stories of actual abuse in Christian congregations these days, and my heart aches for the people who have suffered in such a way, but that's not what happened to me and not what I got discouraged by when I was younger. (I did experience serious abuse in other areas of my life, though, so I'm not unaware of what it means.)

          I always enjoy my discussions with you, Brother Don :) And I appreciate your faith that we will shall know the true oneness in Him!

        • Julia Fetters February 27, 2016

          I just saw Grace's question to me as there is no way but to peruse the entire thread here to find new comments/questions. Actually I am very glad Don answered before I saw this. I agree with Don, Grace, and at the same time see the beauty of the inclusiveness you were pointing out - the Church = Christians. One Body. Beautiful.

          This may sound strange but one thing my husband and I have always talked about and looked forward to if we live to see real persecution of the Church is the unity it brings. If you read any accounts of real suffering and persecution, you will notice that those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus come together. Catholic, Baptist, Assembly of God, Anglican. Lines blur and what matters is Jesus and helping one another survive. In this we may finally see unity.

      • inhisgrip March 21, 2016 Reply

        Grace M.,

        I understand your views here as they are mine as well.

        There's something terribly sad about driving down a street for 15 minutes and seeing the same number or more of different church buildings (I can't even really call them churches anymore without adding the building part as we all know what the true Church is!).

        I came out of institutional church for several years while I was processing all of these new ideas (new for me but what I believe God's heart for His church really is), but am back in it now as I do have true community and sharing in the life of Christ with some of the attendees there.

        It still really, really bothers me the idea of one "pastor" who does the bulk of the teaching. Or hearing someone say to him "your church" the other day. No, it is Christ's church.

        No one will steal God's glory and I think that's one reason why we've seen scandal after scandal lately as men with right intentions originally were then tempted by the power and glory and honor that came to them after a period of time. But this would be much less likely to occur if no one man was held to the position of "pastor" in a specific group of believers.

  126. nicole gardner February 11, 2016 Reply

    Julia Fetters^^^^ And so goes the process of the truth that sets free! Amen & amen. My escape from my boyfriend's & his church's pressure on me to become entirely submissive to him by ceasing my argumentative refusals to have sex with him went much the same way. I would say "God bless you"- but it's obvious He already has.

    • nicole gardner February 23, 2016 Reply

      Grace M.
      I see your heart for unity among the brethren, as well as that you are a Berean in making the noble attempt to study Scripture for yourself. All of us here are better off being in this pursuit than being in the systems where we used to be. I recently read the entire url linked below. It's about one church (possibly the only one like it in America) that monopolized an entire region. It is quite the read.

      http://www.washingtonian.com/2016/02/14/the-sex-abuse-scandal-that-devastated-a-suburban-megachurch-sovereign-grace-ministries/

      • Grace M February 23, 2016 Reply

        Hi Nicole,

        Thanks for the kind words. I have to say, I do study the Bible for myself, but nothing I posted is anything I came up with. I couldn't come up with it by myself if I studied for 100 years.

        I took a look at the website you posted but I don't get how it's related to what I was posting about. I didn't think that group had anything at all to do with the kind of interpretation I was writing about.

        • nicole gardner February 24, 2016

          I may be wrong about it's seeming relativity. It's just that: SGM was the only conglomerate of churches that I've ever heard of (outside of mainstream denominations, the locations of which are dispersed), that could be identifiable if referred to as "the church of________ (insert name of D.C. or Maryland suburb)." These/it monopolized that entire region, geographically speaking.
          It may not relate to what you said about an ideal of people considering themselves to be part of only one church even as all these met in their tens of thousands of respective home-groups. The reason I think it does is that the population of each of these was grouped SGM-ers. What IS certain, though, is this: it definitely was a bad thing for this church/these home-churches (it was one Cluster of many clusters) was considered "one"- a disaster both by/for the leaders & by/for the congregants.
          Size, prestige, & net worth all constituted both the growth & also the implosion lit by C.J. Mahaney's administration's complacency. The axiom of all these is solidarity. I myself wouldn't be in a loving, thru-the-Bible-one-chapter-at-a-time little "poor" church that I've been at for awhile now if it had any solidarity with the places I've been.

        • Grace M February 24, 2016

          Hi Nicole,

          Well, that's not really what I was saying. I didn't mention home groups and that's not what this interpretation is about. It's also not that people get together and say "we are all one church," and certainly not that anybody tries to dominate a region, that's surely not in the Bible.

          Actually when I was thinking about what you wrote I was reminded of what Jesus said in Matt. 16:18, "I will build My church." So the church is not something created by people anyway. Jesus is building His church. If we try to make something and call it the church, we are in trouble! If we mean business to be part of the church, we have to go to Him and ask Him what He is doing on earth and what His intention is for us to do in order to find and participate in His building of the church, and seek out what He says about His church in the Bible.

          I feel like that's what the people who put forth the interpretation I'm talking about did, very much, and that's why I pay attention to it. If you're interested in learning more about it, here's a link. It's an excerpt from an online book, but you can go down to the bottom of the page and click on a link to read the entire book online, and you can go to the index to find a lot of related books.

          http://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/THE-BASIS-OF-THE-CHURCHES.HTML

  127. Mark February 13, 2016 Reply

    I've been mulling over the passages about obedience to elders. I think we have to distinguish positional elders vs. spiritual elders. Jesus says in John 10: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep."

    So, we see that there are those who look like leaders in every aspect, but they did not enter through the door. The church is not the door, Jesus is. So, too, we must understand that not all of the leaders the church puts over us are truly leaders. The church makes much of the process of choosing and appointing leaders, but ultimately it is Christ who chooses. In fact, I think in the modern church, the definition of leadership has become theological knowledge, energy and force of will, rather than wisdom. When Jesus asked the disciples if they were going to leave, they said, "where would we go? You have the words of eternal life". The disciples recognized wisdom. Jesus did not have to use fear or the threat of discipline. Those who left left and those who stayed stayed.

    Now, I do believe we need leaders to protect the flock - those who recognize abusers and bad theology and are willing to stand against, but too often, the abuse is done by the church leaders and the very leaders who should be protecting the flock instead circle the wagons around abusive leadership.

    That said, though, the authority in the church is not the authority in the world, and the more the church leadership uses the world's tools, like fear, intimidation and punishment, the more obvious it should seem that the church has denied the work of the Spirit and is instead putting themselves in God's place with relation to the congregation, and that becomes very, very dangerous. Are your leaders chosen for their service, or their service of manipulating others to serve them?

    • huzandbuz February 13, 2016 Reply

      To Mark:

      Thank you. I found your comments insightful and comforting. <

    • David Pigg February 15, 2016 Reply

      To say the least this fantastic summary of Gothardism is a diametric opposite of whats in back of the hype,kind smiles and puppet strings.

    • Julia Fetters February 15, 2016 Reply

      Mark, that is what I was trying to say. Thank you.

    • Don Rubottom February 16, 2016 Reply

      I agree with all, Mark did a great job.

    • 1970's Big Red Notebook Carrier February 16, 2016 Reply

      Your comments remind me of something I wrote for my church last year: Sadly, erroneous Christian teaching on authority has resulted in pastors, husbands, and parents exercising their authority just as Jesus taught it should NOT be used! Taken together, I believe the New Testament passages teach that the purpose of God-given authority is to lay one’s life down, to give up one’s life for another. Authority is to love others. The power is primarily over oneself, in order to serve someone else. The focus is on what one gives to others, not on what one gets from others. The command is to love, not to command! This is a prime example of how the good news gospel of the new covenant in Christ Jesus turns traditional human values radically upside down. For Jesus, authority is a chain of love and service inspiring mutual submission from the “bottom up” rather than a chain imposing one-way obedience from the “top down.”

      • Mark February 17, 2016 Reply

        Agreed, I think the erroneous thinking comes down to, "when someone HAS to make the decision, who makes that decision and what should the other person do", and then all the theology gets unwound. But, that involves layers of sin, and I find it's inconsistent with other topics. For example, with divorce, we understand that it is sin that leads to divorce, so the church tends to be unwilling to participate in that sin (i.e. will not grant a divorce unless there are so-called scriptural grounds), but when it comes to a relationship breakdown to the point that the two in that relationship cannot come to an agreement, then the church is happy to get in the middle and command submission.

        I guess we can call this relational brinkmanship - the church doesn't want to be involved until the relationship is destroyed, and then they swoop in to save the day. That is usually done by re-victimizing the victim. My wise wife says that the church will generally take the path of least resistance. Siding with "authority" is generally the easiest thing to do, rather than challenging misuse of authority. Or, forcing the victim back into an abusive relationship rather than investigating and dealing with abuse.

      • Mark February 17, 2016 Reply

        Also, another thing about authority is that those who feel they must be superior to their subordinates often have the worst performing teams - the teams are limited by the ability of the one in authority. Those who see their authority as providing support so that their subordinates can flourish usually are the best performing teams. Unfortunately, though, the way leadership is portrayed through our media and churches is the former. One guy who "understands" and has to push the knuckle-dragging masses to succeed.

    • Todd k February 17, 2016 Reply

      Mark, you hit a home run with this article!

  128. nicole gardner February 15, 2016 Reply

    Mark^
    Your comment should be the basis & main composition of a full-fledged article. Am reading it again. And, probably, again!

  129. nicole gardner February 17, 2016 Reply

    I believe that is the very reason BG told so many young people that they were selling themselves short in getting married. Or, in some cases, forbidding it forthrightly instead of by such deterrents of flattery. He didn't want those under him aspiring to the higher level of responsibility that marriage is. Didn't want to be over-taken in success in life/faith. (I've always been unmarried & so am categorizing myself in a lesser-responsibility mode right along with Gothard. Thing is, I've never held anybody back, in fact have set couples up successfully [still happily married]). Makes me wonder.... did Gothard EVER support any marriage, EVER? And, I wonder if some already-married people declined to come under his dumbrella, maybe even letting him know his singleness was the reason. Or, maybe he just knew from Scripture alone that he's unqualified to be an elder. From there, it's obvious: pontificating on marriage to married Christians is obviously a no-go for any person who is not even qualified to be a elder. Had I known the Bible better, I'd like to think that I never would have been the IBLP-er that I was. It's a sad reason, but it nonetheless did affect my reasoning. Conversely, BG DID know the Bible. He used it as a 411 on his buyer's market. So.... based on the Bible's reasons that it exalts marriage..... and the simple fact that it is therein exalted.... he WAS threatened by his subordinate's marrying. And he manipulated to diminish this threat. It's too bad for everybody ever in contact with him that he considered every person within his influence as being a subordinate of his.

    I agree with the commenters above: authority means 1st of all taking charge of yourself to act in love. This is the authority that facilitates the flourishing of others as they strive to do the same.

  130. Julie Anne February 18, 2016 Reply

    18 individual now on the second amended complaint. ttp://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/02/18/second-amended-complaint-filed-in-bill-gothard-iblp-sex-abuse-lawsuit-18-victims-in-lawsuit/

    • Julie Anne February 18, 2016 Reply

      Here's the whole link-- http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/02/18/second-amended-complaint-filed-in-bill-gothard-iblp-sex-abuse-lawsuit-18-victims-in-lawsuit/

    • Julie Anne February 18, 2016 Reply

      "Daniel Dorsett – the Second Amended Complaint states that he began working at IBLP in 1993. From 1994 though 1996 he was Bill Gothard’s primary driver. During this time, Mr. Dorsett saw Bill Gothard sexually harass or molest over one hundred fifty young ladies. Gothard told him that if he told anyone about what he saw he would go 'straight to hell.'"

    • rob war February 18, 2016 Reply

      Thank-you Julie for all your work on this and many other stories. All I can say is OMG, it get worst and worst. IBLP ought to be completely shut down and the properties sold off and the money not only compensated to these victims but scholarship funds set up so ATI students can move on in education and therapy. There is no redeeming value in any of this and the whole thing is damnable and ought to be shut down.

      • Julie Anne February 19, 2016 Reply

        I greatly admire Julie Anne of spiritualsoundingboard.com, but I'm just someone whose name also happens to be Julie Anne! I realized after I posted that link with my name here, it might be confusing.

        • rob war February 19, 2016

          :) ! Anyway, thanks for the link all the same!

  131. huzandbuz February 18, 2016 Reply

    To Julie Anne:

    With everything that has taken place and contemplating the testimonies of all those who have not yet come forward, some might believe that those of us 'on the sidelines have become numb' regarding each new revelation...

    I have not read the accompanying link yet, but my anxiety level 'took a leap' just glancing: Gothard told him that if he told anyone about what he saw he would go 'straight to hell.' OMG!! Words cannot describe...:+(

    • Julie Anne February 18, 2016 Reply

      That was very similar to my reaction.

      • Larne Gabriel February 18, 2016 Reply

        The story just keeps getting worse with these new plaintiffs! It looks like Alfred, DG and his employer also got "top billing" on page 11 and 12 of the suit.

        I am reminded of Psalm 37 and the evil spoken of as men who sin and cover sin. While the whole chapter is worth reading I like verses 8-11. Billy and the board have much more to for then to the court in DuPage County.

        Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath!
        Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil.
        For the evildoers shall be cut off,
        but those who wait for the Lord shall inherit the land.
        In just a little while, the wicked will be no more;
        though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there.
        But the meek shall inherit the land
        and delight themselves in abundant peace.

        • rob war February 18, 2016

          Alfred has now arrived.

  132. Jeff Gill February 18, 2016 Reply

    WND published an article late Wednesday about the additional plaintiffs. The article quotes Gibbs III quoting a December 31 letter from Gothard:

    “In this lawsuit, Gothard has constantly attempted to manipulate and control the lawyers for the plaintiffs. On December 31, 2015, he sent a letter threatening ‘greater damage to your clients and to the cause of Christ if you expand and refine your lawsuit.’ He also seemed to threaten death to the lawyers by stating ‘Jesus affirmed the death penalty for doing this when he stated, ‘He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” He additionally explained that the ’emotional damages of your clients’ were caused by ‘whispering’ and ‘tale-bearing’ against him. He further stated that ‘Christianity is under attack in the world’ and that he wants ‘nothing to do with your amended lawsuit,'” the document said.

    I'm wondering if this letter has been posted in full anywhere? My Google can't find it.

    The WND article is here: http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/ministry-sex-abuse-cover-up-becoming-like-bill-cosby/#1BQlTAWMeolLGePc.99

    • horse February 20, 2016 Reply

      The whole quote, including the part around Gothard's quotes, appears to be lifted from the amended lawsuit. I would think the letter would be an exhibit, but I only see two exhibits, neither of which is the letter.

      • Jeff Gill February 21, 2016 Reply

        I've since found part of the letter reproduced in Exhibit A: Bill Gothard’s Affidavit which can be found here: http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/02/20/motions-to-disqualify-david-c-gibbs-iii-allege-serious-misconduct/

        I highly recommend that people all 145 pages. It provides a really interesting insight into Gothard's thinking. All his public humility and brokenness and deflecting of praise is gone. It reveals a man who thinks incredibly highly of himself fighting tooth and nail to regain control of his empire which he feels was stolen from him. He seems to view the sexual harassment stuff as something of annoying sideshow. What he really cares about is the restoration of his power, money and property.

        • Flower February 21, 2016

          Thanks, Jeff, for sending this link. It was a lot to wade through, but definitely very worth reading and also very insightful into BG's way of twisting everything. You hit the nail on the head when you said "It reveals a man who thinks incredibly highly of himself fighting tooth and nail to regain control of his empire which he feels was stolen from him. He seems to view the sexual harassment stuff as something of annoying sideshow. What he really cares about is the restoration of his power, money and property."

          Interesting how BG is so concerned about certain board members "stealing" the assets when in reality it's BG himself that's so concerned about preserving them!

        • rob war February 21, 2016

          thank Jeff, spot on analysis.

        • Don Rubottom February 23, 2016

          Thanks Jeff. However, the Gothard/IBLP allegations against Gibbs III reflect what I have warned about for months: Gibbs III has a personal involvement in all this that may prejudice his ability to serve his clients well. His conduct appears to be opportunism, possibly directed as his father, Gibbs Jr., more than toward justice. This will be very ugly from start to finish.

        • Jeff Gill February 23, 2016

          I'm tend to agree with you, Don. It's quite the soap opera. Gibbs III's public response to Gothard isn't overly convincing. I hope that somehow in this soap opera the plaintiffs are heard in their own right and the truth – unalloyed as possible – is known.

        • Daniel February 25, 2016

          On the face of it, Gibs III may have screwed up on the other hand, this may have been a kamikaze on his part to make sure the ship gets sunk. This suit was never about getting money. Everyone who was harmed primarily wanted the truth to be known.
          Gothard might get Gibbs disqualified, but Gothard really really starts to look like a scumbag now that the truth is out on the table about his conniving to take back control. He wanted back power so bad, he was willing to use legal means.

          Even the motions to get rid of him kind of admitted that Gibbs learned an earful of stuff that they would have rather kept hidden. I get that Gibbs could have been more forthright, but hey, I thought IBLP/Gothard had nothing to hide.

  133. Julia Fetters February 18, 2016 Reply

    Wow. I knew of the lawsuit and the 18 - only the tip of the ice berg I am sure. My wow is as to BG's response.

    His response leads me to thank each of those involved in this suit against BG and IBLP. I thank you and your lawyers and your families. His response shows how very sick he really is. The scriptures he chose... his intimidation tactics... Thank you from so many of us who will be glad to see this close IBLP ATI and for getting the truth out so more families cannot be hurt. My heart aches for those affected in my family and all the young people we, as parents, ignorantly hurt by being part of this.

  134. rob war February 18, 2016 Reply

    So Bill in "counseling" one of the plaintiffs, goes to the bathroom with an open door, urinates with the door open and then walk out while zipping up his pants. That is so gross and disgusting on top of everything else. He is such a big d***. But I guess we should be all impressed that he is keeping his "vow" that he never kissed a woman. And someone like this still claims that God speaks to him in his meditations on the Bible. I am wondering what part of the Bible encouraged Bill to urinate in front of a troubled young girl. I'm sure that his excuse is that the door just opened on his own or that this girl opened it to peak on him. And Alfred is worried about bed time stories with girls sitting in his lap in their nighties that Gary or Norma or Tony may have seen or not seen. This is just beyond the beyond.

  135. nicole gardner February 18, 2016 Reply

    But remember, Rob- at least one of these first-hand witnesses will "go straight to hell" for having told what they've seen & heard him do.
    Brutal abuse. God help them all to have courage in the face of it...... to face it.

    • rob war February 19, 2016 Reply

      Yes, that is pretty sick stuff. Having two males now involved does have an added punch to the already sick affair. I don't think Bill realizes that he really is talking to himself about "going straight to hell" comment. I know Don R. raised questions about the safety and sense of the Alert program here and to make someone strip down to underwear and then step out in freezing weather is beyond the pale. Abuse of all kinds seems to be part of the very fabric of IBLP and all of it's programs which is due to the fact that the head of it all, Bill was rotten to begin with and it just filtered down. The State of Ill and Indiana and Texas ought to go in and shut the whole damned operation down and the assets be divided up to the victims and scholarships given to ATI students so they can move on in education and their lives. That is what ought to happen. This is not reformable and the State departments that sent troubled youth to these programs ought to have their butts kicked in for putting vulnerable youth in harms way to be furthered abused. This just further damages good religious based programs that are used by State governments to help such kids. I don't know for the life of me how IBLP got away with this for so long and why they were not watched better by State governments in offering such programs for vulnerable and troubled youth. I almost think this is why Bill set up such secularized type of character programs and he and IBLP was not better reviewed. Why is TLC still filming the Duggars and Bates? Why is any of this seeing the light of day still? Locking kids up for days, not feeding them, isolation, whipping kids, not allowing basic medical care, not allowing proper counseling and therapy should cause the State that these programs reside in to go in and immediately pull the plug on IBLP forever. All it's material ought to put into a big bond fire and destroyed and the big name leaders that defended Bill in the 1980's ought to have their sorry rear ends hauled out in public so they can now explain why they think Bill is still such a "Godly man".

      • Julia Fetters February 19, 2016 Reply

        I absolutely agree with your comment. I very much wish each family could get back what they paid in just tuition. I would take the money and divide it to each of our first 4 children commensurate to what they had to endure. (#5 only lived through the last vestiges of teachings still clinging in our hearts and minds and was thankfully never part of ATI IBLP past the age of 6)

        I would not keep a penny - if we were reimbursed. Our oldest was in ALERT (his story but I so wish I could tell my take on it. When I think of it I go between remorse, outrage, and tears.) Our second went to EXCEL. I honestly hate even writing that word. There was truly no excelling there. Only grief and a few lifelong friendships.

        I would like to get our ALERT and EXCEL monies back and hand them directly to the 2 oldest. I know this cannot happen but even a small portion. We were duped and sold a bill of goods.

        • rob war February 19, 2016

          I don't know if this is possible legally, but I almost wish that I could see a class action law suite against IBLP for education fraud and the monies gained used to help ATI families put their education and lives back together. This would be in the form of scholarships for either a GED, community college, tutoring, real on job training etc. I realize there is a lot of guilt out there by ATI parents but something like this I would hope would be steps in the right direction for healing for both sides of ATI families, parents and students. I think you and the other parents that realize now that all of this was wrong are very brave because it takes a lot to admit that something you once followed and believed was wrong. That takes a lot of courage on your part and sometimes the hardest person to forgive is oneself.

  136. Todd k February 18, 2016 Reply

    I just read all two-hundred plus pages of the Second Amended complaints on the spiritual soundboard site. It made me sick. The victims need to be compensated for the physical/psychological damages inflicted upon them. But also the perps should spend some hard time in the crowbar hotel. I hope and pray that the victims receive their due justice. People see these things and the cause of Christ is severely damaged. I pray that I and others who are with RG will not get nightmares. I have encountered many different things on this side and that side of Earth, but this one took the cake.

  137. Elizabeth D February 19, 2016 Reply

    Does anyone know why Jane Doe II is not in the second amended complaint?

  138. nicole gardner February 19, 2016 Reply

    Elizabeth D,
    I wonder this too, having no idea. But I do know that if I were ANY of these victims, I'd be having anxiety attacks, chest pains, insomnia, crying episodes, fractured thought-processes & my medical doctor would likely advise me not to go through trial. Doctors, not just lawyers, weigh in in such severe circumstances as the plaintiffs have faced/still face.

  139. Karen February 19, 2016 Reply

    I hope this civil case get the attention of state authorities and that they will pursue criminal charges. As others have said, this is just sickening! I read a few of the comments from Gothardite mouthpieces--the vindictiveness and outrageous blasphemy of the merciful character of God in order to try to intimidate whistle-blowers is a monstrous evil.

  140. Mark February 19, 2016 Reply

    This came across my newsfeed today. Sounds like the case is building momentum. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/women-detail-sex-abuse-allegations-bill-gothard-article-1.2536758

    • rob war February 19, 2016 Reply

      thanks for the link. The only quibble I had with the article was that it said Bill retired in 2104. He didn't exactly retire but stepped down with the plan to return (thanks to the DG crowd).

    • Daniel February 19, 2016 Reply

      I've been wondering about the male drivers/assistants. It sounds like one of them joined the suit.
      He had a 15 passenger conversion van with 6 captains chairs and a bench seat in the back. Some of the captains chairs could swivel to face (footsie) the seats behind. In the early 2000's it had over 200,000 miles on it. Oh the stories that van could tell.

      The young man that joined the suit probably drove that thing in the mid 90's. It would be interesting to hear his stories.

  141. nicole gardner February 19, 2016 Reply

    Rob W I second everything you said up there. If IBLP was at all repentant, they would do exactly that- without court orders. When ya cripple people in order to sell them crutches, the least ya can do is pay for surgery to try to fix the torn ligaments & broken bones, now that this extortion has been recognized for what it is. IF there's any remorse for having done this to them. And if there's not.... justice doesn't have to die there; it can still (& will) be rendered by court order even when there's no repentance to it's effect.

    • David Pigg February 19, 2016 Reply

      I believe at times the Lord Jesus,[in the severity of His Love/justice,much like the American soldiers forced German residents to see the atrocities done in the local concentration camps;done because of hidden cooperation,hidden assent], will now thru these proceedings compel many to see this darkness,in contrast to His Kingdom;that there can and will be a severity;and that not by hatred,rage,or vindictiveness,but by compelled compassion to raise a voice not to be stifled for His Own.His Own;exploited;His Own trampled,beaten,abused,raped,physically,spiritually;and then suppressed.In shock,disbelief,and horror,those dots we now see must be connected,justice ratified to appease a cry swelling up from hearts too broken for the natural ear to hear.

  142. BCM February 19, 2016 Reply

    I anticipate IBLP will file for bankruptcy soon. There's no way they will survive this unless they have Director & Officers Insurance coverage in place. I still think Gibbs has a conflict of interest problem that may get him disqualified from repping the claimants due to helping Bill prepare the affidavit which was adverse to IBLP. I believe there may have been a motion filed by Bill's attorney as to this issue. Does anyone know the outcome?

    • nicole gardner February 21, 2016 Reply

      I have no idea the outcome, but if G3 was made to go to Oak Brook in order to stay under the Umbrella in becoming a lawyer (idk), then there shouldn't be any objection from the defense to such methodology.

    • Jeff Gill February 21, 2016 Reply

      Both Gothard and IBLP have filed motions. The court hasn't made a decision about them yet. Homeschoolers Anonymous is covering the story as it develops and posting court documents.

  143. Julia Fetters February 19, 2016 Reply

    I give this song to each of us but especially to the victims of Bill Gothard and other spiritual leaders abuse. Let the words sink. deep.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIZitK6_IMQ just be held.

  144. rob war February 19, 2016 Reply

    praying for Dr. Cornish, Kari Underwood and all the others that are behind this blog due to the possible threat of a million dollar law suite by Bill for defamation of character.

    • Mark February 22, 2016 Reply

      He'd have to prove the stories false and in malicious intent in order to win, but, he seems to have deep pockets and that is troubling.

  145. nicole gardner February 20, 2016 Reply

    I, too, pray for these incredibly brave advocates for the truth regarding a public menace.

    We're included in the threat to sue, too, as those who have posted. Mine have been about the direct effects of IBLP teaching wielded by those well beyond Gothard's personally creepy touch. And I haven't even told all there is in my experience with IBLP. I think I'll divulge more here right now.

    The Red Notebook "interpreting" the Bible for me in counsel sessions, the Hammer-Chisel-Rock and also the "Umbrella" drawings that were handed to me after being hand-drawn in front of me during it's lecture. I personally still have 2 of these, from 2 different churches, with the handwritten words of these diagrams likely court-identifiable as to who penned them.
    How many more of these are out there, I wonder? Something for Glen G. to think about.
    Or, among other churches that were not all-around copy-cats of IBLP in sermons & administration methods, no doubt this diagram-with-lecture was nonetheless also used on more than just me. At opportune times. Like when the cops told me during my 911 call that I needed to come down to the police station & fill out a police report of a sexual assault because I had just come to realize I was not his only sexual assault victim. Hence, this new knowledge is antidote for his having contacted me later on the day of the assault to tell me that it was my fault because my dress was too tight, evaporating his power to dump his shame on me. [Even though I had yelled & swung hard at him but he gripped my arm & maneuvered me, did with his other hand what his force had it to do to me]. And also because I'd just physically seen the perpetrator mingling in the children's wing at church even though his own daughter & her husband have banned him from EVER coming into contact with their children/his grandchildren. And choose not to see him themselves, either. And a pastor at this church expressed he was mad AT ME as soon as I walked into my appointment to report this because I had told his secretary over the phone in making the appointment that the perp had "done something me that I needed to report". Because the perp is an authority figure/volunteer there. So, they used the "relationship" they "forged with me" during my reporting of the sexual assault to them to tell me I needed THEIR counseling. Hence, the Umbrella diagram/lecture. I was not abiding under authority as I should have been, even though they had nothing to accuse me of in this, I nonetheless got hit with Satan's missile for this vacant reason. Me to blame. (Of course). This paper I still have, along with the Hammer one from my 1st church. The Umbrella was drawn before me & lectured to me in retaliation for the filing of that police report. It should still be on file even though the SOL re. charges against the perp had expired by less than a year before I filed. Otherwise, the Umbrella diagram would have already been presented at trial sometime between late 2007 & 2010. Because I WOULD have pressed charges. If I hadn't been bullied into silence.
    I am just one person who has had IBLP's particular teaching signature write me off of my basic right to defend against criminal assault. It stands to reason that I am not the ONLY one who has kept their signature in a similar writing-off by it. Playing a percentage, I can be equally sure I am not the ONLY one who got it as direct retaliation for having reported a misdemeanor to the police. It is interesting to me to wonder how many records of IBLP's formula for victim-blaming have been made following the filing of police reports (some in time for charges filed?) & are still in the possession of those they were used against. I know mine is not getting thrown away, just the same as the misdemeanor report is still on file. And, BOTH police report filings and counsel sessions were dated at the time they occurred. (Appointment record(s) for counseling). So, such recordings are dated before any alleged "colluding." Not to mention the ability of courts to identify hand-writing. There's no doubt that other diagrams of the Umbrella exist as evidence of it's abuse in retaliation for the reporting of crimes. Just some things for Glen G. to think about. And yes, I use my real name on this site. Why not? I speak the truth. And it's quite verifiable, in terms of exhibits, witnesses & the history of the perpetrator of being repeatedly terminated from employment (5 times that I know of) for sexual misconduct towards his direct victims.

    Even apart from IBLP's teaching being used to attempt to obstruct justice & keep victims (and everybody else) silent about sexual assault, it's not exactly golden. It's not as if being falsely indoctrinated, bullied, & experiencing forced shunning of those banned from one's church ever endeared anyone to the anti-Biblical regime that was cited as the pablum for this & for much worse.
    I hope anyone ever suing RG is prepared to hear (& see physical exhibits) what people like me have to testify of if I/we ever get cross examined.

    Sincerely,
    Nicole Marie Gardner (age 36)
    Snohomish County, Washington State

    Directly to Glen G.:
    You with your professional access can bring up my report without the filing number despite my name having been redacted in it. To help you out, it was filed at the Bothell, WA police precinct. Date of assault was September 27, 2007. And- as a reminder- you cannot make it public without my consent. I do not give my consent for the police report (other than description of the assault itself, it's status as a crime, & the subsequent Umbrella-bullying I received because of having reported it- & this all for reference purposes) to be made public. It contains other names is why. (People & location. These names I do not consent to be made public). This entire comment here that I am just finishing up is being made public by me. Along with all comments I have made here on RG using my name. But not the names contained in the police report. If you have access to it, it's because you're a lawyer- & the attorney privilege entails you to not go public without the victim's consent. If you have time to read the report, have in mind there also being written proof of IBLP teaching's use in the bullying of me for my abiding by the law in my trying to keep a crime from being repeated. Again. As it was also a repeat in it's being done to me (I was yet another victim) by the assaulter named in the report. And remember: I am just one person out of 5 million+ witness that IBLP dogma was spoken & done to. (In addition to having been thoroughly brainwashed by the time of the assault as a 4-time IBLP alumna & survivor of an IBLP-run church). It's not "just 18"....... "just 18"?!?!?!? who have a case. Going after us in a round 2 will get you my case presented, also. And maybe others, also, have exhibits to be presented??? The coercion & harassment I have experienced by the DIRECT implementation of IBLP's heresy simply cannot be my own isolated experiences in some sort of polarized opposite of IBLP's common influence. Even as much as you make it out to be. You will discover this, I am certain, if you choose to sue us.

    Sincerely,
    Nicole Gardner

  146. nicole gardner February 20, 2016 Reply

    I clarify: a cop was NOT on the phone during my original call to 911. The dispatcher had the cop call me back within 10 minutes of my 911 call. I also clarify that the cop told me I needed to come down & fill out a report upon his hearing my account & asking me questions about the assault, not because there was another known victim. (My sentence structure almost seems like he determined this based on another victim; this was not the case). He said I needed to come put in a written report of what had happened. Because he would other wise have had to have filed a report about the phone call & something of that nature had to have me actually meet with police. (Police protocol). Him saying I needed to come file a report was about what happened to me and on this basis alone. I drove right down there when he said that.

    • Don Rubottom February 23, 2016 Reply

      One reason for the written report is to allow you to identify yourself and to sign it as your representations. The police only "know" by hearsay. The victim/complainant knows first hand. Oral reports are inadequate grounds to investigate.

  147. rob war February 21, 2016 Reply

    In reading all of the documents on Homeschoolers Anon., it struck me that Bill in his so called efforts to contact people after he resigned was not an effort for asking for forgiveness and reconciliation but an attempt to harass, intimidate and influence his victims to back off and change their stories so he could go back to business as usual when he went back to IBLP. So all the meeting he had with Larne and Tony and Bill was really a cover up with them too, to throw them off the trail. He had no intention at all to repent, ask forgiveness, restore and reconcile. He is pretty sick spiritual man. He did nothing wrong and it is all RG fault to begin with. He is very dark and evil.

    • Karen February 21, 2016 Reply

      Rob, what you write is very true and glaringly obvious to those who have never been under Gothard's spell. From my perspective, getting him under the scrutiny of the courts can't come too soon, but he'll probably be spinning whatever happens (likely bankruptcy and the dissolution of the "ministry") right into the grave as a miscarriage of justice aimed at God's "anointed"! (What a farce!) At least his victims will be vindicated by those whose judgment really counts. One thing is for sure, when Gothard comes before the Lord face-to-face, there will be no escaping the monstrous lie his life has become.

      • David Pigg February 22, 2016 Reply

        Karen,your comments carry a lot of thought and truth,and there certainly is a more universal perspective to the Kingdom of God.My input to this comment is that Bill Gothard's life was cleverly monstrous many many years ago when many more were doing his dirty work for him.Inquisitive minds and probing hearts need look no further than family support,parental participation,"clean cut all American family values".Back then you felt more guilty if you criticized his lopsided,but seeming sincerity about authority,than if you did not.What you did not realize in his system,and someone else hit on it at another website[Murray?],was even then if you took his assumptions to their logical end,all us males were nothing more than brute lust machines,helpless in our animalistic drives for sex,unable to relate towards any attractive woman,but thru endless checks and balances that did not need to be there for Bill,the affectionate fatherly figure.Females weren't worth it,males needed protection from themselves.So that is utterly all Christianity is:worthless females,and male beasts,constantly lusting after their beauty,depraved,enslaved,encapsulated in a needful system which just might bring them the necessary edge to dominate and enslave. Worthless but sexually gratifying females need depend on males for meaning;the spectrum of their lives hanging on imparted blessings from our side of the fence,always imparted from the master.This is the hopeless treadmill of Gothardism's unredeemed religious caricature of our hopelessness in his system.Wicked, base,animalistic.

        • huzandbuz February 23, 2016

          Obviously Gothard views the world via 'his own lens'. This is demonstrated in his dogma. He is governed by lust, greed and power. And, his disdain for women is reflected in his abuse of them as well as his total disregard for their needs not only spiritually, but in every way. :+(

    • Larne Gabriel February 22, 2016 Reply

      Yep to all! But we knew that possibility going into the meeting. Just for clarification the Denver meeting with Billy included Gary and Norma Smalley, Bill and Joy Wood and myself. Tony did not participate because he thought he would be a distraction to Billy.

      Larne

      • rob war February 22, 2016 Reply

        sorry about that, thanks again for the clarification!

        • LynnCD February 22, 2016

          Right, Tony was not at the meeting. What sticks in my memory is while Bill was busy trying to get back on the board, he simultaneously told Tony that should he be invited back on the board, he would decline the offer.

  148. nicole gardner February 22, 2016 Reply

    Gothard's motion reveals some of the most twisted reasoning...... ever. Seeking to sue his board & use those he'd molested to leverage the board by their not having listened to the women's reports...... of HIS molestations!, "Binding Christian Mediation" that was to be put in writing as the ONLY recourse should his no-advocate-present-meetings with each victim fail to result in "reconciliation", saying in 2 different places that Wilkinson's mother could "confirm" that he'd never molested her. How the heck could Gretchen's mom know ANY of what transpired over the months of Gothard's alone time with her? Her mom wasn't a student living there, too, was she? And, if so, accompanied Gretchen in all those dark-hour "counsel" sessions? This is the same woman who blew-up when Gretchen was finally home & told her family that Gothard had molested her. Even if Gothard isn't lying about the mother so-saying, this women definitely has a motive for claiming to be the All-Seeing-Eye; if she DID say as Gothard says, it's likely so as to absolve her own guilt for blowing up when confided in by her own daughter. And those are just the highlights I remember. If Gollum in "The Hobbit" filed a motion of some sort, the net knotted by the stickiness of his not-quite-transparent cobwebs would weave just like this one. "'Quite safe, yes,' he whispered to himself. 'It won't see us, will it, my precious? No. It won't see us, and its nassty little sword will be useless, yes quite.' This is what was in his wicked little mind, as he slipped suddenly from Bilbo's side, and flapped back to his boat, and went off into the dark." [Quote from chapter 5 of "The Hobbit"]
    Slimy.

    • David Pigg February 22, 2016 Reply

      When the veneer is taken away,and the supramoralism,Gothard has to be one of the most destructive elements masked behind religious posturing,ever to influence the evangelical protestant church.So this is the inevitable end to his contrived programs:threats of death for David Gibbs III,for "cursing his father",dropping the prosecution's body of evidence on a "technicality of feigning support by the prosecution", threatening a former driver he will go to hell if he confesses seeing over 150 molestations take place.This part of smoldering patriarchy,now revealed in its core,HAS DENIED IF NOT OVERTLY BUT SUBLIMINALLY THAT GOD HAS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPOSURE.And its fruits...,Vyckie Garrison,a very intelligent,now leading influential blogger,gone to atheism,mocking a "personal relationship with Jesus"at a Pennsylvania feminist rally,denied custody of all but one of her children;by a husband whose fruits trace back to none other."Salute" him and his "authority",going down fighting, into an ever darkening abyss,thousands now passive,thousands atheist,cynical,angry,some rocked to sleep in a slumber of spirit,"submitted",but to what?Is there a responsibility for the church;protestant,orthodox,catholic or otherwise?I myself am a protestant and ashamed.Don't tell me that satan's darkness hasn't infiltrated the evangelical fundamentalist church."When the enemy comes in; like a flood the Spirit of God will lift up a standard against him.Come on boys protect yourselves from an inner religious darkness.Say something.

      • Mark February 22, 2016 Reply

        Yes. The churches I attended in my denomination had no direct connection to Gothard, but there were a few significant connections elsewhere, including one on the IBLP board, and that poison has spread such that many of the leaders exude the same victim-blaming, legalistic, authoritarian tone. The broader councils designed to protect members from corrupt leadership have instead protected the leaders and bullied the members into submission.

      • Don Rubottom February 23, 2016 Reply

        David, all of us who participated willingly, denying our own doubts, suppressing our own concerns, swallowing the lies, are just as guilty. Blaming Gothard for all the lost people out there really doesn't acknowledge the broader church's responsibility for tolerating the entire sham. It also does not give much credit to God who hardens one heart and softens another, calling all His elect to himself in His way.

        • Mark February 23, 2016

          I don't have the resources to track this down, but I think that the church has always wanted this universal authority. The church and state fought over absolute power in the Medieval era, with kings raising armies against Popes and Popes excommunicating countries for the sins of their rulers. The Reformation didn't bring and end to this, and the idea of spiritual authority became, I think, more invasive in the protestant church. This idea has infected Western culture with an invisible, but pungent caste system. Those in authority tend think of themselves in a higher order, and demand submission and honor. Whether it is policemen, government officers, pastors and elders or even bosses and directors, it seems that those people go to great lengths to assert and maintain their superiority.

          I tend to be good at debate and after completely demolishing a pastor's arguments, he said, "well, you just have to accept the fact that I'm right." He said it with a tone that said, the argument is over. I've played my pastor card. It's no wonder in this age that pastors and leaders of all kinds are eating this up. You see, how dare I argue with my pastor in the first place? That puts me out of the umbrella into unquenchable fire! Now the pastor doesn't even have to have a valid reason for holding a position. He just asserts it's true and those who disagree are (gasp!) showing rebellion and contempt and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

        • Karen February 24, 2016

          Don, I really admire your stance here and you hit the nail on the head for all of us. We all participate in sin when we deny the Holy Spirit's conviction in our own hearts and defer to fallen human beings. The only real defense against this kind of manipulation and deception is with God's help to get to know the depths of our own hearts with its weaknesses, desires and fears, and in childlike faith take all this directly to God. Let's take our cue from Jesus, who the Gospel says was "greatly displeased" when His disciples tried to act as gatekeepers and prevent the mothers from bringing their little children to the Lord for His blessing. "Let the little children come to Me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven!"

        • David Pigg February 26, 2016

          Don,I thought you were commenting to the other David;I sure appreciate the feedback.Back in the 70's I was a clone not necessarily of Bill Gothard ,but of Gothardism.There's a difference;I couldn't leave.The cult influenced our church/fellowship,too many big name leaders endorsed Bill;espoused his anecdotes,vaunted his programs,made the official sanction.Who was I?In 1982 there was a rift with God getting me out thru a brother and his wife.Yet no one could bring themselves to believe this was only the beginning of the first "fruits"of Gothardism;I went to a Twin Cities Seminar in 1987.I was too brainwashed to believe that Gothard was that bad.I was a "sucker".By the year 2003,I knew he was false.Its not a reach to believe he is too dangerous for any one person or group without prayer;truth by revelation.Though we the church were responsible,there was control,exploitation;and the inevitable association with leaving God."God" is behind Bill Gothard,forcing,coercing.From this false connection comes the Vyckie Garrisons,Jerushas,Libby Annes,awesome bloggers,atheists;dynamic leaders,unable to make the dichotomy between God and Gothard,cynical of Christianity,at one time sincere;until Bill bludgeoned,bullied,condescending behind brute Patriarchal Power.Now comes the afterward,which makes me pray fervently every day not believing its over yet.Yes I blame myself;the church,but when its all said and done,only prayer and the faithfulness of God,can ultimately deliver,"Gothardism"FAR TOO BIG AND WICKED".

  149. Mark February 22, 2016 Reply

    Interesting that Bill chose to include his own letter in his complaint: "During the conference, I called your father and discussed the possibility of you coming to the Headquarters. When you and your mother visited the Headquarters, I made a further phone call to your father. He explained that from his perspective you and your mother were teamed up against him. Therefore he was not able to receive the respect that he wanted. I discussed this with you and also listened to your side of the problem. This only confirmed to me the need for you to get away from the stress at home."

    The last sentence is critical. Bill is admitting that he is a hypocrite. According to his own theology, the umbrella works through the authority of the father, church and government, and removing themselves from that authority allows them to be attacked by Satan. But, when it comes to supporting their father's authority or imposing his own authority (which is neither family, church nor government), he chooses to discard his supposed theology and get them out from under the umbrella of their father. Interesting.

    • LynnCD February 22, 2016 Reply

      Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. And all those cliches.

    • Daniel February 23, 2016 Reply

      There's almost a Catholic feel to Bill's authority structure (not trying to demean Catholics here). Bill was like the Protestant Pope in his own mind. He had discovered the truth of biblical living while the rest of Christendom was going down the broad road of rock records, college, and Cabbage Patch dolls. Not only was he the leader of a Christian organization, he was kind of the head of the only true branch of the Church. He never said that in so many words, but it was definitely implied that being outside the IBLP umbrella wasn't a safe place to be.

  150. rob war February 23, 2016 Reply

    Well, as a Catholic and having been on both sides of the divide and I also know you are not trying to be contentious at all but just asking honest questions and observations. Despite of how the office of the Papacy is either viewed by most Protestants or portrayed in the media, the office of the Pope is not a top down dictatorship with every utterance to be followed as if infallible beyond any question. Catholic magisterium which is the collection of all teaching under authority of the Pope with all bishops is collective not just in the here and now but includes all of history as well. Any type of "ex Cathedra" statements is actually very rare, only happening twice since Vatican I. Authority in the Catholic Church is not demanded with threats of hell fire as in some of these other Churches that seemed to become involved with authority type of teaching of Bill Gothard and others. The Pope doesn't go around and micro manage people's lives as Bill's teaching did. Martin Luther stated at the end of his life that he got rid of one Pope but made 100 more. While priests and Bishops are very much obligated to teach and promote Catholic teaching, one can just look at public Catholics such as a number of politicians that openly defy things such as support for abortion, gay marriage etc and it is pretty rare for them to be denied communion (ex-communicated). Ex-communication is actually very uncommon and done after years of personal appeals by the person's Bishop. That is a far cry from what different people described in IBLP type of fundamentalist churches. I still don't get how even Tony Guhr was shunned and ex-communicated. I find it incredulous. Real authority never demands blind submission. Someone that goes around demanding submission should not be in any type of authority to begin with. While Bill may have made himself out to be a Pope and there are blind followers that grant him that, he is a far cry from any real Pope, especially in recent history. He can't even hold a candle to JP II, Benedict and even Francis. I'll stick with these guys way over Bill Gothard. And with Benedict, he had the humility and honesty to step down do to his age. Bill here is suing to get his position back. A good book from the Catholic side is "Pope Fiction" by Patrick Madrid. I appreciate your question, it is a good one.

    • Daniel February 24, 2016 Reply

      rob war, thanks for your perspective on this. I'm glad you saw that I was just trying to wrap my mind around it instead of criticizing or stereotyping Catholics.
      As you know, Protestants claim to spurn any formal spiritual hierarchy. We love the thought of direct access to God. It just feels to me that Bill wanted to be THE gateway of truth from heaven. He and a lot of other people believed that he had found the missing keys to truth. His yearly trip to fast in the North Woods was kind of like the High Priest going behind the veil or Moses going up on the mountain to receive the 10 Commandments.

      My point being, it diverges greatly from the modern Protestant understanding of how truth (especially new truth) is revealed. Am I making sense? My point is not to say Catholics are wrong here, just to say Bill isn't acting very Protestant.

      • Mark February 24, 2016 Reply

        I think there is a contradiction here. Yes, we have direct access to the throne of God, but God's instruction and correction are thought to come through the church leadership. I think this is the "Mother Kirk" teaching, that yes, God is our father, but we also need a mother to nurture and guide us. The church uses that sort of teaching, I think, to trick Christians into being less discerning about leadership, and to stay put in abusive church situations. The umbrella fits nicely into that.

        The logic is that each person's thinking has been deluded, so we need to have God-appointed spiritual leaders to lead us into truth. However, somehow they refuse to acknowledge that the leaders' thinking could also be deluded, and that God doesn't exactly reach down and appoint those leaders. Instead there is a human process created to choose those leaders, which can also be sinfully manipulated.

        • Daniel February 24, 2016

          I think I could have been more accurate by saying Protestant denominations like Independent Baptists, Bible Church, etc don't have much formal hierarchy. Certainly the Church of England has a established structure, etc. Analogies seem to get me in trouble. :-)

          I see a huge difference, though, between a ministry that does Christian counseling and one that inserts themselves into a position of false authority.

        • Karen February 24, 2016

          I just want to add a few words about this question of authority in the Church (speaking as a formerly Evangelical, now Eastern Orthodox believer). The saying that "He cannot have God for his Father, who does not also have the Church for his mother" is a saying that comes directly from those deemed (in all Christian traditions) to be the Fathers of the Church, i.e., the most authoritative and important teachers and interpreters of the Scriptures in the early Church, and it is an understanding of "Church" that was basically universal among Christians at the time. (Note: NO Christian tradition teaches the Fathers, as individuals, are infallible). But, this saying has a particular context and is a basically a tautology that acknowledges that the one one who truly honors God as Father belongs to the Church. This is not meant to suggest that the members of the Church need to check their brains at conversion/baptism, and let the hierarchy rule every detail of their lives!

          If you read Church history about the time of the Arian heresy, for example, you can see that not only the hierarchy, but also the common people were extremely engaged in the whole debate about the Arian vs. the orthodox interpretation of Who Christ is as "begotten of the Father before all worlds, very God of very God" as the Creed says or whether He was a very exalted creature of God (as Arius taught and Jehovah's Witnesses teach). Also, this tautology is very clear that it is "the Church" (all genuine members collectively), not merely its hierarchy, in which this charism of the Holy Spirit for the nurture and guidance of all believers resides. There are times official councils of church hierarchs were convened, but which were political rather than genuinely spiritual in nature, and even though the bishops ruled on something (under political duress), these rulings were roundly rejected by the members of their sending churches, and the conciliar decisions never held their authority (e.g., the Council of Florence in 1439). Other councils were deemed authoritative by all orthodox Christians up until the Great Schism between East and West in 1054, but this was not just because they were officially called by the Emperor, or that all local orthodox churches were represented by their bishops (though this is, in fact, the case in many of these), but because over time the rulings of the council were discerned by all orthodox Christians to be true and in accordance with the revelation of Christ in the gospel that had been received in their various regional churches. Many times it wasn't until decades later and the dust had, had considerable time to settle for a council to take on this kind of authority for believers.

          I cannot agree with you that "the church uses that sort of teaching to trick Christians into being less discerning about leadership." What I mean to say is it is not genuinely "the Church" acting whenever a church leader or some kind of religious leader or Bible study teacher connected with a church emphasizes this teaching to attempt to reinforce his own control or authority (in the "Lording it over" sense). It doesn't matter what church the leader is in, all those placed in positions of authority (or who, like Gothard, arrogate authority to themselves!) can abuse this position and can even in good faith just make mistaken statements about the church and the nature of their authority in the church.

          Emphasizing the authority of the Church over the course of its history to discern and recognize the gospel and its correct application by making dogmatic statements to distinguish the true faith from heretical teachings that crop up from time to time is another thing altogether (than the abuse of power by a particular leader or group of leaders). This is based on Christ's promise to His Apostles to send the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all the truth and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church He would found upon their preaching. This spiritual reality about the nature of Christ's Church (as Spirit-led and indestructible) is actually a safeguard for those who understand it properly against the abuse of authority and the danger of heresy like that of Bill Gothard.

        • Mark February 24, 2016

          Can't reply specifically to this comment, but I agree in part and disagree in part. At the same time the church fathers said that they were also establishing their authority as the church fathers. It wasn't long after the writing of the New Testament that the local clergy became hierarchical - it perhaps initially started as a recognition of giftedness, but before long, there were pastors, bishops and archbishops, none of which had scriptural support as any office, and then the archbishop of Rome and Constantinople had their official squabble over which was the "archest" of the archbishops.

          But, the Bible is very ambiguous as to what exactly certain terms mean. For example, Exodus talks about Moses and the people. It also talks about the elders. So, it's not necessarily precise as to whether "the people grumbled" meant every last one of the people, or the people through their leaders, or what. In the same way, when Moses "told the people" did he tell them directly, or through their leadership.

          That ambiguity carries itself through the New Testament when it talks about the church. For example, in Matthew 18, it says, "tell it to the church". Does that mean the church leaders, the congregation, etc.? There are all sorts of opinions about what each instance means. For example, is the Great Commission given to the apostles (i.e. the leadership) or the disciples (i.e. the collected saints)?

          So, yes, I think the Eastern Orthodox church has a healthy view of the church in terms of the collective will of the Spirit-led people, but many other churches are quite different. So, if my church believes that ultimately it is the church leadership that is the personification of Mother Kirk and portrays that as the teaching of scripture, doesn't that give me the right to doubt the doctrine? In the same way, RG questions various approaches to Matt 18. For example, some say that Gothard must be convicted by his own elders in order to make accusations public to "the church".

          That would presumably carry over into church discipline. For example, my old church believes that all church discipline must be done behind closed doors, and kept as private as possible. When people were excommunicated, only a general description of the sin was given. Trials were never made public. This is a result of the view of "the church". For example, new members are received behind closed doors and then presented to the congregation. As such, it is clearly the view that the church is the collective will of the Spirit-led LEADERSHIP and not the people. By that interpretation, I say that the leadership of the church is not my mother.

      • rob war February 24, 2016 Reply

        Thanks Daniel for your questions and thoughts. I honestly think they are very good ones. A number of Protestant denominations teach and have a "hierarchy" which including Lutheran, Anglican and Methodist as examples. A hierarchy isn't a go between in the sense that you are thinking of it, ie: I won't have "direct" access to God unless it is through my church. Proper hierarchy is suppose to be a teaching vehicle and a protector of orthodoxy. Trust me, I have direct access to God as a Catholic and you do to as a Protestant. Just as an observation in all of this, Bill rarely focused on any Church authority and structure. The particular Churches that got caught up with his teaching seemed to fall with those that were independent and had no hierarchy or at least a strong one to begin with. For all the faults of the above mentioned mainline denominations, being influenced and falling for Bill Gothard was not one of them. In a sense, it shows how a denomination that is part of an overall structure can be a protection of sorts for popular movements that come and go like IBYC/IBLP. So someone that comes along and quotes the Bible like a machine gun is less likely to seduce the gullible if they have a frame of reference and belong to a Church with a strong structure and body of teaching which to refer to.

  151. nicole gardner February 23, 2016 Reply

    I think of the million or so homes that bg crept into by way of his sales tactics. Took captive countless women. Usurped countless mens' & boys' Holy Spirit-led sense of spiritual/social responsibility with his dictator-at-the-top dogma & system. Promised that he was giving the secret formulas to God's code-op machines, that blessings would pour forth like gumballs, 100% sure if we followed his codes & 100% fail if we didn't. Some of the gumball "flavors" were advertisements of how we would be solicited by people who sought us out in their desire to make us successful. Those with influence to make us successful would be tripping all over themselves to apply this to the enhancement of OUR lives. With no knowledge of the world, we didn't know how utterly ridiculous this claim was, especially having been regaled with all kinds of anecdotal stories to this effect. For us women, there was an added dimension; by being godly enough, the due wages for this at God's (bg's god's) hand would be a "qualified" man knocking on our dad's door to request our heart through courtship. Him dropping out of the sky all because we agreed to never be employed or go to college so as to focus on the rest of bg's teachings. Because this made it incumbent upon God both to filter & to deploy all our associations because we ourselves earned the personal integrity of all others who may (& surely will!) solicit us for our benefit. Yeah. Sure. That's how the world works; that's what the Bible says. Not! A hundred times, NO- that is NOT what the Bible says.

    So, I am curious that bg finally may have fell for his own sales pitch. According to his & Blair's motions, there was a knock on his door. In answering it & inviting G3 & his colleague to come in, bg seems to have believed he himself was entitled to the filtering & deployment that he'd long assured us protected from vulnerability & instead would catapult us to success. If the motions are true in this one respect, bg finally has personally experienced what most of us have- getting played by his gimmicky doctrine.

    I don't relish my having been sexually assaulted or my having been otherwise played. But, for me, these things did shatter my naivete stemming from IBLP fallacy. And now, I am no longer self-blaming for having been sexually assaulted & for also having been played as a student of bg indoctrination. I'm glad that, prior to turning 80 years old, I learned the truth about assumptions-of-earned-safety that were synced by Gothard to his illusions of self-entitlement. But, as he himself is no doubt finding out- you're never saved from surprise for as long as ya live. Life is NOT like a box of chocolates for trusting his promises that obedience to him automatically makes it like this. As bg himself will have been finding out over the past year if he has indeed fallen for his own sales pitch. He may well have just found out what he did to us. Even though he never listened.

    • Don Rubottom February 23, 2016 Reply

      Great post, Nicole. Thanks.

    • Mark February 23, 2016 Reply

      Seems like his ignorance of the law is going to backfire. I can't see the judge saying, well, everything G3 did was completely legal, but I'm going to throw him off the case because he tricked you. So, it seems that Gothard's own hubris is going to become his downfall.

    • David Pigg February 24, 2016 Reply

      Great job Nicole.So many are so mad at how he dodges,counterattacks,eviscerates,absolutely without conscience.I'm praying that every last ploy he contrived against the hapless,exploited,and vulnerable will come to nothing.He never has had to answer,but will.

      • Mark February 24, 2016 Reply

        Well, the court is like a big notepad recording what he says. He is skilled at looking the right way to each person individually, but I wonder if he is so skilled at doing that with every word recorded and a huge penalty for lying under oath. All he can do at this point is deny, deny, deny, but how do you poke holes in the accounts of so many stories?

  152. esbee February 25, 2016 Reply

    I read on Midwest Outreach that Gothard had his lawyer write a letter to RG. It links to RG on FB where it can be read. The letter asks that those who have posted FALSE statements on RG against BG to remove them. That means the true allegations can remain. I am sure most, if not all of what was written, will remain on RG.
    http://midwestoutreach.org/2016/02/25/bill-gothards-double-standards/
    The more I think about it, the more it seems that BG will be hoisting his own canard if he goes forward with a lawsuit and it all goes to court where witnesses will be brought in to tell their stories--THEN EVERYTHING goes on record and out in the open.

    • David February 25, 2016 Reply

      Saber-rattling, as the unraveling, exposure, and burning of his life's work continues to accelerate before his eyes

  153. Julia Fetters February 25, 2016 Reply

    "Burning of his life's work" David ^^^ how sobering.

    I have been watching videos of those who have come out of Scientology for the purpose of learning about brainwashing and how we can believe the. most. ridiculous. things. Scientology is a comic book farce but that is not what my comment is about. It is about "burning a life's work"

    38 years in it. 28 years. Entire life up to the point they left at 18 or 23. Leading others into it and then leaving and the others remain brainwashed. It is serious stuff. Throwing your life away for a man and a fairy tale.

    If you listen, the parallels are astounding. Not in doctrine but in M. O. of the organization. Satan doesn't care if he has to put on a choir robe or a Sea Org costume - his bag of tricks remains the same.

    I know some think this is extreme. Again it is not about doctrinal comparison obviously but about mind and people control. Bill Gothard may have started well - the jury is out on that one - but absolute power corrupts absolutely and this is what we have seen happen. The only leaders I respect in this organization are those who have left through the years. I honestly mean that. I sure wish the whistles were blown so loudly that their lips are still stinging but what is done is done. I hope they have seen their mistakes and next time will take on any Leader in the name of doing what is right.

    So my story, and unfortunately the story of my oldest children - 10 + years in. Programs, brainwashing, and setting my brains on the shelf. Lots of lessons learned. Hopefully it has given a discernment to our children that lasts their life times. They were the ones thinking - "this stuff stinks. These families are hypocrites. At least their children are not all in - that is for sure!"

    God bless those children who are now adults. May His hand of grace and favor rest on them and may they know his presence every day in guiding and drawing and help.

    Cults are interesting to study - again, not so much the doctrine but how they are formed and how they operate and why we fall for them. Rats, I wish I hadn't. Now to walk forward for many more than 10 years (I hope) being His and loving His pure Word sans interpretation.

    • caroline February 26, 2016 Reply

      I too study the area of Scientology and those who are escaping from its grip on their lives. At first when I started reading about gothard I didn't look for similarities between the two organizations, but finally when I did, I was gobsmacked by the parallels. Both are a "long con" that ensnare and enslave others for the benefit of a "leader". Separation from family, separation and fear of the world outside of the con,
      physical and mental abuse, and all based on pathological ideas and rules that were created from whole cloth. Long hours, food deprivation, constant study that will keep the member too busy to be able to really think. The similarities are striking and sickening.

      I believe that one reason gothard has recently made comments about slavery and other issues is to take the spotlight away from his actions that are being uncovered. He is a sociopath..total narcissist with no regard for others, just himself. All the long discussions on this board about "authority", courting, defrauding, and other creations of his sick mind...it breaks my heart to see, because doing so takes the focus and spotlight off him and his criminal actions....his very intent.
      All are designed to divert from the truth of what he is.

      • Julia Fetters February 27, 2016 Reply

        Caroline, I agree with your comment except in one point.

        The discussions on defrauding, authority, courting, other creations of his sick mind ARE the spotlight on his criminal actions. It is from these teachings he received the fuel and covering to commit his criminal actions. These are an integral part of his choosing to commit these acts. Ask the plaintiffs and they will tell you that every subject you named and more are very, very important to discuss on this site. The plaintiffs and thousands of others are coming free of these teachings and truth is coming out about BG and how he thinks, in discussing them.

        I am not looking for a written answer to this question but I am wondering if you have ever been involved in IBLP/ATI. That is not to point a finger at all or cut down in the least. Those who have been a part of these organizations see the need that is real - a need to get this all out and put the pieces together of how BG thinks.

        Thanks for your comment.

        • caroline February 27, 2016

          Well I get that, and I can explain a little better what I meant. Thankfully I was never a follower of his organization, but from my point of view, this is what I see: It's not a crime to preach and promote ideas that are frankly, ridiculous on their face.. . . like not kissing before you are married, or his myriad of other opinions that he pulled out of thin air. I realize that some of his specific teachings made it easier for him to commit crimes...it is part of the larger con......but creating these rules and regulations and exhorting others to follow them is not a crime. But fondling, rape, child abuse, and the long list of his perverted actions ARE crimes.

          That's how I perceive this. And if he's going to get what's coming to him..on earth, his criminal actions are what should always be at the forefront. that's why I said that long discussions on "authority" and his other ideas just serve to divert attention from his crimes.
          And I believe that it will be easier to find additional support to bring him to justice if you realize that good people outside the IBLP ...indeed those who might not even be of your same faith....also view his criminal actions as abhorrent and deserving of exposure.

  154. rob war February 25, 2016 Reply

    After reading all the documents and signed affidavits, I am almost beginning to wonder if the affidavit that Bill signed for G III was meant as a trap for G III in the sense that Bill now can and has turned around and claimed that G III misrepresented himself to Bill in order to get Bill to sign and thereby disqualifying G III from the case. I don't think G III did anything wrong or was unethical in any way. Someone like G III that knows these people and teaching like the back of his hand would be a major threat to Bill as a lawyer, hence forth, Bill efforts to disqualify G III from the case. I am not one to see conspiracies at all but after reading all these lies and logic from Bill and my view of him now as totally diabolical leads me to these conclusions. I am just thinking out loud right now. In now reading some of the post here and on DG and elsewhere, there seems to be a view that G III was unethical. But I don't think so and this is just my gut reaction. I also think and have stated here that Bill's so called reconciliation attempts were not that but attempts to shut people up. He could really care less about any of that and only wants his power back. G III in his response said his only error was being aggressive. That is not a crime nor is that unethical but only aggressiveness could have blinded someone to a trap which is what I think the first affidavit is. The problem for Bill is that now his traps are legal sworn in court documents that should bite him in the butt and he was taking a big risk himself. I don't think Bill realizes what a big idiot he is in doing so and his attempt to disqualify G III is desperation for what is coming his way in court.

    • LynnCD February 25, 2016 Reply

      I'm not too desirous to sort this mess out, but one thing to keep in mind is did these interactions not take place when the first suit was merely against those on the IBLP board? Gothard had not been named on a suit as a defendant. During this time, the Denver group determined Bill was not repentant, and after this, Bill was added in as a defendant. I am not clear as to how it all fits together, but there is a timeline here which may explain some things.

    • David February 25, 2016 Reply

      "The problem for Bill is that now his traps are legal sworn in court documents that should bite him in the butt and he was taking a big risk himself. I don't think Bill realizes what a big idiot he is in doing so and his attempt to disqualify G III is desperation for what is coming his way in court. "


      Was wondering if you'd be able to elaborate on that a little; specifically, on what "traps" BG tried to set, how you see them backfiring, and what's on the horizon for him as this goes to court.

      • David Pigg February 25, 2016 Reply

        David and Rob War;I agree,and anyone not used to lies must brace himself to see the utter cruelty and wanton brutality they serve to exploit further the victims;and further the cause of the suppressor/tyrant.How are these lies backfiring?What is this so called breach of ethics in layman's terms?One added thought the Kingdom of God can and never will be furthered with what Gothard has done;teachings attitudes toward women,extortion,blackmail,lust.Kicking against the pricks is not contingent upon orchestration of mere words.

      • rob war February 25, 2016 Reply

        I was trying to process all of this out loud. I think Lynn pointed out something very important that I didn't consider in my above musings, is that Bill gave that deposition to G III before he was named in the suit directly so it makes sense that G III came to Bill to get a deposition from him against the board. The suit wasn't about Bill getting back to power but about the 10 victims (at that time). I would bet Bill fantasized that it was about him and this would help him get back to power. G III didn't misrepresent anything in my mind. Now, Bill is in the law suite too and is trying to wiggle out of the first deposition he gave to G III which is damning to himself and take down G III at the same time. Bill now has a new aggressive lawyer and I would bet if Bill consulted a lawyer the first time, he wouldn't have given the first sworn deposition. I was trying to make sense of it all and Lynn pointing out that this was given before the law suit was amended to include Bill.

        • David Pigg February 25, 2016

          Great observation.

      • David February 25, 2016 Reply

        What "power" is even left to supposedly regain?? It's like trying to regain command of the Titanic after it's struck the iceberg. That power only existed when people in mass were buying the IBLP product, which hardly anyone is anymore (at least not enough to make it sustainable, much less a powerhouse). Does he expect to walk up to his old office as it was with a new teenage secretary awaiting him?

        • huzandbuz February 26, 2016

          It certainly appears that Mr. Bill Gothard will always steadfastly believe that 'whatever he wants, he will get'; 'whatever he pursues, he will be acquire'. He is relentless!!

          Regardless of his age and all that has taken place to the contrary, in his mind, no doubt, at some point he expects to walk up to his old office as it was with a new teenage secretary awaiting him...

          "Give it up Gothard; it ain't happening"...

  155. nicole gardner February 25, 2016 Reply

    I don't know whether or not Gothard can have his first affidavit disappear off the court record (as he requests). But I do know that, just because he might be able to retract his admittance TO the truth, this doesn't retract the truth. It's kinda funny that he only stated fact to try to bring down IBLP board members by doing so. Now that his vision of using it to do that isn't coming to fruition, this inability to use his statement to his desired effect somehow makes what he says in it that he did no longer true, even though he swore by written deposition that it was true? If I didn't know already that Gothard little values truth in general (Bible, other testifiers to what's true that the Bible identifies as such) I would be confused by his going back on his word like this.

  156. Karen February 25, 2016 Reply

    Hi Mark,

    I'm replying to your reply to me above about authority in the Church and starting a new thread for convenience. I gave you the historical context for the phrase "mother church". It doesn't sound like your denomination's practices and understanding of authority in the church are really relevant to that historical context, nor that they are necessarily using the phrase "Mother Kirk" in the same way.

    "Bishops" and "presbyters/priests" in the ancient Church correspond to what may be listed as "overseers" and "elders" in your Bible translation (btw, all translations of the Bible are made with theological presuppositions as part of the lens through which translation word choices are made, and because of the realities of the English-speaking world, modern English translations are dominated by Protestant theological presuppositions). All the more ancient church traditions (prior to Presbyterianism) acknowledge the offices of bishop and presbyter as well as that of deacons as being apostolic biblical orders in the Church. Just for your information, the bishop in my church has exactly the same kind of spiritual authority as all other bishops, regardless of his rank in terms of the size of the area for which he has administrative responsibility. Having bishops with different ranks and levels of regional responsibility is not a reflection of any change to the biblical teaching or basic spiritual role of the "overseer", but rather a reflection of the growth and size of the population in the Church. There is not a top-down authority structure in the Eastern Orthodox Church parallel to that of the Pope in the West. All bishops have administrative authority over their own regional church or diocese, but not over another's. In fact, one bishop cannot come and serve in another bishop's church without his permission. This even goes for the bishop with the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" in Constantinople as well. He isn't really parallel to the Pope in the West, though a lot of people have that misconception. No bishop has authority to change the teaching of the Church, but all are responsible to uphold the teaching of the Church in accordance what has been handed down (through the authoritative conciliar decisions) from apostolic times. In the Church, their spiritual authority to establish disciplinary order and authoritative teaching is collective and conciliar (following the model in Acts 15).

    If you want the early Church's understanding of these orders, read St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108 AD). His writings are available online. He personally knew the Apostle John and was discipled by an early bishop and martyr (St. Polycarp) who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John and a deeply respected leader in the early Church. You might be surprised to see how this order in the Church really overlaps the NT period, so it's unlikely that this was something added or changed from the basic biblical understanding of the role an office of the "overseer" and "elder."

    In the modern era, however, there is all kinds of baggage that has been added to the understanding of the role of "elders" in the church and the nature of their authority (not least of all through the modern "Shepherding" and "Patriarchy" movements). The fact that there have always been "elders" and "overseers" in the Church with responsibility for leading, teaching and discipline, doesn't mean that the "Lording it over" essentially *political* understanding of this authority is biblical or correct (though, such abuses of authority have happened and do happen today everywhere human leaders exist!). I think we need to keep our eyes on Jesus in His interactions with his disciples and with others if we want to know what true spiritual authority looks like. We need to especially realize His spiritual power and authority was at its apex when He went to the Cross for us! The one who would be the leader of all must become the servant of all (Mark 9:33-37, John 13:12-17). This is the antithesis of Gothard's teaching.

    • Daniel February 26, 2016 Reply

      Karen, this is a very interesting discussion and I readily admit that I'm not much of a scholar when it comes to Church history. It does seem whether we lean towards a more formal hierarchy of church authority or a more localized model, there doesn't seem to be much of an argument for the role of Oracle/Ministry President in the life of a believer. Very rarely did Bill even claim to wield this power. I think he probably would even deny it (especially if asked by a pastor). But if you crossed a certain line, the entire umbrella of "being out from under authority" would come down like a hammer. You were not "excommunicated" just "sent home." Dun dun donnnne.

      And it wasn't just him. It flowed to every level of the organization. If you were a "Leader in Training" that didn't obey your 18 year old "Leader", you were out from under the Umbrella. If the Alert squad leader had an issue with your attitude, there was a sense the lightning bolts were about to strike that went beyond the pale of toughening up a soft young man.

      • Karen February 27, 2016 Reply

        Daniel,

        Good observations. No, the "Oracle/Ministry President" as BG functioned strikes me as being much more akin to pagan occultic practices. Today BG's organization is recognizably like many other "mind control" cults in its m.o.. Comparisons to Scientology and Word of Faith have both been mentioned in discussion on this site, and I'm sure we could list others and show parallels. It is so like satan to use Scripture to promote practices and beliefs that are basically antithetical to Christ--to the real meaning of the Scriptures in their full context.

    • Mark March 9, 2016 Reply

      Hi Karen,

      My old denomination goes quite a ways back and claims its heritage from the Westminster standards, and theoretically from there back to the church fathers. That said, whatever words they might claim, for example, "Mother Kirk" are interpreted and reinterpreted by the leaders within their own experience, and within their view of the history of the church.

      The safeguards you claim are also the very sorts of safeguards that my denomination would say are in place, yet, when I look at the practice vs. the teaching, I find that the higher levels are often very hesitant to interfere with the lower levels, and, in fact, the tendency is to circle the wagons around abusive churches rather than call leaders out. There are human reasons why I think that happens - first, in the positive sense, there is a lot of familiarity and cordiality among the leaders, and in the negative sense, leaders who question decisions and culture get pushed to the side and ignored. So, let's say an individual member raises an objection to the leadership. First of all, because of that culture there is going to be an assumption of innocence between leaders and an assumption of guilt towards the member. Second, there is an assumption that siding with an individual member against the leadership will be disruptive, while siding with the leaders will be preserving unity. Third, there is probably a concern that leading that disruption will be seen negatively and perhaps put a leader on the sidelines in the future. All told, the culture is that only CLEAR misconduct by leadership will ever raise concern. I think in a very real sense, this is what Jesus means when he said "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them." That is human nature, so we would expect most churches to have that default behavior. I think it is excellent that you don't see that sort of behavior in the Eastern Orthodox church.

      In addition to that, there is an assumption about the role of the leader in the church that corresponds to a parent. In Common Law, the parent is assumed to always act in the best interests of the child unless proven otherwise. There has been discussion about the bounds of authority of different actors, but in a very Gothardesque moment, it seems that the view from the "child" to the "parent" is always one of blind obedience, and it's the responsibility of higher-level "parents" or peers to provide accountability. For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism teaching on the fifth commandment teaches that father and mother correspond to all "superior" roles, and then describes our relationship to those roles as obedience and submission.

      My belief about scripture is that the authors were spiritually inspired to write, but not to understand what they wrote. This is mostly in keeping with the church historians that claim the church had deep and fundamental struggles, for example, with the gnostics who believed that Jesus could not have come in the flesh and still been God, and the stoics/ascetics who believed that a spiritual life was one lived with only the barest of essentials. So, while it is significant that these men overlapped with the Apostles, we can't assume that they or the Apostles had "perfect" understanding of everything. In fact, the Didache, I think, begins some of the problems: "Appoint therefore to yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved; for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers." This is thought of as the non-scriptural teaching that is closest in human terms to the teaching of the early church. Yet, we see here some interesting tidbits. First, "men" is the Greek word for "male", rather than a more general person, so this would cement male-only ordained leadership, which the Bible is more ambiguous about. Secondly, it equates bishops and deacons and equates their roles, prophecy and teaching. The Biblical understanding of deacons is less one of the teaching ministry and more of ministering to physical needs within the congregation. So, if that is true, this early document is already leveling up the church leadership.

      So, I think we are still mostly agreeing. I think the root problem is the agonizingly slow process of allowing the Holy Spirit to work in peoples' hearts. It is hard work to show people their sin and then allow God to slowly (or even never) convict them of that sin and bring them to repentance and change. What if leaders could find a faster way to bring about change? What if the leaders could assert a position between you and God that demanded obedience? If they could justify that position, they could then use punishment or the fear of punishment to bring about that change without it being so agonizing and frustrating. Now you have essentially the teaching of the Western church. The leaders assert their authority over the members, and when members err or refuse to recognize that authority, it is now grounds for discipline, such as rebuke, suspension and even excommunication. It doesn't take a lot of misinterpretation to justify that from scripture.

      The struggle I have with Mother Kirk is not the nurturing role of the church, but the narrower conclusion that the "church" is specifically the church leadership, and the implication of that on our response to church leadership and church discipline.

      • Karen March 9, 2016 Reply

        Thanks, Mark.

        I want to correct the impression I gave you that there are no problems of the abuse of authority in the EO Church! That is far from true. There are EO bishops, priests and deacons who can be worldly and corrupt, to be sure, and we have all the same kinds of scandals of abuse in some quarters of the Church as any other part of Christendom. The members of the Church are sinners, flawed and human, and we all, leaders included, make mistakes.

        What I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between is the biblical view of hierarchy, which his properly the EO spiritual understanding as well (which Christ teaches is *not* akin to political/worldly power system where leaders "Lord it over" those in their charge, but related rather to spiritual revelation and order in the Church, which is a revelation of Christ in relationship to His Body, the Church) and modern views, which seem to mostly have put a religious gloss on the worldly model of hierarchy (just superimposing Christian values of "parental" care and concern and guidance on what is essentially a worldly understanding of the nature of leadership as the exercise of power over others). It becomes painfully clear this is how spiritual "authority" is being understood in the so-called "biblical patriarchy" and "shepherding" movements, and it is utterly destructive of people's souls.

        Leadership in the Church should (but does not always) reveal Christ in His relationship to His Bride, the Church. In the words of a contemporary abbot in my tradition, "The way up is to go down." That is, Christ shows the way of greatness in the Church. If worldly authority can be depicted as a pyramid with all the underlings serving and supporting those higher up, and ultimately the top dog at the pinnacle is served by everyone (like in Gothard's scheme), then the Church, true Christian authority, looks like an inverted pyramid with the One who is the greatest of all serving and supporting all the rest. He that was the greatest of all humbled Himself and became a Servant to all and taught those who would come after Him to do the same. This is the gospel way.

        I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out how difficult it is to wait on the Holy Spirit to work in people's lives. It is so tempting to get in there and manipulate them to shape up--much faster. And, hey, we all know that if our subordinates behave themselves and make a good impression, it makes us look good, too, no? There's nothing harder as a Christian parent than letting your kids be who they are and make mistakes when it makes you look like a failure as a parent. To only offer support and love when our kids perform according to our liking is to deny them the grace essential to their becoming whole persons in Christ and capable of truly unselfishly and unconditionally loving others as well. Essentially, the temptation so many fall into (and something that tempts every Christian daily, I believe, if we are honest) is to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit in another's life. It's scary that some theologies have developed and erupted from time to time in Church history that seem to imply this is what the ordained are actually called to do--essentially to be a substitute for the Holy Spirit! Nothing could be further from the truth!

        • Don Rubottom March 10, 2016

          Mark and Karen, thank you for your thoughtful dialogue. I am enjoying it.

        • Mark March 11, 2016

          Thanks, Karen,

          I think we are in violent agreement! Whether presbyterian or episcopal, the systems of church government are designed to support and protect the weak, not the strong. The ministry of the leadership is to encourage, nurture and protect the sheep, especially protecting them from wolves in leadership.

          When instead, the church adopts the worlds model of superiority of the "fathers", no system can protect the flock, and we see this breakdown throughout scripture and throughout history. Instead of the leaders encouraging and nurturing the flock, they expect the flock to encourage and nurture them. I think it's actually very healthy that this latest generation has been recognizing and exposing spiritual abuse, but somehow the church leadership thinks of this as insubordination and has moved towards elevating and protecting abusive leaders rather than figuring out ways to provide the governance and accountability needed to protect the sheep from those abusive leaders.

          I struggle with the model of "Christ and His Bride" because I think this has been the campaign slogan of abusive authority. That is, Christ cannot sin, therefore the bride can always blindly obey. So, then it all gets twisted into some sort of blind submission to all positional authority. That becomes the basis of umbrella-like thinking where we must blindly and unquestioningly obey every person who sees himself in authority over us. Yes, I must willingly and unquestioningly obey Christ, because he's sinless, gracious, loving and omniscient, but (despite what I've heard sermons on!) that doesn't translate into my church leader being sinless, gracious, loving and omniscient. Thus, I must obey the leader only to the extent that they are acting within their sphere of authority (which is not universal) and that what they are telling me to do is moving me towards God, or protecting me from Satan. That goes for all people who are in positional authority above me.

        • rob war March 12, 2016

          Mark,
          I think your struggle with the Christ is the head/ Church is the body has been corrupted by false teaching promoted by Bill Gothard and those in the complimentarian types of teaching. Instead of seeing the head and body or husband and wife as one, it is split up into rigid roles of dominance. Christ modeled real leadership as someone that washes feet or is a servant. He isn't a head as in control and He is perfect so submit blindly. He is the head as in truly being a self-giving, self sacrifice. Sadly people like John Piper et al take a beautiful image of love and turn it around to be an abusive control model and diagram. When one has been under false, heretical teaching that misused different Bible verses, one has to go back and unlearn what they have been taught and relook at different passages in how they were originally written and meant. One example for me is the Centurian and his approach to Jesus to heal his servant. Bill misused this to set up his "chain of command". WoF people misuse use this in the "say the word and my servant will be healed" in that all we need to do is name it/ claim it and God will just jump at the snap of our fingers because we "said the word". Both have it wrong and read into that passage their own ideas to support their own warped theology. The Centurian was about someone that saw who Jesus really is and because Jesus is God, He is the ultimate authority and from that recognition of who Jesus really is came the understanding of trust and faith in Jesus, not our word, not a chain of command. Coming out under false and heretical teaching takes time and it takes a redo of the Bible verses used in support of false teaching.

        • Mark March 12, 2016

          Rob,

          Let me put it another way. People who push the "Christ and the Church" model tend to think of it in terms of chain of command and rigid roles. It makes sense to me, because, who is going to question the "Christ-likeness of Christ"? But that is really what needs to happen. You mentioned Piper, and rightly so. His latest article on submission portrays the husband in a completely un-Christ-like way. I'm offended. I have open lines of communication with my wife because I respect her, value her insight, and as Rachel Held Evans indicated... nowhere in our almost 15-year marriage have we hit an impasse. I'm complementarian and my wife is egalitarian.

          Perhaps Gothard's and Piper's Christ is a spineless wimp. He can't seem to handle immodest women, and he can't seem to handle conflict.

          In fact, much of my growth over the past year or so has been partly realizing that. It seems that Piper-esqe teaching is that we need to tiptoe around God because we might offend him if we show any emotion. We can't be angry with God for not healing a loved one, or allowing friends to suffer abuse at the hands of his church, or the evil that people are doing all around us.

          It's actually a revolution in my relationships. Not too long ago, my eldest yelled at me because of my perceived hypocrisy in some area. I told her that I try to practice what I preach, but I make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes hurt people. After we had both calmed down, I mentioned that my parents would have beat me for saying what she said. We still have a ways to go in terms of dealing with each other in kindness, but I appreciate that she doesn't feel like she needs to tiptoe around spineless dad.

  157. LynnCD February 25, 2016 Reply

    Don and Joy Veinot have an article up on the MCO site about the current developments: http://midwestchristianoutreach.org/?p=7218

    • LynnCD February 25, 2016 Reply

      The article is on the hypocrisy of Bill Gothard and the IBLP:

      "Bill has continuously taught that it is unbiblical to sue other Christians."

      "In the early turn of the 3rd millennia IBLP’s Indianapolis facility made national news when it was accused of child abuse. I was asked to be interviewed by 2 of the television stations there and consented. I commented on our experience with Bill and IBLP but could not and did not comment on the issue at hand. The reason is simple. I had no first- hand knowledge about what had happened. A few days later I received a fax from a legal firm in Indianapolis representing Bill and demanding that I issue an immediate public retraction and apology for what they claimed were my false statements or they would be suing."

      • rob war February 26, 2016 Reply

        Yes, and the hypocrisy doesn't just end with suing, it includes just about everything else. He didn't follow his own authority teaching, courtship teaching, gossip teaching, etc etc etc etc.

        • Julia Fetters February 26, 2016

          I agree, rob war. ^^^ Let's look at gossip a minute...

          I am pretty sensitive to this subject having been pegged and having been in ATI and having in my not too distant past been part of an organization that really pushes "no gossip" "no bad report".

          I have a few things to say on that one:

          A. I have found that the societies or organizations or churches that bring this up as a "thing" usually have problems that should be talked about. This would make sense because we are imperfect and problems arise with imperfection but in these groups you cannot address them. You MAY go to the person or persons in charge but they may be the problem so that got nowhere. THAT is almost without exception what has been found to be true in what I have seen.

          B. I have found that when gossip is a "thing", people become robots. Since we have different opinions of what constitutes gossip, we clam up and become very shallow and even robotic - we are not sure what we can say so we say nothing or surface stuff - constantly. It is super strange to spend every day with people and yet after months and months not know a single one of them. smh. I mean weird. And then when you are vulnerable you look like the weirdo who says too much. My mouth is getting dry as I write this and my veins pulsating in my neck. I have been there with this and it is strange to put it mildly. It feels like you are in a real Twilight Zone. I could not emotionally or spiritually make heads or tails of it. ( I might add that the ones saying "no gossip" gossiped TO me (in my opinion). Told me things I did not want to know about others. That was eye opening. Just like BG - turning people against one another, wanting family details, talking behind people's backs...)

          C. We are adults, thank you. We do not need the little talk about "If someone is gossiping, just excuse yourself to use the bathroom or walk away." That is 3rd grade material and even then you are still not defining what gossip IS. And PLEASE don't tell me it is a "bad report". I know a sick man who wrote a book on the subject. Bad reports needed to be told regarding him for the past 40 years which is why he felt led to write the book, possibly.

          D. Since we are adults, we can decide how to graciously handle the situation, sorting out if something needs to be done, prayed for etc... We can also leave the words where they fell and not give them another thought. Another option is to not keep company with the continually negative, unkind-in-word person. I have done all of these.

          God can be trusted to lead us. We are not stupid. We do not need a book on the subject. We know words bring life or death. Sure, a reminder of these truths is good but if you make gossip a "thing" you have just put me into defensive mode wondering what you are hiding. It is usually there.

          Big girl pants on. Bigger God to lead and convict. May we speak the truth in love, be kind to one another, and not create the atmosphere of suspicion.

          I need to go get my heart rate normal again. :)

  158. Julia Fetters February 26, 2016 Reply

    And... on the subject of this litigation and hypocrisy:

    http://visionarywomanhood.com/misogyny-an-epidemic-in-our-churches-and-in-us/

    • Julia Fetters February 27, 2016 Reply

      Just an FYI - her blog so resonates with so many that it crashed and she had to get a bigger band width. She is a Mom of 9 who was raised IBLP Vision Forum. She has so much to say and is tactful and honest. Very honest. Elephant in the room honest.

  159. nicole gardner February 27, 2016 Reply

    What I think is also interesting, and I will paraphrase here, because I can't recall the exact quote: "The definition of gossip is anytime a person shares a problem with someone who is not part of the problem or the solution."

    This IBLP "principle" (& no, I did not quote it exactly, but this IS what IBLP teaches) was THE mantra dominating my mind just as soon as I was finally able to dart away from my attacker. Stumbling down the hallway, mumbling, "He's a pig, he's a pig, he's a pig" out loud in shock & disbelief, I made it to the stairwell & careened downward. When I reached the landing, I stopped, then turned & made my way back up to the top of that first flight. I would go back to the doorway of that room. I would stand in that doorway, my fists clenched, & scream "You were just a total creep to me. Don't you ever, EVER do that to me or anyone else ever again!!!" But I just froze at the thought of having to face him again. Besides, I had already swung at him & my fist would've made contact with his face if he hadn't yanked my wrist back down & continued to grip it tightly with his hand. Not very effective. Maybe he would really, REALLY hurt me if I yelled at him again. Especially since he had talked & talked at me while he still had me pinned against the locked closet door where his assault had reached it's crescendo. All his words: "You're just like a daughter to me, I relate to you just like to them, this place is just like a big family," etc, etc, -following my initially having yelled out at him- seemed like the pushing of a reset button between my yelling/attempted-hitting & the battery that happened anyway. He came up & yapped at me every time I showed up at that organization. So, everything was back to normal..... right? On another note, he had already turned scary enough without my having enough of a comprehension of what he was doing to call him out on it. If I actually called him out now that I was able to, what would he do THEN!?!?!? So I turned & this time I scurried all the way down the stairs. What if he were to come after me? I darted around a few corners, down a few hallways, still racing. I paused at the kitchen door. There was a telephone on the wall in there! I backtracked a few steps, grabbed the receiver off the hook. My finger poised in front of the "9" key. Why hadn't I passed ANYONE?!? Why wasn't there somebody else there who could relay to dispatch what had just happened? I was hyperventilating so badly I could barely breathe. What if they thought I was a prank caller, all because I couldn't get the words out? I hung the phone back up & ran 10 more feet to the foyer. There was literally not a single soul in it, nor anyone outside on the steps. I stumbled back to the phone in the kitchen, dragging one shoulder up against the wall for support. Panicked that he would come by (he was supposed to be in the same room I was supposed to be in & had been heading towards & this was the straightest route to that room) I darted back out & back to the foyer & across it. Yanking open double doors, I was finally in a very loud meeting room with lots of people. Scanning the crowds for a familiar face, I finally found one. I made my way to her side & said her name to get her attention. "I can't hear you" she mouthed. "It's too loud in here. Tell me after; there's an empty seat down there." She did not get to me after the meeting was over before my attacker did. Lead me a few paces aside, I anticipated him to apologize. But no. He shamed me for my neck-high-collared, lower-than-the-knee-lengthed dress, bringing up "What happened back there" & put the blame on me & even pointed out to me that "Guys wouldn't ask you out if they knew about that. But don't worry, I'll protect your reputation by not telling anyone; the question is, will you protect your OWN reputation by not talking?" He was the highest-ranking person I had ever spoken to during the year+ that I had been at that organization on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. He was the only person with a high position that I'd ever talked to. There was no flow-chart or "here are our leaders" bio page on this organization's website or anywhere in the foyer.

    When I was taught what "gossip" is by IBLP, they NEVER made any exclusion(s) in the event of experiencing inappropriate touching. And now we ALL know why. This teaching, without addressing the issue of inappropriate touching by offering another definition of whom is to be gone to over an incidence of this, is itself a hush tactic. And I'm sure my experience I relate here is only one genre of the abuse that it has afforded to go uncalled-out, & be blame-shifted........ & covered up.

    Or, maybe there's a pro-Gothard person lurking around here who wants to have a crack at explaining how to point out an instance of molestation to the molester that did it. You know, "Talking about the problem to the person who is the problem". And, while they're at it, maybe they can also explain how there's even an existence of a person who can be part of the solution when everyone you know is under the problem person's influence, even as you are, & you know no one in authority over the problem person. The problem person can, presumably, shift it onto you in talking to them just as well as he already quickly shifted all blame onto you in talking to you. These others are all his subordinates, too! Yeah. I would really like to hear from a pro-Gothard person on this one. Maybe they would even spell out the direct quote.

    • rob war February 27, 2016 Reply

      Nicole, I am so sorry about what happen to you. Keep speaking out as you are now doing which exposes the fruit of Bill's teaching which looks to cover up assault on women and children by perverts like this guy who ought to be castrated and thrown in jail. I'm sure he has assaulted others as well, they usually do. Your ability now to tell what happen to you is very admirable because it takes an incredible amount of strength to talk publicly about the trauma you experienced first hand in sexual assault. That strength to tell the truth comes from God working in your life. You speak for other victims that can't talk about it yet. Reading this is very difficult and should anger anyone with even a little bit of compassion in them. Again I am sorry.

    • David Pigg March 1, 2016 Reply

      Nicole,This is beyond terrible and negates the Kingdom of God.Any similarity makes it that much more evil.Thank you for your anger;it shows you're not a Gothard automaton.I hope many are praying for this to be brought to light,so the hypocrites can smell their own stench before they go into eternity.Repentance is not anti love.How many times does one need to get into his head that harbored lust is.

      • nicole gardner March 1, 2016 Reply

        Thank-you David P. I wish you could spiritually tutor Bill Gothard. He could really use your help, if he ever lets anyone help him.

        • David Pigg March 1, 2016

          I believe he is evil but what made him evil is his pride causing his adamic nature to supercede in his mind all his contemporaries and rivals.There is room for no one other than Bill Gothard and he will maintain that status at all costs,and satiate all his desires to the degree that even young girls are"primary needs" to merely be consumed temporarily for a season at severe damage to their souls and discarded.

  160. Julia Fetters February 27, 2016 Reply

    Nicole, your story is horrific. Like a nightmare - honestly. I wish you could tell me it was a nightmare.

    You are not alone in this experience, although I am sure it has felt like it. Thousands of girls/women can feel your pain and angst far better than I can. Horrific is the only word I can come up with.

    That pale, pathetic definition of gossip is awful and should never be quoted. The next time it is spoken in my hearing I am going to gently and respectfully say "That is hogwash". If the person I am saying that to needs more info, I will give it to them. It is hogwash.

    That definition is a cage. It binds people. I would rather cross the line of gossip (gasp! Such a horrible, horrible sin and one that cannot be made right!) than remain in a cage "just in case".

    One of the over-arching problems with ATI IFB IBLP is this whole idea of sin being so bad. K. Let me explain that one.

    Have I ever gossiped? Oh heavens! I have. Sometimes I was aware of it at the time, sometimes I was convicted later, some of the times I will never know about. The earth still turns, I still love God and most importantly, He still loves me. 'the blood of Jesus Christ, His son cleanses us from all sin"

    Sin is bad. BUT BG and the whole ATI IBLP IFB crowd cannot come to terms with the fact that it is not the end of the world! I do NOT want to sin. But I do. Enter Legalism to tell me GASP YOU SINNED. YOU ROTTEN filth bag! Oh my goodness. YOU are so dirty! You gossiped! You kissed a boy.! You had a filthy thought.

    Ok, now let's get real. I had a filthy thought. I hated it. I took it to the Lord. Anyone want to go out for a hamburger?

    Herein lies the sore bruise of so many of the young people raised in this trash (and I confess that I sinned by propagating it. I think it is a sin in some manner. If not, it was a HUGE mistake). The sore bruise is that we made our young people to feel that their sin caused such a rift between God and them that He could hardly bare to look at them with even His eyes squinted. Sheesh. And that sin was either that they did not want to sing the hymn of the month that morning or they snorted to do the dishes. Sheesh.

    BG spoke of "moral failure" Anyone who was part of this program or IFB repeat with me what BG and those entities mean when they say the words "moral failure" : "falling or failing in a sexual manner". What in the world?

    Moral failure is failing morally. A moralist can do this. Anyone can. Just cheat on your taxes. Gossip (the real kind) Get angry. Curse. Kick your neighbor's dog for no reason.

    This is completely a sicko BG made up phrase. And it made you feel like you had committed the unforgivable sin. And, btw, he needs details...

    All I am trying to point out is: When in doubt, say something. If it is gossip, God will let you know. If you sin, turn to Him. If you step out of His will in thought or action sexually, cheat on your taxes, hit your child, take it to the Lord. Get any help needed.

    ( He gave us the Law to help us see because he loves us - not to condemn. I love the title of a book we own - The TENder Commandments. Beautiful.)

    So kick. Scream. Do what it takes if you feel threatened or hurt or need to talk. Interrupt, draw pictures, do what it takes.

    The world will keep spinning if you do it wrong. Calling out abuse is NEVER gossip, though. Chances are you will do it right.

    In this false world of ATI IBLP IFB, children and young adults are held to such high standards that adults do not and cannot keep them. Sheesh. Stupid me.

    Then you have some "pastors" and BG and DP yelling "standards"! and doing what they do... sick.

    Nicole you did nothing wrong. You were the victim. I am not down playing his sin - it is grossly taking advantage of someone weaker and is not the "let's take care of this and go on with our day" kind of sin that so many young people committed and were made to feel as though they had done what this monster did.

    Hypocrites. Yep, that was me, too. Graceless hypocrites.

    • Elizabeth D February 27, 2016 Reply

      Julia - THANKS so much for that! It's where I've come to over the past few years, too, but I could never put it in words like that.

    • Grace M February 28, 2016 Reply

      Julia,

      I really appreciate your heart in what you're writing.

      I came to Luke 18:9-14 in my Bible reading today, and I thought of what you wrote. At first glance it seems like something opposite from what you were saying, but it's not opposite at all. The Pharisee "prayed" to God in a way of rejoicing that he was better than everyone else. The footnote in my Bible says "This does not sound like a prayer but like an arrogant boast to God. Such boasting is an utterly detestable sin."
      The tax collector, on the other hand, who was the self-admitted sinner, "beat his breast, saying, God, be propitiated to me the sinner!" And then the Lord said, "this man went down to his house justified rather than the other one."

      My point is that the tax collector sinned, became aware of his sin, beat his breast and repented to God, and then what? Kept beating his breast and repenting to God for the rest of his life because he sinned one time? It doesn't say that! It says that, unlike the boastful Pharisee, he "went down to his house justified." He was now in a peaceful and happy relationship with God. (Whereas the Pharisee was still in his sin!!)

      We actually sang a marvelous hymn about this topic in our meeting this morning. One of the verses says:
      "Now we're rejoicing, standing in grace,
      Oh hallelujah! Sin is erased!
      God, in us flowing, in our hearts growing,
      We are saved in His life!
      Propitation made by the blood,
      Jesus' redemption bought us for God!
      No condemnation, justification!
      We have peace toward God!"

      (You can see the whole hymn at https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/h/1131)

      You have to consider, Matthew was a tax collector when Jesus called him. Maybe he beat his breast like that at one point and begged God to be propitiated to him. At any rate, he was a sinner, but he received justification, became one of Jesus' closest associates, and served the Lord to the point of being an author of the Bible. No less can any of we who have committed many sins-- but have repented--be justified, be rejoicing, be at peace with God, standing in grace, and fruitfully serving the Lord.

      • Julia Fetters February 28, 2016 Reply

        Great scripture for what I was saying. Thank you Grace.

        The hymn is marvelous. It is the perfect hymn if we could only know one - the gospel in the words of a song along with our walking in His peace with no more condemnation. Perfect.

        Looking it up since I don't know it... Thanks!

        • Karen February 28, 2016

          Grace, I really love how you highlight what the tax collector's "jusficiation" meant--he genuinely had peace with God! God is not an angry judge, but an exceedingly patient, gentle, forbearing and forgiving Father!

          Last Sunday, the story of the Publican and the Pharisee was the Gospel reading and lesson for the day in my church's lectionary. This lesson begins the two-week preparation period for Lent for Eastern Orthodox Christians. It is one of my favorites. Today was devoted to the story of the Prodigal Son, another parable exalting the generosity, humility and grace of the Father and highlighting the hope and power of repentance and humility vs. the danger of keeping the law outwardly, but completely missing its spirit and purpose!

        • Grace M February 29, 2016

          Karen, I also love the story of the prodigal son! I have heard it said that that is the only time that it is recorded in the Bible that God ran. Of course the father in the story is God. The prodigal was coming home and had his speech all prepared, to say "I have sinned and I am no longer worthy to be called your son." But the father saw him coming from a distance -- that means he must have been out standing on the road looking and waiting for his son to come home. And when he saw him, he *ran* to meet him and embraced and kissed him. He would not allow him to finish his speech of repenting, but called for the best robe and the sandals and the ring. This is our Father God when we come to our end and decide to go back to Him. He doesn't want to hear our long drawn-out repentance and speeches about being worthless. He accepts our repentance and restores us to the place of being His honored sons. Priceless!

        • Julia Fetters February 29, 2016

          The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Psalm 51:7

          (I might point out that this is not the kind of broken spirit that is espoused by some child training methods.No where in the Bible will you ever see that a person is to break another person's spirit. Oh no. That is wrong.)

          When we come broken to God, he will never turn away.

        • Grace M March 1, 2016

          And 1 John 2:1-2: "If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and He Himself is the propitation for our sins." I love the word "Advocate"!

      • Karen March 2, 2016 Reply

        Grace, so true about the father running out to meet the son, etc. in Christ's parable of the Prodigal Son. Many years ago I read an article in Christianity Today (October 26, 1998 issue) by Kenneth E. Bailey, which I have kept in a file. It was an exposition of the Parable of the Prodigal Son illuminating it through Bailey's 40 years of experience and study in Middle Eastern culture. As profound as this parable is even on its surface to us in our modern culture, it has an even more profound statement to make about the character of the father in its original Middle Eastern context. One detail I remember was that in that culture it would have been unthinkable for the patriarch of any family to pick up his skirts and run in public, much less to meet a son who had so dishonored him! This was considered completely beneath his dignity. A mother might be permitted to do such a thing in extraordinary circumstances, but never the father. Probably the substance of that article is reproduced in these three online articles and would be well worth the read (here):

        http://www.eprodigals.com

        In looking at Pt. 1 of the online material, I discovered there is exposition from Bailey on others of Christ's parables as well. He has written the book Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. I think I'm going to have to procure a copy of that book!

        • Linda March 2, 2016

          Jill Carratinni, one of main writers for Ravi Zacharias Ministries, has an excellent piece titled "The Father Who Runs." It highlights the love and humility of the Father as well. I love that when the son wanted to earn his way back into the Father's good graces as a servant, the Father gave him the ring and robe of sonship.

  161. Julia Fetters February 27, 2016 Reply

    One explanation: when I say "That was me, too" I am not referring to abusing someone. I am referring to being graceless in not holding out the same grace to my young people that God holds out to me. Daily. Moment by moment.

    Praise His Name.

  162. nicole gardner February 27, 2016 Reply

    Rob W. & Julia, thank-you so much for your caring authenticity. I will always treasure both your words.

    What I faced that day WAS horrific. What horrifies me more, though, is when I compare the stats: I was 27. Gothard known victim age averages him at -mostly- a teenager-harasser-&-assaulter. I was 26 when I first met my attacker. Everyone (I think) that Gothard did things to met him before they were even of legal drinking age. I was 30-some miles away from both my parents. These girls were thousands & thousands of miles away form their's. I lived in a totally different vicinity from my attacker- these girls lived in the same complex (And Gothard positioned his quarters close to their's where he would see all their comings & goings). I had a lock on my front door. Ruth sought to get one- because he kept letting himself into her room at 10:30 or 11:00 at night, as she was getting ready for bed. My attacker was not my landlord, or my boss, & I had 3 other teachers whom I spent more time under every week besides him. I was not ever called by telephone by my attacker, requested by him to meet him anywhere. He never picked me up or dropped me off in his car, or otherwise driven anywhere by him so that I could get to where he'd assigned me to be. My attacker did not creep up behind me in an enclosed space (copyroom? uugghhh!).
    He did not make me sit next to him on an airplane & cover me with a blanket so he could sexually battery me underneath it. He did not sit next to me in a car or van and then touch me in intentionally sensual ways during commutes in this moving vehicle. He didn't make cosmetic procedure appointments for me. He never caressed me. I was extraordinarily blessed to have not been groomed or physically held captive in any of these ways.

    https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/1983-transcript/

    Read this for what "Rebecca" & Ruth said on tape in talking with those trying to get Bill to repent. Gary Smalley affirms what is said in his responses to them. It is also indicative in this tape that "Rebecca" is the one seen by Gary in Bill's office on his lap in her nightwear. That alone, today, would get any boss fired from any position & probably sued.

    This was criminal abuse in many categories.

  163. nicole gardner February 27, 2016 Reply

    I correct what I said in that Gary Smalley named 4 women who he thought should make statements about Bill's being "in the pigpen", not 3. And, there WAS a lock on Ruth's door; she realized her need to actually use it to prevent Gothard from coming in late at 10 or 10:30pm. Gary wanted Ruth to make a statement AFTER hearing her clearly state this. If he rather instead had NOT heard what she said as being reliable, but still somehow recommended her testimony to be applied to the ongoing confrontation of Bill, then why was he yet e-mailing Bill & Tony about Bill's moral failings post-2000? He accepted the reality of witnesses for many years.

  164. Larne Gabriel February 27, 2016 Reply

    Nicole,

    I am not questioning what you have said, but where did you read this could you provide the link? "And, there WAS a lock on Ruth's door; she realized her need to actually use it to prevent Gothard from coming in late at 10 or 10:30pm. Gary wanted Ruth to make a statement AFTER hearing her clearly state this."

    We had no secrets and she told me she would lock her door, turn the lights out and not answer the knocks, during the time Bill would usually come by to give his good night hugs which she hated.

    Thanks,
    Larne

    • LynnCD February 28, 2016 Reply

      Larne, did not read the entire transcript, but I believe Nicole's quotes come from this link on RG: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/1983-transcript/

  165. nicole gardner February 28, 2016 Reply

    Larne,

    It says in here
    https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/1983-transcript/
    that Ruth told another girl that she was going to have to start locking her door at night because of Bill himself coming to her room at night. I don't know why she would have to if all he did was knock & wait for her to come open it. Maybe it was the persistence of his knocking that made her only worry he would just come in. But giving how respectful she always was of him, it seems odd she would state locking her door as nescessary to keep him out; unless she knew him to be that disrespectful of the basic boundary of a closed door. Barging in on a woman because she hasn't answered the incessant knocking on her room door is no small thing to suppose without it actually having happened or been threatened to happen if she didn't open up. (btw- such a threat is sexual assault by the law). Also, she said this to the other girl while she was fully under his coercive control in every conceivable facet of being; there's no way she was mindful of making an accusation of any kind against him in saying this to the other girl. It had to have been just simple stating of fact. I really don't care whether it was that he busted on in or whether he just told her the next day that he was going to next time. I'm sure she heard about it from him for not answering. Either way, it's either sexual assault or else entering for the purpose of voyeurism & maybe worse.


    https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/1983-transcript/

  166. nicole gardner February 28, 2016 Reply

    Larne,

    These are the exact quotes:
    Ruth Gabriel: "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?"

    Gary Smalley: ......"the comments of [“Rebecca”] and Ruth and [former staff woman] and [another former staff woman] and so on would put specifics down there of what actually happened."

    Gary's request here comes farther down in the conversation in light of what Ruth & others have just said.

  167. Larne Gabriel February 28, 2016 Reply

    Thanks you both Nicole and LynnCD! I was on that call too but I have a box of documents and a mind full of memories and stories I was just placing trying to place the exact source.

  168. nicole gardner February 29, 2016 Reply

    What stands out to me is that, even if a man says he's dating a particular woman, he shouldn't be coming by to knock on her door. Not when she doesn't want him in her room (her given reason being that she's on her way to bed). The fact that locking her room door was the solution she kept being compelled to apply to this problem in light of her not wanting him coming in says volumes about what kind of person is Bill Gothard. How about he just thought about what the other person wanted instead of just doing what he wanted?!?!? His knocking would have been louder than her not opening up, but her not letting him in made just as much of a statement as his attempts to get her to. I struggle to "get" how it was that bg repeatedly disregarded this statement of hers. (Every new night he did it was another repeating of her refusal). Now this would say volumes about any person- whether someone IN a dating relationship, or whether OUT of being an item with another person. It seems that, to her, dating or not dating where not the deciding factors. She simply would not answer to his incessant knocking. The deciding factor for her seems to have been above & beyond bg's leading on of her. On the other hand, the deciding factor for bg's doing this apparently wasn't his settling one way or another between "dating her" versus not dating her. And it certainly wasn't anything above & beyond in his case (honoring God). Otherwise he wouldn't have either hinted broadly at marriage or have plied nightly for good-night hugs. His creating these scenarios weren't based on conviction either in God or in any conviction that he would one day marry any of these women. They boiled down to his being employer/boss. Anyone utilizing such role to ply his employees in his binding their hearts to his own heart isn't mature enough to practice basic Christian ethics in dating, even if they DO date, let alone in marriage. And even if they avoid dating & marriage, they are nonetheless unfit to be an employer/boss, according to either basic Christian or basic secular ethics.

    • rob war February 29, 2016 Reply

      Yes, but Bill should not have been "dating" any of his staff at all. One, it is a complete violation of his own teaching and two and most importantly, he is the employer and they are the employees and it is a complete violation of any kind a appropriateness for someone in a position of power and employment to be "dating" staff beneath him. That includes secular as well as Christian organizations. For someone that went around the country teaching high standards and having "Godly" character, his behavior is hypocritical and just plain old stupid. For him to go around in an isolated area to cabins of single staff females to give them "hugs" late at night, is questionable at best and that is being generous. If he didn't realize how this looks and how questionable it makes him, then he really is hypocritical pervert.

      • Julia Fetters February 29, 2016 Reply

        so right on all counts, rob war.

    • Julia Fetters February 29, 2016 Reply

      This sounds like DP going to the bedroom window of the unfortunate young lady he was after. So sad.

  169. nicole gardner February 29, 2016 Reply

    True that, Rob.

    Even if he had had the character to date or to marry, by the very fact that he never exercised it in any scenario where the girl/woman actually had any choice to date him or not, proves it remained 100% undeveloped throughout his lifetime. Too bad he didn't abstain accordingly, but rather abused his role as boss of so many females, only too obviously to meet his own romantic desires via this means. It's very sad.

    btw, Rob, I really appreciate your comment to me, & Julia's also. They were both very insightful. I gave a thank-you previously but it likely had to be deleted due to my still having keyboard diarrhea. What bg has done is extremely upsetting, but I shouldn't be saying things that could potentially bait the detractors from this truth, & I think moderator here knows I have a propensity for this. This situation at hand is so much worse for all the victims, on so many counts, that I had compared how much worse the victimization was for all these than it was for myself when I was assaulted. With these 20 or so points of comparison my comment was therefore unduly long.
    So, thank-you again Rob for your clarity & kindness, & to Julia out there as well for the same & more.

  170. Deborah Dombrowski February 29, 2016 Reply

    The power in sexual abuse lies in its secrecy, especially when it involves predators against children. We praise the Lord that the truth is coming out.

  171. [email protected] March 2, 2016 Reply

    It will be interesting to see how the PA Catholic Church diocese allegations are handled. The PA AG is really going after them. There are many similarities between these cases; abuse has been known to be going on for four decades, massive cover-up by leadership, so many children abused, one priest saying he may have " accidentally " touched a boy's genitals. Praise God this type of evil is coming under scrutiny and judgement in many religious arenes now. May the Lord's righteous hand bring light to the truth and healing to the victims.

  172. [email protected] March 2, 2016 Reply

    The grand jury in the case has issued recommendations that include lifting the statute of limitations on sexual offenses of minors and asking that civil lawsuits dealing with sexual offenses not have a statute of limitations.

    • rob war March 3, 2016 Reply

      Each State has their own rules about statue of limitations. The abuses in this situation occurred over the period of 1940-1980. At this point I am not sure how anyone can reasonable prosecute anything from 30-70 years ago. The big problem in the PA situation is that the 2 bishops that oversaw the diocese didn't follow their own policies and one of them is dead. The Grand Jury did praise the current Bishop who just took over this big mess in 2011 and he has asked everyone to pray for all the victims. The big thing to take away from this that no matter who the abuser is, priest or pastor or minister or popular seminar speaker is that the police should be contacted and reports and complaints filed. Somehow religious people of all kinds seemed to not to do this and instead go to the Church or organization to complain to first. I think what the Grand Jury also uncovered is that there was some compliancy with police and prosecutors and that instead of truly going after these particular priests, they turned away to let the diocese "handle" it. That is wrong. I'm not sure if this is the same are that Happy Valley and Penn State is but with what happen with Joe Paternal and Jerry, I would guess that the DA will be more hyper vigilant to see this through. We should pray for these victims, BG's victims and all victims of this stuff

      • [email protected] March 3, 2016 Reply

        So true Rob. But maybe these situations coming under scrutiny and being brought to public awareness will prompt Federal Gov. standards

  173. David March 7, 2016 Reply

    Are updates on the case as it unfolds available on any other website?

    Where are things currently as far as the attempts to disqualify Gibbs III?

    • rob war March 7, 2016 Reply

      Usually Julie Ann of spiritual sounding board post updates directly from G III. I just checked her web site and didn't see any. I'm not sure if the moderators here can comment but I might suggest to email Julie Ann.

      • JPU March 7, 2016 Reply

        Julie Anne indicated that she's taking a "blog-time-out" right now. Pray for her too. And praying for the Smalley family. Naturally it makes me wonder if the whole situation took a toll on him and made whatever health problems he had worse, but I don't know the whole story. Thanks to Larne for your sharing about him.

  174. Larne Gabriel March 7, 2016 Reply

    From Gary Smalley's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/gtsmalley/

    "It is with heavy hearts that we announce Dr Gary Smalley, at age 75, graduated to heaven last night (3/6/16). The family gathered and surrounded him, his loving wife Norma kissed his forehead gently and sang to him. This beautiful transition came to an end as these words were spoke over him "The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;" Numbers 6:24-25

    The Smalley family is grateful for the outpouring of love and support. Arrangements for the memorial service are being handled by the family."

    Gary was a servant of the Lord who touched many lives and healed many relationships.

    Larne

    • rob war March 7, 2016 Reply

      I'm sorry to hear this. May God be with his family and those that knew him. Now he is with the Lord.

    • LynnCD March 7, 2016 Reply

      Larne, I know he was a good friend to you, and I am sorry for your loss, and will be praying for his family, especially Norma. I heard him from time to time on radio broadcasts, and read one of his books. "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." "Maranatha."

  175. Larne Gabriel March 7, 2016 Reply

    Thanks all Gary was good guy

    • rob war March 8, 2016 Reply

      Jim Daly of Focus on the Family had a wonderful tribute on his blog. I was always impressed with how closely he worked with his beloved wife Norma and together seemed to have lived out what he taught in helping marriages and families. I have yet to see any such acknowledgment from IBLP web site even though he is listed as a speaker. I think that is a shame. I also don't expect any tribute or acknowledgement from Bill Gothard either. Praying for his wife. It is very tough to lose a long term spouse even if expected. "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints". Psalm 116:15

      • David Pigg March 8, 2016 Reply

        He cared enough about what was really at stake with the victims to disregard repercussions to "the ministry",and his own personal welfare;he wasn't at all harsh,but was compelled to" have this burden" out of a greater compassion than comraderie.Thank you for your nobleness.

  176. nicole gardner March 8, 2016 Reply

    I'm sorry about your loss, Larne; my prayers also are with you & your family as well as Gary's immediate family.

  177. Julia Fetters March 11, 2016 Reply

    Please consider reading this thoughtful memoir. The date on it makes no difference at all. In fact, things have been shown to be even worse since the young lady wrote this. Families thinking about joining would be wise to read this. It may be on RG already but is easily accessed here in the most recent comments.

    http://darcysheartstirrings.blogspot.com/2011/06/letter-to-family-considering-joining.html

  178. Lisa blake March 12, 2016 Reply

    Sorry for your loss, Lame. His ER for love marriage intensive helped
    Save our marriage after my husband's affair.

    • Larne Gabriel March 12, 2016 Reply

      Thanks, but its everyone's loss, Gary was the first to admit his own mistakes and even wrote about them. Even in Denver he used those examples as we dealt with Bill, who just didn't get it or see the application to his life.

      Ruth and I visited their home in Phoenix a couple times and always felt welcome and part of the family. His friends we met were just common people like us. I would have to admit his best asset was his wife Norma who embraced all and tells it like it is. She is everyone's favorite aunt.

      The memorial service is in Branson and open to the public,

      Saturday, March 19 @ 3pm

      College of the Ozarks Chapel

      1 Industrial Pl, Point Lookout, MO 65726

  179. David S. Knecht Sr. March 14, 2016 Reply

    Brother Don,

    I just saw your post to me, dated 2/16. You are probably more qualified to talk theology than I, but I am guessing that we agree a more than your post might imply. If your Lincoln quote is accurate, then it was he who baptized his political theory, not I. And of course Jesus himself explained that Moses inserted a secession clause into the Hebrew marriage covenant, but only to restrain the damage of sin! From Phaoroh's perspective Moses was the ultimate secessionist, right? So secessionist thinking cannot be all bad.

    If "lord" is too strong a synonym for head of household, fine. If "head" is a milder-sounding synonym, that suits my purpose. I hope you and Mrs. Rubottom agree on your headship of the Rubottom house.

    You sound like a presbyterian, brother. I am picking up your terms such as covenant, and cultivating your Rubottom slice of dominion. That's okay. My denomination thinks a bit differently, but I get you.

    One Lord, yes! But many members are okay. I hope you did not use secessionist as a smear word, but if you want to describe me as pro-freedom, we agree there!

    Peace be with you,
    David K

    • Don Rubottom March 19, 2016 Reply

      My point is that secession is not a way out of a covenant. Only death. Moses was not in covenant with Pharoah, but his people were enslaved. Come out slaves: that is not secession. Divorce is secession. Is murder and torture worse? Probably. But divorce still does not end a covenant according to Malachi. Even Moses acknowledged that remarriage "defiled", implying something of a marriage survives divorce.(Lincoln was positing a covenant among the American people, not baptising his politics.)
      I am Presbyterian by accident, just beginning to understand covenant through a more Catholic (orthodox, which Lincoln was referencing: divorce has only been "cool" in Christianity a couple hundred years) understanding of marriage as God's revelation of covenant and His intended relation to mankind. (Hos. 2:16 "You will call me Ishi" (husband) "You will no longer call me Baal" (lord). So Ishi, head, is not a lord, but a life-giving, serving, covenant keeper.)

      • David S. Knecht Sr. March 20, 2016 Reply

        Thanks for your 3/19 replies, brother Don. I'll combine my replies here, and limit personal marriage comments to my own.

        But please don't feel constrained to defend the marriage covenant against me. I hope I am one of the good guys on this topic. For the time being, Mrs. K seems to think so. The only time the topics of murder and torture have surfaced in the context of marriage have been between you and me, not between me and Mrs. K. Whew!

        But one of your points above is worth exploring a bit further. If Christian attitudes toward divorce have liberalized in the past two centuries, isn't that about the same time interval since American states began licensing marriage? Wikipedia says state marriage licenses began in the mid-nineteenth century. I wonder if caesar's intrusion into marriage didn't tempt Christians to liberalize. But there I go again, raising the political topic!

        Though I am a Methodist, I share your opinion that we Protestants might have something to learn from the Church of Rome, at least in some categories. Marriage and sexuality are among these. Come to think of it, an irony lies here. One evangelical criticism of Gothard was that he has a romanist view of marriage! I think the critic considered Gothard insufficiently liberal on the topic of divorce.

        And I was being facetious with the pharaoh wisecrack. Of course the Hebrew exodus was different from from a covenant-breaking secession. But I still submit that Lincoln's political claim on my 19th Century ancestors was no stronger than Pharaoh's claim on the Israelites. We don't have to agree on that one if you'd rather leave it alone.

        But thanks for the Hosea text. Of course the prophet is right. When I spoke of headship in the Christian household, I was thinking of it the way C.S. Lewis explains in Mere Christianity. No sympathy for tyranny here.

        Best wishes for Holy Week,
        David K

        • Don Rubottom March 21, 2016

          Thanks. We do agree on the important matters. I have read some legal history because my work involves legislative analysis in light of the courts' taking over marriage law. A good book I'd recommend is "From Covenant to Contract" which actually shows more fully how civil law in protestant culture has gradually move away from the Catholic view. Focussing on state licenses misses the bigger picture and follows the same fallacy of Roe v. Wade that an increase in legislation in the 19th Century represented drastic changes in law. In my view it merely reflected the enthusiasm of the vesting of ALL legislative power in legislatures which was really just begun under the 1787 Constitution. Why live on English common law (evidenced only in case law) when you can enact a clear code? I also believe racism was behind much licensure law as it often included anti-miscegenation provisions, themesleves legislative excesses that contributed to judicial supremacy through Loving v. Virginia.
          I see marriage as sacramental, but not a church sacrament. Malachi says God joins them together, not the church. Other than that, I accept Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage. But I have been pondering B.G.'s views in light of his fall and our examination of his gracelessness. I think the distinguishing aspect of his view is the demonizing of divorce, so that a woman is legalistically required to submit to abusive marriage. The Scripture provides no such standard. the Law of Moses makes it clear that a woman had a right to freedom if she was not treated properly as a wife. It is remarriage that Christ condemns as adultery and Moses calls "defilement". Divorce is merely a step toward adultery. It is not adultery itself. Paul says "let them depart" but does not then suggest remarriage but strongly recommends singleness except for "virgins" and the betrothed. God's law is gracious and accommodates man's weaknesses. Gothard's law is graceless and multiplies the burdens of man's weaknesses. And it supports patriarchy: the man is forgiven and allowed to "move on". The woman condemned and trapped.
          He is also graceless in his view of contraception, seeing that women must "submit" and "make their man happy" regardless of her emotional capacity for another child. Catholic teaching, as I understand it, would recommend self-control and patience to the man rather than torture for his wife. The goal of Catholic teaching is NOT having as many children as possible, but having respect for the fruitful nature of covenantal love, both in use and restraint, as revealing God's covenantal nature and disclosing of our need for repentance and holiness.
          Gothard seems to teach that sexual intercourse is inherently evil, to be confined within marriage as a safety valve for male desire. The source of purity is repression and suppression (be just like Bill!). Catholics teach that sex is holy, honorable, undefiled to be selflessly expressed in chastity or in covenant tri-union with spouse and God, within His design, in reliance on redeeming Grace, rather than controlled by the will of man. The faith of one spouse sanctifies the other and the offspring of the union. I Corinthians 7 fits much better in Catholic doctrine than fundamentalism. In fact, going to conservative Baptist, Bible and Presbyterian churches for 37 years, I've never heard a preacher preach through I Cor. 7.

        • Karen March 22, 2016

          Don Rubottom, that all seems very well said in your reply to David K. Good observations about a fully catholic Christian tradition about the nature of marriage and divorce, etc., vs. modern fundamentalist views. Thank you!

        • Don Rubottom March 23, 2016

          Karen, coming from you, I take great encouragement from this affirmation. I am trying to comprehend His great Love in "the whole man".

    • Don Rubottom March 20, 2016 Reply

      David K., I tried to reply but don't know if it awaits moderation or what. If it doesn't post in the next couple of days, I will try again. We are both speaking in code, for brevity and may not be communicating clearly.

      • Don Rubottom March 21, 2016 Reply

        My original was posted so you can disregard this one!

  180. Leslie March 14, 2016 Reply

    That seemed to me to be a pretty snarky comment. It brought to mind Albert Einstein's comment "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well."

  181. David S. Knecht Sr. March 15, 2016 Reply

    Dear Leslie,

    I don't know if we have exchanged comments here before, as I don't visit this site very frequently. Was your 3/14 post in reply to me? I hope I did not offend you.

    I had intended to answer Don R, who had posted something last month about theology and politics. Of course the received wisdom warns us that discussing religion and politics is certain to be offensive. Perhaps Don and I should have retired to a smoke-filled room to hash it out. Or settled our theological/political question with pistols at ten paces. What else could you expect from a southern white man when someone quotes Lincoln? Or, I should have rebutted with something from Jefferson Davis.

    But I like your Einstein quote. It sounds like a good motto for us home-schoolers. Or maybe not. I remember trying to understand Einstein's famous theory in physics class, don't you? I might have wished it to be more simple.

    Peace and love,
    David K

    • Don Rubottom March 19, 2016 Reply

      David S Knecht: I was not offended by your snark. I think I understand the basis for your scoffing, but I hope that you do not understand me so well as you imagine. Still, it is best not to bring other people's family relations into such discussions unless the other person brings that in. Your knowledge of my marriage does not qualify you to comment in any way. We are all struggling to grow here. The boldest among us are very up front about our inadequacies and failings. As a matter of fact, Gothardism had damaged all of our marriages and family relations in ways that not all acknowledge on the same schedule. Don't presume otherwise unless you spend a lot more time here reading much more of our stories.

  182. DAVID PIGG March 16, 2016 Reply

    I have searched other websites reading articles trying to get my mind wrapped around the extent of darkness committed that involved a necessary conspiracy;a price needed to maintain the façade of "exemplary moral high ground".Bear in mind that once these transgressions are hidden,those that hid them are bound;conscience never the same except in desperate repentance.Attempts to keep them hidden;maneuverings to veil the inner contents,masked behind natural religion WILL HAVE TO COME AT A PRICE.A price even if successful, a price lashing out at victims,denying ultimately the sanctity of existence for the frail,the vulnerable.A price automatically eroding lives and hearts into a conscienceless morass of superficiality and heartlessness.What is to be made of Jane Doe V,who was raped after going to ITC,molested by Gothard ,perhaps previous to the rape,perhaps afterward,whipped by a certain dept. head,McWoh,and starved in isolation,no one realizing[or perhaps caring]she was there?So this,in following,MUST BE COVERED UP,can never be brought forth as evidence,if so the defense has their way.This ultimately paves the way for a certain spiritual insanity,a travesty so immense as to disconnect any meaning for human relationships to thrive.Yeah that's right throw it all away for a season;keep it covered until one day it all explodes.Then you'll never put the fragments together.

  183. Julia Fetters March 16, 2016 Reply

    David Pigg Thank you for helping keep the main thing the main thing. Wow. When I look back to see that the Wizard was just a guy behind a curtain, frail and pitiful...

    So much hidden. It reminds be of the sink holes in Missouri - a beautiful, regal home hiding an underlying sinister cavern.

    So many lost years. God be our help, health, and strength as we internalize this and walk away and may Bill Gothard and so many others in this corrupt organization repent.

    • DAVID PIGG March 16, 2016 Reply

      Julia,I greatly respect your comments and thank you for your reply.There's a "tarnish" left for those recovering from Gothardism that insinuates no one will be "right" or "wrong";very subtle;many gals have become atheists, some cynical of prayer as I saw in one comment on another websight,there is greatly needed spiritual warfare as this can not be seen through "natural perception",may Jesus gather the wounded with His long staff.The hurts are only exacerbated by the denials;"where to go with what's left of the heart;who to trust.If that's what God's like...Pray until the Comforter comes.

      • Julia Fetters March 17, 2016 Reply

        "frail and pitiful" In the truest sense, that describes me - actually all of mankind. I am very aware of that. It is the hypocrisy that is so alarming. Footsie alone would have done it. We were all there and know the highest of standards and perceived holiness of the leader(ship). The "dead men's bones" hidden underneath are what are alarming.

        I have learned so many lessons, not the least of which is to be on my guard to "dead men's bones" lurking underneath my persona.

        It hurts to speak ill of another and I did not want to seem prideful in my previous comment. No, that would be missing one of my greatest lessons in all of this.

        • Larne Gabriel March 17, 2016

          You mentioned "Footsie would have done it", I just got off the phone with a friend who just went through required corporate Sexual Harassment training. Part of the training included hostile work environments. One example used was if a manager take the same group of subordinates to lunch and always leaves the same employee back in the office to mind the store has created a hostile work environment for that employee. The manager either has to take all of them to lunch or rotate who is left behind. Any one every seen that at the "funny farm"? Footsie is much worse and a "hostile work environment for those he didn't play Footsie with! (yuck, gag me)

      • Don Rubottom March 20, 2016 Reply

        And yet, David P., whether one is abused, merely lost, or a narcissistic abuser, "where to go" is and has always been the same place: to the True Savior. I thank Him that he did not allow us to remain clouded in Gothard's legalism and natural religion. I thank Him that no man, no denomination, no system of man can lead us to Him, but only the Cross and the empty tomb.
        Because "that's" NOT "what God's like" we can run from it to Him!

  184. nicole gardner March 17, 2016 Reply

    yeah- in his case, since he chose to eat only across from those he wanted to footsie, it was sexually harassing-ly hostile of both the left-out people and his footsie-d prey. Let's see: Would I [If I'd even had a chioce, which none of his victims did] rather be brushed aside & put away for not being one of the attractive people, or be classified as one of the attractive ones & then molested? [Keep in mind that, had I been relegated to outside his special attention, I would have had NO idea what I was "missing" out on; he was careful to molest in relative secrecy. I know that for me, imagining that more attractive girls were seated by him at his head table to simply be talked to by him, etc., I would've felt left-out. Not knowing what the perp was doing]. I wonder if anyone else has ever made a lifelong career of creating a hostile work environment for the sum total of all of people that he segregated into one of his 2 groupings for employees/interns/counselees. Only 2 deciding factors separated his 2 groups: Pretty Enough To Molest/Harass versus Not Pretty Enough. At least he can content himself with the thought that it was only over what he deemed the cream of the crop against whom he accumulated all his smutty predations.

  185. Julie Anne March 18, 2016 Reply

    "Bill Gothard’s former ministry has lost its seal of approval from the leading group that sets the standards for evangelical ministries.

    The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) terminated the membership of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) last Friday, citing “failure to comply” with its governance standard."

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/march/bill-gothard-iblp-loses-ecfa-accreditation-governance.html

    • Julia Fetters March 18, 2016 Reply

      Well that is a start to help the end come.

      Now for the ECMA and ECHA to get involved. (Evangelical Council for Moral Accountability and Evangelical Council for Honesty Accountability). Oh, I guess that is the place of the church.

      Well, there is no "local church" affiliation so I guess the voices of RG and those involved are that accountability - after the fact.

      Thank you Julie Anne for keeping us informed.

  186. nicole gardner March 18, 2016 Reply

    It's about time; the ECFA has as it's set standard:

    "no person in the decision-making process may:

    (a) be related to the person whose compensation is being addressed,
    (b) be subordinate to the person whose compensation is being set,....."

    goes on to refer to the control group as "the board". It clearly says that a board or other decision-making committee cannot be subordinate to anyone whose salary the amount of which these are in position answer for as to the amount of. If a board is to answer to such a thing, they are NOT to be in any submissive position to the CEO!

    Now that Christianity Today has identified DG as Gothard's personal defense website, I guess all those Moderator posts about Gothard supposedly being "Biblical" in always having had his board be subordinate to him have garnered the ECFA's attention. Because it's their stated stipulation that no member of theirs can have a minion board.

    • B Badger March 19, 2016 Reply

      Also, there has to be at least 5 board members.
      According to IBLP's website, there are only 4.

    • rob war March 19, 2016 Reply

      Yes, all very curious isn't it? At. the same time, I was a little disappointed in the CT article because I think it should have listed the name of the moderator at DG and putting up Alfred's current defense which is that this lawsuit by 18 is only a minority of the thousands that have attended Bill's seminars. That is a bogus defense because there is a big difference between the thousands that attended and saw a staged public behavior and the real Bill and his real behavior which only a few hand pick people saw and experience. This is a bogus argument. Bill's behaviors went back to the 1970's and only seemed to get worst as the years went on. CT should have seen this and not given it any stage. The same Gleaning section also talked about the problems at Coral Ridge. I kinda wonder with CT and maybe being a bit of a critic here, it they are behind on these issues because all these problems with IBLP, Coral Ridge, Mars Hill are already being discussed openingly on other blogs and web sites. I'm glad CT did discuss this latest news and now just gave Alfred more exposure.

      I also wonder if the stream of info that Alfred got directly from Bill has been cut because Alfred has had nothing new from his blog lately at all. I am speculating here but if I was a gambler (and I am not) I would bet that Bill's lawyer told Bill to shut up with Alfred and stop leaking things. I also think and you pointed out Nicole very well that Alfred's belittling of the role of the board with Bill and his views and attitudes about the board and "why does Bill need a board because George Mueller didn't" sort of ideas has now come back to bite all of them in the butt and now this just isn't about what the State required but what other Evangelical groups that watch these ministries require. The silence on DG of late is very curious and Alfred's blind do and say anything on behalf of Bill has in effect hurt Bill and IBLP in the long run. But that is the fruit of defending the indefensible and putting oneself in the middle where you don't belong and the school yard big mouth has spun it one too many times and is sitting in the middle covered with dirt and left alone.

      • Lindsey77 March 19, 2016 Reply

        rob war,
        Has the silence on DG extended to the comments section?

      • Don Rubottom March 20, 2016 Reply

        Alfred has always seemed to have seasons of internet posting. Apparently, he does have other responsibilities in life that take him away from the keyboard for periods of time. I am sure that BG is not feeding Alfred's family.

        • LynnCD March 20, 2016

          Don, there is a long segment of comments by the DG moderator, who I presume to be Alfred, which have to do with Bill and the board. Someone named Dan restated what Alfred said in this comment:

          "Whatever it is, you are stating that a para-church can exist without any line off authority. You have two problems with this that I can see after catching my breath:

          1) Bill coined the phrase “chain of command” and has been preaching it now for 50 years. Don’t really understand how he can say he did not need and authority over him to run his corporation (and please don’t give me this nonsense about him being under the authority of his local church).
          2) As a member of ECFA he committed to board governance."

          The comment starts here, and the ensuing discussion was probably something the ECFA looked at, among other things: http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2016/01/11/new-math/#comment-2006/

        • Don Rubottom March 21, 2016

          Thanks.

        • Don Rubottom March 22, 2016

          Having read in that chain Alfred's comments about authority and board governance, I'd like to sum it up here and share some observations. There is little point in entering into that conversation as he cannot keep to any point long enough to reach any conclusion.
          Alfred seems argues as FACT that the ministry was "Bill's", in other words, it is a sole proprietorship, his individual ministry, and Bill had no human authority in such undertaking. This unfortunately is the mindset of many pastors and others in the non-profit world. When Bobby Bowden was being pressured to leave FSU after 30+ years as head football coach (because he was old and failing), his wife made public comments to the effect that the Bowden family had built FSU Football and he should have the freedom to leave on his own terms, that it was morally wrong for the University to exercise authority over his retirement date. Many successful pastors feel the same way about "their" ministries. It is human nature to feel ownership of one's life work. But it is not Biblical: "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ." If it is the Lord's work (Christ in you) it can't be yours. At the root of Bill's authority teaching was that God, not man, places all our authorities in our lives for our good. It is a hard and somewhat confused teaching, especially when one finds oneself under a self-appointed tyrant. It is convenient for anyone who claims to have such authority. It is burdensome to those under authority. Apparently, (by Alfred's logic) it was exceedingly burdensome to Bill Gothard. So much so that he could not abide by it. It is too bad that he placed burdens on others that he could not bear himself.
          But if Bill's independence is indeed a fact, (i.e. that IBYC/IBLP/ATIA/ATI are "Bill's" personal ministry) Alfred shows in this that Bill Gothard was a liar and deceiver. Most of us have heard him say in some conference or meeting that he was under the Board's authority. Bill himself sought "permission" form the board to marry one of his personal secretaries. Bill's father was on the board for decades (apparently to intermingle and unify his family and organizational authority "umbrellas"). Whatever Illinois incorporation papers he signed or approved, whatever application and accreditation forms he signed or approved with respect to EFCA, whatever IRS filings that he signed or approved (these are public records), ALL of these documents testified to someone specifically and to everyone publically that the organization had a governing board and Bill Gothard was not that board but a mere appointed employee of that board. Thus, to argue as fact that Bill was not under the board's authority is to proclaim him and the board to be liars and frauds. Unfortunately, Alfred continually rationalizes B.G.'s conduct with arguments for which he neglects to consider the logical consequences.
          Alfred adds an argument that the Bible provides for no board oversight of ministry and therefore Bill Gothard was NOT under authority of a Board. This is an argument of what should be, departing completely from facts. To say the Bill should NOT have been under a board's authority is to proclaim him a fool when placing himself under such authority or when organizing the ministry under the legal structures that he used. It is indeed fascinating to consider that this man, who regularly taught us all to avoid entering into any legal partnership arrangement based on the "unequally yoked" and "surety" teachings of Scripture, would ignore such clear Scriptural guidance as Alfred finds rejecting corporate structure and board oversight of ministry.
          Alfred's next argument, which he references without really developing, is that Bill merely kept the form of organization required by an ungodly government but he was bound only to obey God and not man. This argument implies that Bill had no choice but was required to incorporate. That is not true. The form of doing business or ministry is a matter of complete freedom in America and Illinois. This is not Soviet Russia or Red China where legal Christian ministries are closely regulated. A man can do everything Bill Gothard has done with no formal business organization. People choose to incorporate for one primary reason: so that they will not be personally liable for organizational debts and accidental injury and property damage. The term of art is "limited liability". They incorporate to avoid or minimize personal responsibility. How does that conform to "let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay"? People incorporate to provide a convenient means to demonstrate to the IRS compliance with regulations under s. 501(3)(c) of the tax code providing for tax deductibility of contributions to charitable causes (although incorporation is NOT necessary, the code refers to "organizations" and is very flexible as to form) and organizational tax exemption (charities do not pay income tax if their revenues exceed their expenses). How does that conform to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"? In short, people incorporate to take particular advantages of the laws of the jurisdiction.
          I have downloaded IBLP's filed IRS Form 990 for 2012. Anyone can get 2012, 2013, 2014 form www.GuideStar.org. This form shows Bill Gothard was the Executive Director, CEO of IBLP. If so, he was under a contract (which need not be in writing) to serve the corporation and authorized BY THE CORPORATION to exercise authority as an "officer", CEO. Such representations communicate to others doing business with IBLP (i.e. all of us who attended conferences and seminars or bought literature), that Bill WAS under authority, that he represented THE CORPORATION, and that whatever he did (this is a matter of Agency Law, a class I aced in law school) in the name of IBLP purported to be the actions of IBLP rather than Bill Gothard. (2012 IRS filing lists Billy Boring as Chairman of the Board, Ralph Hudgens as Secretary, Dwight Fredrickson as Treasurer, and John Stancil, Bernie Reese, Charles Stephen Paine, Gill Bates, Anthony Burns, David York as Board Members. Robert Barth is listed as Asst. Secretary. ALSO, Board members are listed as providing an average of 5 hours service per week to the organization.)
          Bill Gothard voluntarily represented himself as the CEO of a corporation that Alfred asserts he only participated in under ungodly government compulsion. That is a crock. He could have refused to be CEO. He could have been a mere volunteer, speaking and writing like other volunteers, or a mere employee like so many others. But he was CEO: Chief Executive Officer. He claimed and asserted authority over the employees and volunteers as speaking FOR the corporation which he and the corporation publically represented to be governed by a board of directors.
          Alfred's entire line of reasoning regarding board authority boils down to this: It was unbiblical to govern the ministry by a board and since Bill does nothing unbiblical, he merely pretended to obey laws he did not have to obey, pretending to be under corporate board authority, voluntarily accepting and exercising delegated authority as CEO, but was not bound by any directives of the Board, INCLUDING the directive to keep his distance from young women. In other words, he had the form of legality but denied the power thereof. Such thinking is so convoluted and necessarily requires so much deception and misrepresentation that it is easier for me to believe that Bill Gothard had the form of Godliness but denied the power thereof. Moreover, if Alfred is right, Bill Gothard operated a sole proprietorship under false IRS filings and under the tax laws may be subject to income tax on every penny the organizations every accumulated. And be subject to punishment for tax fraud.
          I am not accusing Bill of this, I am saying that is the logic of Alfred's "no authority" position. Alfred needs to take that position to exonerate Bill of all accusations of rebellion and being outside his umbrella of authority. It may help Alfred sleep better at night, but it would give nightmares to Bill's lawyers if they even contemplated such scenario as true. But in fact, Alfred does not even believe it as he stated this in his second paragraph of the post: "Did He Do it?" http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2015/10/19/358/
          "Bill felt he was best prepared to resolve the problems by personally contacting each offended individual. There was a strong disagreement and, rather than limit his response, Bill resigned, as he understood it, temporarily."
          So, Bill resigned in 2015 to get outside the authority of the board in order to address his accusers directly. If he was never under their authority, this is nonsense.
          Conclusion: Bill was under authority--voluntarily, legally, morally and scripturally (if the Bible truly teaches that all our authorities are placed there by God for our good). He was rebellious and got outside the umbrella A LOT. He likely lived outside the umbrella. All this was a constant aspect of his "ministry" as evidenced by the board resignation letter of his former Wheaton professor way back in 1980 or '81. I regret that I was not aware of such things before my family became involved.

        • MatthewS March 22, 2016

          Good analysis.

          It is sadly ironic that Alfred would seek to put ECFA on the defensive as though it should feel ashamed in the presence of Bill; Bill representing God's wisdom and ECFA representing inferior human wisdom. And yet the rubble pile of IBLP on which Alfred stands to proclaim is the result of exactly the kind of disaster that ECFA standards would have helped Bill and IBLP avoid had they indeed been "under their umbrella of protection."

        • Elizabeth D March 22, 2016

          Great summation and observations, Don!

        • LynnCD March 22, 2016

          Thanks, Don. That whole comment section about the board and authority and George Mueller and etc. was too convoluted for me to make much sense of. I do not understand the law here, so thanks for your input.

  187. rob war March 19, 2016 Reply

    There are no new posts since March 12th which was brother David K's reply to me. It is like the whole conversation over anything has been dropped and Alfred has not posted any new article either. I just think it is curious and wonder out loud if Bill has been told not to talk to Alfred or told Alfred to stop.

    • David S. Knecht Sr. March 21, 2016 Reply

      Hello again sister Rob. I just caught up with you here, as I have been exchanging a few comments here with Don R. Unfortunately it got prickly when we veered off into politics. Don thought I was scoffing. I probably was.

      You are right. It has been mighty quiet over there at DG. Maybe everyone gave it up for Lent? And now that we have made it all the way to Holy Week the truce will hold for a few more days.

      Unfortunately nobody else over at DG endorsed the 1976 Gothard book you recommended, so I have been reading other stuff instead.

      More peace and love,
      David K

    • Daniel March 21, 2016 Reply

      I'm sure Bill's lawyer told Alfred to be quiet. In his passionate defense of Bill, he was lofting up all kinds of juicy tidbits of awkward information. He probably didn't really help Bill's case at all.

  188. Don Rubottom March 21, 2016 Reply

    Probably? His constant misdirection and rationalization simply prove the difficulty that the accusations raise for any effort to claim innocence for B.G.

  189. Elizabeth D March 22, 2016 Reply

    He's baaaaaaack ... and in true jaw-dropping form. ECFA is playing politics and will have to stand before the Lord for removing their certification where their standards are not met. Donors will continue to donate regardless of ECFA status, because that's just a human label. Right.

    I didn't see any explanation of what value ECFA certification ever was, or why IBLP would have ever sought or publicized that status to begin with.

    Very sad that Alfred can't help himself in spite of trying. And that he hasn't quit trying.

    • David March 22, 2016 Reply

      Not quite following. You talking Alfred or BG being "back"? How is ECFA "playing politics"? Or are you just quoting Alfred/BG?

      • Elizabeth D March 22, 2016 Reply

        Sorry to not be clear for those that don't check out the other site. Alfred was quiet for about two weeks, which could make us wonder if he might have figured out or was told that his forum isn't helping his cause. But no - now there is a comment regarding the ECFA with his response. He claims that the ECFA's denial of IBLP's status was political, and that they will have to answer to the Lord for what they do. And then a shamed-bully-on-the-playgroud statement that EFCA status really doesn't mean anything anyway, in spite of IBLP obviously seeking and advertising that status in the past. So, yes, I was definitely quoting Alfred.

        • MatthewS March 22, 2016

          I find it telling that it is a natural result of being a disciple of Bill that one will so easily throw out statements like "they stand before the Lord", implying "the Lord will smite their sorry backsides." The ECFA apparently stands condemned here for standing by their stated requirements. The nerve of those guys!

        • Karen March 22, 2016

          The damnable and blasphemous rationalizations of hell are so dreadfully predictable. Poor duped Alfred doesn't realize he is just hell's hapless delusional mouthpiece, a highly unenviable position. How will he escape condemnation along with his all-too-fallen human god? It's so sad to me to think they could both go to the grave clinging to this outrageous delusion. They will both surely be well disabused of it in the full Light of Christ's glory at the judgment, but then it will be too late to repent and make restitution.

          P.S. MatthewS, I love your sense of humor: "The nerve of those guys!" Indeed!

    • Don Rubottom March 22, 2016 Reply

      Alfred quoting Paul: "if we are worrying the opinions of men, we are not the servants of Jesus." Inferring that he meant "worrying about", it is funny that Alfred's entire website is directed at confronting the opinions of men.
      I take no offense at his brushing aside the ECFA decertification. He is merely minimizing it to avoid considering any validity there. He should rejoice that IBLP is no longer under that man-made standard of board governance!

      • nicole gardner March 22, 2016 Reply

        Yup according to his twisted reasoning he should rejoice. Especially since the ECFA bylaws clearly state that no CEO receiving any salary (or perks) from the organization they're CEO of can have his board be at all subordinate to him regarding such matters. This precludes that something way more outrageous such as a CEO deciding such matters himself with a mere prop of a board to be utterly out-of-the-question for ECFA approval. Which is what DG Moderator was actually positing. For a very long running comment thread....... with no objection to Moderator's adamantly held position on this......... from Mr. Gothard or his lawyer. What DG Moderator deems as his best defense of Bill would be censored by ECFA even if this defense simply WERE Gothard having had his board be subordinate to himself. But it's even worse than that; a CEO making the decisions for his organization with just a propped-up board is well beyond the well-experienced ECFA's imagination; it's totally off the grid. Nonetheless, this is exactly what DG Moderator pushed for as being the "Biblical" way because of Gothard supposedly being a type of Jesus, which therefore supposedly has him operating with the whole world as his oyster. (Because, as we all know, Jesus' mission on earth was to preside over the whole world as His oyster. NOT. I used to read what DG Moderator said over there until the insanity had me laughing so bad I figured I might as well just go watch skilled comedy in order to cut back on what were also high doses of blasphemy).

        ECFA's stamp of approval isn't just a meaningless token; it's about accountability. All DG Moderator's points, whether in arguments regarding sexual assault, the function of a para-church board, the Dumbrella, etc. have all been the same point: THERE IS NO NEED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR A TOP-RANKED CHRISTIAN LEADER. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. DG thus truly reflects the teaching & M.O. of IBLP. It's validating of this being what we've all come to know of IBLP to see it spelled out in dialogue on DG.

        • David Pigg March 22, 2016

          Nicole:That is a super point well stated with the implications being if one wants to consider taking Gothard's ramifications that far;why have a judge in the church to defy of all people,Bill G.?Why have a jury?The people;[spectrum of victims,hapless naive ignorant,],should never have raised their voice; will never achieve other than subsurviant status in Gothard's caste system.Its not Gothard's world but it sure is his church.But the problem is the world is now the forum for this court case.Recovering Grace in their defiant rebellion against God[and his servant B.G.]imposed an "independent spirit."Gothard is angry having lost what he controlled for forty years.To the world?God had to use this in His sovereignty to allow the world to see the morass carefully hidden away behind pious posturing,calculated coverups,supermoralism.Don't think there was not a price to pay;for all of us.Now for those of you for eyes to see,[and don't think I trust the world's discernment across the board],the world must do what Gothard stopped the church from doing.

        • Don Rubottom March 23, 2016

          I fear that ECFA looking the other way all those years is on par with all the famous preachers who went along. I think it condemns ECFA that they only remove accreditation after the board falls to 4 rather than withheld it from the beginning due to B.G.'s total control of the organization and its funds. Small salary is nothing when you live on a large resort property and eat ministry food 24/7.

        • Don Rubottom March 23, 2016

          David P. Don't put too much hope in a judicial resolution. There are real problems bringing such charges to judgment. Heck, the lawyers may drag it out until B.G. is dead and then move to dismiss. The truth is the truth. May God allow all to see and recognize the truth. The world's courts are not reliable, even though they can as you say be used. It is not certain and you can't let it's failure come back to you as "exoneration". Like Galileo and Luther, it is not what the earthly judge says. It is the truth that counts.

  190. nicole gardner March 22, 2016 Reply

    David P, you are so right:

    "taking Gothard's ramifications that far; why have a judge in the church to defy of all people, Bill G.? Why have a jury? The people;[spectrum of victims,hapless naive ignorant,],should never have raised their voice; will never achieve other than subsurviant status"

    This is the Dumbrella's so-pragmatic-for-the-despot's reality. Yet, over on DG back in December, the Moderator defined the victim of a sexual assault to be soley in charge of whether they're assaulted or not. Said they are at fault if they don't prevent it from happening. Cited "someone very close to me" who allowed herself to be defiled as a very young child because she was yet untaught by IBLP's teaching of the guilt being on the victim of a sexual assault anytime such an assault occurs (because, if it occurs, it means the victim didn't prevent it). [The several Moderator replies stating these things were erased- without apology- sometime back in January]. If Moderator's "someone very close to me" was a person whom her assaulter had defrauded another man by assaulting her as this other man's eventual wife, then the Moderator over there totally misplaced the blame for this that Scripture clearly delineates as being on the one doing the defrauding. (Both Old & New Testament make this clear 1 Thess.4:6 + loads of O.T. passages). But no; there was the DG Moderator lamenting the blame a young child had incurred supposedly towards their own defilement. I can just picture it now: the grown man, expressing his displeasure in a public forum toward his wife for having cheated him out of all he deserved in her as a bride, all because she didn't effectively defend his rights as a man WHILE SHE WAS A "SMALL CHILD". Yes, that's right; the grown man was apparently sniveling in his tears as a new groom because all he was entitled to hadn't been preserved by a little girl faced with an assault. Talk about harboring bitterness! And, holding this bitterness against someone the Bible clearly states as not being the one who did the wrong!

    And, David P., when I re-read your quote above it totally drives it home how teaching/policies that firmly fix blame on those denied any power whatsoever not only absolves the despot from ever being accountable; it affords the despot to do anything from the get-go. Which is exactly what happened.

    And, even by the world's standard, some of these things are definitely illegal. In reading Don Rubottom's excellent synopsis above, I believe the IRS may stand to rake in alot more than any other party in the form of back-taxes, interest, & fines; either one that it is, the lying/fraud or else the flagrant rebellion of Gothard against his board is staggering.

    • Don Rubottom March 23, 2016 Reply

      Note that I do not believe IBLP failed to keep a legal form of corporate accounting or maintain its tax deductibility. I merely explained that IF the reality was what Alfred posits as justification for B.G.'s lack of submissiveness, B.G. would owe some taxes. I do not favor constant intense scrutiny of ministries and churches by the IRS. Rather, I use the principles of the tax laws to help ministry (and government) leaders understand their obligations and limitations on their freedom that accompanies their tax/business status, particularly with expenses and fringe benefits. Anyone with a smidgeon of integrity will follow the rules when light is shined on errant behavior.

  191. David S. Knecht Sr. March 22, 2016 Reply

    Brother Don R,

    Thank you for that very thoughtful reply dated 3/21. There was no "reply" button, so I am replying here. If you want to do yourself and Mrs. R a favor, read The Mystery of Marriage, a book of marriage meditations by Mike Mason, a Canadian Anglican. Therein, you will find the best (though brief) insight re: 1 Corinthians 7. Mrs. K and I have read the book aloud together every year for many years now.

    • Don Rubottom March 23, 2016 Reply

      Thanks. I will pick it up right away. I recommend "The Theology of the Body for Beginners" by Christopher West which boils down JPII's Theology of the Body for people who speak regular English rather than philosoph-theological speak. West's weekend presentations are marvelous if you can tolerate a little honor directed at the "Woman", Mary. That teaching is what led me to a covenantal understanding of marriage and its revelation (imaging) of the Nature of the Trinity and of our salvation by our Bridegroom ("Ishi" in Hosea 2). And seeing all of Scripture in such context helped me to get my arms around I Cor. 7.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. March 24, 2016 Reply

        Thanks for the tip, brother. I expect that Rome elevates Mary higher than my church would, but I would not quibble about it if the book is as good as you say. I just checked Amazon. Most reviewers gave it five stars, and the lowest rating is three stars! Pretty positive.

        David K

        • Don Rubottom March 25, 2016

          It is life changing, particularly for guys who struggle with sexual guilt. Any Catholic guy in that category can find amazing deliverance. I had one middle aged Catholic widower (who was living a life of service to others) come up to me with tears in his eyes to say he felt "clean" for the first time in his life after I recommended West's book.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. March 25, 2016 Reply

        BTW, Don, that Mike Mason meditation on 1 Corinthians 7 appears on p. 119. As a book of meditations, rather than something didactic, the book has no index. Just another tip.

        David K

        • Don Rubottom March 25, 2016

          Thanks again.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. July 8, 2016 Reply

        Dear Brother Don,

        After months of doing other stuff, I finally got a copy of the Christopher West book which you and Rob recommended. I am just beginning, but it looks good so far. Thanks for the tip.

        David K

        • Larne Gabriel July 8, 2016

          Brother David,

          Based on a comment you made on DG regarding not being familiar with "Ruth's Story" here is the link to her story: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/ruths-story/
          For additional reading regarding the other women's stories go to RG's home page under the tab "Gothard Files" select "Sexual Misconduct" and you can select their stories too. You will see a pattern of behavior that goes back 40+ years. These stories were all written separately with no collusion. When you read Ruth's or the other women's stories insert your wife or daughter's name and see if that changes your understanding of their experiences.

          Larne Gabriel
          Ruth's husband and author of her story

        • Don Rubottom July 17, 2016

          I pray your heart will be nourished by West's presentation. Knowing I am fruitfully loved by a sacrificial bridegroom has blessed me immensely!

  192. David Pigg March 23, 2016 Reply

    Karen,Don Rubottom,Your analysis goes into its totally logical conclusion,much to the detriment of Gothard's "spin fans"I can only add that Gothard,with Karen's accusation of blasphemer,considered himself as creator of a world he made for us;a world carefully construed to compartmentalize his dark deeds reconstructed in his own mind as "good."He would call those who misunderstood those deeds after separating with the board of directors,for further"manipulation".He was sole arbitrator,sole dismissor of those deemed unfit for further duty,leading the expendables out the rear entrance;which created oppertunities for those he would so choose to select in the front.Of course he was entitled,of course his ministry was "created for us to live and move and have our being in."That this cynical interpretation of what happened all these years can be valid,let Heather's story,Ruth's story,Jane Doe 5, Charlotte's story,be trumpetted time and time again,LEST WE FORGET THE STATUS INVOKED UPON US.

    • Don Rubottom March 23, 2016 Reply

      Or, he was a small man who was fired from one ministry and vowed never to be under anyone again, who used his talent for falsely humble persuasion to gather a following and make a good living off the blind flock (which had to be continually replenished as reality and failure took followers away from him), and lived as an ordinary hypocrite with aspirations for high ideals, confusing his own mind by ever increasing rationalization, suppressing and repressing truth and natural desire simultaneously, eventually falling prey to all manner of delusions and demonic deceptions (or "rhemas" for you followers). You don't have to be an evil genius to wind up exposed as a massive fraud. The true geniuses will not be exposed until Jesus returns!
      "But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends."

      • DAVID PIGG March 23, 2016 Reply

        All right Don,all kinds of fantastic points you made to comment on.Its as though my "doubting Thomas heart"needs reinforced for ordinary faith to function,and with the points Rob War,Nicole Gardner,and Karen have recently made,my prayers must continue on for justice to come,however long the wait, and by whatever channel.These young women,I can't possibly imagine,their cries for justice falling for the most part on deaf ears,unprotected by a programmed callousness,until Recovering Grace.This callousness against the cries of the victims masked behind acclaimed religious titles,will be tried in the fire.Back of the natural comes the realm of spirit,where liberalism,conservatism,evangelicalism,denominational presuppositions,mean absolutely nothing to satan.Or in hypocrasy God Himself.Meaningless.Gothard's hold on the "great filter",time,truth, of allowable and forbidden,steaming under pressure from another counterforce,having been disallowed, must ultimately erupt,ultimately coalesce with the eternal,as the fire trying the true nature of motives;wood hay or stubble,vs.silver,gold,precious stones,must meet the judge of motives. May God have mercy.These must not be mere words.

        • Don Rubottom March 24, 2016

          David, as your heart yearns for justice, keep in mind that the vast majority of women have been harassed by lecherous men and the vast majority of we men have harassed or taken unjust advantage of at least one woman. B.G.'s outrage is proportionate to his hypocrisy. But all have sinned. All need to repent.

      • Karen March 25, 2016 Reply

        Yes, Don. You nailed it all here again! Especially so in your choice of the relevant Scripture (in stark contrast with BG's self-serving cherry-picking of the Scriptures for proof-texting, using them entirely out of context--rather like the "guy" in Matthew 4:5-6!)

  193. nicole gardner March 24, 2016 Reply

    If Bill Gothard had instead done any or all of the abuse that he did physically to his subordinates rather to a grown woman otherwise totally independent of him, with whom he was in a dating relationship directly overseen by HER father, HER pastor, and in the formality of it being a dating relationship that they could EACH claim as such, there wouldn't be an issue. Provided he wasn't just playing her, but actually was moving towards putting a ring on it; and, thus, not rotating whom he dated like tires, but rather getting himself one wife. Then he could have had all the footsie he wanted, provided he'd found somebody who's into that. But wait.... I'm forgetting...... Bill Gothard DID position himself to get all the footsie he wanted, even though they were not okay with it, even if they HAD had a choice in it.......... Nevermind.

  194. rob war March 26, 2016 Reply

    This is in reply to Don and David K. about views on marriage. If one wanted to trace views about marriage and divorce and how they evolved over time, one would have to start with Martin Luther and the reformation where he and the other reformers with him rejected 1500 years of Catholic and Orthodox teaching that marriage was a sacrament and sacred to where marriage is a civil contract and not a sacred institution ordained by God. This took marriage out of the jurisdiction of the Church and marriage became a civil contract which then open up divorce and remarriage. Henry the VIII furthered this when he broke away in order to divorce his first wife. The English poet John Milton argued in 1643 in "The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce" the case for divorce and remarriage. I really don't think Bill Gothard taught anything new, I think he was trying to straddle a couple of ideas that marriage was a covenant by God without going to sacramental level which considering his fundamentalist views was trying to have it both ways. The sacramental view of marriage is that marriage is ordained by God for permanence with the dual purpose of having and raising children and the mutual bonding and support between spouses, it is a special grace given to the couple for these purposes. As one can see, views of marriage, divorce, remarriage run the gamut in Protestantism and lead to the confusion one currently sees. I think Bill was trying to argue for permanence of marriage without going to the sacramental level with is where Catholic and Orthodox still consider marriage to be. That is probably why Bill seems "Catholic like", but he really isn't. Is marriage sacred or is marriage just another civil contract, nothing special which can be broken? Considering no fault divorce, there is nothing anyone can legally do about divorce and even remarriage except try to reclaim a sacramental understanding of marriage and it's purpose.

    Everyone have a blessed Easter!

    • Don Rubottom March 26, 2016 Reply

      From what I have read of Luther, he had an orthodox view of marriage. It was Catholic abuses and fraudulent annulments that he objected to. A sacrament points to something outside itself. I consider marriage sacramental, pointing to the communing interpersonal Nature of the Trinity in faithfulness, fullness, fruitfulness and freely loving. I do not believe it is a sacrament of the church because it existed before the church, it is primordial, in fact it is the first sacrament. And Genesis teaches implicitly and Malachi explicitly that the two are joined by God, not themselves or some officiant. I see nothing in Luther's teaching or his own marriage that does not testify to all the fullness that Catholics teach. But times made divorce popular, in part because the Church had already opened the door to widespread abuse of annulments. When the church lost credibility, the civil magistrates jumped into the void and began to organize divorce around the economics and will of man rather than the teachings of Scripture. Divorce cannot be avoided. It is remarriage that both Jesus and Paul condemn as adultery and even Moses proclaims to be defiling.
      The reformation attempted to promote a covenantal view of marriage but abandoned much of its sacramental significance, treating it more like a mere analogy of Christ and the Church by reference to Ephesians 5, rather than a true God ordained sign of the Mystery. Protestants treat marriage as a legitimization of private lust rather than the opposite of lust. The English Church developed a “commonwealth” view, emphasizing the community aspects of the marriage, the shared interests of society and the extended family in the marriage's welfare. But contract is our civil form now and it is in fact the weakest contract of all, being subject to termination by the will of one party without any claim of right. Since the Reformation, civil marriage has swallowed up any other view of marriage so that, outside Catholicism and Orthodoxy, no pastor has any idea has to distinguish a civil marriage from a Biblical marriage.
      But B.G. was not simply trying to promote permanence in a divorce prone culture, he was imposing a legalistic burden that enslaved women and deprived men of a Holy view of their sexuality. To be free of B.G. I have to understand how he misused words like covenant as chains rather than glorious liberation from the chains of self-centeredness and self reliance. He taught having as many children as possible, rather than an awesome respect for a couple's fertility. And he taught suppression and repression as the solution to lust. Permanence without understanding the sacramental nature of the marriage covenant is mere legalism. It is merely an oppressive contract. It knows nothing of a communion of persons.

      • LynnCD March 27, 2016 Reply

        From what I have read of Luther, he wrote that all occupations are sacred, not just the occupations of the priests and nuns and etc.. He held as a false notion that some occupations were secular, and others were sacred, such as the priesthood. And he held marriage, his own wife, and motherhood, and the Christian home in very high regard because of his view that all life was sacred.

        Yes, he did not view marriage as a sacrament of the Church, but he did plainly write that God chose not to keep creating people out of the dust of the ground, but chose marriage and childbearing to populate the earth, and this was a sacred calling. Just as sacred as the priesthood.

      • LynnCD March 27, 2016 Reply

        The word Luther used for each and every job a person might do to provide for the common welfare and meet pressing needs was the term "vocation." Of course, in German. IOW - a "calling," and by this he meant a sacred calling. A calling from God for the work He gives you to do in this life. He applied this idea to a milkmaid - that God was milking the cows through her, for example. His ideas on marriage and family life were no different. We all have "sacred callings."

      • Don Rubottom March 28, 2016 Reply

        Thanks for these comments, Lynn!

        • LynnCD March 28, 2016

          You are welcome. This amply cited article taught me more than I can mentally retain about Luther's views. What is interesting is the differing views of some scholars on the subject: http://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/1015

        • LynnCD March 28, 2016

          This article is much more my speed: http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=607
          Luther evidently called vocations the "masks of God."

      • rob war March 28, 2016 Reply

        Yes, Luther's better quotes do concern marriage. I am not sure though how abuses in annulments justify reducing sacraments down to just two (baptism and communion). It is one thing to have concerns about annulments and over use and abuse there, but it is another to change 1500 years of Christian teaching on it's head just because one thinks there are abuses in annulments. Yes, marriage pre-dates the Church, Jesus went back to the beginning of Genesis and God's intent, the Catholic and Orthodox teaching only affirms this in considering marriage as a sacrament. If one just googles Luther and marriage, a number of articles do come up that point that it was Luther that started the idea that marriage belongs to the jurisdiction of the State, not the Church even if Luther himself saw marriage as holy.
        In speaking of abuses of annulments, Luther's main points of contention didn't concern annulments but other issues. I also want to point out the King Henry VIII split with Rome over the fact that the Pope refused to give him an annulment from his first wife. What is interesting here is that King Henry VIII was against Luther and his ideas and condemned them, thus giving Henry VIII the title "defender of the faith" by the Pope, the same Pope that later refused the annulment. I would think if there was "wide spread" annulment abuses, that the Pope wouldn't have risked Henry splitting off from the Catholic Church and did what he asked. What is even more interesting is that Henry based his request on the fact that the first wife was previously married to his older brother who died right after they were married yet the marriage was not consummated so she was able to marry Henry. Henry then turned around and claimed in order to get an annulment to marry pregnant Anne Bolin and make the child legitimate (who turned out to be Elizabeth I), was that she lied and was not a virgin. The Pope sided with the first wife. The rest is history. All this sordid affairs led to the split of the English from Rome.

        • LynnCD March 28, 2016

          Hi, rob. Luther argued against marriage being a sacrament, not based on whatever abuses existed at the time. I don't understand the real issues, but he had a view on what constituted a sacrament and what did not, obviously marriage did not make the grade, but did not follow what I read very well. Yes, it is well known he left the regulation of marriage to the magistrate, but he also argued for conscience when the magistrate was clearly endorsing evil.

          I can't follow much of his argumentation, but my thought is fairly simple. The civil magistrate is a minister of God, whether he or she is a believer or not. Paul said so. The NT commands us to obey our laws for conscience sake. Since Luther viewed all callings to work, whether paid or not, and all callings, such as marriage, as the masks of God to bring blessing and service to humanity, it seems to me he thought marriage could be regulated by the magistrate so the pastors could be freed to expound the Scriptures.

          So there exists the government, and the Church. The magistrate enacts laws for the common good, not the Church. The magistrate punishes evildoers and lawbreakers, not the Church. The Church is not assigned the role of the sword, which the NT uses as a metaphor for its authority. Luther left them to regulate marriage, but he knew marriage was ordained by God just as he knew God forbade murder. Interestingly, I just checked Barna, and the divorce rate for both Lutherans and Catholics as lower than the average and the same - 21%.

          My lone thought on this is all people groups from all times have married. Unbelievers marry, oftentimes by ministers in churches. Marriage is a universal "thing." Always has been. And I have never heard anybody teaching heathen marriages are not real marriages. And I have never heard a teaching that these marriages among the heathen are a means of saving grace, either. Salvation is followed by baptism and communion. Profession and fellowship. While my church calls them ordained for the Church, not sacraments, they also view marriage as ordained by God, but for humankind, not for believers only. Interesting discussion.

        • rob war March 29, 2016

          Lynn,
          thank-you for your research. I have not personally read Luther very much but from what others have said, he can be difficult to follow. The reasoning you listed sounds like Luther. Growing up in UMC, was explained that Luther cut back from 7 to only 2 because baptism and communion were the only sacraments started by Christ while the others weren't according to this line of thinking. I think most conservative Christians have a high view of marriage whether they would agree if it is a sacrament where God gives a unique and special grace given at the time of marriage (which is a simple definition of grace). I'm not sure about Orthodox views, but marriage and holy orders (those called to the religious life) are called vocational sacraments in that they are callings of God on one's life with a purpose of serving God and others. Most are obviously called to marriage with the purpose of having children and supporting one's spouse. Holy orders is not superior to marriage and visa versa but most are equal and important. Baptism, communion and confirmation are sacraments of initiation in how one becomes a part of the body of Christ. Anointing the sick and reconciliation are sacraments of healing and wholeness.

        • Don Rubottom March 30, 2016

          That the political class was attracted to a civil approach to marriage should not be pinned solely on Luther. But for those jurisdictions pulling out of the Roman Church, the civil authorities were left holding the jurisdictional bag that a new "Lutheran" church had no credibility to hold. Luther's critique that I'm familiar with has to do with the manifold grounds for annulment, invented by the Church for the convenience of those abandoning their spouses with Church support. Luther through such critique showed that the Church lacked credibility sufficient to control the definition of marriage. Calvin did far worse condoning his brother's divorce and remarriage and in his cultivation of a shared civil/church authority. Society was in transition and the rise of civil law over church law was part of the transition. In part, too, religious liberty required civil law to separate from church law.
          This book of Luther sermons has the critique of annulments that I was referencing:
          http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Ring-Three-Sermons/dp/158509014X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459364756&sr=8-1&keywords=Luther+Three+Rings
          As church sacrament had come down to that generation, leaving marriage a sacrament allowed the church to DEFINE marriage, which it had failed to do proficiently. The church can define baptism and communion. The church can sanctify and ritualize but cannot define forgiveness, marriage, confession, ordination and other matters removed by Protestants from the category of "sacrament". I've heard Catholics say that the marriage sacrament is actually fully expressed in the marriage bed, which to my mind proves the church lacks capacity to dispense that sacrament as it does the bread and wine and baptismal water. This is why I take marriage as "sacramental", it materially signifies a spiritual reality, but it is not a sacrament of the church because the church does not establish the marriage or dispense the sacrament in the fellowship of the body of believers. As with Adam and Eve, GOD is the officiant of every Bible marriage (Malachi 2 says He joins them), not the pastor, priest or notary who declares the satisfaction of the civil requirements. The Church properly defended the indissolubility of marriage but too poorly defined it. Today we define everything as a marriage and reject its indissolubility.

        • Don Rubottom March 30, 2016

          Lynn, I haven't read what you have of Luther's teaching on civil law. But the only reason for the civil magistrate's involvement is to enforce the support obligations both in a marriage and after a divorce, as such obligations are extended through alimony and child support. He also divides the property upon dissolution. These are on a par with the magistrate's duty to punish evil including the evil of contract breaking. But civil enforcement is not relevant to a loving Biblical marriage. Within even Luther's teaching, I believe marriage is indissoluble: a Christian cannot be free from the obligation to love until the death of one party. "Let them depart" should not be interpreted to mean, "let them go away without your love and your willingness to reconcile". The Gospel is "the ministry of reconciliation". Yes, divorce is unavoidable, but the magistrate's involvement is only needed to enforce the obligations of the hard hearted. The loving give all they have.
          Henry's history is relevant to the divorce culture in the English church (and the Westminster Confession favored by Presbyterians) but I do not see it useful in understanding Calvin and Luther.

        • Don Rubottom March 30, 2016

          Rob, I fear that "most conservative Christians" have a high view of the permanence of marriage from a legalistic perspective, but lack an understanding of the indissolubility of covenant as taught by God throughout the Old Testament, and directly referenced by Paul as "Mystery" in Ephesians 5. It is still mystery to us to the degree that we fail to see that His Love is indissoluble and we are called to just that kind of love in marriage...unconditionally...not based on performance. Only Grace can supply such Love. But nothing is more beautiful or fruitful.

        • LynnCD March 31, 2016

          Right, Don. The very little online reading I did on Luther informs me he believed the civil matters were best handed by the civil authorities, but that in no way should be construed to mean Christian marriage is merely contractual in nature. I guess we also ought to recall we live in an age of the wall of separation between church and state, under which the early church existed in a very different way, but after Contantine, it was a lot different, very much more intertwined, and that was Luther's world at the time. Even after (was it Augsburg?) there was only one church allowed in each territory. Hence, the state was not as secular as we perceive it today.

        • rob war March 31, 2016

          Don,
          I was trying to be more "ecumenical" in what more conservative orthodox Christians can agree on. No matter what Church one calls home, there is truly nothing any particular Church can do about divorce except to control who is married under their roof and hopefully proper time is taken to prepare a couple coming forward for the seriousness of marriage and to marry with the intent that it is "death due us part" goal. With no fault divorce which really undermines permanence of marriage, someone can end up divorced that never wanted it to begin with. Again and what seems to happen in more conservative thinking Churches, being divorced no matter what, seems to cut off the person from fully participating in the life of that Church. Bill seemed to have a rather harsh teaching in regards with dealing with the divorced that seemed punitive even though he tried to hide it with the "rebuilder" terminology. Your comments about grace and mystery fall more in line with sacramental view of marriage than a legal covenantal type of view. Marriage is a grace and grace is needed in marriage. I think Bill's intent with some of his teaching and ideas of marriage was to stem the rising tide of divorce, so Bill comes up with formulas and according to him, if one follows his formulas on marriage, one supposedly is suppose to divorce proof their marriage. So Bill's views of marriage which is echoed in the Gospel coalition is a top down heavy handed military structure. Then Bill turns to how people get married which in our culture is through dating. So Bill throws out dating and comes up with "courtship" and throws in on top of that parental arrangement which he borrowed from OT culture. The problem is that Bill's ideas do not set up people for healthy marriages at all. If the rumors are correct about the married Duggar children and their marriages, one can see his formulas don't work and set up divorce proof marriages. Marrying someone in 4 months without even ever being allowed to be alone with obsessive touching rules is just a horrible idea and a set up for failure.

        • Don Rubottom March 31, 2016

          Rob, very good analysis of Gothard. It is legalism versus grace and truth. When I use "covenant" I do not mean it as a "legal covenant" but as something bigger and richer. The kind of covenant that God made with man at the cross. The kind of covenant that says in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea: "there may be adultery and divorce in this relationship but I will restore you to Myself by My own sacrifice". (I can supply the verses if you need them.) I am talking about a quality of commitment that endures all things, hopes all things, does not keep an account of wrongs. A death pact. We speak of covenant in the church among believers but our real covenant is with Christ and the fellowship with one another is a consequence of being together in Him (Eph. 1-2). But in marriage we have a perfect representation of that Union with Christ: intimate, fruitful, faithful, full, permanent. No other human relationship possesses these qualities.
          There is NO law that can establish or maintain such commitment. Only grace can do that. An JPII taught that the mystery mentioned in Eph 5 is set out in Genesis 1-2: "in the image of God, male and female" means the spousal union of man and woman images the interpersonal communion of the Trinity. "It is not good for man to be alone" because one person cannot image the Triune God alone.
          Divorce doesn't break a union. It denies its true reality. In fact every sexual sin denies something true about the nature and design of marriage. We will always have divorce in society, and as you say there are many innocent victims of divorce. The church cannot eliminate it.
          I do believe the church can do much, much more to continually evangelize its own regarding a true Biblical sexual ethic. Premarital counseling is not enough. We need to study Scripture like the Book of Hosea and continually encourage one another to love and good deeds in marriage, in singleness and in a state of divorce. My wife can leave me, but I am not required (or called) to seek another to put in her place. Jesus does not replace me when I stray. He patiently waits and draws me back. Jehovah was in a state of divorce with Israel, but He won her back in Jesus Christ. She abandoned him many times. He had to let her depart a few times. But He NEVER abandoned her. His heart never hardened toward her. He loved her to the end. (John 13:1). What better example could a Christian show their children than to love the children's other parent unconditionally and exclusively, even when that love is rejected? A few examples of such covenantal loyalty in our churches would help many to love better and more faithfully. God would be glorified. As we have been living, God is ridiculed. Study Malachi 2 for the spiritual reality of a culture of serial marriage. It say "God joins" That is why Jesus added: let not man put asunder. No matter what a court says, only I can put asunder the love for my wife. Only a hard heart can put it asunder. It is the hard heart that must be defeated. Not the legal consequences. Grace and Truth. Not law.
          Sorry for the preaching. I do not find it a subject to be well discussed through sound bites.

        • Don Rubottom March 31, 2016

          To clarify one thing: the measure of post-divorce covenantal love is NOT that the one who left comes back. (Paul says "how do you know if you will win them".) Martial "success" and "happiness" are not the goal. Glorifying and imaging God is the goal. The measure of this love is whether it lasts until the death of one of the spouses. That is how Christ loves the Church and how I am called to love my wife.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. March 30, 2016 Reply

        Dear Brother Don,

        You lost me on one point above. Would you elaborate? In your critique of Gothard's marriage teaching, you represent him as teaching that a couple ought to have as many children as possible, but you imply that this teaching is the opposite of an awesome respect for a couple's fertility.

        Where is the contrast between the two? Fortunately, Mrs. K and I have many children. But unfortunately we have also suffered many miscarriages. For us, welcoming children and awesome respect for fertility are all one. We enjoy the fruits of fertility, and grieve the losses. Same with our three married daughters. One grieves her barrenness, but the others rejoice in their fruitfulness.

        Also, I'm not following your objection to Gothard's teaching against lust. Here, he seems easy to defend and difficult to criticize (if I understand him correctly). What's the difference between "suppress your lusts" and "resist the devil?" There may be things not to like about Bill Gothard, but what's wrong with temperance? There may be much to criticize about Gothard, but being anti-lust is not one of his errors. Most Christians agree with him that suppressing (or resisting) lust is better than indulging it.

        Sincerely,
        David K

        p.s. I am finishing up a couple of C.S. Lewis books before proceeding to Christopher West. Hopefully I'll get there soon.

        • Don Rubottom March 30, 2016

          We lost our fist child and that made us much more appreciative of the 8 we have as well.
          Let me address "lust" first. Resisting the devil is not possible if you just stand there thinking about the devil. It is only possible abiding in Christ. But your question actually raises an important issue. Bill's teaching presumes that sex is evil and to be contained. "Resist the devil" is in James 4 and has nothing to do with sex. Sex is not devilish. Sex is not the devil's invention. Sex is good. Sex is God's invention. Treating it as the devil's is blasphemous. We are told to flee sexual immorality, not to suppress or repress sexual desire. RUN! Where to? I Cor. 6 implies where: To cleansing. To deliverance. To sanctification. To justification. To the place that Jesus pointed us: to Genesis 1 and 2, i.e. to chaste covenantal loving. To being naked and unashamed. "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." This does not sound like suppression and repression. It does not sound like "resisting" anything but embracing Him. It sounds like FREEDOM. The flesh is weak but the flesh is not evil. That Bill's approach to sexuality is a failure is writ large in his life and the fruit of his ministry. Read Christopher West for the goodness and Trinity-revealing Glory of spousal love.
          As to fertility, I spoke in broad strokes, but I found many ATI families receiving the message that they ought to have maximum number of pregnancies possible. What I referenced as opposite was in intent: the intent should be respect, not maximum use. Honor, not utility. I believe a man should be far more willing to restrain his sexual desire to conform to his wife's feelings and that a woman should not feel obligated to "submit" regardless of her feelings, fears or health. Our wives do not exist to give us "satisfaction" to keep us from sexual sin. That mindset is merely feeding lust. I do not think artificial contraception is the answer to the tension between fertility and passion but I believe self-restraint can be. Giving yourself to your spouse includes NOT having sexual relations when they don't feel like it or have a medical reason not to have relations in all the procreative fullness thereof.
          Paul made it clear that the man's body is not his own, it is to be controlled by his wife. That was radical. I do not believe ATI/IBLP taught that. I think ATI/IBLP taught submission of women to the sexual desires of their husband and having as many children as possible. It may be physically fruitful, but I think that is not faithfully, fully or freely loving. I hope this clarifies the distinctions I was trying to make.

  195. David S. Knecht Sr. March 26, 2016 Reply

    Hello again, sister Rob.

    That was a very fascinating reply about marriage. Henry VIII I knew about, if mainly because I love the 1966 movie, A Man for All Seasons. But I never heard of the Milton book about divorce.

    Your analysis makes sense. Gothard wanted to elevate marriage to a lifelong covenant, while stopping short of agreeing with too much with Rome? That probably describes a lot of positions which we conservative evangelicals take, don't you think? We agree with Rome up to a point, then halt there.

    Anyway, might you and I both be correct? You point to 16th Century reformers and Milton as culprits in weakening marriage, while I point to politicians from the 19th Century to present. Of course our opinions are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, may all of us married folk have grace to be good spouses.

    And are you familiar with that Christopher West book which Don R recommends? Is it as good as he says? You sound pretty well-informed on Catholic stuff.

    Until after Easter,
    David K

    • rob war March 26, 2016 Reply

      Brother David,
      Christopher West is the foremost expert on JP II, especially his break down on Theology of the Body which can be daunting to read if one is not familiar with Catholic Theology and philosophy and that sort of style of writing. I've seen Christopher West interviewed a number of times and he is usually turned to in Catholic circles for his analysis and breakdown of JP II. Yes, I can second Don's suggestion. JP II is quite philosophical and I think even may have minored in it and he can be challenging to read even for a Catholic, much less evangelical Protestants. Someone like Christopher West can break that sort of language down for us common folks, Catholic and Protestant.

      Have a Blessed Easter

      • Don Rubottom March 28, 2016 Reply

        It's not just JPII's philosophical style, but his Eastern European mysticism that makes him hard for me to understand. But West speaks "'Merican" and makes the TOB very accessible to us. Thanks Rob.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. March 28, 2016

          Thanks, Don. It is a relief to hear that West speaks my native tongue, namely Merican.

          My pastor joked about people like me recently:

          What do you call a man who speaks three languages? Tri-lingual.

          What do you call a man who speaks two languages? Bi-lingual.

          What do you call a man who speaks one language? American.

          Okay, so I am girding the loins of my mind. I find some of C.S. Lewis difficult to grasp. Mysticism? Way out of my depth there! Hopefully West can downshift the content to something more my speed. Thanks, brother.

          David K

        • Don Rubottom March 28, 2016

          David K, see my March 28 comment below, meant it for here.

        • rob war March 28, 2016

          I understand, I think the style is call "contemplative" and JP II did consider at one point in joining a contemplative order like the Carmelites, that focus on prayer. I think he was heavily influenced by people like St. John of the Cross who was a Carmelite himself along with St. Theresa of Avila. Contemplative writings are not a quick read and for a majority of modern Christians that are used to the diet of simplistic writing, yes it would be challenging to read. JP II staff which had a bent crucifix on top was from St. John of the Cross visions of the crucifix. It is always good to read materials that challenge us spiritually

        • Don Rubottom March 30, 2016

          The Theology of the Body was actually provided by JPII in very small chunks, a series of Wednesday meditations that he gave over about 18 months early in his Pontificate. I have read the first 20 or 30. Though each is short, less than two pages, only about 1 per week is digestible! West boils it down to the basics.

  196. Don Rubottom March 28, 2016 Reply

    I received my Mason book from Amazon Sunday. You should be reading West by now!
    (I did not see his discussion of I Cor. 7 all that illuminating but I did enjoy his insights about the passage's challenge to the Christian in decision-making mode. Started the forward after that. Packer's words were intriguing! I think you will find the Theology of the Body putting some covenantal structure and give clearer revelatory meaning to Mason's deep sentiment.)

  197. nicole gardner March 30, 2016 Reply

    This conversation is at such a high level, both intellectually & spiritually, that I hesitate to barge in here. Very luminous insights cast by all on a subject of prime importance. David S. Knecht, your's are just as profound. I do not mean to answer in place of the question you ask of Don Rubottom, I am not qualified to do so, but would nonetheless like to respond to this quote of yours:

    "What's the difference between "suppress your lusts" and "resist the devil?" There may be things not to like about Bill Gothard, but what's wrong with temperance? There may be much to criticize about Gothard, but being anti-lust is not one of his errors. Most Christians agree with him that suppressing (or resisting) lust is better than indulging it."

    I believe that teaching this in the way that he teaches it IS possibly his greatest error. Look at the result that this type of teaching had in John Geoghan & literally thousands of other religious types across many ecumenical systems. People are told that lust is wrong to express, that there's holiness in the suppression of it, so they fancy themselves to be living lives void of all medium for expression of it. Religious orders are even proclaimed to this effect concerning them (I remember signing Gothard's "commitment" form to the effect that I would never have extra-marital sex because "signing these evidenced (my) spiritual maturity", my pastor told us). Both consigning oneself to never marry as well as being pressured to sign chastity-vow-papers are tokens of pride rather than any indication of maturity whatsoever. Including on the part of leadership wanting to count heads toward the "success" of their teaching courses. By trusting in these as standards of godliness, the God-giveness of marriage as well as the need to build & maintain relationships within the church as single people was greatly undermined in my life & that of other Gothardites I grew up with. By cutting down marriage as the bar that God set, people don't pursue it as the proper outlet for passion; & only passion can afford such a high pursuit that marriage is. So, instead of lust getting channeled by a young men to propel himself into the very high trajectory in life that it takes to even enter into marriage, (responsible dating, career) he's conned into being told that he's somehow more holy to forego it. So, assuming himself so much more holy than one who would marry, he does exactly that. On the female spectrum, we have the Botkin sisters. What you have then, instead of sexual passion that's allowed to muster up to all that it takes to be an actualized man or actualized woman in full-capacity maturity (including sexual maturity) is stunted maturity in all areas. Thus, even though sexual maturity that's stunted may supposedly appear more holy than mature, marriage-worthy sexual maturity, it really isn't, because the WHOLE PERSON is also likewise stunted. To add to this, a stunted-growth person is a lot LESS likely to rightly handle their childish sexual impulses than a mature adult is to rightly manage their adult-strengthened instincts.

    So, lowering the bar as Gothard does effects absolutely nothing for the imaging of God in replace of His original design of marriage & human sexuality for marriage. Rather Gothard does way worse, like others who have gone before him. Just think; if someone like John Geoghan or his thousands of fellows had aspired to marriage instead of being self-deluded idolators of sexual piety, maybe the sexuality of these would have been all it could be for GOOD; the fact that these people's psycho-sexual stunted-ness effected such horrific crimes proves that sexual sin is in sexuality's omission as much as it's in sexuality's commission.

    Demanding suppression presumes the lie that sexual sin is only in commission. Since omission of dealing with lust by following God's design for passion is every bit as culpable, this teaching of Gothard's is heresy. I known I've complained a lot on this website about commissioned offenses in this realm. Maybe my kind of complaining has begged this kind of lopsided, excluding-of-the-solution reaction over the years. If so, I'm sorry for not making myself clearer as to what the problem is in it's 2 dimensions, thus contributing to the shooting-down of the real solution in the exalting of religious idolatry.

    • Don Rubottom March 31, 2016 Reply

      Wonderful, Nicole. You clarified this in your last paragraph, but I would not use the word "lust" as a substitute for passion or desire. Lust is a twisted version of our God-ordained desire. As you point out, lust demonstrates immaturity as well as misdirection. Gothard's error, in part, was identifying the body with "the flesh", i.e. a vessel hopelessly immersed in evil. Lust is selfish. Lust objectifies persons. Lust is the opposite of all the "one another's" in the New Testament. But desire is designed to bond. Desire is designed to take one out of oneself and "into" another person, into a communion of persons. Love and Truth direct desire into selflessness and away from lust. We flee lust. We run to love which expresses God-given desire, faithfulness, availability, enjoyment, attentiveness to the other, and is directed to the good of the other person rather than self. Passion and desire are God invented. Lust is the twisting from the fall.
      Both John Paul II and John Piper have reflected on "naked and unashamed" in Genesis 2 and the devastation of the fall. Piper makes a really good observation: Male and female have become doubly alienated. I know my lust and know I am selfish. She senses this and becomes defensive of her personhood. She knows the selfishness of her desires (I won't characterize female desire...a TOTAL mystery to me!), and I sense hers and become defensive of MY personhood ("no woman is going to tell me what to do!"). Lust provokes a defensive response. Love provokes a receptive, selfless response.
      We are loved by the Bridegroom, who is patient, kind and unselfish to the point of giving his life and putting our welfare ahead of his own. His desires are rightly ordered. His passion is holy and pure. There is no lust in Him. He entered into our shame to reclaim the purity and holiness of our nakedness. He redeems the whole person, even our sexuality. When directed rightly, no repression is necessary, thank you.
      Result: Your modest attire is not necessary to my holiness. Abstention is not the equivalent of purity. I "no longer judge after the flesh". This is our hope and our promise.

    • David S. Knecht Sr. April 1, 2016 Reply

      Dear Nicole,

      Thank you for chiming in on the question I put to Don R. I can tell that you put a lot of thought into it. And thanks for the compliment, too. Like you, I am just trying to treat a serious topic seriously. (It is only coincidence that I am posting this on April Fool's Day!)

      I admit that I could not follow part of what you said, because I had forgotten the name of Geoghan. I had to look up his wiki page. And the Botkin women were unfamiliar, too. I had to look up their web page. They look like adult members of a large, conservative homeschooling family. And you sound very pro-marriage. Your words remind me of the old Anglican wedding ceremony in the BCP. It was not shy. It declared that marriage gives us a lawful outlet for our passions.

      Unlike you, I never had occasion to sign a non-fornication pledge in my youth. I wonder whether it would have done any good? At worst, it would have only helped me make a hypocrite of myself. As though I needed any help.

      But I remember Gothard's Basic Seminar making the same points as yours. Remember Gothard's hydraulics illustration? In hydraulics, channeled fluids can produce much work. Similarly, a man's passions can produce a lot of good fruit if properly channeled, until such time as they can produce fruit (children) in marriage. I think that was the general idea. If I remember right, the suppressing of passion was only a temporary expedient for unlawful passions, such as the lustful looks which Jesus warned against.

      Finally, Gothard could not have been any less pro-marriage than you or I. Otherwise how do we get all those large families who wear blue and white at ATI conferences?

      Your brother,
      David K

      • Don Rubottom April 2, 2016 Reply

        David, I had forgotten Gothard's hydraulics analogy and am sorry to remember it. His is a cause and effect world and he sees sexual energy as a fluid that must produce work or be "released". This is a very materialistic view and completely negates Grace.
        He was not "pro-marriage" in that he begged our children to defer marriage to "serve God" (i.e. serve Gothard). He took pride in births that were credited to his teachings as if HE had conceived the children. ANd he led parents to be proud of having a "quiver full". Parenting should humble, not make proud. He actually sought marriages that created little IBLP houses of bondage, not Gardens of Eden. Such teachings as his demand that a wife "put out" for her husband to keep him from committing adultery. But such teaching is wrong and NOT pro-marriage in a Biblical sense. More marital sex does not prevent sin. Modest attire does not prevent fornication. Good works do not prevent fornication. Only grace prevents sexual sin. Grace purchased by the blood of Christ rather than our good works or "commitments". Grace that moves us to love Christ more than our own selfish lusts.
        That a few of Gothard's principles were consistent with Truth makes him no better than a broken clock. His own neglect of marriage, when he could not live chaste in singleness, showed his personal hostility to marriage. He pretended to live as if singleness was more holy than marriage. His hostility to young men and women getting to know one another was not "pro-marriage" but pro alienation.
        He lived under the alienating consequences of the fall, not under the freedom of Christ's redemption. And he taught all to live the same. He was no more pro-marriage than a slave owner who desires his slaves to bear offspring for his own balance sheet. He placed burdens on husbands and wives that no one can bear and that he would not bear himself.

        • Tammy April 2, 2016

          So true what you say in your post but this specifically stood out to me... "He was not "pro-marriage" in that he begged our children to defer marriage to "serve God" (i.e. serve Gothard)."
          I remember hearing from my sons about the commitments that Gothard tried to get each of the young people to make. He would have them commit to 5 years at a time. For example, when they became 20 he would get them to commit to another 5 years, ... reach 25 then 30 and so on. If was in his best interest for the young people not to marry. This way he could have them serve (free or cheap labor) to run his ministries.

        • rob war April 2, 2016

          Tammy,
          I am wondering if the "5 year" serving God only idea came from the example of the late Jim and Elizabeth Elliot where they made a big deal about the fact that they "waited" 5 years before getting married in order to "serve God" as single missionaries. That story was the big rage when I was going to college in the early 80's. While I'm sure that they are well beloved evangelical figures, I was always kinda bothered by the story and their example. I felt that deep down the hesitation to marry wasn't really due to "serving God" and the spiritual language they coaxed their relationship in. I was involved in a Christian campus ministry during those years and there was always talk and push to be single and service God and go and volunteer for a year at a Church or ministry before getting married. Being married should be seen as a call and service to God, not in conflict with being single and serving God. I think Bill's push for 5 years of service might have stemmed from them since both Him and Elizabeth went to Wheaton college before Bill. I think Bill was trying to justify himself in staying single and since he is single to serve God, so should everyone else. Since this was his choice for God, it should be everyone else too. What worked for Jim and Elizabeth and what they did does not mean that this is true for everyone else. Again, it's one size fits all and the reality is that God is not one size fits all and what one person decides that this is what they think God wants them to do doesn't mean that is true for everyone else.

        • Tammy April 2, 2016

          Hmm.... Rob, you make a good point that I'd hadn't considered before.
          Now that you mention it, I do recall reading or hearing that Elisabeth Elliot and Jim waited 5 years before marrying and had forgotten their reasons for waiting. Interesting perspective for sure. Why is it that when someone does something that works for them it often becomes the "best way for everyone" thinking?
          Since the Elliot's and Bill all attended Wheaton I have to wonder if that wasn't something that was being taught at that school at that time. This really is a legitimate question and I don't mean to put down that school. I know nothing about Wheaton Collage other than Bill's affiliation with it.

        • rob war April 2, 2016

          Yes, I read her book "Let me be a Woman" and actually went to see her speak when I was at college in the early 1980's. I want to say first that anyone that can go bring the Gospel to a group of people that killed your husband is very admirable and I do admire her for this. At the same time, I also think a number of her ideas about women and marriage and submission are unhealthy. I think the 5 year wait was more do to Jim than her and if I remember right, she would have married him much sooner. They corresponded with each other during that time while they were serving as missionaries in different parts of the world. I felt at the time in reading her and listening to her live and in different interviews with her that her relationship with Jim was rather gloried and maybe that is a result of losing him so drastically. They were not married that long and they had a little girl. I am sure that Bill and Elizabeth connected being alumni of Wheaton and all the publicity around Elizabeth gave them a friendship. I would wager the 5 year wait came from Elizabeth's example and Bill latched onto it thinking this ideal should be for everyone. I also think Christians too often give spiritual excuses which they think sound better than the real truth. Whether Jim really was trying to seek out God first over marriage to Elizabeth or not, it sounds better to say "I'm seeking God's will or God's best" than to say "I have cold feet about marriage and not sure if I can do it". Bill is the same way. He sounds spiritual in saying "I'm so busy serving God, that I just don't have time to marry" than to say the truth that "I'm to immature or selfish or perverted to marry". Yes, there are some real genuine things to admire about the late Elizabeth Elliot but even in that admiration, at least for me, I'm not going to ignore concerns about her ideas on marriage and womanhood.

        • `` April 3, 2016

          Here,here, Don! That is alot of ATI in one paragraph, friend!

          I am moving on and moving on well (I think, anyway) but reading something like this stirs up in me a loath of what we learned. Dresses (I like 'em but where in the world do they enter into doctrine?), putting off marriage, babies born as the result of his "ministry", wife keeping hubby happy at all times, oh my goodness. I am going to be sick. Maybe I am not doing as well as I thought... It was all so much a part of how I thought.

          Thank you for pointing out grace - love for God and his grace. THIS is what keeps us from sin.

          Today at church we were reading in Colossians and read one of the most freeing statements in the Bible. I have loved this verse for so many years but I guess I set it aside in my quest for The God in the Box I was crafting...

          Col. 2 where we are told not to let anyone judge us regarding days and to watch out for false humility and those who are of the "mutilation". Yep. It sure mutilates. Outward works - all the does and don'ts and days and "being humble" and keeping our place as a woman to gain God's favor -mutilate "by grace through faith and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God lest any man should boast." The circumcision God performs is not outward ( dresses, blue and white, curled hair, big families,) but inward, the taking off of the stinking flesh. Only an inward circumcision could result in a changed heart.

          God is not The God in the Box. He is Spirit and truth and would have us worship Him in that way from our hearts. I am glad to be free of all that falderol (sp?) and happy to see our family walking away and into God's grace.

          PS here - I have loved E. Elliot's writings (saw the posts about her) in the past and God used her in my life BEFORE IBLP/ATI almost as a mother figure, through the radio and books. A very Godly woman, for sure. I must say though, as good as it may be (don't remember or care anymore), I threw away her friend Donna's book ME OBEY HIM? Didn't want to see it again. The world will still turn and I will still love God and my husband. :)

        • Julia Fetters April 5, 2016

          Don, the nameless April 3 comment was mine. Not sure what happened to my name there.

  198. nicole gardner March 31, 2016 Reply

    The high calling to falling in love with Christ is well explained^^^^^^
    Also explains the re-purposing of man & woman since the fall.
    thank-you.

  199. David S. Knecht Sr. April 1, 2016 Reply

    Dear Don R,

    This is in reply to your 3/30 post. That was really profound. I like your positive, freedom-oriented emphasis.

    I am sorry to hear about that miscarriage that Mrs. R suffered many years ago. We both know how that feels from a husband's perspective. And it relates to the rest of your post because too many couples know how frustrating it can be to "try" to have children. (I mentioned my daughter who has "tried" for nearly a decade.) I don't know whether some ATI couples feel constrained to try for a maximum number of children. But I hope you were like Mrs. K and me who just enjoyed making love when the mood suited us, and rejoicing in the children who came.

    Of course you are right about the mutuality of lovemaking. It would be pretty grim living for a couple to exploit and constrain each other in the most intimate part of their lives. I guess the devil-resisting I was thinking of was temptation to abuse sex as in the examples you gave. Or also temptation to look with lust as Jesus and Job warned against.

    I am looking forward to reading West when I finish Lewis.

    Your brother,
    David K

  200. David S. Knecht Sr. April 3, 2016 Reply

    Dear ladies,

    I'll appoint myself the Elliot expert and relate what I remember from Elisabeth's biographies. That Elliot five-year wait was more than a marriage postponement. it was almost like marriage renunciation for Jesus, happily reversed by events.

    They were in love from their Wheaton years, but felt a calling to the mission field as singles. They both ended up in Ecuador among jungle Indians, but in different parts of the country. So they felt no liberty to indulge their feelings toward each other. It took years for events on the mission field to unfold in favor of their romance. They married quickly after a flood in Ecuador created a need for a married couple to take charge in the field. At least that's my recollection from the biographies.

    There may be a connection between those Elliot five years and Bill Gothard's five-year plans, but I doubt it. The Elliot five years postponed their marriage from their early twenties to their late twenties. Jim Elliot never saw his thirtieth birthday.

    I hope this is not a spiritual defect, but Mrs. K and I barely waited five months after college, so we had time to welcome five little Knechts into the family by the time that thirtieth birthday rolled around. No regrets about that, sisters!

    David K

    • rob war April 3, 2016 Reply

      Brother David,

      thank-you for your input here. While I might have been fuzzy on details (I spelled Elisabeth's name with a Z and not an S), you did confirm my "wait a minute" concerns with the Elliots and the 5 year wait for marriage. I just have and do think it is curious that having feelings or love toward another is in conflict with serving Jesus even if it is missionary work with the isolated tribes. Why should that be in conflict? Isn't marriage, marital love and having a spouse and children equal calls by God? Your detail that they only married (even though they already did love each other) just because they was a need now for a "married couple" seems a little cold to me. One detail on this is that they were married in a civil ceremony right there in Ecuador, not even in a Church. I think all of this highlights back to Bill in that their unusual example seems to emphasize the idea that marriage is in conflict with serving God, that marital feelings are in conflict with loving God, that someone needs to "go out and serve God first" before getting married or they are considered not loving God is really a bunch of over the top false religiosity that leads well meaning Christians down the wrong road. Trust me, I well remember being in college and having this example of a 5 years wait in order to "serve God" promoted. This idea is not healthy. While you mentioned that both of them thought they were called to serve God as single missionaries, I do wonder if that is really true with Elisabeth. Considering what she promoted in her books that women need to accommodate to a man and a man's desire, did she really believe this for herself or was she just reflecting Jim? We will never know but parts of her story don't add up for me even though I do admire her and her example of service to people that killed her husband. Now they are all together with the Lord in heaven. peace

      • Don Rubottom April 4, 2016 Reply

        Rob, I appreciate all your thoughts on the subject. But I think it is fair for us to not try too hard to figure out the Elliots. Obviously, their thinking was influenced by ideas that we may reject, but I doubt they held themselves out as the gold standard on marriage decision making. They appear to be a young couple devoted to Jesus, but like most of us, confounded by their own desires for spousal love, hesitant to yield to their hearts but joyous and thankful in their ultimate union. That they, or fundamentalists, or the minds at Wheaton, or Gothard, or legalists, or many sincere Christians see marriage as a conflict with ministry and/or a salve for physical and emotional desire rather than a revelation of God's Trinitarian communing Nature, should neither surprise us nor demand intense scrutiny of any particular case. The Elliots demonstrated love for Christ and their spouse and can be celebrated without being imitated as to their initial thinking.
        Regardless of the wisdom of the Elliots' choice to delay marriage, Gothard's unbiblical, universal promotion of the loveless 5-year plans has not advanced the Kingdom of God. His harassment or abuse of such single young ladies is but one godless consequence. This generation is eschewing marriage. So very many of our daughters have no prospects in their twenties because so very many of our sons see no value in marriage. Few males are even interested before they are thirty. Many factors contribute to this: college and other debt, limited economic opportunity, widespread sexual immorality (orienting toward delusion), widespread discouraging experience of divorce; all of these make marriage less attractive to the human eye and mind. And they help make biblical marriage inconceivable.
        But where sin abounds, Grace can much more abound. Teaching a more complete sexual ethic, rooted in Jesus's pointing to Genesis 1 and 2--Paul's "mystery" in Ephesians 5--and promoting a vision for God-imaging spousal love, a remnant can offer this self-absorbed, pleasure-oriented world a glorious self-giving alternative. In so doing we can image the covenant Love of Christ in a relationship-deprived world.
        There is much in the Elliots' experience to celebrate: God draws us into His callings despite our vast misunderstanding of His ways. But we ought to teach the next generation "a better way". This is why I am so excited about JPII's Theology of the Body. It is an awesome counterweight to a sexually confused and lost world both inside and outside the church. For me, it has been a path to rediscovering God's faithful, covenantal Word on marriage and sexuality apart from the legalism that Gothard built upon with wood hay and stubble in my dark heart and mind. Praise the Bridegroom! He is ever Faithful!

        • rob war April 4, 2016

          Don,
          thanks again for your insight. Of course you know I'm all for JP II! When I saw the comment about Bill promoting a "5 year single service", my thoughts went to Jim and Elisabeth. I thought I was trying not to bash them and in all honesty, I highly doubt they themselves would encourage or recommend or even hold themselves up as examples that this type of courtship or romance is the ideal for everyone. But, I do think Bill would have had them in mind in promoting this to others. I just saw the connection. I did see her speak live in my college years and I remember her coming out to the podium to check it and then another man came out made some adjustments and then left the stage, she then made a crack that she didn't want to listen to her husband. Reading her book "Let me be a Woman" when one is a young and single woman during the college years was not healthy for me and I read it from a guy (not my husband) that I was dating at the time. Elisabeth's promoting that women are to yield to the wishes and desires of men in order to be a "real woman" is not healthy and those ideas do not lead to healthy relationships in dating and even marriage. In a number of ways, Elisabeth herself didn't exactly fit what she promoted in her books. She was married 3 times, she had her own ministry and books. She obviously could stand on her own two feet and she spent most of her adult life as a single parent, she taught at a seminary, she was a consultant on NIV. That is hardly the stuff of her advice to her daughter in that book.

          I think much of Recovery Grace focusses on Bill's teaching. Sometimes, I've wondered about people that taught similar things like Bill in parallel with him during his hey day years.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. April 5, 2016

          Hey brother Don,

          I hope you'll pardon me for smiling at the term you used above. Though I have not read it yet, that Theology of the Body may really deserve to be called a better way for a new generation. But "a better way" sounds like, "a new approach to life." Was that coincidence or were you being ironic on purpose?

          And I agree that we probably err if we overdo the Elliot analysis.

          David K

        • Don Rubottom April 6, 2016

          David K., I meant no reference to Gothard's promo, but was quoting the last sentence of I Cor. 12 which is Paul's intro to the "love chapter". Love is the way better than alienation, suppression, repression and legalism. It is also the truly fruitful way.
          That your mind went to BG's "new approach" shows how insidious his marketing is. For Bible believers, there is nothing new under the sun. The
          "better way" began in Genesis 1-2. It was written into our nature to image the covenant Love within the Trinity. BG thought he could to even better...rhemas, you know. And 7 steps!

      • David S. Knecht Sr. April 5, 2016 Reply

        Hello, sis.

        It is interesting that you brought up the Elliot civil wedding, vs. a religious wedding. Elisabeth's biography of Jim said that he was really troubled by religious wedding ceremonies since he was a college student. I don't know whether he objected in principle or whether he only thought the pageantry was overdone. His journal entry placed the emphasis on the pageantry thing.

        But fast forward to 2016. Caesar has declared himself lord of weddings and the Church doesn't dispute his lordship. Neither pastor nor priest will marry a couple without a permission slip from caesar. So were the Elliots simply ahead of their time?

        Don R thinks my political views swallow my religious views all too often. Maybe this is yet another example?

        Personally I had it both ways. My wedding was performed by a Methodist military chaplain. So in theory we got solemnized by both caesar and Jesus in one easy step. Ah, those were the days!

        Till next time,
        David K

        • rob war April 5, 2016

          I doubt that they were ahead of the time. They were married in Ecuador and that might have been the only way to be married at that time. I have no clue why Jim would have objected to "pageantry" as if that was wrong. Considering their type of conservative religious views, I highly doubt, they had "pageantry" in either their weddings or even their Church services. I would have no clue what bothered him about weddings. If one thinks marriage come from God, right from the beginning then being married outside any Church seems kinda different considering their devotion to their faith. Like I had said up above, one would have to go back to the reformation and that Martin Luther considered the permission to marry a function of the State not the Church. Now we could have a bigger mess on our hands in that the State could tell Churches and religious groups that they can't refuse to marry anyone for any reason. So a same sex couple that wants to be married in a Church that considers it not a real marriage might be in trouble if they refuse to marry the same sex couple. Any polygamy is not far behind.

        • Don Rubottom April 6, 2016

          David, all I ask is that you embrace the idea that "God joins them" as stated in Malachi 2. Both civil and religious ceremony present a notion that the human officiant joins. There was no human officiant in Eden. But God brought them together and declared them one. In His image. And Jesus added the admonition: "What therefor God has joined together, let not man put asunder." The formalities we choose ought to follow our doctrine. I speculate that Jim Elliot's nervousness over religious pageantry reflected his nervousness about marriage per se, a missionary austerity, and a learned fundamentalist (and/or conservative) notion that marriage is primarily a protection against fornication, i.e. less than a Holy, God-revealing calling.

  201. nicole gardner April 3, 2016 Reply

    Having read Elizabeth Elliot's "Passion & Purity" a few times, I recall that it was well past the 3-years point during Jim's & Bett's 5-year exclusivity that Jim finally told her (on a date in New York city) that he had a slight inclination of the Holy Spirit that he MIGHT be allowed to marry one day. For over 3 years from his having asked her to assign herself to him in forsaking all other guy's attentions, he had maintained that he had no indication from God that he would ever get the go-ahead to marry at any time in his life. Jim talked to her frequently about his maybe being constrained to a life-time of singleness. They had a 10-month engagement that took up most of the 5th year of waiting; other then that, Elizabeth was waiting out of love & no surety of anticipation of it ever being fulfilled. I can't help but think that Jim's high priority on this "to die is gain" type of self-denial -that ultimately culminated in his martyrdom for Christ- was matched by his "Betts" manifesting in her life what he did in his death. A personal lifetime of serving Christ that sacrificed other commitment was what Jim strove to secure for himself & was, in fact, lived out in a lifespan by her rather than himself. And she was prepped for it at her adulthood's outset by postponing any viable love life for the sake of true love (she truly loved Jim though he was adamant that he may well have nothing to offer her). Plus, he kissed several co-eds after securing his "Bett's" exclusive devotion. It may have served his own walk better to have married her much sooner. I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth was the one with the strongest sense of a singular focus on what it is to live out an individual destiny in Christ. But I believe she developed this because of the 5-year wait, & I believe God may well have suffered Jim's personal agenda for what He saw it would accomplish in her faith. Whereas it may not have accomplished so for Jim's even though this was Jim's personal intent. At any rate, Jim's letters in the book indicate a very caring & shepherd-ly concern for Elizabeth's relationship with God in light of his romantic interest in her, & his decisions regarding their relationship were very effective to not lead her astray. He didn't only care about his own devotion to Christ; he was concerned about her's. He was a conscientious & supportive brother in Christ, 1st & foremost. This is a HUGE difference between Jim Elliot & Bill Gothard. Whether any Christian marries or not, the main thing is that they're 1st & foremost a good brother/good sister in Christ, including towards their spouse (if they should have one). That's the crucible of authentic love of the brethren, not marital status itself.

  202. nicole gardner April 5, 2016 Reply

    In Elisabeth's book "Passion & Purity" in chapter 20 she's talking about the apostle Paul telling the Corinthians "Let each man have his own wife & each woman her own husband" and she then says:

    "He [Paul] never said, 'Let each man have his own relationship.' My father counseled his four sons never to say 'I love you' to a woman until they were ready to follow immediately with 'Will you marry me?' Nor should they think of saying 'Will you marry me?' unless they had first said 'I love you.' How much pain and confusion would be averted if men followed that rule. Jim didn't follow it, of course. He told me he loved me. He did not ask me to marry him. I was thrilled, overwhelmed, devastated. Better to know I'm loved then not to know at all was my thought. One can pine alone, but the knowledge that love is reciprocated enormously increases the longing for fulfillment. Can I recommend Jim's plan of action to others? Never in a million years. I feel quite certain he wold not have wanted anyone to build a doctrine on it. But the situation was unusual."

    I repeat the last few sentences for emphasis:


    "Can I recommend Jim's plan of action to others? Never in a million years. I feel quite certain he wold not have wanted anyone to build a doctrine on it. But the situation was unusual."

    So...... Gothard capitalized on the Elliots without the complicity of either of them.

    Chapter 31 expounds more on the situation in which Elisabeth's found herself, revealing right along the lines of this quote above.

    • David Pigg April 5, 2016 Reply

      Nicole and Rob War;Fwiw I was browsing along other websites,and came across a testimony from a woman formerly in "equip".Like all the other girls heavily programmed to accept the subtle and not so subtle strongarming of all aspects of Gothardism,she went forward with the leadership's religious momentum,coupled with her own misgivings.As she was hearing "Equip's"guest speaker Elizabeth Elliot,she noticed that the message was on the cross,denial of self,accepting no compromise for laying down of rights and self interests.Slowly she began to question in her heart,a subtle misgiving.When the speaker,Elizabeth Elliot,opened up the forum for discussion,she was slightly disturbed at Elliot's intolerance,and impatiance at a few girl's pointed questions concerning their own input,dignity as fellow heiress,and status of wonderfully being accepted,outside of the imposed role.But the last question,and this was what made the girl make up her mind that somehow she was going to eventually find the strength to leave Gothard's organization,was this;and it was asked by a girl with tremendous courage in the midst of a subtle hostility smoldering against any criticism:"Does that mean "We need to be a doormat?"The room fell silent for an uncomfortable amount of time,however long or short;then Elliot with inner turmoil answered"When I became married I made up my mind that I would be the best doormat I could possibly become."Now the quote is not word for word for the post was looked at some time ago,but I guarantee that the meaning behind the statement gave a red flag to this former "Equip" girl that even this woman,Godly that she was,was both motivated by and influencing others through a subtle religious bondage given out and accepted,but not from God.By the organization that exploited this darkness for its own advancement,and irregardless of the otherwise impeccability of character of whoever has its influence,will lead to bondage,spiritual heaviness,an improper assumption of God's Fatherhood,and alas the "meaningless person"except for utilitarianism.Gothard will continue to bring the heralded,use the heralded,not for a higher calling,but for the lowest darkness he himself would eventually ascribe,and with no exceptions.All weaknesses exploited,all our capacity for potential good,exhausted.

    • Don Rubottom April 5, 2016 Reply

      Good stuff, Nicole. At least she knew what Gothard did not: not to build a doctrine on Jim's approach.
      Sad to hear David's story, but it is possible that the Equip student characterized Elizabeth a little harshly, but no question that hers was a reasonable take away form Institute teaching as advanced by Elizabeth in such settings. I think this comes from failing to distinguish between NT passages directed at women married to unbelievers and those directed to believing husbands. A woman in Biblical marriage should never feel like a doormat but like a co-regent as Eve was Adam's "bone of bone, flesh of flesh" equal in dignity and dominion before the Fall.

  203. Lois April 5, 2016 Reply

    I hope it's ok if I chime in here. I've been reading the blog for over a yr but rarely comment as I don't have much to add other than to continue to pray for the ministry of RG as God uses it to reach so many wounded people.

    I grew up as a missionary kid (and later served as a missionary myself along with my husband and children) in the general part of the world where the Elliots served. It is easy to question the wisdom of their personal choice to delay marriage (or not get married at all) as we type via the soft light of our laptops. :)

    The truth is that the kind of missions work that Jim Elliot felt God was leading him to pursue was NOT a place to raise a family. He was moving to the deep jungle in hopes of sharing Christ's love with an unreached tribe. No roads, no GPS, no phone or telegraph, no medical care, no shelter, no electricity or refrigeration, no running water, minimal food resources (most of these items would have to be brought in with great effort - walked in packed on someone's back over days of hiking slippery mountain paths).No resources already in place to help A young, healthy single man could more easily navigate such situations as he would be needing to only make decisions regarding himself, but bring a wife and future babies along and suddenly that life needs to look very different!

    Missionaries and their children DIED from tropical diseases! ANY experienced missionary and mission board would have had SERIOUS concerns about a new-to-the-field arrival taking his new wife into such a dangerous ministry situation. I first read Jim's biography as a missionary kid attending college back in the USA and his decision made complete sense to me. I also loved that God also gave the Elliots a season of life to serve him as a couple as well.

    Gothard's horrific teachings on marriage/authority/quiverfull/education etc are his own construct. Growing up as an mk in the third world, I also was blessed to have many missionary "Aunts and Uncles" who had attended Wheaton College during the same time period that Gothard would have been there - they had ZERO of those crazy, sick teachings in their their ministry and lives.

    • LynnCD April 5, 2016 Reply

      BINGO! I have read most of what Elisabeth Elliott has written, and in her words, Jim wanted to serve for a while in rough conditions and take time to determine if having a wife and family life were feasible where he believed God had called him to serve.

    • rob war April 5, 2016 Reply

      Thank-you for sharing your insight and experience. Considering your background and work, I have a couple of questions if you don't mind answering. How do you see Jill and Dillard's missionary work? You mention a board or support from a missionary board but it seems from what I've read about them, that it seems like they are not connected with any particular supporting board and group. SBC has stated that they are not connected with them even though the Dillard's implied that. Now maybe they are connected with SOS but again it seems like that isn't clear. But from your experience and childhood, is it wise for people to go solo almost without any real training and substantial support from any type of missionary organization? I would think training in scripture, theology, language etc are very important. I know the Duggars have sent the kids on different short term work but that is quite different that going to live in more primitive countries with a different language and culture and expect to be successful. How does this all play out? Thank-you in advance, while you might not post much, it seems like what you do most is insightful and good. I remember Billy Graham when asked if you had only 3 years left that he stated that he would spend 2 years of study before going out in missionary work.

    • Don Rubottom April 6, 2016 Reply

      Thanks, Lois. I am sure that Jim had a Pauline view of single service. It is reasonable, if not based on cautious human wisdom. As even Paul said: "Don't I have the right to take along a wife as does Cephas?" Thus, when a mission (or para-church such as IBLP) organization concludes that a particular calling requires singleness, it imposes a law where Paul recommends careful self-examination.
      Another thing to consider: what Jim was thinking which you persuasively present, was incompatible with his intimate profession of love for Elizabeth. I am pretty sure that Paul never professed love for a single girl, nor did he likely call any his "energy giver"! It is certain that Jesus never professed love for a single girl (except his profession on the cross for each woman to ever live), nor did Jesus ever privately express "energy giver" sentiments. Let us follow Paul as he followed Christ. Jim Elliot's example is too ambiguous. I Cor. 7:28: "But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."

    • Don Rubottom April 6, 2016 Reply

      Rob, I encourage you not to be concerned about any Duggar's plans or actions. Their training and addiction to media attention provide a very poor foundation for Biblical decision-making. Pray for them, but don't try to examine too closely. It is not likely to edify.

      • rob war April 6, 2016 Reply

        Thanks Don, I wanted to ask my question of Lois without trying to sound accusatory of Jill and Derrick because their actions seem to border on the fraudulent side even though I personally don't think they intended to be fraudulent, more unintentional and even clueless. I would consider their actions to be some what of an insult to real missionaries that take the time to study, prepare and due diligence with support of either a Church, denomination or missionary type of board that Lois mentioned. Yes, I do pray for all those kids.I feel sorry for them. They know not what they do. Bob and Michelle raise a bunch of kids to be dependent on the TV attention they have been given and ATI has prepared them for nothing else. It's sad. I watched on promo blip where the boys are training Jinger about buying and selling used cars. The one brother (can't remember which one) was telling Jinger to watch out for cars that have detailing pin strips because and according to him, that is a sign that the car has been in an accident and the pin stripping was added as a cover up. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I have 2 vehicles that had pin strips from the start, they were bought this way. So according to John, i have been in car accidents and am trying to cover it up with detailing pin strips. It doesn't get any better that this.

        • Don Rubottom April 8, 2016

          Probably what he wanted to say is that pinstripes are seductive and lead to fornication but that wouldn't work on TV.

        • rob war April 8, 2016

          Glad you explained this. So my full size conversion van with it's 6 rows of pin strip detailing is really a sexy hot rod. Who knew.

        • Don Rubottom April 11, 2016

          Rob, we know that convertibles are for those looking. Vans are for those who "found it"!
          On convertibles, pinstripes are advertising. On vans, they are badges of honor...

  204. nicole gardner April 6, 2016 Reply

    Lois^^^^
    Thank-you so much for chiming in- your words of personal experience are very affirming to me as I have long been a fan of Elisabeth E; I don't like to think of her as being tainted by the IBLP cult leader's agenda. Although it seems he was able to exploit her/her testimony as David P. illuminates above. I believe this account & insights, David P., & I think it's very relevant to this discussion.

    I admit I am appalled that she ever was involved in proffering at a Gothard conference (I didn't know before now that she involved herself with his ministry). I wonder if she came to regret that as she would've likely learned the Bible more as she got on in life. Maybe she stated that no one should build a doctrine on the 5-year thing out of concern over the fact that one (Gothard) already had. One thing, as was already pointed out, is that she had very short time with Jim & losing him so suddenly & tragically would have made her idealize him & every aspect of her 2-year marriage to him.

    At any rate, Lois, I thank-you very much for testifying to the integrity & authenticity of many Wheaton graduates because I'm sure the bulk of them are Christ-honorers. And I know that you know. Childhood experiences are very impressing with regard to the character of the adults who populate them.

    Please comment here whenever you have the time to; it's a blessing.

    • Don Rubottom April 6, 2016 Reply

      Amen.

    • huzandbuz April 7, 2016 Reply

      huzandbuz 4/7/16

      For lack of a better place, I opted to post my comment regarding Elisabeth Elliot here. (Could she have, at some point, influenced Gothard's insistence on dresses or skirts??)

      As per Julia from 4/3: "I am moving on and moving on well (I think, anyway) but reading something like this stirs up in me a loath of what we learned. Dresses (I like 'em but where in the world do they enter into doctrine?")

      Julia, I agree. How do 'they' arrive at this conclusion????

      Years ago, after becoming aware of her husband's plight and their noteworthy testimonies, I purposed to listen to Elisabeth's radio program. (I was unaware of the term 'legalistic'.) For me, as a new christian, she came across as harsh and unrelenting. I then determined, 'after her sermon on the proper dress for ladies' that her diatribe was not for me.

      (I always dressed modestly and wore skirts or dresses for church. This is how I was raised.) But, her spout regarding the 'ladies' she had recently encountered at the airport was enough to 'cross her off my list of those who edify'. (She did not improve, morally or intellectually, my understanding of the GRACE of GOD.) She went on and on regarding how distasteful it was for these women to be wearing.... pants!! (I personally believe that the 'dress' in preparation for a flight should be especially comfortable 'just in case'. The entire time she was involved in the 'mission field' did she continually don a skirt or dress.....????)

      • esbee April 8, 2016 Reply

        more likely the time period she was born and raised in influenced her opinions of what women should wear though the natives where she was a missionary probably wore very little.

        • huzandbuz April 9, 2016

          To esbee:

          No doubt Ms. Elliot was influenced 'in part' by the time period in which she was reared.

          Though now a very seasoned senior citizen, I vividly recall the days of my youth and our more or less 'understood' dress code.

          Ms. Elliot was a remarkable, spirit filled woman. There is no doubt that she was a blessing to many.
          Often her sermon broadcasts, however, reflected her opinions. I doubt I was the only new christian who was unnerved by her 'insistence regarding subjects that did not appear to have anything to do with scripture'. (Other women, via the Ladies Retreats I attended, were often of the same ilk.)

          Yet, though I bristled at the above, I was lured into Gothardism, enticed by Bill's promises of 'children blessed with the character necessary to accomplish all things'!! Like millions of others, I was deceived, for a while....

          In retrospect, perhaps not in all areas, but I cannot help but believe that most of the 'women speakers' I encountered were in some way influenced by 'the Beast that is Bill Gothard'. There are too many similarities to disregard my feelings.

          Thank you for your post.

          In HIS Grip...

  205. Larne Gabriel April 7, 2016 Reply

    It looks like there was a court hearing on March 31st and the next one is May 2nd, it says "continued for hearing" on the court website. Does anyone know what has transpired and if Gibbs III is still on the case.

    • rob war April 7, 2016 Reply

      I thought April 7th (today) was to be the hearing on whether G III is qualified to be the lawyer. But from the dates you have and I've double checked on DuPage court web site, that doesn't seem to be the case. I would think if G III was removed, IBLP and Alfred would be celebrating that on their web sites and blogs. But again, I am not seeing anything. G III usually does keep Julie Ann of Spiritual sounding board updated, but again she has not posted anything concerning this. I am wondering if there is some kind of gag order issued for everyone involved and that is why all these other places are silent which include this one as well. Still praying for all involved, I think that is all we can do for now.

      • Larne Gabriel April 7, 2016 Reply

        Last I heard it was to be today, April 7th too, but when I checked online today I saw various actions on 3/31 and the next date for 5/2. I am not that close. I too pray every day for them.

      • Don Rubottom April 8, 2016 Reply

        Most likely the lawyers on all sides are slow walking the case because there is little to be gained by forcing any issues.

  206. JPU April 7, 2016 Reply

    Ok, I thought that was April 7 which is today. Maybe it was changed? We'll see if there's an update soon, but Larne, you're definitely closer to it than I am.
    Interesting insights on Jim and Elisabeth Elliot. I found what I read about her to be inspiring, though yes, they were human like us. We all struggle with the sufferings of earthly life,(we're not promised an easy life and they certainly didn't) but what I keep wondering about is, do we REALLY need to inflict suffering on each other to illustrate this theology? I guess that's what we're all here for; to help each other in the struggles. After all, after Paul's reminders of the end-times, he did say "encourage each other with these words". Praying for wisdom for us all.

    • Julia Fetters April 7, 2016 Reply

      JPU I do not understand your question or know how to answer it for myself. Would you mind explaining? Just wanting to see if I have inflicted suffering or what you were talking about? Thanks much!

  207. JPU April 8, 2016 Reply

    No, no one here has inflicted suffering, that I know of. Well, some parents confess having done that to their children as a result of the ATI/IBLP teachings. But share their regrets in hopes of breaking the cycle. We have seen many examples of BG doing that, such as moving the Training Center staff around all the time.

    • Julia Fetters April 8, 2016 Reply

      Yes. I agree. Thank you for clarifying, JPU.

      On another note... I thought of something a.g.a.i.n.. How often it has come to mind. It is a bondage leach - the kind that just cannot get enough of stealing joy, pleasure, and sweet communion.

      I am posting this because one of the reasons Recovering Grace exists is to help those who have been in IBLP/ATI/BG bondage come into freedom in their walk with the One true God. Not the IBLP/ATI/BG God. (he can be very cruel and exacting).

      Anyway, what came back again this morning, while I was getting ready to have breakfast with my Lord, was the leeetle teeny leach that comes to mind often when I am going to have breakfast or lunch or dinner with Jesus.

      Does anyone remember the teaching or possibly side note when Bill said we should partake of God's word before we feed our bodies? Was anyone else the intense groupie I was who actually caught that and then went to live it out? I thank God I did not put that on my children. To be honest, I do not know why I wouldn't have other than we had studied nutrition enough to know you had better eat in the morning. I, on the other hand, felt guilty for a long time over this. In fact about 20 years after hearing it, that old devil still brings it up. If you have been under that thought at all, walk away. Enjoy your meals with the King of Kings.

      • Don Rubottom April 8, 2016 Reply

        I do not recall that teaching but it is completely in sync with his unbiblical view that the body is evil, and the body and spirit war to control the soul. I am exceedingly thankful that I am a bodily PERSON whose entire being (body, soul and spirit) is subject to the Redemption and will be perfected by Grace. He rose BODILY because our bodies are His. "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
        A man who would abuse his own body and call that abuse, "spiritual", would be more likely to abuse the bodies of others, wouldn't he?

        • Julia Fetters April 8, 2016

          He DID say that - just wondered if anyone else remembers it.

  208. nicole gardner April 9, 2016 Reply

    Julia,
    I wasn't raised ATI, but one of my friends eluded to that teaching in telling me something along those same lines:

    My friend was raised strict, strict, strict ATI & was telling me a year & a half or so ago that her mom waived the teaching that nobody could eat breakfast before completing all Gothard's assigned Bible reading. She changed the rule in their house so that no one could eat LUNCH until the Wisdom Booklet(s) & all assigned Scripture readings were done. This friend & her 9 siblings often didn't eat lunch until 2:30 or so after having been up since 6:30. This was from very, very young on up through high school age. But the mom was being comparatively gracious in making this a rule about lunch rather than breakfast. My friend was/is grateful for that.

    So, yeah, other people (my friend's mom) got the "every day requires a fast" concept out of the seminars, too.

  209. rob war April 9, 2016 Reply

    Question for anyone that might know. I just finished the late Ann Keimel Anderson's book "Seduced by Success:" and in that book and it was unsuspected was a paragraph that praised Bill Gothard for being a help to her late husband Will Anderson when there were separated and Ann was getting help in California and Will was in Chicago. The quote is this: "It meant so much to me that Will had Bill Gothard and some other dear families from Bill's Institute to support him. No one has been kinder than Bill to our family. We all love him profoundly." I was rather shocked to read this because her life didn't follow the Gothard type of plan. She lived on her own, she ran marathons etc etc and even when she went to rehab and later reunited with Will, they put their kids in public schools, she was at a secular rehab., he moved to California to join them. Back when she married Will, I read was quite glamorized by her book "I Gave God Time" and "Taste of Tears, Touch of God", plus her earlier books. Does anyone know if their involvement with Bill Gothard stemmed from Will? Was Will doing business with Bill in Russia? If Will was a IBYC alumni, I think that might explain how he expected newly married Ann to be a simple housewife and servant to him, something that added to their marital woes. If anyone knows more, let me know.

    • nicole gardner April 10, 2016 Reply

      Rob,

      I wish the thoughts coming to my mind that reading your comments has sparked were relevant to that author. But it immediately brought to my mind Annie Chapman's book "Letting Go of Anger: How to Get Your Emotions Under Control". (She is Steven Curtis Chapman's wife. Btw I LOVE his music). Anyway, in the book she's basically a know-it-all about how to supposedly be utterly blameless in all situations & relationships by sucking up to authority. Her experience in doing this, it seems, began when she claims a Bill Gothard-umbrella-d-counsel session transformed her life as a young single woman. She basically just reiterates his umbrella teaching in the book with examples of her following his teaching & how this has enabled to prevail over the opposition in conflict situations in her life. (Get down in the ground & grovel when you're at a disadvantage & it obligates God to make you come out on top). Anyway, it jibbed in my mind that this was something she latched onto as a young single woman & that her husband wasn't included in her accounts of adhering to Gothardism, because his music is very grace-filled.
      As seems to be the case with Ann Keimel Anderson, it's a famous name association that benefits Gothard but without any real connection.
      It did cause me to really pray very specifically for Annie Chapman when the tragedy happened with 5-year-old Maria Sue; being under Gothard's teaching is agonizing when hard times hit because he teaches (a) It's only to break/punish you for not having better brown-nosed the humans in your life, &, (b) It's your job to earn your way to blessing in order to rise above the pain. I wonder if, on this side of that horrible experience that God Himself walked them through, she would maybe have a different testimony were she to write a book now. At any rate, the one she did write back then sells for one penny on Amazon if anybody's interested : )

      • huzandbuz April 10, 2016 Reply

        Those were the days.... How incredibly tragic!!

        http://heresyintheheartland.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html

        Women, most certainly, were desperate for birth control!!

        Though the above story encompasses the mid 1800s, considering those 'sold out to Quiverfull'....

        <

      • Karen April 10, 2016 Reply

        Rob and Nicole,

        I don't think you can expect the experience of well-known Christians who have associated with Gothard to be anywhere close to that of his grunts and victims. His relationship with wealthy supporters is undoubtedly very different than that with those he victimizes. When a narcissist has something to gain from a relationship (excellent PR or financial support, or looking like the hero who comes to the rescue, for example), their m.o. can be the polar opposite in many important ways of what it is with those who have nothing more to barter with for approval, support, and acceptance than their own abject subservience to the narcissist. Narcissists are the consummate manipulative actors, who skillfully play their relationships to get what they want and maintain the image they want to project of themselves. Ann Kiemel Anderson by her own accounts is herself the product of a very legalistic and lonely upbringing as an M.K. She has herself documented her own very painful struggles, which have included a lonely childhood and feelings of deep inadequacy and unlovableness, marital discord (abusive, controlling husband), addiction, infertility, financial and health problems, and bereavement. Her perception of Gothard's "love" for her family and desire to praise him was, I suspect, greatly influenced by the extremely low sense of self-worth she still suffered at that time and the instinctive ability one damaged as Ann was to (likely unconsciously) recognize another similarly damaged (Gothard) and seek to keep herself and her family safe and supported by feeding his insatiable need for adulation. I believe the family lived for a short time in the 1990s at the Gothard Oak Brook headquarters and to a degree on the organization's payroll and/or charity after Will's business dealings left them bankrupt. It would not be surprising to me if Will (being by Ann's account a controller trying to fix her in their marriage) bought into Gothard's authoritarianism, and likely Gothard was showing his best colors playing the hero coming to the rescue of "Evangelical royalty" in trouble. That's the way I would explain Ann's lauding of Gothard's "love" for their family. Likely what Ann and Will really experienced was a classic case of cult "love bombing".

      • B.R. April 11, 2016 Reply

        This Annie Chapman is the wife of Steve Chapman, not to be confused with Steven Curtis Chapman, whose wife is Mary Beth. According to their website, Steve & Annie have been traveling, singing, writing and speaking about family issues since 1975. Steven Curtis Chapman turned 13 in 1975.

      • Don Rubottom April 11, 2016 Reply

        Annie Chapman is wife of Steve Chapman with whom she performed music as Steve and Annie Chapman. They are much older and appear to be unrelated to Steven Curtis Chapman. FYI.

        • nicole gardner April 12, 2016

          Don & Huzandbuz, thank-you for correcting me on the fact that Annie Chapman's famous-singer-hubby is NOT Steven Curtis Chapman!!! This actually explains the utter disconnect I was experiencing in trying to reconcile this artist's grace-filled music with the Gothard-lauding of Annie whom I mistakenly took to be his wife. I had never heard of Steve Chapman or of Annie singing & I didn't know there were 2 well-renowned Christian musicians with the same last name. This clears up the confusion for me, thanks.

      • huzandbuz April 11, 2016 Reply

        Steve & Annie Chapman, the devout christian musical artists, are 'older' and have performed together at least 35 years. Via her books, she is the wife/they are the couple that were influenced by Gothard. They have written books together. She is a speaker at womens' conferences and marriage seminars. They have an adult son & daughter.

        Mary Beth is the name of Steve Curtis Chapman's wife. Having (3) biological children, they adopted (3) girls from Japan. It was their youngest adopted daughter, Maria Sue, who died as a result of an auto accident.

        I do not believe there is any relationship or connection between the couple.

        • huzandbuz April 11, 2016

          BTW, Steve Curtis Chapman and his wife Mary Beth are also devout christians. (It is often easy to become confused via similar names.)

        • Todd k April 12, 2016

          On the topic of the Chapman's, my wife enjoyed their ministry. Talented, no doubt. The problem I have with the Chapmans (IMHO) was the combination of pathos with humor (I have listened to their tapes.) Pathos and humor worked fairly well for Jerry Lewis (And I would agree with Dean Martin--"C'mon Jerry, just be funny)! To sing and give comical anecdotes and then right away get into a heavy (sad) subject just does not mix well. For preaching/music ministry I recommend the old fashioned "go to church (grace oriented) on Sunday and take note of the pastor/priest's message and sing out the hymns. And with music tastes for The Moody Blues, Strawberry Alarm clock, Paul McCartney, Chicago, it is hard for someone of my (Jesus People type) personality to get into other types of music--LOL! But ironcially, I do love to sing the "old fashioned hymns." Peace and love from the "old happy (usually) hippie!

  210. nicole gardner April 11, 2016 Reply

    Karen that couldn't have been said better.
    May I add that the polarized duality of any Gothard-type's interaction with others increases the sense of elitism in those favored & simultaneously compounds the sense of worthlessness in those under the thumb. Because, when you see Gothard-types cracking-down on all the minions to try to fix them & make them worthy, actually getting favored by such a guru must seem like getting called the highly favored one of God Himself. When it's not that at all; he's just using his favorites, too- when these have done nothing more (& probably a lot less) to implement his doctrine than the minions have. Respectively, as being one of those subjected to trying to live out the IBLP/ATI teachings, I can say that when you hear bg name-dropping some of his golden examples & also famous people lauding him....... it's like "Okay, he likes to accept people, even though he has high standards. Many have already reached the bar of his acceptance; I must just have not done enough of his sayings yet."
    The duality of his way of dealing with people greatly compounds the deception for both of his two groupings of everyone.

    Huzandbuz, ty for the links! In the book Annie Chapman stated that she goes to every IBLP conference that she can as well as encourages every person she knows to go. She said she's attended repeatedly.

    • huzandbuz April 11, 2016 Reply

      "There is no grace for borrowed sorrow".

      Stated in the text of Annie's book, and, as per her husband Steve, those in attendance at the IBLP conference were encouraged to jot down those words....

      Perhaps this was one of Gothard's 'rhemas'....
      (You know, all of a sudden God's Holy Spirit struck Bill, the sagacious man that he is, with another lightening bolt of wisdom.)

      Does that phrase make sense?? Depending on your definition of 'grace', I guess....

      <

      • Don Rubottom April 11, 2016 Reply

        The phrase makes no sense. It seems to be one more way to blame the victim. Being outside "the umbrella" is being outside of God's love. Sounds like Job's three friends/natural religion to me. If there is no grace there, wherever there is, then God's Grace is NOT sufficient unless YOU are in the right place. Not what my Bible says but it made for a poetic story in the book cited. Without grace, I suppose you just go to bed unconcerned that a ferry did not reach its intended dock.

        • huzandbuz April 11, 2016

          Yes, nice poetic phrase & subsequent storyline....chuckle.

          If you are 'there', in the right place, then 'there', wherever that is, is where you receive the 'grace'. Other than that, Bill's admonition, via his 'rhema', is...."get back under your umbrella".

          Thank you for your confirmation that, again, Bill's teaching leads us, once more, into a state of obscurity....

          In HIS Grip,

  211. rob war April 11, 2016 Reply

    Karen,
    Thanks for your comments (as well as you Nicole!). I think I might be a little older than you but in the later 70- early 80s, most young single evangelical women were quite
    taken in by Ann Keimel. I read her books and when I was a freshman in college, went with a group of fellow Christian girls to see her speak. She was quite inspirational with her stories, her marathons etc.
    When she got married and wrote about it, it sounded so romantic and glamorous that a single Christian was going to eventual meet "the one" and you were going to know and that was it. I knew about the infertility problems because I also
    read that book and eventually listen to her on Dobson talk about her problems becoming free from prescription pills etc. I was still kinda shocked by the Gothard quote in the book because it doesn't really fit with how she started to put her life back
    together again which really was through secular therapy not Gothard type of ideas. i have no doubt that Bill treated Christians "celebrities" like Ann and Will differently than he did those under him or the us regular no bodies.

    I think and am trying to be reflective here is that Gothard has too extremes about marriage. One is the Elliot example of putting off and off getting married because one is suppose to serve God first. (I also remember the singer Evie had a 7 year engagement).
    Then there is the other extreme in his courtship teaching, where one mets "the one" through one's parents or family, there is a short 4 month courtship and you end up married basically marrying a total stranger but that's ok because supposedly God
    lead you together via family and everyone around you is telling you yes, and it seems so romantic and quick. Ann and Will married in 6 month of meeting in a whirlwind courtship that was cross country. Will met Ann and the urging of his sister who like
    her books. They barely really knew each other and there was little actually time to get to know one another due to distance. Now take away all the "spiritual" yak and feelings and apply some common sense here, would any one in their right mind really
    recommend to anyone else to marry someone they barely know in 4-6 months? I don't think so. And in the age of no -fault divorce why in the world has conservative evangelical Christianity sold it's young single people this bill of goods as an answer
    to have stable happy divorce proof marriages? I watched one of the promo clips of the Duggar kids where Jana was talking about using her twin brother to help her find the "right one". The problem is that her brother isn't going to live with her husband, she is.
    All any of these ideas have done is to set well meaning Christians up for shaky and faulty marriages. One of the things I appreciate in the Catholic Church is their criteria that those that are getting married wait to get married and that the decision to marry needs to be
    of one's own free will, not forced, not arranged, not out of fear, not because there is a baby on way. etc. I'm not familiar Karen with the Orthodox annulment criteria but all the things I just listed are things a Catholic marriage tribunal look at in the annulment process which goes
    back to the beginning of the marriage, not what went wrong afterwards. A Catholic friend online once pointed out that the Duggar marriages if they fail, would be classic cases for annulments because they are arranged and the kids barely knew each other.
    The sad story of Ann and Will Anderson ought to serve as examples of the real problems and issues of quick marriages "I barely know you" marriages.

  212. nicole gardner April 11, 2016 Reply

    Rob,
    I'm glad you're talking about the topic of IBLP-doctrine-set-up marriages. As soon as I turned 18, in my die-hard IBLP church, a young man's parents tried to set up courtship of him & me. With my parents, of course, who were all for it. I wasn't at all mature for my age so the idea just scared me & I would just freeze-up around him & his parents. So the problem took care of itself. But, and I'm sure I speak for most IBLP survivors, I witnessed up-close an IBLP set-up-marriage that followed IBLP model to a "T"........ & to it's inevitable Big "D" [divorce]. I would say more about the 95% misery vs. maybe 5% good that came of that for all involved, but I'm not one of the primary sufferers (although the whole church actually suffered to some extent through the politics, presumptuousness, flaunted self-righteousness, entitlement/favoritism, & elitism that permeated the administration during the whole 5-year courtship. Yah. There's that 5-year thing again; like I said, it was textbook IBLP). At the divorce, both the husband & wife chalked it up to having had "an arranged marriage." They would know!!! At the time they were heavily touted by the leadership as being living examples of the success that IBLP brings to young lives. What that kind of bragging ultimately established was a pretty high platform for all to witness the truth. Now that the truth has come to light.

    • huzandbuz April 11, 2016 Reply

      Even Webster defines 'courtship' as:

      'a period during which a couple develop a romantic relationship'

      HOW do you even begin to develop a romantic relationship IF you are never alone together to discuss any romantic thoughts or feelings?? Apparently the couple are indoctrinated, via cultural assimilation, to believe that after the wedding ceremony this phenomenon will just magically take place. Scary....

      • Don Rubottom April 12, 2016 Reply

        1) romance and Gothard style arranged marriage are not of the same domain.
        2) you "develop" such a relationship the way B.G. does: fantasizing about her flowing hair, thinking about what kind of bra she should wear, planning her cosmetic surgery, imagining playing footsie with her, objectifying her and sucking up to her "authority" so he will sell her to you. Just like shopping for a slave.
        Why do you ask?

        • huzandbuz April 12, 2016

          To Don:
          If you are asking me, "Why do you ask?", I wasn't asking. Chuckle.

          After reading Nicole Gardner's post of 4/11 and pondering those of that ilk, I have often wondered just 'how many courtship marriages are actually successful'....long term??

          As for 'the Beast that is Bill Gothard', I cannot place in text what I truly think regarding his unconscionable exploits.... :+(

  213. Renea April 11, 2016 Reply

    I haven't been on website for a while and still can't get all the comments to show. Any suggestions? It's still not fixed yet.

    • Don Rubottom April 11, 2016 Reply

      Having problems today too. I think the server may have problems. I'm viewing at 75% to see the entire lines and cutting and pasting into Word if I can't read the fine print. Just a work around.

  214. DAVID PIGG April 11, 2016 Reply

    Wonder if this isn't some Gothard hijack

    • huzandbuz April 11, 2016 Reply

      That depends on whether we have 'cleansed our homes'.... OOOOOOOOO....

  215. rob war April 15, 2016 Reply

    I'm not sure if Alfred is going to post this but this is my response to his latest.

    Alfred,
    you tell your "quirky" insensitive hero that if he ever "tapped" me with his feet, he is going to get
    another foot back and it's going right where it counts and I highly doubt that it won't feel too good either.
    On second thought, I'll have my soccer playing daughter do the honors because she has a pretty big
    kick herself. I think that should cure Bill's quirky habits here.

    • huzandbuz April 16, 2016 Reply

      To rob war:

      I cannot help but ponder just what Alfred determined actually took place via the 'foot tap'....

      Gothard admitted that 'it' took place. However, in his defense, what was Bill's explanation to his tenacious defender as to what actually occurred....

      Does Alfred really believe that Bill, as some sort of 'gesture of affirmation', with his shoes in place, tapped the foot or feet of these young ladies while they were also wearing shoes....

      Though peculiar....'If that was all there was to it', why would all those offended complain about such a benign motion??

      Sigh....

      • nicole gardner April 16, 2016 Reply

        What makes it even more obvious as being a sexual foot-fetish is that fact that every girl/woman whom Gothard sexually victimized in this way is being lambasted for speaking up. She should NEVER object to these so-called "taps", according to Gothard's public propagandist, Alfred. This only serves to underscore the designation of females to being objectified & de-humanized by Gothard & those still populating his cult. (A) this gender must be subjected to weird sexual advances to that the bigwig's "right" to do this to them is not hindered, and, (B) these must not perceive the bigwig's exercise of his "rights" from any other viewpoint than that of the bigwig & his brainwashed ilk.
        Which means, of course, that all the tapping is to be considered as perfectly tolerable. Yeah. Sure. Does Alfred just not realize that he's defending the most primitive of any heathen/pagan Method of Operations?!?!?!?

        "Me carry big stick. Me like woman [young girls, actually] Me have big power over woman. No one stop big power! Not honor my big power? Me teach you lesson, have my servants teach you lesson; you not people!"

      • rob war April 18, 2016 Reply

        I think Alfred is going by what his son told him because his son worked directly with Bill and
        I would guess that he might have "witnessed" things. Alfred's excuse is just a bunch of
        sorry BS and no one no matter what should be "tapping" anyone with their feet, shoes or not shoes.
        Like I said, if someone "tapped" me with his feet, he would be kicked back.

  216. huzandbuz April 16, 2016 Reply

    Nicole:


    I cannot imagine being a vulnerable young lady, in the presence of any adult male, 'especially one whom I believed was my mediator to God', who would then proceed to seduce me with his feet!! Even if I did not understand the initiation or implication, this action would surely 'take my breath away'!! Horrors!!

    :+(

    • huzandbuz April 17, 2016 Reply

      Alfred, the staunch advocate, WILL NOT discern that Bill was 'approaching their feet with his shoeless feet'?? What does he CHOOSE to believe took place with so many females that caused them such devastation (just within these 'foot tapping' incidents alone)??

      As Gothard so nonchalantly refers to his action as the 'foot tap of affirmation', Alfred CONCLUDES that we are mindless, irrational beings to assume the action was anything less than a reflection of Bill's virtuous sentiment.

      No rational individual would use a gesture of 'foot tapping', even with shoes in place, to affirm anything. Anyone who truly evaluates the 'foot tap', in preponderance of all the young ladies' testimonies, could possibly deduce that Gothard's 'footsie' was anything less than sexual!! :+(

  217. Daniel April 17, 2016 Reply

    I call BS on the "foot tapping" explanation.
    Let's walk through this...

    1. If this was a public display that "everybody knew about" that causes more problems than it solves. So the Board and IBLP leadership knew about Bill's thing for touching feet of girls? I suppose he affirmed government leaders and Mrs. Duggar in the same way?
    2. In all the stories (there are too many to discount) the modus operandi was the same. Shoes off, start slyly, work up the calf. That's not a pat on the shoulder. That's just plain icky.
    3. When the footsie stories broke, the reaction was not a yawn. Everybody was like "no way." Nobody except Alfred seems to think this was out in the open.
    4. Gothard was playing footsie with his male assistants? Alfred, I thought RG was the one concocting wild stories. Nobody accused him of that here. :-/
    5. I'm actually going to throw Alfred a bone here. Maybe Gothard really did the foot tapping thing in public and with the boys too. That could be classic grooming behavior... beginning to cross the lines of physical touching. Making it seem like its not a big deal... this is how I roll.

  218. Karen April 18, 2016 Reply

    Rob, I can't reply to you above because the formatting of this comments section bleeds off the right side of my window and I cannot read all the comments or access the "reply" function (even on my computer now, not just my phone). Perhaps it is because this comments section has gotten outrageously long.

    I just wanted to say I had a similar impression of Ann Kiemel's writings at about the same time in my life, and I believe you and I must be quite close to the same age. Interestingly, a couple years before I was a student at my Evangelical college, Kiemel had been a special speaker there. My "Abnormal Psychology" class prof. said when she appeared and spoke in chapel, he and his colleagues looked at each other and pegged her as a classic example of one of the personality disorders we were studying at the time. His point was not to put Ann down, but to say that God even sometimes uses our weaknesses and disorders for His purposes. I'm not sure I would agree with him that in Ann's case this was a good thing for her or God's will in any ideal sense. She was hurting, and her "success" in this kind of Christian performance was not helping her toward wholeness at the time and perhaps was feeding in her and her audiences many unrealistic popular Evangelical stereotypes and fallacies about God's will and how He works in our lives. Of course, I say that in hindsight after decades of experience, growth and reflection. Ann did a lot of changing and growing over the years, too. I'm thankful she was apparently much less driven and more at peace with herself and in touch with God's grace by the time of her death. God never takes pleasure in our suffering, but He sure can make it work for our benefit when it forces us to relax our death grip on the things of this world and learn that Christ in His grace is more than sufficient for us. We can all be thankful for that!

  219. rob war April 18, 2016 Reply

    Hi Karen,
    yes the wrap around is making it difficult. I think I could talk with you all day about this and many other issues as well!
    If desired, I do give the moderators permission to release my email to you directly. Back to Ann Kiemel Anderson, I do hope
    the 4 boys are doing well and able to move on with their lives. In reflecting back on her, her life and some of the choices she
    made, I think you rightly point out that she exemplifies typical fallacies about God's will and how He works. While at the time
    of her book "I Gave God Time", it seems kinda apparent that that she and Will should have given themselves more time and maybe
    come to the realization that this was going to be a big mismatch not made in heaven. If Will desired a stay at home wife to cook
    the way he wanted and live quietly on a farm in Idaho, then he should have realized that Ann was not going to fit that bill. Ann
    should have realized that any man that has a set female body type in his head might have some secret problem with pornography
    which I think she has alluded to in some of her book endorsements about this issue. When any Christian overrides their own common
    sense and personal attractions to become convinced that God's will to marry a particular person even when the initial reaction
    was yuck is setting themselves up for a difficult marriage which really in the big scheme of things, not God's will, plan or design.

    I did see under the article "Bubbles" on RG, that one of the commenters pointed out the Bill Gothard brought in Ann, Will and
    their boys to use her as an example of why women shouldn't be doing sports because it causes infertility. Now, there is a big
    difference between sports participation in general and going out and doing extreme sports like marathons and triatholons etc.
    There are very few that actually can do the later. Ann had the long skinny body type of a marathon runner. Marathon training can naturally
    suppress a woman's cycle but to stretch this out or be allowed to be used by Bill as an example to prove his anti-sports stance is
    pretty sad. Again, I'm not sure if she used a proper trainer for her marathons but there are many factors not just this one that
    contributed to Ann and Will's issues. She did get pregnant and have a number of miscarriages.

    It seems like Christian celebrity culture seems to raise up individuals as great examples to be followed and then gloss over their
    not so great choices in their lives or uses their choices as examples of "God's Will" when they are not really God's will. She along
    with Joni Tada and courtship teaching in general seem to set people up of quick marriages because "it's God's will" while ignoring
    red flags and real potential issues. Courtship teaching via Bill was to have parents or family make your choice, quick celebrity Christian
    marriages that sound so romantic and give the impression this is how God's works really set others up for troubled heart ache marriages.
    In the age of no fault divorce, why have too many well meaning Christian teachers, pastors and leaders even encouraged this against common
    sense and basic wisdom.

    • Karen April 24, 2016 Reply

      Thanks, Rob. Yes, many good observations here. I'd be glad to email with you and give the site moderators permission to give you my email if you like, too. :-)

  220. Moderator April 18, 2016 Reply

    Hello all,

    There was an extremely long link in one of the comments on this thread, and that was the cause of the text issue. That comment has been edited and the problem solved.

    We apologize for the inconvenience of the past few days.

    RG Team

    • Karen April 24, 2016 Reply

      Thanks for figuring that out! It's working well again for me now.

  221. nicole gardner April 18, 2016 Reply

    Huzandbuz
    I've spent the last year-and-a-half trying to figure out a term for the ridiculous re-presenting of all the footsie-advances. And you just nailed it: "virtuous sentiment". That is exactly what his team is saying his little game is. I re-read Daniel's comment above & imagined, stamped across each of the 5 incisive points he made, those words: "virtuous sentiment." Of course, Alfred is the stamp held in bg's sweaty palm. Virtuous sentiment....... What a crock!

    • huzandbuz April 19, 2016 Reply

      To Nicole:

      I just posted a letter, my first to Alfred, on DG. It is awaiting moderation via the name Sharon Lee. He may display it, ergo, consider a reply. It may be edited or disregarded. I want to believe it exhibits careful thought in its appeal to his rationale. That was the plan. :+)
      Who am I to think that what I say or the way I present it can make a difference? I don't. It is just what I felt lead to do.

      In my heart of hearts, as with all of us, setting aside our antagonism over his defiance, we are truly attempting to appeal to his 'sensibility & reason'. True, he is ignorant regarding Gothard and the entire IBLP mindset (as most of us were.) However, he certainly does not lack intelligence. He is WILLFULLY REFUSING to consider any possibility of affirmation contrary to his established viewpoint. We pray that he soon recognizes 'what is ever before him'. If and when he does, 'his entire world, as he has known it, may collapse in absolute disillusionment'. Perhaps this is his most all-encompassing fear....

      'virtuous sentiment'....Sounds right. Yup, the devil can sugar-coat anything!!

  222. rob war April 19, 2016 Reply

    Alfred has used this recycled excuse before. No normal person goes around "tapping" others with their feet. Tapping others with a foot is usually an under the table signal to "shut up" to the other person. For all the best intentions of others, no amount of logic and reasoning will change Alfred's thinking and defense. The only thing that works in answering absurdity is satire which exposes this for what it is, complete and absolute lunacy. So I propose that if Bill like feet is to give him a foot back, right where it counts, then I think he will end up thinking twice about using his own feet with either footsie or tapping or otherwise. I volunteer my daughter to do the honors on behalf of all those at the receiving end of Bill's footsie/tapping. If Bill was "insensitive" about use of his feet, then this should definitely sensitize Bill very well.

  223. rob war April 19, 2016 Reply

    On second thought if Bill likes tapping, maybe he should sign up for some tap dance lessons.

    • huzandbuz April 19, 2016 Reply

      rob war:

      The impact of this percussive dance, in Bill's demonstration, would not reveal the rhythm form or 'soft shoe'. :+(

      Blessings.... <

  224. huzandbuz April 19, 2016 Reply

    rob war:
    When Gothard ultimately 'puts his foot in his mouth', and this exposure has all of the possibilities of taking place, Alfred will be the unwanted recipient of all aspects of the embarrassment. Poor chap.

    • rob war April 19, 2016 Reply

      Oh yes, the ole' foot in mouth. Brilliant! I think really it is both feet in good ole Bill's mouth. Yes, Alfred the poor chap. He is such fodder for satire and doesn't know it to boot. Maybe that's part of his appeal, he is just too much to have fun with.

  225. rob war April 19, 2016 Reply

    One third thought, someone ought to go to Jib Jab and download their little Irish step dancing clip and then plaster Bill's face on the Irish step dancers then we can all watch Bill do the Irish step dance since he likes to "tap" so much according to Alfred. I'm not good with doing that sort of thing but at least we can all watch Bill do an Irish step dance and he doesn't have to take lessons and contaminated his soul with Irish step dance music (or any other type of music).

  226. huzandbuz April 19, 2016 Reply

    rob war:
    We are all frustrated and or angry to one degree or another. As a result of this fact, it is easy to lose sight of a 'Godly resolution'. Sadly, our 'quips' often become our 'sword of justice'.

    I am not familiar with 'Jib Jab'. Trust that I am a very seasoned senior citizen who is fortunate enough to be able to 'grasp enough technology to get by'. :+)

    Technology increases expectations. Therefore, I expect no more from myself than what has become my 'present station in life'. Chuckle.

    ^i^ ^i^ ^i^

  227. nicole gardner April 19, 2016 Reply

    Entertaining, ladies^^^^^^
    It puts a smile on my face to see you bantering in the midst of your highlighting of specific aspects of the Gothard debacle. Humor shows one to be not just surviving, but thriving. My hat off to you both.
    Like you eluded to, if he had had a rhythm to keep to, this would have definitely crimped his style of exploratory massaging. If his feet had had taps to do in time to a beat, maybe he wouldn't have operated them like they were violin bows (to Meg with both of them simultaneously), caressing to a melody known only in his own mind. It seems one objective of his was to see how long he could hold a note at certain times during his explorations. Not exactly something he could have done if he'd been keeping a beat. Maybe knew he would miss a beat (or 50) if there was one; maybe THIS is why he's so against beats! Not to mention, if he'd had tap-dance shoes on, he couldn't have done any of his rubbing. By IBLP standards, it's pretty bad when catchy tunes with distinctive beat were needed to curb a person's hitting-on of another; maybe dance lessons would have been a prescribed part of his rehab if he'd ever gotten the help he needs.

  228. huzandbuz April 20, 2016 Reply

    Nicole:
    Understood. 'If he would ever recognize that he needs help'....

    We all know that ONLY God's Holy Spirit can convince him of that.... :+)

    • nicole gardner April 20, 2016 Reply

      And in the meantime- 40+ years- it became apparent that he thinks a tibia & fibula are the strings on a violin & that he must play the whole scale! But, in spite of his 'virtuous sentiment' in doing so, he only does this with the violin-string-tibias-&-fibulas of young ladies. Very particular is his taste in violins that he randomly practiced on with his 'bows' a.k.a. his feet.

      • Don Rubottom April 21, 2016 Reply

        I'm just wondering when the wives of his leaders and board members will come out with their testimony that he tapped their feed in affirmation.... It would help his case tremendously. Alfred's speculations of "virtuous sentiments" are nothing compared to hard evidence.
        Has anyone else considered that "virtuous sentiments" is just a fancy pants way of saying: "well meaning" or "good intentions" or "meant no evil" or "meant well"? I expect that B.G. came up with this phrase and will testify to the same. I hope the lawyer cross-examining him will ask: "Are you saying that you meant well?"

        • huzandbuz April 21, 2016

          Don:

          That was what I meant ("well meaning" or "good intentions" or "meant no evil" or "meant well")
          when I typed those words in my response to Nicole. It was my attempt at determining what wording Bill 'could' use in his justification of 'foot tapping'.

          I do not have any evidence that Gothard every used that terminology. :+)

        • Don Rubottom April 21, 2016

          Sorry, I thought I saw an earlier reference as if Alfred had introduced the terminology!

        • huzandbuz April 24, 2016

          Don:
          May I ask what you were referencing concerning 'the wink'?? I am curious.... 'Gothard's wink' ??

          I initially thought you were asking a general question regarding 'first response' to a 'wink'. :+)

          ^i^

        • Don Rubottom April 25, 2016

          Prov 10:10 was applied out of context to condemn every wink of an eye as evil and hellish. Those of us afflicted by this false teaching are now condemned by our doubts which arise from its being engrained in us. Julia got it.

        • rob war April 26, 2016

          I wonder if Bill forgot to memorize or meditate on that verse in Proverbs. Maybe he spent too much time on Song of Solomon instead.

  229. Mark April 20, 2016 Reply

    Hi all,

    Pastor/Professor David Murray of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary has started a series of articles on Spiritual Abuse called "Spotlight". http://www.headhearthand.org/blog I've found that I am apparently on his edge of appropriate posting behavior, since I've gotten a number of posts deleted.

    The first post that I knew would get deleted, and yet was meant to make a point was to demonstrate that his boss, Dr. Joel Beeke, has promoted spiritual abuse in the family. Specifically, he has stated repeatedly that children who refuse to participate in family worship should be refused food. His deletion of this post was my point - that it's okay to point the general "spiritual abuse" finger, but when someone shines the spotlight on your little circle, it gets really, really uncomfortable. This, I think, shows that Murray is pointing to the speck in others' eyes when he refuses to acknowledge the same in his.

    The pattern other posts that have gotten deleted have struck an oddly familiar chord. It's okay to point how bad spiritual abuse and abusers are, but it's apparently not okay to point that within Reformed theology there has been a pendulum swing towards abusive authority based on misinterpretation of scripture and confessions.

    I think the problem is how do you promote obedience to lawful authority, while trying to expose sinful abuse. I think the theology that is backing this up is completely flawed. For example, John Piper talked about a counseling session where the wife had to ask permission from the husband to use the bathroom. Piper's response was that the husband's idea of authority was deeply flawed. What he didn't say was that the wife had no obligation to submit to flawed authority. This is the flawed theology. The conservative Reformed churches claim to recognize spiritual abuse, but they still hold members to be insubordinate when they refuse to obey commands that are unlawful. Piper (as all others) draw the line at requiring sin, but that's not what we're talking about. This also smacks of Gothard who says that our recourse to spiritual abuse is to ask the abuser to reconsider the abuse, and potentially take it to the elders, but obedience is never in question.

    It's easy to come up with a ludicrous example. My father, husband or elder says, "lick my feet." There is nothing morally wrong about licking feet, so we don't get a pass on that one. We can protest that it is not "right" to request that, but the Gothardesque school draws the line there. If the command persists, the feet must be licked! I can subsequently bring the elder or husband before the elders to take action, but my obedience to the unlawful command is somehow dictated by God. In fact, many from that school believe that it's okay to obey a command to do wrong, because the wrongness falls on the head of the authority. That's the Nuremberg claim - "I was just following orders!" - and it didn't work for them, either.

    • rob war April 20, 2016 Reply

      Any so called Pastor that promotes with holding food to children is promoting good old fashioned abuse, it's not just spiritual abuse. I looked at the article and blog you were referring to and this David Murray seems to be talking about Patrick Darrin of the Journey who recently was relieved of his duties there due to "problems". I thought this David Murray was being evasive about it and trying to sound like he is for victims and it looks more like CYA than anything else. It seems like all these people are connected to TGC which is heavily involved with John Piper, John MacAuthor and all the rest of the complimentary bunch. But I think your concerns would be better handled on Spiritual sounding board which deal with all these people than RG which mostly focusses on Bill Gothard.

      • Mark April 21, 2016 Reply

        I just put this here because I think it sounds very familiar to what we've all seen and I was wondering if others felt the same way. I've struggled to communicate with the theological spiritual abuse crowd, because they recognize perhaps severe cases of spiritual abuse, which they can tie to an over-the-top leader, but they don't understand how powerful a slight twist of scripture can become. It's like a church-wide umbrella diagram. I will definitely check out spiritual sounding board, though.

        • rob war April 21, 2016

          no worries, I agree with your observations and connections anyway. There are many similarities with these groups that teach authoritarianism such as Bill Gothard and his umbrella of authority, the complementarianism of TGC, the shepherding movement of the 1970s etc. This same sort if blind type of obedience morphs it's ugly head and leads to abuses again and again and again. There are connections as you are pointing out with a five point type of Calvinism and the TGC. The have been recently a number of scandals with a number of the big name pastors in the TGC group starting with Mark Drisco, Billy Graham's grandson at Coral Ridge and now this guy at The Journey, all resigning to due abuses which this form of teaching leads to. I think a couple of good resources for you to continue to look into can be found on Spiritual Sounding board. I also would recommend a couple of blogs on Patheos evangelical channel, Roger Olson and Warren Throckmorton. Warren is more of a whistle blower blog and has a number of blog posts about Mark Drisco. Roger Olson is an Arminian Baptist Seminary professor and has a number of great books which I think you might find helpful. Two of them which I have read are "Against Calvinism" and "Counterfeit Christianity". In "Against Calvinism", he careful goes into what is and isn't Reformed theology and how 5 point Calvinism or the Tulip system started and then spread particularly in current times. The TGC crowd with John Piper as it's main man is of the 5 point system. I can't recommend his book highly enough. I've learned a lot from him.

          I also think you make a great connection between authoritarian teachings and what happen in Germany under Hitler. Yes, it was a German "culture of obedience" that lead to the "I was just following orders" type of mentality and excuses
          that one sees at the Nuremberg trial. Another book and this is an older one that delves into this is "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". You can still get in on the Kindle if you have an e-book. The author was just an investigative reporter researching the how and why of Hitler and what happen there. He made some controversial conclusions in his book where he blamed the "culture of obedience" that Hitler took advantage of on Martin Luther and Martin Luther's emphasis on obedience to civil authority and the idea which is too often repeated that to obey God, one obeys their authority. It is interesting that Bill Gothard in some of the comments and articles I read here, seems to have been against people like Deitrick Boenhoffer who was one of the lone voices against Hitler and taught against him and encourage disobedience against Hitler.

          Roger Olson in his reflections on Bill Gothard on his blog pointed out that any person or group that emphasizes obedience to authority ends up becoming enmeshed in abuse of others. You see this in Bill, TCG pastors, shepherding movement groups and even in dictators like Hitler. The counter to this for any Christian is to have and understand God is the final authority and His moral laws (sometimes called Natural laws) trump anything and anyone else. People, governments, and pastors etc that step out and under Natural moral laws are to be disobeyed because God trumps all these things.

        • Don Rubottom April 21, 2016

          Rob, I agree that all of these movements that promote "authority" as God's instrument of grace will trip over many of the same fault lines. I do have a "complementarian" view of the sexes but do not believe that that Genesis 2 complementarity manifests in a vertical relationship of authority and obedience or subservience. In the NT, wives are NEVER instructed to "obey" in the way that children and slaves are taught to obey or all are taught to obey legal authorities.
          Further, I hope that it is not a particularly Reformed problem. The IFB group is not Reformed, they are "Free Will" and they seem to be the worst. Both reactionaries and "dominion" people show up in all kinds of theological camps. I'm wondering if authoritarianism is not more closely related to the fall from "naked and unashamed" than it is to any particular Christian doctrinal perspective. There is certainly no shortage of it outside the church!
          God gave me a true "eye opener" on the issue of Biblical leadership this very week. The Florida House Chaplain has a print of a painting on the wall showing Jesus washing Peter's feet. Look at any picture of that event. (There are scores on Google.) Meditate on what Jesus taught them that very night, according to Luke 22:
          "“The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26 But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. 27 For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves."
          Look intently at that picture of Jesus washing feet. His way is to turn the world upside down. Now put a woman in His place washing Peter's feet. Is that a world upside down or the fallen world of subservient females? This is what the authoritarians miss. They lord it over, relying on temporal authority, rather than serve in humility. They are charlatans, as we all are. Everyone who aspires to "authority" or "equal authority" is missing what Jesus taught. Every. One.
          For me, complementarity and "submission" means she responds graciously to my washing her feet. It means the church responds graciously (giving double honor) to the elder who washes the church's feet. As a male, I am thereby freed from the need to lord it over a wife, or the church, or anyone. As a husband, I am free to listen to her counsel, wait for her agreement and honor her equal status and unique contributions to my life. This is how "leaders" ought to be with the church. Not commanding or demanding or expecting obedience.

    • huzandbuz April 20, 2016 Reply

      Thank you Mark. I like to know 'whom to watch out for'. :+)

    • Julia Fetters April 21, 2016 Reply

      Very good observations, Mark. You hit the nail on the head. Rather than just pass off the husband's behavior and wrong theology as being such, John Piper, or whoever, should outline that the wife is not going against God by keeping her self respect (and helping her husband think straight, I might add) and not submitting to his wrong theology. She is her own person and can set boundaries. This only brings truth into the marriage although, depending on the husband, things may get better or much worse for her. God's Spirit will lead in the minutia. She may just have to stand her ground in Christ Jesus.

      Boy, it is honestly scary to write such things after so many years in ATI/IBLP. Sounds like I am some over bearing women's libber who cannot stand men. That could not be farther from the truth. I am just speaking truth here. We women lose ourselves in these doctrines and when you find out you are a real person - the neat one you used to know who is a precious child of God NOT called to live under a cloud of c.o.n.s.t.a.n.t. guilt and called to please everyone all the time - it is scary to walk out on the water.

      I was recently at a wedding where the pastor said "You are one now. God does not see you as two separate people but as one." Oh my Goodness. !!!! THAT is t.e.r.r.i.b.l.e. doctrine in that it is FALSE. I could hardly stay seated. Good friends. I still want to speak up in love. God sees us as two people. What happens when I or my husband dies, for crying out loud? Are we conjoined? I used to believe that extra biblical garble! (hanging head) And the bride and groom took it all in which is so very. very. sad. It is the wrong premise. Patriarchy stinks. It is rotten so its fruit is rotten.

      No the woman is a person. The man is a person. When one messes up, the other one did not nor is that person to blame necessarily. Praise God He has the hairs on my head numbered and he has not added those of my husband's to mine. As to marriage, the Bible is full of teaching on how to do this right, as well as any relationship. ATI/IBLP/Patriarchal churches are full of teaching on how to do it wrong.

      p.s. I have a great husband. Married 33 years. Those in patriarchal circles around here probably think I run the home. They neither know my husband nor anything about a good marriage. And, btw, the women I knew from years past in 4 states who wore head scarves and dresses r.a.n. their homes for the most part. A dress does nothing - it is rightly dividing the word of truth and the Spirit of God that make a marriage work.

      • huzandbuz April 21, 2016 Reply

        Julie:
        We were forgotten and ignored.... :+(

        Yes!! You re-discover you are that individual; the one you previously knew!! :+)

        Every once in a while, when we are again 'gloriously reminded of that fact', we take a DEEP BREATH, like now, after reading your encouraging words, and we are 'Born Again', AGAIN!!

        Thank you Julie, our sister in Christ....

        God Bless. ^i^ ^i^ ^i^

        • Julia Fetters April 21, 2016

          Thank you huzandbuz.
          I have seen such an extreme. I hope I do not sound the same: an extreme. Indeed I hope to not be extreme again.

          Don, I did not mean to put that question mark on my comment back to you.

        • Don Rubottom April 22, 2016

          An edit option would be nice. Maybe we could have a pancake sale to upgrade the webpage. (I started to say "bake sale" but my wife makes the cookies (world's best chocolate chip), I the pancakes, and I want to serve, not rule, in a complementary way! ;-) (does winking trigger anyone like it does me???))

        • Julia Fetters April 22, 2016

          Don, Yes.I feel guilty every time. ;) seriously.

      • Don Rubottom April 21, 2016 Reply

        Julia, I cheer your affirmations, yet I must add another perspective: God is Three Persons in Eternal Communion. God is One. Some of mankind's "individualism", that which resists communion and full fellowship, is bound in an alienation of fallen persons. Such "individual" cannot conceive of "oneness" with another without the annihilation or subjugation of the other. It is interesting that "individual" is rooted in indivisibility, not an incapacity for connection with others. But as you say, we are not merely individuals, but also "persons" not meant to be alone. We are designed in a way that it is "not good" to live apart from covenantal communion, which can only be perfectly experienced in communion with The Three-in-One.
        Then too, by design, our communing Nature is best revealed to this world ("imaging" God's communing Nature), and to our children in the faithful, full, free and fruitful communion of man and wife. Mal 2:15: "Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?" Only by the Spirit and the will of God. Not by the will or wisdom or works of man or woman.

        • Julia Fetters April 21, 2016

          I concur wholeheartedly, Don. ?You have pointed out the balance to what I said. I still stand behind what I said while standing behind what you said. We do not lose ourselves but rather gain another.

          We are 2 persons though God has made us one in unity - like the Godhead. Agreed. And this health is what helps us get there, in my opinion. Not oppression.

    • Don Rubottom April 21, 2016 Reply

      I understand the temptation to CYA, but is it possible that this teacher is trying to shine the light on truth while reluctant to publically point a finger has his own boss and say "You are the man", a la Nathan? It seems that Nathan came to David privately, not publically. And David repented. If I was trying to address an issue and you posted something attacking my boss, true or not, I would not want to "host" a public attack on my boss. I don't know anything about these people and I respect what you are saying, but deleting a post that points at an individual can have many motives other than some cover up or reluctance to face truth. There is a time and a place for everything and every "comment", but not every comment is ripe for every page. Just a thought.

      • huzandbuz April 22, 2016 Reply

        Don:
        This response, if interested, is in regard to the 'winking'.

        To me, the 'wink' would depend on the situation:
        In general, I am prompted to think 'secret'. Second would be 'gesture of affection'. Thirdly, 'joke' comes to mind. :+)

  230. rob war April 21, 2016 Reply

    Hi Don,
    thanks for your observations. I think I should have clarified better differences between God's design and differences between men and women which are meant to compliment each other (as talked about in TOB) and what is being promoted by TGC bunch which really is a man domination of woman and what is now called "complimentarianism" movement. The first is something you and I would agree on. The later I have no doubt you would not support or believe in. Reformed theology has many branches, arms and legs. I hoped that I tried to make that distinction between what you believe and follow as a Reformed Christian and a hard core hyper-Calvinism of the likes of John Piper and TGC group. That is one thing I learned reading Roger Olson's book. I gave me a better understanding of the different groups and ideas under the Reformed umbrella. I was also trying to show that a heavy handed authority/obedience can be found in a number of groups and the problems it causes. I hope this clarifies my thoughts and what I was trying to express above.

  231. nicole gardner April 22, 2016 Reply

    I was introduced (heavily, aggressively, both directly & environmentally) to IBLP at my first home church. It was non-denominational. I think it having no hierarchy or reference points in Scriptural interpretation made the pastor very susceptible to Gothard's paradigm for abusive authority. I can definitely relate to the statement above: "IFB churches are the worst"- even though not IFB, it was prone to the same exact weaknesses by it's very essence. I trust that most non-denominational churches do not use IBLP &/or other abusive models as a crutch to prop them up (puff them up!) in their inherent weaknesses. However, I've gone to Calvary Chapel for the past 4 years; all C.C. churches have overseers back at their base. I just feel more comfortable with that after what I've been through with the dumbrella teaching at 2 different non-denominational churches.
    Did anybody else out there have a non-denominational church that hyper-trained it's congregants to be homing pigeons to IBLP?

    • rob war April 26, 2016 Reply

      After having been in two non-denominational Churches, (both Charismatic but very different theology), I think non-denominational churches are the wild west of Christianity. It is hard to lump or even try to characterize them because they run the gamut from fundamentalist type you have had experience with to Charismatic and everything else in-between. But I agree with your analysis is that non-denominational Churches are very susceptible to para-church teaching ministries because every Church no matter who they think they are needs some kind of theological framework which they operate from. As you see from your involvement with Calvary Chapel, they provide some kind of framework or creed which those affiliated with it operate from and are suppose to adhere to. While attendance at the Gothard seminars attracted all sorts people, it seems like the Churches that really got caught up with him seem to have come from independent fundamentalists groups and not your standard denominational Church which has already a framework, creed etc by which to operate from. Like you point out and I agree with, lone wolf type of Churches are sitting ducks for para-church groups that teach authoritarianism. It gives the pastor/minister a platform of authority. Both Charismatic Churches i was previously involved with heavily used para-church teaching ministries. One used IBYC (at that time) with shepherding materials from New Wine magazine. The other used WoF stuff from Kenneth Hagin Sr/Jr, Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts etc. For all the bashing denominational Churches seem to get, they at least have a frame work, teaching ,creed, discipline etc by which they operate and try to go by. That is why Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, etc didn't get caught up with Gothard even if individuals did.

      • nicole gardner April 26, 2016 Reply

        This utterly clarifies & perfectly explains my own experiences, Rob! Thank-you for putting it in words.

  232. nicole gardner April 22, 2016 Reply

    Or maybe those that did haven't recovered enough yet to recognize themself as a trained homing pigeon...... I know there's an IFB church near me that was still holding video seminars around 2005. (Maybe still does). When all those who are that entrenched finally come around, it'll mean acknowledgement/renunciation on a par with if Alfred woke up!!

    • Elizabeth D April 26, 2016 Reply

      Did somebody mention Alfred? ;)

      We can still hope, but he sure isn't waking up yet! He just said on the DG site, "So far everything Bill has told me has checked out," right after he defended himself for specifically NOT checking with ANY other former board member about something that was supposedly discussed in a board meeting.

      So - everything Bill has told Alfred has checked out, except the parts he refused to check out. What?? You really can't make this up.

      Somebody said -

      Bill said it. Alfred believes it. That settles it.

      Yes - absolutely!

      • rob war April 26, 2016 Reply

        Yes, Alfred, sigh.... God love him. Meg's testimony included Bill's sister which even Alfred did not double check with and only stated that "it didn't sound like her". I'm not sure what purpose he serves in injecting himself in this because this is part of the law suit. Alfred is basically saying that everyone is lying but Bill and without even trying to collaborate with Bill's sister or any board member or their wives (it was a wife according to Rachel that confronted her). I think that Alfred should stick to math and not investigation on behalf of Bill.

  233. Julia Fetters April 26, 2016 Reply

    We have all been helped, in some way, by the ministry of Recovering Grace. The article where these comments are being made is a reminder to us of what this team is facing - daily. Please pray for them.

    What began as a site to help people walk away from the erroneous teachings of IBLP ATI God has used to bring help and health and freedom and a voice to those who were not only spiritually abused but mentally, emotionally, and even physically by BG and/or others on staff or in families in these programs. RG never could have foreseen this. God has done great things bringing darkness to light.

    We need to pray and give. And keep the conversation going so others can just walk with Jesus in truth.

  234. rob war April 27, 2016 Reply

    This comes from the recent efforts by Alfred on his site to justify Bill's teaching that parents can and should un-adopt children. I think if one focuses on the fact that ALL living human beings no matter who they are etc are made in the image and likeness of God, then what flows from this is that every person no matter what has dignity and worth because of that. Even though I should not be surprised, I still am always amazed when so called professing Christians can turn around and encourage others to kick out, throw out, banish, un-adopt, etc other fellow human beings, especially their own children, adopted or not. On top of that use some passages from the OT to justify it. All of this really flows from Bill who is so self-centered and focuses that he has stopped long long ago in seeing others as made in the image of God, but only as objects for his own use. So pretty young girls are gathered around him for his own perversions, he can ban any other ATI students for any reason no matter what, he encourages parents to treat their own children as objects to be kicked out if "rebellious" or "troubled". There is no regard on how the banishment affects the person being banished, only on Bill's own needs, reputations and ideas. Others have become objects to be used and then thrown out when done. Un-adoptions is only a symptom of this. Bill could never marry because he is to selfish to do so to begin with. He has sucked others into this madness. He shouldn't be writing a book on genuine love because there is none there to begin with. Alfred's blind loyalty has lead him to become another object for Bill. Bill's isn't pro-life because people are just objects. I think it is still amazing how too many got sucked into this evil.

    • David S. Knecht Sr. April 27, 2016 Reply

      Hello, sister Rob. May I address the un-adoption topic you raised? I think Bill Gothard's position on adoption has fluctuated over the years. Whatever objection you raise to his teaching, you ought to place the people-as-objects question into perspective. If ever there was a people-as-objects phenomenon in modern times, it is adoption itself. (For good or ill, I am a middle-aged adoptee.)

      Modern adoption is a multi-billion-dollar market in child custody. The whole adoption topic is at least as controversial as slavery, and for similar reasons. If corruption looking for a place to happen, look no further. When you have that much money changing hands in the child-custody market, you have departed from altruistic orphan care.

      Adoption is too morally ambiguous. If Gothard is mistaken there, he has plenty of company.

      Your adoptive brother,
      David K

      • rob war April 27, 2016 Reply

        Brother David,

        thank-you for sharing your thoughts here. I've adopted 3 myself from other countries and I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas from but trust me, from what I've witnessed and experienced in international adoption, there is no one getting rich and the false mischaracterization that adoption is some kind of billion dollar business belongs in tabloid papers. It is not reality. The people we ran into in travel were not rich at all, they were people that are dedicated to helping children without homes and families find a forever family. With one child, we stayed at the home of an American woman that basically turned her home into a mini orphanage. She was on oxygen and had poor health. She easily could have gone back to the US and gotten better health care and live a more comfortable life. Instead, she was giving herself over to helping babies and toddlers find homes. She relied on a string of volunteers to help her drive around children to appointments, embassies etc. We met some of the most giving, selfless people in adoption especially those in poorer countries. None of these people were getting rich, they were unpaid volunteers. She also ran a mini preschool for the toddlers. I'll never forget coming over to met these little children sitting at a table with their little beautiful faces holding up their cups of milk and showing off their "leche, leche!", all exciting about having a cup of milk. They were children waiting for a home. They are just as important to Jesus as you or I. Where is the billion dollars here? Claiming that this is just a billion dollar business is demeaning to those that need a home and to those that have provided homes. One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit involved an un-adoption. Sorry, but it just boils my blood and objectifies children that have needs and struggles. Bill out of his own selfishness is telling others not to extend themselves to others in need and if their is problems, just un do it. Does God un adopt us? Does God give up on us? Does God throw us away if we have problems? I am sure you don't think so but basically that is what Bill is teaching. Are children objects of their parents? Is the goal to have as many objects (children) as possible in order to use them as stage props like the Duggars?
        So if the object is broken, just throw it out before it contaminates the rest of the family? Just as I told Alfred on DG, it was the health bulletin about adoption that was the last straw with anything Bill Gothard in my life and I never looked back. Any person that has such a hard heart about children with needs stopped knowing God along time ago.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. April 27, 2016

          Thanks for the reply Rob, and I see your point. Of course there is suffering and abandonment among children (I myself was one of them), and heroic measures taken to relieve the suffering. The heroism and altruism are fully Christian.

          But if you have adopted children, you are probably not unaware of the adoption reform movement out there. The staggering amount of money which circulates in adoptions is not in dispute, I don't think. Even browsing Wikipedia with a pocket calculator can confirm that. Or the adoption reform books on the market document it in more detail.

          So it is both-and rather than either-or. Yes, adoption is a big-money operation. Yes, people are loving the helpless. Both phenomena are happening in parallel.

          But if your three adoptions were within the past decade or so, did you pull it off for much less than $100K? If so, you might be among the fortunate few. Of course I am not claiming that the entire $100K would be one check which lands in one pocket. This would explain why you never heard of a single example of a wealthy adoption racketeer.

          And I hope you agree with the reformers that adult adoptees like me are entitled to an original, unamended, un-fraudulant birth certificate, like the birth certificate you have if you were not adopted. I mean the kind which documents the man who begot you and the woman who bore you, rather than the substitutes designated by caesar.

          I hope you can also see the other side of hard-heartedness vs. soft-heartedness toward children. Adoptive families I have known have endured some R-rated horrors at the hands of some of teen adoptees. Fortunately, you seem to have been spared any such thing. But I hope you can appreciate the dilemma of families in such a crisis. In such cases, it is not a question of compassion vs. callousness, but whether relief for certain loved ones must come at the expense of other loved ones.

          Would you elaborate on the un-adopted plaintiff? Is the plaintiff suing Gothard for urging his un-adoption? Or was the un-adoption at issue in the lawsuit in another way?

          BTW, I also saw your post over at DG. You and I are coming at this topic from opposite directions. You come from the adoptive parent side, and I from the side of the adoptee. But let's love one another. Neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, adopter nor adoptee.

          Your brother,
          David K

        • rob war April 27, 2016

          Brother Dave,

          I think you need to stop reading and listening to the junk you are currently reading. My oldest is 21 years old so again my recommendation to you is stop making assumption about others. It is also offensive to assume that my husband and I spent 100k. I highly recommend to you that all children are priceless. I don't know what happen in your situation and I am sorry that it seems to be a painful thing still. But whatever happen in the past, it seems like God has certainly brought you to a place where you are married and have a number of children of your own to enjoy. Maybe your own hurt leads to look negatively and read negatively about adoptions whether domestic or international. You are not going to solve your own hurt by looking at adoption as corrupt and run by money grabbers. There are many costs in adoption and those cost are spread out to many different things. There are different kinds of adoptions and the ones that usually make the news are usually found with private lawyers in private adoptions, not agency adoptions that have a number of built in safety steps for both birth parents and adoptive parents (better counseling etc). I have a niece trying to adopt and had a birth mother pick them only to pull out after the birth and it turned out to be fraud because she was after money from my niece and never intended to place the baby for adoption. The State is trying to charge mom with fraud. And you are worried about this as being a million dollar business. Give me a brake. The problem with assumptions of others are the first three letters of the word, think about that next time you make assumptions of others.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. April 29, 2016

          Thanks for the smile, sis. Your reply invoked the old "ass-out-of you-and-me" proverb about assuming! In this case I think I have an airtight defense. In fact your personal example is the best one to illustrate my point. Your own niece was nearly victimized by an adoption bait and switch, right? And you identified the very incentive I am complaining about. The con artist was after money, and tried to play your niece for a sucker. That was a good example of the corruption I meant. Of course the corruption is not universal. Good people abound in adoption. But crooks try to rip off innocent people like your niece for the financial incentive.

          And congratulations for adopting a couple of decades ago when you could get three children for less than $100K. In fact, I think I qualified the $100K figure by stating that it is today's price, not the rate of the 1980s or 1990s. No insult intended, I was just just quoting the market rate then and now.

          But I guess we have wandered off the topic of Bill Gothard, Whatever Gothard's intentions were, He sounded a warning that appearances can deceive. Altruistic couples approach adoption with positive expectations. But sin can infiltrate and spoil things. Unfortunately, your niece found out the hard way, but you were spared any such problems. PTL for that.

          And thanks for the kind sentiments about dealing with hurt. We adoptees need to Recover Grace. People like you can make a positive difference. Adoptions happen only because of a catastrophic loss. You cushioned the blow for your children, but you came into their lives only because they had been abandoned, either by choice or by death.

          Peace and love,
          David K

      • Helga April 27, 2016 Reply

        So, David, what you are saying is that since there is corruption in the child adoptive services, Christians should not adopt and leave children in that corrupt system? Your comment has no logic in it. Do you really believe that "the whole adoption topic is at least as controversial as slavery?" Are you really saying that slavery is less objectionable to some people than adopting a child? Thank God that He doesn't share your opinions on the those that need help - the fatherless and the widow as the Bible calls them.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. April 29, 2016

          Sister Helga,

          I do not believe in "throwing babies out with bathwater," as the old proverb goes. I don't think Bill Gothard ever taught Christians to abstain from adoption, either. But Gothard sounded some warnings back in the day. His warnings were different from mine. He was concerned about family harmony, demonic influence, etc.

          My own view is that modern adoption reformers raise some pretty good questions which deserve a hearing. Among these questions are, "what about the influence of money in the adoption market?" "should states issue fraudulent birth certificates, or deny adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates?"

          I mention slavery because many people claim that the main offense is not the abuse of people, but purchasing custody of people. See how the topic of commence surfaces when we talk about either slavery or adoption?

          I agree about our duties to widows and orphans. Shouldn't we love them instead of trading them?

          But back to honest birth certificates: Christian theology also holds that pedigree matters. So we see attention given to genealogy, Jesus as son of David, etc. Romans says that gentiles like me are grafted into Abraham's family tree.

          If I affirm reform, I do not deny care for the abandoned. Both are important. Do we agree there?

          Your brother,
          David K

        • Don Rubottom April 29, 2016

          David, I am very familiar with the issues you are discussing but many here are not. Your concerns are valid and you might want to post links to some of your favorite articles that explain all these issues. Working in the legislative arena, I am familiar with a host of reform movements not all of which are consistent with one another. Suffice it to say that in the U.S., thanks to millions of abortions, there are less "healthy" babies that need adoption than childless couples seeking to adopt healthy babies. (Let's not examine such intentions and felt needs.) This shortage creates a market for some babies. Call any lawyer in Palm Beach and ask what it would cost to adopt a healthy Jewish baby. While driving up the cost for such "healthy" domestic adoptions it has also driven some Americans to Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe seeking to fill the hole in their heart. I have one friend with a child from Asia, another two with children from Ukraine. I sat at dinner with a Vice Chair of the Georgian Republic Parliament who explained how he had protected Georgian children from a flood of foreign adoptions that was depopulating their nation during their transition from Soviet to democratic governance. The "demand" that drives up price is real and we can't be sure that all foreign adoptions are completely honorable. Talk to anyone who adopted in Vietnam in the 90s. Money changed hands multiple times.
          None of this negates anything Rob or my friends may have to offer about the selflessness, the providence or the humanitarian value of very many adoptions if not most. But it is "both and". People who should not be permitted to adopt can "qualify" because of money or political contacts. Homosexuals use friends in state bureaucracies to become foster parents and then tell courts that the fully formed "family" should not be torn asunder by some dumb adoption law that favors married couples. Corruption and favoritism have always been involved (Pharoah's daughter adopted Moses who by Pharoah's decree should have been killed).
          But David, I think you are missing an important spiritual reality that Bill Gothard's "unadoption" recommendations belie: we are "adopted" children of God. Loving like God NEVER undoes an adoption commitment. "No one that the Father has given to me will ever be taken out of my hand." God's adoptions don't "fail" and neither should ours. Ever. Marriage is a covenant. A couple communicates to their children the complete faithfulness, fullness and fruitfulness of covenant love. To "unadopt" a child or repudiate a natural child is to act in a most unGodlike manner, communicating the opposite of what God is like.
          There may be some adoptions that were fraudulent and should be undone. There may be a few parents who broke the law to adopt and should be tried and convicted. There may be some lawyers or "brokers" who should be punished for going around the law for money. But no Christian who looks a judge and a child in the eye and says "I will be his father", should ever say "I will not be his father". Love is not bound by law. Love is not motivated by fear. Sometimes separation is necessary for protection, "turning them over to their sin" and other biblical reasons. But: Biblical. Love. Never. Fails.
          God said to Israel in Ezekiel 16, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea: we are divorced. But he also said: the defilement of your adultery will be abolished by my death and resurrection. Our relationship will be fully restored to a youthful honeymoon. Love will prevail. THAT is our calling. Not living by "standards of purity" that keep us from ever being soiled by love.
          Love. Gives. NO. Thought. to. Itself. Gothardism can't stop thinking of itself.

      • JE April 28, 2016 Reply

        Hi, David,

        Thank you for sharing this part of the world of adoption. In the past few years I've become aware of how one-sided my understanding of adoption was. I always knew I had extended family members who are adopted, but then I learned that I have another extended family member whom I've not yet met who was surrendered for adoption before I was born. That knowledge sent me off into a world of new (to me) perspectives.

        Adoption is a lot more complicated than I first believed, and adoptee or original parent voices are sadly often met with defensiveness rather than an willingness to listen and grow. I'm sorry. And I believe you have every right to learn the truth about your history, just like I know and value the facts about mine.

        Have you read any of the Adoptee Restoration blog? It is written by a Christian, middle-aged adoptee.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. May 7, 2016

          Hello, JE. Thank you for the kind words on 4/28 above. No, I was unaware of the Adoptee Restoration blog. But I just found it and it looks interesting.

          Of course there are many good people in adoption. My adoptive parents (RIP) were among them. So we need to be careful not to insult them. But I am glad you see that there are at least two sides to adoption. I think even Bill Gothard tried to straddle two sides sometimes. I note your use of the term, "surrendered for adoption" I think that is as close to neutral language as we can get. "Abandoned" sounds too harsh, "given up" sounds like quitting a game, "donated" sounds like what you do with used clothing. But "surrendered" seems to pay due homage to the struggle which must occur.

          Your brother,
          David K

        • David S. Knecht Sr. May 7, 2016

          Hello again, JE. Thank you very much for that referral to the Adoptee Restoration blog. Her "start here" page is the most profound treatment of the topic I have ever read.

          Many thanks,
          David K

    • huzandbuz April 27, 2016 Reply

      rob war:
      Agreed!! To even consider un-adopting a child....total insanity!!
      These horrified, precious children would, all of a sudden, be 'given-back' as a result of some evil Gothard maintains they could be harboring.... Unimaginable!! (Whatever happened to "every child is a blessing from God"....) Lock Gothard up along with the 'Pearls'. Alfred is certainly 'tottering on the edge' too....

  235. Mark April 27, 2016 Reply

    Rob War, wanted to put this at the bottom so it doesn't get lost. I found spiritualsoundingboard and it looks like a community that is much better poised to handle "general" spiritual abuse rather than ATI/IBLP-specific. It's interesting that the mix of abuses here seems more like what I experienced, even though it wasn't Gothard. There were a few "abusers" - people whose individual pride and individual view of authority made them controlling and domineering over their flock, but the vast majority of run-ins I've had are from the follower-type people - the ones that buy into the umbrella and think that they are exhibiting love and grace through being controlling and domineering. I think that is the obedience culture you mentioned.

    Don, I assume you are fellow Reformed. Maybe I need to read the book, but I'm not against 5-point Calvinism. My conclusion is that the reformers did an amazing job of opening their eyes to problems in the Catholic church. But... they didn't "perfect" the doctrine. My old church essentially worshiped the Westminster standards. You couldn't charge a leader for bad Biblical doctrine, but you COULD charge him for doctrine that went against Westminster. They like to claim that the standards are a "scripturally balanced" look at theology. Interesting that the word abuse is mentioned once in the confession and it is in regards to the magistrate protecting people from abusing each other. It doesn't occur in their treatise on church authority, and it doesn't occur in their treatise on marriage. So, Jesus turned over tables and yelled at the spiritual abusers of his day, only to have the church within the next hundred or so years reestablish that systemic abuse, which has now become more or less the litmus test of "conservative evangelicalism".

    So, for example, I don't think it's "Total Depravity" that causes abuse. It's Total Depravity spoken from the pulpit pointed at the sheep, with a seeming escape clause for the pastor and elders. Like, if you yell at each other, that's sinful, but if we yell at you, it's for your own good. If you yell at us, you're obviously sinful. If the church had a wise understanding of the doctrine, they would realize that due to their position and influence, depraved leaders cause more damage than depraved members. Yet, sermon after sermon about the doctrine either ignores, minimizes or outright dismisses the effect of depravity on leaders.

    After listening to at least 4000 sermons from a Reformed perspective on the "whole counsel of God". I have yet to hear a sermon specifically about how to deal with abusive authority. I'm not talking about this fictitious situation where some authority commands me to disobey God, but the real person who says that disobeying his commands is the same as disobeying God.

    I think we good Reformed people get wrapped around the axle on the Pharisees. I think the single-minded focus on legalism is a failure. Jesus was confronting legalism within the context of spiritual abuse, yet we ignore and even commend the spiritual abuse while condemning the legalism, and then we even compartmentalize the legalism into "works-based salvation". So, it isn't a problem that the Pharisees imposed all these man-made rules, or that the Pharisees used those rules to enslave the sheep and enrich themselves. Somehow the problem is simply that the Pharisees taught that obeying the rules would result in salvation.

    • rob war April 27, 2016 Reply

      Hi Mark, I thought Spiritual sounding board would be a good fit for you and I'm glad that Julie even featured you question and it looks like you got a lot of great responses and advise for others with similar backgrounds and situations. I think you are on a good path towards healing and wholeness for you and your family. It's a journey and I think if you keep that prospective, you will do well. There is a difference between Reformed theology which traces back to John Calvin and the Reformation in general. They are not the same. The Reformation involved a number of people not just Luther and Calvin and they were in just as much conflict with each other as they were with the Catholic Church. The Reformation is not Reformed theology even though Reformed theology was born at that time under John Calvin. Luther and Lutheranism is not Reformed and both Luther and Calvin considered Anabaptists complete heretics to be burned at the stake. John Calvin ran Geneva as a theocracy, merging Church and State. I am wondering if some of the authoritarianism you have seen stem from this sort of merger of Church and State authority. The Christian reconstruction movement traces it's ideas to this. I guess this is something for you to explore.

      • Mark April 28, 2016 Reply

        You are right that the Reformation spawned many different movements. I was taught that the word Reformed, and by implication the Reformation culminated in the churches with "Reformed" in the title, which either follow Westminster, or the three forms of unity. That is pretty nearsighted, I agree.

        There were theocratic roots in the reformation, but I will say that they went back further. Before the Reformation, the Catholic church and the kings fought over who decided, and ultimately the church won. The climax was when King Henry IV was kicked off the throne and his people excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII. Henry and his country were restored after he came, barefoot in the snow, to seek an audience with the Pope. The governments were mere pawns of the church.

        I think Calvin probably got sucked into his own influence and power, and, as a result set a precedent for Christian reconstruction. There has been a lot of precedent for pastors to meddle with societal affairs, especially the Puritans whose pastors liked to write letters to judges about who was innocent and guilty and how lenient they should be. Doug Wilson is definitely not unprecedented in that. Naively foolish and destructive, yes, but not unprecedented.

        If I were to trace the thought process, I would say that the roots of spiritual abuse were already present in the Pharisee-wannabes in the church. The Judaizers were just one example. Their power was pretty much held in check by the fact that they were under constant persecution, so I think the church was mostly kept safe from the worst of the power-hungry. When Christianity became an approved state religion and especially when it became the only state religion, I think there was a swarm of the power-hungry that swooped in. The church became more focused on authority and hierarchy and trying to figure out the magic formula (grace + works) to get people to look and act better. Luther and Calvin spoke against much of the spiritual bondage inherent in teaching a distorted salvation, but they didn't work out all of the practical implications of what grace looks like in the life of a Christian.

    • Don Rubottom April 29, 2016 Reply

      Great stuff, Mark. Fortunately, I don't hear sermons on "Total Depravity". That doctrine is pretty much a given in my church. I do agree there is nothing on abusive authority, but my pastor avoids conflict so he is more neglectful than abusive. Recently, thanks in part to these discussions that are freeing me from legalism, I've come upon this aspect of the authority fraud: Jesus made it very clear to the disciples, the world operates on authority, "lording it over", being called "benefactor" (is BG Alfred's benefactor?). "It shall not be so with you, but the greatest of you shall be servant of all." Jesus taught this, among other times, at the last supper (Luke). What did he do there? He stripped off his outer garments, wrapped a towel around his waist and proceeded to wash their feet in the manner of the lowliest servant. He turned the "authority" pyramid upside down. He put the world on his shoulders and carried IT rather than letting the world carry Him, as by all rights He should have been carried as KING. BG was great at telling US we should give up rights; leaders, not so much. Himself? Well. He did drive an old car.
      Brother, the church, not just the reformed, is full of worldly authority, starved for Christ-like servants. Pope Francis summarized some of his thoughts on ministering to those outside "approved" marriages this way: "We too often try to be arbiters of Grace, when we are dispensers of Grace." This. Servants move into lives and gently communicate truth and grace, always building up as much as possible in the circumstances. Authorities command. BG's God is a Roman General. Mine is shirtless, washing my feet. And I am undone by His Humility.

  236. nicole gardner April 27, 2016 Reply

    @ Mark,
    The most impactful cripplings of my faith (it happened twice at churches) was in accepting that
    "it isn't a problem that the Pharisees imposed all these man-made rules, or that the Pharisees used those rules to enslave the sheep and enrich themselves."
    You hit the nail on the head there! Also when you initially stated that the main problem with the umbrella teaching is not so much the straightforward 'I am king of the hill!' assertiveness of openly owning one's claim to authority. Rather, it's in the adherents to the umbrella teaching who imagine "that they are exhibiting love and grace through being controlling and domineering."
    I would like to go back & ask such as these: "How could the colloquial "bad" thing of thinking that salvation needs to be earned through legalism really be bad when, at the same time, being a slave of mere man is not only considered "good" but also as being the highway to holiness?!?!?!?"
    Slavery to people instead of to a set saint-y-do-list is merely a more diabolical form of legalism that has as exploitation as it's motivation & is without the mitigation of either a set list (such would have to apply to it's administrators, too) or appeal to needing God's direct approval (only He grants salvation). The umbrella teaching is WORSE than legalism which teaches that one must earn their own salvation before God.

    • nicole gardner April 27, 2016 Reply

      ^^^^Worse than holding to a gospel of works-based salvation because it IS a works-based salvation that's based, not on God's approval as in pointing to Him that others should seek Him, but rather squarely on mankind's approval.
      Such a follower is doing the wrong thing in the wrong way, whereas a typical legalist is going about the right thing thing in the wrong way. Plus, the follower has situated in the mind's eye of all concerned a mediator between them & God! A poser who is a people-user (abuser). No wonder my 10-year stint & then my 4-year stint of being such a follower as this nearly had me in total apostasy by the end!!!

      • Mark April 28, 2016 Reply

        I think Paul's utter disgust in Galatians points to how horrible and demeaning this is. We find people, tell them about salvation in Jesus, but after that, we start burdening them with all these man-made rules. "Christians would never shop at Target, or go to an R-rated movie, or invite a gay person to their house." "Christians must pray four hours on their knees every night and Sunday better be the highlight of their week, and they better give their 10%."

        I really appreciate my new pastor. My old church would say something like, "you need to be in the word every day, or, if don't love reading the Bible, you might not be a Christian." My new pastor says, "there's no other book that God promises to speak through in the same way he promises to speak through the Bible. Why wouldn't you desire that?" The first, for me, killed my joy in reading the Bible. It went from a desire to an obligation and guilt. When I didn't like feeling guilty, I stopped reading. The second, for me, has encouraged me, not to feel shame and guilt for not reading, but to actually want to hear what God wants to say to me. It's freeing.

    • Mark April 28, 2016 Reply

      Nicole, "How could the colloquial "bad" thing of thinking that salvation needs to be earned through legalism really be bad when, at the same time, being a slave of mere man is not only considered "good" but also as being the highway to holiness?!?!?!?"

      That's a brilliant question, but I'm sure it would fall on deaf ears. The circle I keep walking around with these people see themselves as somehow spiritually enabled to have perfect doctrine, or at least as it relates to those under their authority. It's confusing. Yes, they sin. Yes, they suffer from Total Depravity, yet somehow that sin and depravity is whisked away by the Holy Spirit when they helicopter in to tell me how to live my life.

      • nicole gardner April 29, 2016 Reply

        It's a helicopter that does mass drops of "parachutes" that are really umbrellas. One for every single person that the helicopter sweeps over!

      • Don Rubottom April 29, 2016 Reply

        While the helicopter trashes the umbrellas as it goes!
        Mark, your "these people" are, in Pope Francis's words "arbiters of grace rather than dispnesers of grace" They need to serve and not "lord it over".

        • nicole gardner April 30, 2016

          "While the helicopter trashes the umbrellas as it goes!"
          I have witnessed this to be true; the people in actual church leadership over me who exalted Gothard's umbrella teaching got themselves worse catastrophy than it did to me. I had nothing to do with the consequences that eventually crashed down around their own heads; I just submitted for years, then quietly left both places after telling no one except the 2 different pastors of the 2 different churches why I was leaving (abuse!!). I've dumped it all out here on RG because I've never told anyone. Along with this damage to me that I've been sharing in my comments for a year & a half, I'll elude to the fact that what happened to them in their greater allegiance to it was WAY, WAY worse than anything they put me through. It made messes on a WMD-scale to their flocks, their careers, & their families even as compared to the mess made of my faith. I had it easy! Trying to implement Gothardism in others is insane: the same thing ('blanket-training', only Umbrella-training) over & over while hoping for a different result. I only go to church now (& it's a good one) because there IS church to be part of that isn't IBLP patterned. I still listen for it in sermons. Trust I can pick up on it after hearing 50% of all sermons for 10 years taken straight from the Big Red Notebook. I stayed away from church, period, for 2-3 years because I was so scared the leadership of every church was at least a closet-IBLP-er. You know, acting like they're doctrinal & then whipping out drawings of the umbrella with toutings of Gothard- but only behind closed doors with only one person at a time. Like a secret hatchet (hammer!!!) that they only pick one person off at a time with 'cause it's the only basis on which to condemn them. Because, in my experience, Gothardism was never a list (I was never ATI); just arbitrarily placed expectations. That were cited as "God's will" at the time. Because, you know, anything an authority inclines needs to be kow-towed-to (the essence of the Umbrella teaching). The religion of having to please the people whose directives are of arbitrary, passing whims & distributed very, very, very unevenly. Like I said, I've got a very good pastor now. Praise God; I had been about done, before.

  237. David S. Knecht Sr. April 30, 2016 Reply

    Brother Don, thanks for weighing in on the adoption topic. It certainly is a difficult one to take up without things getting prickly in a real hurry. I was happy to read that you have some experience with the topic. You are probably more objective than I (an adoptee).

    But I think I'll decline your suggestion to post links here. People who want to want to dig into the topic can let their fingers do the walking and their mouses (mice?) do the clicking. But as this is supposed to be a forum about Bill Gothard, I think it would be a mistake to give too much attention to adoption controversies of 2016. I think Gothard devoted only a tiny proportion of his teaching to it, so we probably ought to be fishing in other ponds here.

    Your point about price inflation for adoptions is well taken. My daughter did a couple of domestic adoptions a few years apart. The price for the second one had doubled from $30K to $60K.

    Of course you are right about adoption theology. It is right there in Romans 8 and elsewhere. Over at DG, that point was addressed in the adoption article. Baptist pastor Russell Moore makes it the basis for his forceful pro-adoption book, Adopted for Life. I think Moore should have devoted some attention to objections raised by adoption reformers. (But because Moore is silent about the reasonable objections, his book reads more like a one-sided sales pitch for adoption.) Then again there is a pagan author, Kathryn Joyce, who wrote Quiverfull (about the large-family movement among Christians), and The Child Catchers (about the Christian pro-adoption movement). I think both are pretty good reads.

    Concerning adoption, I see there is a very lively dispute among the keyboard warriors over at DG. So would anyone mind if I just drop off this topic here and let them sort it out over there?

    Peace be with us,
    David K

    • nicole gardner May 2, 2016 Reply

      Brother David,
      I guess this is the end of the adoption wars for me....... I haven't glanced over at DG since February & don't plan on starting to look now!!!
      If there's any article over there suggesting "un"-adopting then I would find that almost as upsetting as the Moderator over there insisting all last December that taking action against a sexual assaulter at the testimony of his victim is "trying to make them [the victim] out to be a hero." And, in addition to that 'basis' for taking no action on their behalf, also condemning this victim for whatever they allege had happened to them. Much of that interchange was deleted. That's one reason I like RG; they don't delete or edit. Comments over here are unadulterated.

      • rob war May 2, 2016 Reply

        You are a wise woman!
        I have two more comments on all of this. First to brother Dave, you made mention of importance of having a linage or Christian linage. I hope you realize that this notion is a bogus idea promoted by Bill and is not taught at all starting with the apostle themselves. The emphasis of linage found in the OT ended with Jesus and those sorts of records kept by the Jewish people themselves were destroyed when Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 AD. Practicing Jews today do not go into and use linage. Bill is totally out of whack again and is another anti-adoption point in Bill's teaching. We stand alone before God and are responsible before God for ourselves. The other notion you mention in defense of Bill was that Bill was trying to protect families from "demonic" influences of adopted children because one doesn't know their "linage". The only demonic influence here are these ideas talk by Bill. When places like Russia and Romania open up their orphanages for international adoption, yes there was a stampede by very well meaning people to adopt children from these sorts of places. The problems a number of these families faces was due to lack of understanding and preparedness in adopting children from orphanages and the difficulties these children were going to have and did have in reintegrating to family life. There was a lack of education and understanding about trauma and attachment. Those issues and difficulties have nothing to do with "demonic" influences and have everything to do with trauma and attachment. Again, having Bill reduce this to "demons" and bad linage is just beyond the pale. In fact, I consider his ideas demonic not poor children that ended up in orphanages.

        To Don, I want to thank-you for your response and ideas. I want to address the concerns brought up to you by the Georgian official. First of all, yes, a country's children are their future and in essence their resource. When children leave a country and go else where, is it in a way a loss for that country. Many countries don't allow their children to be adopted out due to this kind of reasoning. There are people that even come to the US trying to adopt children here, usually black and those from drug or alcoholic parents. However, did you ask this official what kind of future orphaned, abandon children really have in Georgia? Children that do not have families, what happens to them as they stay living in their country of origin? Do they end up being productive citizens with a future that benefit that country? Or do they end up in the street being victims of crime and sex trades? Do they become an actual "resource" for that country and it's future or do they become another burden on an over stretched out system? The bottom line is, who raises children? Does a country or a family? Does a culture or a family? Does a language or a family? Does a history or a family? Does food and art or a family? His fears and concerns have a place but what does he really fear about each and every child in that country that doesn't have a home, a family and even really a future there. Honestly, there really isn't enough adopting families in the world to go into Georgia and wipe out its base of children. All of this ends up being fear mongering and straw men. When a country allows it's children to leave via adoption, it is actually being honest with itself in saying, "we have more children here than we can handle reasonable and what is more important is that child's own future". In the end, if a child doesn't have a future, the long term is that that country doesn't have a future as well.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. May 2, 2016

          Sister Rob, I wasn't really thinking of Christian lineage per se. I was thinking more about the natural priority we attach to natural relations. For example, Jesus commands me to love your children, and you to love mine. But love for neighbors and love for family are different, though equally important. Make sense? Even if the Bible genealogy stuff points to Jesus and no further, we still love our blood kin because they are blood kin (though sometimes for no other reason, unfortunately).

          I'm not qualified to distinguish demonic influence from natural influence, so I'll leave that alone. But you may be on to something.

          Like you, I appreciated Don's input. I don't know what incentives influence bureaucrats in Georgia, but it stinks to hear of children being managed for the relative advantage of strangers, doesn't it?

          Your brother,
          David K

        • Don Rubottom May 4, 2016

          The Georgian official was intently interested in the favorability of adoption in the U.S. Their ancient culture is very prejudicial toward adoption but I was not in position to cross-examine their culture. I only defended ours. I assume that in such cultures, children are often placed with next of kin rather than strangers. I pointed out that both early colonists and subsequent pioneers, near kin were very often unavailable, leaving the church and community responsible to protect and place the child. Those civilizations are thousands of years old. It would take years of anthropological studies for me to unpack all their views. For purposes of the 1991-2004 transition from Soviet to democratic rule, they saw Americans pushing in to take babies at any opportunity and saw it as a loss to their society and their future.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. May 2, 2016 Reply

        That's fine, sis. I migrated over to the adoption discussion on DG. I guess you can join us if you change your mind. Either way, I think the controversy will simmer in the wider world with or without us!

        Peace,
        David K

        • rob war May 2, 2016

          Thank Brother, peace to you too!

        • rob war May 3, 2016

          David,
          in response to your first May 2nd response, I don't think you are making sense. You seem obsessed with blood relationship and placing an awful lot of importance on that as if genetic connections are more important or better. That is misguided. there isn't anything I can say to change your mind. I have no plans to rejoin the conversation on DG. I have better things to do. I hope the two grand babies that your daughter adopted are just as important to you as your "blood" ones. The attitude is said and I hope someday those adopted grandchildren don't read what you are now saying on the internet about adoption.

  238. nicole gardner May 2, 2016 Reply

    I was always out of the loop on the adoption thing but not the "lineage" thing. Having been a IBLP-er I am all too familiar with Gothard's phony notion that having a "good" heritage precursors a life well-lived by the one who has such known lines. Having ATI friends who adopted, I am all too familiar with the crimes (yes, felonies) committed by an adult BIOLOGICAL child where the blame is transferred onto a younger, ADOPTED sibling. Because, you know, with all the biological advantages, there's NO WAY such a child could grow up to make worse choices that an adopted one would!! Yeah, right- this is SO BOGUS! And so typical of Gothard's elitism. If nothing else, it was the adopted one's "fault" that they were hurt because this "proved" that they must have had to have been out from underneath the Umbrella. (That's another thing about the Umbrella: even if a parent can't define anything rebellious in a child, the fact that something bad happens to said child "proves" they were "out from under the protection" by some "secret rebellion" only now come to light by the harm done to them). The Dumbrella is an airtight way for both a real authority & any self-imagined authority to : (A) Fail to protect their charge but never have to take responsibility for any such neglect. (They can fail at a 100% rate & never accept any responsibility for this). (B) Sit in judgement on this person they had taken charge of; since they are rendered as an objective, outside observer of the problem (since they are in no way responsible), therefore they can be the judge of this evil little charge inasmuch as whatever happens, happens. Since whatever happened mainly serves to measure depravity/rebellion. By degree of the severity of whatever the harm was, this is how far out from the Umbrella the "rebel" is judged to have been.
    In 2002, the laws were changed so that negligence in instances like these can be charged against the parents, adoptive or not. Most states now require pastors to do mandatory reporting with regards to minors, also. It's interesting to me that no person can hold to the pivot of IBLP (the Dumbrella doctrine) without implementing it in accessory to pedophilia in these instances. This, whether a person follows it themself in committing criminal negligence by failing to mandatorily report, & whether they also promote the Umbrella to others -thereby discouraging others from following the mandatory reporting law. Not to mention, this goes totally against what the Bible says about sexual assault by blaming the victim for what the assaulter did. An assaulter/alleged assaulter should not be able to blame their victim!!!!! The accessories to his crime shouldn't be able to, either!!!
    I'm seriously surprised that the Umbrella didn't get implicated in the court trial of the murder of Hana Williams since the adoptive mother said she had "committed suicide." Because, according to Dumbrella dogma, every murder of any person who had been in any subordinate role during their life was just as much their committing suicide as it was a homicide on the part of the one committing the murder. In the case of rape, the one raped was claimed by Gothard to be just as responsible, also. At least he openly specified the Umbrella as regards to rape! He should have been as upfront about how it redefines murder. Gothard's "New Approach to Life" IS doctrine that goes against 3,500 year-old Scripture; & also claims that judicial rulings & the basis for such rulings are wrong.
    Gothard's *thing* with lineage is just another elitist pragmatism that mitigates what the Dumbrella does in the application of it.

    • Don Rubottom May 3, 2016 Reply

      Nicole, your comments reinforce how much BG's view was like that of Job's three friends who just KNEW that Job was morally responsible for his tragedy.

      • nicole gardner May 4, 2016 Reply

        True that. Didn't connect the obvious myself, but that's the very essence of the folly of Job's "comforters"! The one thing they neglected to tell Job, though, was: "Ahhhh well, it can't be just you; you must have been born to bring all this down on your own head. After all, you have no known genealogy so that makes you the son of a mule." Automatically. Because there were no pedigree papers for them to be able to give their stamp of approval to certify him by.

  239. rob war May 4, 2016 Reply

    The other sick side of telling families that they should disrupt or "un-adopt" is that the real problems that older adopted children might have due to trauma and attachment are never properly dealt with. Instead of these families reaching out for help from trained professionals, Gothard taught that psychology is evil and that all problems are solved by throwing Bible verses at them or blaming the person with anger or bitterness and if the child just forgive and let go of anger and bitterness, then all one's problems will be solved. So well meaning families that want to do good in opening up their homes for children either from our foster system or abroad from orphanages, were never properly educated and trained on what issues they might face with children that already have had traumatic childhoods. Instead of sticking with the child to work through the problems to obtain stability and healing, Gothard tells these well meaning families that they should just un-adopt and then they and their own biological children won't be contaminated by demons and bad pedigree. On top of that you have Alfred on his blog stating that these traumatized children just need to look to God and God will watch out for them. It doesn't get much worst than this. How really is anyone going to trust God at all when any adult they have already been in contact with them is abusive, neglectful and hurtful and even kicked them out of the home. This is a fast formula for becoming an atheist. It a double jeopardy. And then tell others that one shouldn't have "bad blood" mixed in with one's "good blood" children.

    • Lisa A May 4, 2016 Reply

      I really appreciate your comments, Rob. Concerning Alfred, he is right that God desires to look out and care for orphans and the needy but God's plan is to do it through US! I wish Alfred could get a clue.

      In the discussion about adoption and Gothard's ridiculous superstitious notions, I have gotten the impression that the kind of problems that he thought could lead to un-adoption involved older teens and significant issues of a more serious nature. I know of a case where adoption of a preschool aged child was terminated because of Gothard's teachings. I don't agree with this heretical teaching for any child but really, what could a preschooler possibly be guilty of that would warrant this?! I must say that the message this conveys to a child (or anyone in this situation) is pure EVIL.

      • rob war May 5, 2016 Reply

        THANK-YOU! Yes, we are God's hands and feet in meeting needs and taking care of others. I would suggest to Bill and Alfred that they need to read the book of James.

        James 1:27 " Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world."
        James 2:5-6 "Listen, my beloved brother. Did not God choose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him. But you dishonor the poor person...."
        James 2:13 "For the judgement is merciless to one who has not shown mercy, mercy triumphs over judgement"
        James 2:15-16: " If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "go in peace, keep warm and eat well" but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?"

        It is heartless, sick and even evil to say to someone that they just "need to trust God" while they are being kicked out and unadopted. It is equally heartless, sick and evil to encourage families to unapt because there are difficulties because the problem isn't the struggling child the problem is you in that you didn't educate and work and try and not give up. Disrupting an adoption isn't keeping oneself unstained by the world, it is acting exactly like the world and that religion isn't pure and undefiled but the opposite of what God commands us to be towards our fellow humans made in His likeness and image.

    • nicole gardner May 4, 2016 Reply

      Rob, the pathology you describe here is the apex of the evil of the "elementary principles" (the Umbrella, the "Pride/Lust/Envy/Bitterness Strongholds" dogma, & the "Speaking Up Late in the Day").
      Anyone and everything that indicates some need of being addressed with work/effort/time is condemned right out of the gate for not already being perfect. Did someone mention a problem? Oh, that means they must have had to have waited & waited & waited to say anything so the one voicing the concern is faulted for any problem. (If it's even objectively recognized as such). As well as for the 'fact' that the biggest problem is their personal stronghold (insert "Pride", "Lust", "Envy", or "Bitterness" here) & whatever issue needs to be addressed can only be done through this person's "confession" to their human authorities along with expression of thanks for these circumstances, for how their own specific sin was highlighted that God ultimately purposed it all for, which is the winnowing of the heart of the one taking the brunt of the problem. Funny thing all that is. Because you know, all problems have a deeper "root problem", which is sin- ALWAYS IDENTIFIED IN THE HEART OF THE ONE UNDER THE UMBRELLA. Doesn't matter if it's the father of the home with the pastor as the umbrella, or somewhere further down the line. And, of course we know, Gothard puffed-out the role of umbrella to all pastors under him, so these were also kow-towing to a despot.
      In the Bible, there is no mention of having to thank people for one's circumstances or even of thanking God FOR everything in the presence of other people; all it says is that HE is to be given thanks "IN all things" FOR WHO HE IS. As opposed to giving thanks for WHAT is.
      Funny thing, too, that the Bible's examples of folly have the victim avenged or at least the fool gets punished. The fact of personal growth from hardships incurred by another is a fact. But, it's also fact that the Bible has on record the hurtfulness of individuals against others & this proves that there is also the matter of justice. Justice is not served in full by God's grace to the victim. I myself would not like to have a record in Scripture of any wrong I've done against another. Even if the person was brought though it stronger on the other side. Scripture has Hebrews 11. According to IBLP, every single one of those people deserved no acknowledgment whatsoever for having endured anything at the hands of anyone because all those martyrdoms merely served to call attention to their own sinfulness, which was apparently such a problem that it took these experiences for it to finally get their attention so that they could be humbled before man first & then God. That was the REAL motive God had for allowing their martyrdoms. According to IBLP. According to IBLP, there is no such thing as a problem if it is not deemed a problem by a despot calling it to the attention of their subjects. Rather, any other-identified problem is this other person themself. One person or another almost always is implicated anyway, even as the despot calls it, since the despot is so genius at recognizing "the Root" of every wrinkle in the fabric of life.
      Thankfully, God has promised to avenge orphans. So, inasmuch as these have been abused by these doctrines, we know we will see justice.

      • rob war May 5, 2016 Reply

        Thank-you Nicole! You go girl!

      • Don Rubottom May 5, 2016 Reply

        ^ what Rob said!

      • huzandbuz May 6, 2016 Reply

        To Nicole:

        You stated:
        "In the Bible, there is no mention of having to thank people for one's circumstances or even of thanking God FOR everything in the presence of other people; all it says is that HE is to be given thanks "IN all things" FOR WHO HE IS. As opposed to giving thanks for WHAT is."

        To me, this is soooo profound!! We thank God for WHO HE IS.
        We do not have to thank God for 'being raped' for example so we could become 'mighty in spirit'.

        It is a wonder any of us remain 'sane' after listening to all of this jargon.... :+(

        • nicole gardner May 6, 2016

          Huzandbuz,
          But oh, now people like us who have moved on are now missing out on engaging in the means to force God's hand to bless us!! Whatever will we do without His blessing now that we're no longer creating a chain of reaction to trip Him to respond to by adhering to IBLP formulas!!!! Indeed, the magic of the secrets is no longer tapped into by the likes of us. After all, it's not as if God.......... could relate to us in His........... goodness. At least, not ever on His own terms & initiative!!!

          Or so all the plying for us to misplace our confidence lead us to believe.

        • David Pigg May 18, 2016

          huzandbuz;Bless you Nicole,Don Ruboottom and co.Awesome truths.The more after being awakened from the passivity of "The Dead Conscience Syndrome"Gothardism invoked on hapless victims,abusing everyone while his perverted desires were being met,you guys
          were awakened by LIFE.LIFE that discomforts LIFE that probes,LIFE that in having to face the consequences of this spectrum of death must come to the acknowledgement of what for its own sake must be totally renounced and totally [yes to Alfred and b.g. adherrants,CONDEMNED.Life was not just arbitrarily assigned to anything by a delusioned megalomaniac dabbling with spiritual terms,life is Christ alone.And it must be put at variance against,in opposition to,and in warfare against DEATH in the spirit of its existence for all that is hoped for in its potential.Thank you for probing beyond,for in the deeper discoveries of this man's teachings of death comes the potential for more life!

  240. Don Rubottom May 4, 2016 Reply

    Has anyone else ever noted this in Colossians 2:8?
    "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, [h]rather than according to Christ."
    A number of translations have a footnote for "elementary principles" showing "basic principles" as a possible translation! The entire Chapter is applicable to all that BG did and taught. We were taken captive....

    • David Pigg May 4, 2016 Reply

      You're not a whistling Dixie we were,Don and in my vulnerability thru rejection and the caste system the momentum of Gothard's Natural Religion kept me there where in man's basic fleshly pride I was a lot more inwardly exploited.Now as the commenter David who I know reads this actually fought against this back then,I was an automaton,a mere programmed peon to sacrifice to the submitted body movement.Now,on the cataclysmic verge of people being forced to see, comes the disavowing,denying;having been spiritually bankrupted by in my opinion,and this goes for Alfred,as well,the utter diametric opposite of Christ's redemptive Purpose;none so blind as those who cannot acknowledge that they saw thru an exploiter of the free expressions they potentially had to reflect God's Kingdom.And what did they reflect?Thats easy,Bondage,Malice toward the lightly esteemed,Pride in religion contrived by a man's fallen nature,hyped by several big names.Instead of expression of creative thankfulness for being transformed,a ditch of religious bondage;with more people souls, hearts,to never amount to any more than what Bill would ascribe from his book of bondage.By Grace we could possibly see the great price that must be paid,but pride and religion are harsh taskmasters.

    • huzandbuz May 6, 2016 Reply

      To Don:

      The King James Bible:
      Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and 'vain deceit', after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

      In the years since I began to become enlightened to God's truth with the realization of Col. 2:8, the words 'vain deceit' are ever present in my mind regarding Bill's system of philosophical thought and teaching. We certainly were abductees of DECEPTION.... VAIN aptly describes Gothard. :+(

  241. Anonymous Karen May 4, 2016 Reply

    Oh yes! In the NIV, it actually says "basic principles". I noticed that a couple of years ago, right about the time I was introduced to RG. Coincidence? I think not. :)

    • DAVID PIGG May 5, 2016 Reply

      All these little"extras" are there to help you know God a little bit better than ordinary Christians who have not quite got the whole revelation BILL has.

      • nicole gardner May 5, 2016 Reply

        ^Because of his secret knowledge that he & only he got through a rhema. Oh, & that'll cost each & everyone $35 plus the textbooks^

      • huzandbuz May 6, 2016 Reply

        To David:

        Agree!! Ordinary christians?? Not us!! The 'extras' revealed to those of us spellbound in Gothard's cult is actually 'the place' where the 'elite meet'.... at the 'revelation of one of Bill's rhemas'....

      • Renea May 7, 2016 Reply

        That's is it in a nutshell

  242. Anonymous Karen May 4, 2016 Reply

    (Sorry, can't do replies on my not-so-smart phone.) That WHOLE chapter is rich... talks about circumcision, "do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink", false humility, "his unspiritual mind puffs him up with false notions" (which, incidentally, could apply to many of us... or at least, to me...)

    The key is verse 20:

    Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of the world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch! These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

    Then in chapter 3, Paul teaches the effective way, starting with, "Since you have been raised with Christ, set your heart on things above...."

    Sorry, I got on a roll... Blessings to you all.:)

    • Don Rubottom May 5, 2016 Reply

      Same roll I was on when inspired to raise the issue. The entire Chapter refutes all that BG is and has done.

      • DAVID PIGG May 5, 2016 Reply

        More so than even all the scandals, divisions,and malice of the Corinthian church was Paul upset with the Galatians."Oh foolish[when Paul speaks it is under Holy Spirit utterance alone],Galatians,who hath bewitched you[implying spiritual deception]?Ch.3:1.Peter who would not fall for all the stuff the Corinthians fell for,was openly rebuked for breaking fellowship with Gentile believers.Even Barnabus got entangled;not wanting to have his pure origin of Jewish traditions seem in jeopardy of Gentile pollution,negating the spectrum of deliverance potentially bringing into God's Eternal Presence the entire human race thru Christ's Atonement.Was this by faith alone?Another gospel?To entice then entangle,will eventually require a disconnect,but as with the Galatian Deception,Gothardism is far from a neutral position.It is shrouded inside pride,dark spiritusal power of works;pride;the entire focus being attaining outward perfection;even the very appearance of dress code violation,rock music,is evil.And after addherants are entrenched,a long road to unlearn.That is if they can bring themselves to acknowledge another gospel that was always communicated by misapplied scriptures. Too much pride to repent;spiritual attainment; authority was earned,approved.Not easy to publically denounce what was heralded by endorsed personalies.Keep the bondage in.Can one lose their soul over this?

    • Renea May 7, 2016 Reply

      Very good

  243. Grace M May 6, 2016 Reply

    The Recovery Version of the Bible renders Col. 2:8-10 this way:
    8 Beware that no one carries you off as spoil through his (1)philosophy and empty deceit, according to the (2)tradition of men, according to the (3)elements of the world, and not according to (4)Christ;

    9 For in Him dwells all the (1)fullness of the (2)Godhead (3)bodily,

    10 And you have been made (1)full in Him, who is the Head of all (2)rule and authority.

    The numbers in parentheses are for footnotes. Footnote 4 in verse 8, referring to the word "Christ," reads:
    "8-4 Christ is the governing principle of all genuine wisdom and knowledge, the reality of all genuine teaching, and the only measure of all concepts acceptable to God. This book focuses on Christ as our everything."

    www.recoveryversion.org

    • huzandbuz May 7, 2016 Reply

      To Grace:

      Praise God that former Gothardites also recognize James 1:5 -
      If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
      (Bill Gothard's name isn't even mentioned in that scripture passage as the 'go to' person for wisdom (to be revealed via his rhemas).
      Imagine that!!

      How blessed we are upon the realization that HE ALONE is our source for whatever we need!! I feel that the 'need' HE provides includes the encouragement we receive from each other as we persevere in the TRUE christian faith. ^i^

      • Grace M May 7, 2016 Reply

        Dear huz and buz,

        AMEN!!! He alone is our source! Praise the Lord!

        I've enjoyed these verses in Colossians so much over the years. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, and He dwells in us. We truly have been made full in Him. We need no other source for anything! We can turn to him and take Him for EVERYTHING that we need! Lord Jesus, we love You!

        And yes I agree that one of the ways He makes us full is by our speaking "building up and encouragement and consolation" to each other (1 Cor. 14:3).

        • huzandbuz May 8, 2016

          Hi Grace:

          Other than our Recovering Grace 'connection', we are virtually unknown to each other....
          However, I prefer to regard 'all of us here' as being 'in one accord'.... Philippians 2:2;
          Romans 15:6. Amen!! re: 1 Cor. 14:3.
          Blessings.... ^i^ ^i^

        • Grace M May 8, 2016

          Dear Huzandbuz,

          I would like to know you :)

          I love the verses you referenced. It is so sweet to be in one accord with other believers in Christ Jesus.

          As I always like to do, I went and looked up footnotes for those verses in my Bible, which is the best resource I've ever found for things like this. I think the notes back up what you say about Christ being our only source. Here's one of them for Phil. 2:2 (referring to the phrase "one thing"):

          " According to the context of this book, the one thing here must refer to the subjective knowledge and experience of Christ (1:20-21; 2:5; 3:7-9; 4:13). Christ, and Christ alone, should be the centrality and universality of our entire being. Our thinking should be focused on the excellency of the knowledge and experience of Christ. Focusing on anything else causes us to think differently, thus creating dissensions among us."

          And here's one for Romans 15:6, referring to "with one accord":

          "The Greek word means with the same mind, will, and purpose. This is to be one in our whole being and results in our being one in our outward speaking. Whenever we are in one accord, we speak the same thing; we speak with one mouth. This oneness is the reverse of Babel, where the division among mankind caused their language to become confused and divided into many different speakings (Gen. 11:7, 9). The only way to be with one accord and one mouth is to allow Christ the room to be everything in our heart and in our mouth that God may be glorified."

          I'm glad you called my attention to these verses because, you know what, when I was looking at them it caused me to be convicted that I have not focused my thinking enough on Christ, and to want to go back to Him and refocus on Him. So your post functioned in the way of 1 Cor. 14:3 to me, I feel. I love to see this kind of post showing up on Recovering Grace :) I've received so much help from the believers on here.

        • huzandbuz May 9, 2016

          To Grace:

          I thank YOU for a such an encouraging reply to my initial response. How kind you are. :+)

          When I am, for whatever reason, prompted to indicate a favorite verse(s), I am AGAIN reminded of just what that verse(s) MEANS TO ME. In pondering the phrase 'in one accord', I am always reminded of God's love 'going full circle' (if that makes sense to you.) Blessings.... ^i^

        • Grace M May 9, 2016

          Dear Huzandbuz,

          Blessings to you too :) I was so happy and encouraged to find your response this morning. This is the "full circle," right? Thank the Lord.

          I want to take the opportunity to mention that if you or anyone else reading enjoys these footnotes I'm quoting, you can get a free copy of the Recovery Version of the New Testament (where they came from), and other Christian books, at BiblesForAmerica.com. I love this version so much because it focuses on Christ and Christ alone as our source for everything.

        • Grace M May 9, 2016

          Sorry, typo. It's BiblesForAmerica.org, not .com.

        • huzandbuz May 9, 2016

          To Grace:

          For more than (37) years, (about 1/2 my life to date), I have been reading the King James Bible.
          On occasion, I view other versions. Thank you.
          I will investigate your suggestion in addition to what I am accustomed to. :+)

          'Full Circle'. I envision all of us who know Jesus Christ as Savior traveling through life 'in one accord' (encircling our Lord.)^i^

        • Grace M May 9, 2016

          Oh, I see what you mean about full circle. I had a completely different picture in my mind. I was thinking of something like the flow of life in the Spirit where life flows from Him to us and then to one another, or else, "We love because He first loved us," so the love is flowing from Him to us, to one another, and back to Him. That's the picture I had in my mind. The KJV is a great version of the Bible :) Thank the Lord Lord His word reaches us in any way!

        • huzandbuz May 9, 2016

          Hi Grace:

          No doubt we each have our own way of describing that which we may not be able to completely visualize. However, I certainly do align myself with your illustration. :+)

          It appears to me that the work of the Holy Spirit, that Divine Force and Influence of the Most High, 'allows' our individual personalities to be realized. :+) ^i^ ^i^ ^i^

  244. Pegasister May 7, 2016 Reply

    Hi, I'm back with another completely out-of-the-blue question :P

    Can anyone tell me anything about The Pineapple Story? I've seen references to it but never really got an idea of what it is...

    • huzandbuz May 8, 2016 Reply

      To Pegasister:

      (As the purchase was years ago, I may no longer possess my copy.)

      Taking place in a pineapple garden, it is the story of a missionary learning how to conquer anger. I think its main premise concerns the fact that God owns everything, therefore, we are to sacrifice our life to him and live by faith.

      Though I obtained the book via IBYC, it was authored by Otto Koning, a veteran missionary, who was involved with Gothard's ministries. It may be out of print, but, including shipping, it is available via ebay for under $5.00. :+)

      • Pegasister May 8, 2016 Reply

        OK, thanks! I'm actually surprised this comment went up since my computer locked up immediately after I pressed the submit button.

        I guess my more specific question was, did it teach a truly biblical lesson in a biblical manner? Some reviews I've read say so, others claim otherwise. I may just have to read it for myself but I'm curious what posters here on RG thought.

        • Helga May 8, 2016

          You can hear Otto Koning tell the story on Youtube here:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYM-4mGYzzE

        • huzandbuz May 9, 2016

          To Helga:

          Thank YOU!! I had not given youtube a thought.
          I will certainly listen in. :+)

        • Pegasister May 9, 2016

          @Helga Awesome, thank you! I'll look it up!

  245. huzandbuz May 8, 2016 Reply

    To Pegasister:

    After I read your inquiry, I searched for my copy as I, too, became curious as to what I would glean during a present day reading.

    If anyone out there recalls the text, perhaps they will enlighten us as to whether the story contains biblical truths. Thirty-five years ago I was not cognizant of nor did I search for any inaccuracies.... :+)

  246. GemstonePony May 8, 2016 Reply

    huzandbuz and Pegasister
    Story in a nutshell (from my memory, but it used to be one of my favorite stories):
    Missionary wants pineapples.
    Missionary plants pineapples.
    Natives steal pineapples.
    Missionary tries multiple things to keep pineapples.
    All his efforts fail.
    Missionary gives pineapples to God, and tells God to do whatever He wants with the pineapples.
    Missionary stops trying to keep the natives from taking the pineapples.
    Natives are perplexed, and nervous about taking God's pineapples.
    Missionary finally gets pineapples.
    Missionary's son gets seriously sick.
    Missionary gives son to God.
    Missionary's son gets miraculously better.
    (End nutshell)
    I'm not confident I would agree with the exact angle taken on why/how we should give everything to God, but I do believe that as a Christian, if I have given my life to God, it seems silly to keep back my belongings and every other facet of my life.
    Short intro to me: grew up influenced by IBLP. I've been stalking this website, articles, and all the comments sections for months now, but I don't like to post unless I feel I have something to contribute.

  247. rob war May 10, 2016 Reply

    Is there any info about the hearing tomorrow to possibly dismiss G III from the case?

    • rob war May 10, 2016 Reply

      The reason I ask is that Alfred is implying that he sat in the court and that "something big" is going to happen May 11th. I am wondering if there is some kind of gag order about the case since there is total silence on the plaintiffs side. Alfred indicated that his impression is that the case is going to be thrown out starting with G III being dismissed. Generally, I think Alfred and Bill's support are full of hot air and this is just meaningless rattle on Bill's side. But any other info other than Alfred's would be appreciated.

  248. huzandbuz May 10, 2016 Reply

    rob war:
    Where did you find Alfred's comments re: 5/11?

    • rob war May 10, 2016 Reply

      unless, he took it down. he had an exchange with David K on his DG blog. which he dropped some hints. I asked Alfred directly about being in court for his info and he said that he was. Alfred isn't a lawyer but Alfred did seem to think that the judge was going to rule in favor of removing G III from the case and that the decision on the motion to dismiss G III was going to come out tomorrow, May 11.

  249. nicole gardner May 10, 2016 Reply

    I've been wondering the same thing.
    And I think any individual judge or any member amongst a grand jury who opts to dismiss G3 should have to turn any teenage daughters they may have over to Gothard. Just to prove whether or not they actually do disbelieve how G3 was acting in good faith in his rooting-out of a holed-up pedophile.
    And yes I use my real name on here & I personally stand for everything I say.

    • rob war May 10, 2016 Reply

      There are two motions by Bill here. One is to remove G III from the case because Bill claims that he gave G III that sworn deposition because Bill was going to use G III to sue the board to get his position back. Bill is claiming that G III misrepresented himself to Bill. G III denies this. The other motion which is later is the motion to throw the case out of court. Tomorrow, May 11, is the decision according to Alfred is about G III being on the case.

    • Don Rubottom May 12, 2016 Reply

      Nicole, just because the plaintiffs are acting in good faith does not mean G III has been. If the righteousness of the cause is defined by the motives of one lawyer, I cringe. I hope your view of III is sound. But I have long feared there is a G II, G III "thing" here that cannot be ignored.

      • rob war May 12, 2016 Reply

        Don,
        how do you read the delay and the combining rulings on G III and the case to the same day?

        • Lisa A May 12, 2016

          Hi Rob,
          On DG, Alfred reported that the ruling on dismissing the case was to be on May 24 so I don't think the judge has combined the rulings. At least that is my understanding.

        • rob war May 12, 2016

          Hi Lisa, I think he was quoting HA and Alfred did have it as May 20th Thanks

        • Don Rubottom May 13, 2016

          Rob, judges are never in a hurry. If many facts were raised in the hearing, it is not unusual for the judge to take time to "get it right". If he removes G III, he will almost surely allow time to employ new counsel to try to perfect any bad pleading to keep the case alive. The transcript sounded like the judge understood G III's strategy to win a settlement for his clients. That is good. But it may have little to do with objective justice.

      • nicole gardner May 12, 2016 Reply

        Don,
        I think that may well be true. But, seeing as you also are an attorney; if your father had been a lawyer who covered up mightily for a person who had all these plaintiffs alleging these things I do believe you also would have a thing between yourself & your father.
        Besides, DP is a Gothard protege that the latter at least used to be very proud of. Why the heck Gothard could possibly think that the same attorney prosecuting DP would ever try to get Bill off the hook for the same type of thing (x18) just shows how far off the rails Gothard is, not G3.
        Apparently, elitism has very blinding properties.

        • Don Rubottom May 13, 2016

          Agreed. But, a lawyer with a personal thing does not always provide excellent representation in a related matter.

      • huzandbuz May 13, 2016 Reply

        Don:
        You stated to Nicole:
        "If the righteousness of the cause is defined by the motives of one lawyer, I cringe. I hope your view of III is sound. But I have long feared there is a G II, G III "thing" here that cannot be ignored."

        Judge Popejoy 'appeared' emphatic that he would provide his determination, in writing, by the end of the day, May 11th. (I understand that God is in control), but this delay is alarming!! If Popejoy waits until the 20th and announces: "Not only is Gibbs OUT but the entire lawsuit is OUT as well", is there any recourse for the plaintiffs??

        I do not understand 'how & why' Gibbs III was chosen to represent them from the onset?? I, too, believe there is a 'thing' between father & son that cannot be ignored. :+(

        • Don Rubottom May 13, 2016

          G III chose himself. If the judge was emphatic BEFORE the hearing, he must have learned things IN the hearing he did not expect.
          If he intends to remove G III, the delay is prejudicial to the plaintiffs AND BG whose "confidentiality" would be violated every day G III is involved.

        • rob war May 13, 2016

          I believe that the initial plaintiffs approached G III. Considering his background and family life and having been raised in this, he would be an empathetic and understanding lawyer for those victimized by BG.

        • Don Rubottom May 14, 2016

          G III chose to sue his father's long time client. G III certainly had participated in his father's law firm's relationship with Gothard and IBLP. If plaintiffs sought to employ III because of the Phillips case, he should likely have helped them find someone more detached. These guys are in it for money, not justice. Else they would much more often refer to better lawyers. He clearly sought to manipulate Gothard into a bad affidavit. Whether that manipulation violated an attorney/client relationship is the question the judge has to answer. On the one hand, BG is a sympathetic old man. On the other hand, the case alleges BG to be a manipulative, master of working his will on others. In the present PC environment, the judge is unlikely to give the molester the benefit of many doubts. But he might suppress the affidavit and require plaintiffs to find better counsel.

        • rob war May 14, 2016

          Don,
          one could probably say all lawyers are in it for the money. Unfortunately for lawyers, the good the bad the ugly, do have that reputation out there with the general public. One could say that though about a number of higher educated professions like physicians etc. So that is nether here nor there. I guess I'm confused between BG and G III, on who contacted who first. If BG contacted G III first with the hope of using him to get back on the board knowing that G III representing the plaintiffs suing IBLP, then I think Bill is the big idiot as well as a manipulator. From this aspect at least to me, it almost looks like a trap for G III in that now Bill is claiming lawyer ethical violations. If G III contacted Bill with the knowledge that Bill wants to get back on the board and G III said he would try to do that with the idea of settlement with the plaintiffs, then that is an interesting strategy that seemed to have back fired. I thought in reading the hearing, that Bill offered the sworn affidavid and revised it several times. He did this without consulting any other lawyer on the wisdom of giving a lawyer that is suing one's old ministry that you left over one's own bad behaviors. Either way, Bill was stupid. I don't see any sympathy for the "old man 80+ part" even though his lawyers brought it up in the hearing.

        • Don Rubottom May 15, 2016

          Rob, you are ignoring that, as a member of G II's law firm for many years, G III had a longstanding prior attorney/client relationship with BG of some degree. This is what has always concerned me about III's aggressiveness with BG. He may get away with it--BG may, under the actual circumstances, have had no legitimate expectancy in III's confidentiality, but consider that III intentionally did NOT sue BG in the first instance. The actual wrongdoer being intentionally left out of the suit? This was a calculated maneuver, possibly to trick BG into cooperating. Consider also whether BG would have been as likely to provide any information or any affidavit to a complete stranger. Could the "godly" "Christian Law Association" Gibbs II's son possib(prior relationship, not including BG in the original complaint) are what bring III's conduct under scrutiny. If a stranger had done the same things in the case, there would be NO question.

        • rob war May 15, 2016

          Respectfully Don, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. It seems like you are making some assumptions here about G III and what he did or didn't do when he was at his father's law firm before he broke off with G II but G III being the lead attorney in the Terry Schiavo case which was in 2005, that was 11 years ago. Maybe your dislike of him stems from that time in Florida and that very sad case but G III broke off with his father. I think that it is interesting and flies in the face of what Bill taught about family relationships, authority and umbrella of protection, that the lead lawyer trying to bring legal justice and accountability is someone that broke with his own father. I understand your point that a lawyer probably should not have a heighten personal interest when representing a client. Those sorts of issues are discussed constantly in my husband's line of work as a social worker. We do not know here what if any relationship G III might have had with BG before he broke away from G II. However, when I look at G III web site and law firm, it seems like it certainly has been around a while 11+ years as supported by the Terry Schiavo case that he talks about on his web site.

          Yet, I guess there is a part of me that sees nothing wrong with any professional person having passion for a cause based on personal experience. Case in point, my younger brother growing up had a couple of serious accidents and due to them, gave him a passion and empathy to become a doctor. My middle son is on that same path for the same reasons. Gut reaction is that someone that broke away or off with his own family and left Gothardland might be the perfect person to bring some justice for the victim's of Bill and his behaviors.

        • rob war May 16, 2016

          Sorry, i need to correct myself, it looks like G III broke off with his father in 2011. That came from comments found on Spiritual Sounding board.

        • Don Rubottom May 17, 2016

          Passion is great and he can encourage others. But he can't take advantage of an attorney client relationship. I hope he did not.
          The Gibbses got involved with Schiavo after Terri's family had already messed up the case. I tried to help them and filed one brief for the Florida House Speaker, defending the law we passed at the last minute.

        • rob war May 17, 2016

          Don,
          thanks again. Confidentiality is a tricky thing and professional confidentiality ethics cut across a number of professional fields such as law, health care, counseling, therapy, ministry etc. I waded through the documents on HA web site that Bill filed on his own behalf against G III and in all honesty, I don't see how Bill had proved the case that G III violated any type of ethical standards. It looks like Bill approached G III to get back on the board, not visa versa. The burden of proof is really in Bill's and IBLP court. It looks like from even Bill's filled documents that G III made it clear who he represents. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but I would think that even in law firms like G II and during the time that G III worked with his dad, any discussion and contact between G II and Bill would have and should have been confidential between them and should not and could not have included others in the law firm including G III. If that wasn't true, then the violation would be on G II in talking to and with his own son. I am sure rules of confidentiality includes others working together in a law firm as they do in other professions that help others and take in confidential information. I've sat in with my husband on ethic classes in social work and these sorts of issues come up in that can one or should one have as clients those they know and have contact with outside of the therapy, (work, family, church, neighborhood etc). Bill using his buddies as lawyers through the years such as G II seems to cross the lines here. That is why the point brought up in the lawsuit that G II "investigation" was a huge shame. He was not an independent lawyer but intertwined with ILBP organization. Bill and the board were G II's buddies. But normal ethical standards of confidentiality never seem to mean anything to Bill. He repeatedly seem to use the confidences of others he was "counseling" against them repeatedly. He should have never been "counseling" anyone for anything, Bill was totally unqualified to do so.

        • Don Rubottom May 18, 2016

          Rob, thanks for wading through the documents. I trust your reading of them respecting how G III and BG collaborated on the affidavit. The environment in a law office is very different from that of a more personal profession (psychiatry, social work, etc.) The "confidences" of a legal client are not as personal, but more transactional: a firm can more fully involve any employee in legal research, writing and representation without violating any confidence. What they must do is protect the client's interest by not disclosing OUTSIDE the law office. It is less personal, more related to the ability to represent and protection from testimony that can't be compelled (self-incrimination, spousal privileges, etc.) In a firm like G IIs, I would expect sonny-boy to be in on all the confidences held by the father, since he is there to "take over" at some point.
          I hope your evaluation of the testimony is correct. As I said, if the judge believes there is prejudice to BG, the delay only makes that worse. But the standard in the lawsuit is not that of an "ethics violation" as it would be if a complaint was filed against G III. The standard in the case is whether BG is or has been unfairly prejudiced. Each litigant has a right to a fair proceeding and a lawyer who has done NOTHING violating any confidence can be barred from suing a former client simply due to the potential for unfairness arising out of former representation.

        • rob war May 18, 2016

          Again Don, I appreciate you explanations and insight. In wading through the filed documents as linked on HA, I was surprised at what Bill put in there on his behalf. If his complaint was with G III, I'm not sure how hand written letters from Rachel Lees, screen shots of the testimony taken down from RG by one of the plaintiffs, pictures of full stadiums in the hey days of the basic have anything to do with ethic violations allegations by G III. It almost seemed like the identity of one of the Jane Does in the case is being revealed. Also included was Alfred's attempt through Freedom of information to obtain a police report filed about one of the molestations. If this is the best Bill's got, I guess I am quite surprised and again I am not sure what much of it has to do with G III ethics violations. I likewise wonder about the leaking of info to Alfred, who has dropped hints about "knowing" the Jame Does of the case. I understand the the accused would know but should Alfred and he hint at identities on his blog? It seems like any "ethic" violations are on BG side with his leaking info to Alfred who in turn claims he knows they "are lying" on his blog. I think it is one thing to discuss the case between those of us not involved, but it seems questionable to me to have one of the defendants leak info to a supportive blogger.

        • huzandbuz May 18, 2016

          To rob war:
          It appears to me that Alfred inflates his knowledge regarding everything and anything.
          He purports himself an authority on all aspects of the case because 'Bill told him the truth'.
          It is useless to correspond with him. His convoluted narratives encompass all manner of digressions.

          Don stated: "The standard in the case is whether BG is or has been unfairly prejudiced".

          I interpret a 'fine line' regarding the prejudice.
          Perhaps it would be best, (and even God's will), if Judge Popejoy suppresses the affidavit and determines the plaintiffs would be better served via 'other counsel'. If he does, I deem that decision reasonable and logical. But again, who am I to say....

        • rob war May 18, 2016

          Huzandbuz,

          Yes, I agree with your analysis of Alfred and that he plays up his connections and access with Bill. He has been in court with Bill during the different hearings. So he is quite involved or has put himself in that position. I would think that Bill's own lawyer would cut the leaking to Alfred and tell him to shut up. Obviously, communication on G III side to RG, Spiritual sounding board and other blogs has stopped. I just think Alfred who isn't named as one of the defendants shouldn't be having info about the Jane/John Does of the case and hinting at them on his blog. Now maybe the judge will throw out the damning affidavit Bill signed on his own before becoming officially one of the defendants. Who knows. But, Bill contacted G III in order to get back on the board which is interesting why he would want that if IBLP is being sued. Going back on the board is putting himself into this lawsuit. I looks like G III saw this as an opportunity to bring about a settlement without going to a full trial. This a complicated situation. If Bill did really return to ILBP and they were being sued, doesn't that make him part of the law suit by default? So whether he really returned or not, he freely signed this affidavit and injected himself into this. Maybe I'm over thinking this but after wading through the links on HA, this is what I am coming up with.

        • Don Rubottom May 19, 2016

          If he drafted and signed the affidavit in cooperation with G III, believing he was receiving legal counsel from G III, it does not matter who initiated. All that matters is whether BG's belief about attorney/client relationship was reasonable. If so, G III will likely have limitations imposed.

        • rob war May 19, 2016

          Don,
          thanks again for clarifying. I think I am getting it.

      • huzandbuz May 13, 2016 Reply

        To Don:
        Thank you for your time and valuable insight. :+)

        • huzandbuz May 13, 2016

          To rob war:
          Hmmm.... He would not have been my first choice even before I thoroughly read the transcript.
          In that text, (to me), he does not come across as especially concise. (Though I hear it almost daily, I really have a problem with the constant use of the phrase "I was like or it's like". It drives me crazy!!) Personally, I am not impressed, but what do I know.... :+)

        • nicole gardner May 14, 2016

          According to Gothard's own deposition (that was overseen by his lawyer!), Gothard was very much in charge of that notorious affidavit. He only had it say what he wanted it to. He says how he stood up to G3 on the phone the night before Thanksgiving regarding what he didn't want to say in it. It was definitely his vernacular, too; nobody turns out a phrase quite like he does!

        • huzandbuz May 19, 2016

          To rob war:
          As Don so aptly indicated this a.m., it does not matter WHO initiated the meeting. (I know this too from personal experience.)

          The judge's decision pertaining to his assessment is 'key'. He alone must decide whether Gibbs' intentions and subsequent actions were non-deceptive in his interaction involving Bill's signed affidavit. Popejoy's conclusion or judgment will determine if this case, as it stands, moves forward. (This is as I see it. I certainly do not have a 'legal mind'. We are all learning.) :+)

  250. nicole gardner May 10, 2016 Reply

    Well if Alfred is making his wife cook dinner for Gothard tomorrow night I sure hope he has mightily warned his numerous daughters how badly they may well "defile themselves", "commit immorality", & "fail to keep blameless" in case they don't cry-out to God at the top of their lungs when Gothard starts rubbing on them under the table. (I'm just quoting him here). Maybe these will realize the predicament their dad's double standard puts them in & just lock themselves in their rooms for the evening. We can only hope so.

  251. B Badger May 11, 2016 Reply

    Latest news on the suit can be found at Homeschoolers Anonymous.

    • rob war May 11, 2016 Reply

      thanks B. One can't judge how any particular judge might rule due to questions. Some of the toughest questions by a judge I've listen to is the Supreme Court to the lawyers of the side that they might be sympathetic to. Waiting for the ruling.

      • B Badger May 12, 2016 Reply

        You're welcome, rob war. Interesting comment. Me too!

  252. huzandbuz May 11, 2016 Reply

    I cannot locate any news from today, 5/11/16, regarding the lawsuit.
    Can someone copy & paste the link.... :+)

    • B Badger May 11, 2016 Reply

      If you mean the HA article, go to Discovering Grace and click on the most recent comment ("As we continue to wait...") where the link is posted.

  253. huzandbuz May 11, 2016 Reply

    B Badger:
    You mentioned that the latest news on the lawsuit could be found on
    Homeschoolers Anonymous. There are so many 'links' once you type that in google. (I am not so computer savvy & do not navigate well, I guess. I
    cannot locate that info nor the latest posts on Discovering Grace. I did a google search using all of the pertinent words I could think of. Nada.)

    I guess there was nothing 'earth shattering' to convey or there would be numerous comments posted and much dialogue. :+)

    • B Badger May 11, 2016 Reply

      If you forgo the usual Google search (which I have also found to be unfruitful) and type homeschoolersanonymous.org, you should be able to find the article. Similarly you could have gone to discoveringgrace.com (or in each case have entered the respective website's names and clicked on the corresponding links), and then clicked on the "Comments" button. Hope this helps.

  254. Mary May 11, 2016 Reply

    JUDGE HOLDS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY LEAD ATTORNEY IN BILL GOTHARD CASE

    https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/05/10/judge-holds-hearing-on-motion-to-disqualify-lead-attorney-in-bill-gothard-case/

  255. huzandbuz May 12, 2016 Reply

    To B Badger:
    Thank you. I was able to locate & read HA's page.
    Based on what was presented, what is the 'bottom line' now....

    Re: DG. I was not able to find Alfred's comment which begins....
    (As we continue to wait...) NP. He is annoying to say the least.

    • B Badger May 12, 2016 Reply

      You're welcome, huzandbuz.

      More recent comments have supplanted the one I referenced at DG's home page.
      Now you would have to click on the "About the Lawsuit" comments and scroll to the bottom to find the link, not that you would need to anymore. I had thought that you might not feel like going there.

  256. rob war May 12, 2016 Reply

    Well, what was the ruling? Since Alfred and friends are pretty quiet, is it safe to guess that this wasn't in their favor and G III is still on the case?

  257. huzandbuz May 12, 2016 Reply

    To B Badger:

    Thank you again. I did eventually find the 'one liner' comment from Alfred. As per your guidance, I was also able to locate the May 3rd transcript of the hearing which I read in its entirety. I guess we all await the ' written results' from yesterday....??

  258. Helga May 12, 2016 Reply

    Update on the homeshoolersanonymous article:

    homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/05/10/judge-holds-hearing-on-motion-to-disqualify-lead-attorney-in-bill-gothard-case/

    Update May 12: The judge has postponed his ruling on the motion to disqualify until May 20.

    • B Badger May 12, 2016 Reply

      Thanks, Helga.

  259. nicole gardner May 20, 2016 Reply

    Does anybody know if G3 is still on the case? I keep scrolling HA but can't find a current update....... If anybody finds out will you please post the verdict here immediately? I want to know.

    • LynnCD May 20, 2016 Reply

      It's been delayed until May 31st. If you look at the original posting on HA, I believe the update is in red at the bottom of the page.

    • LynnCD May 20, 2016 Reply

      See the bottom of this page: https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/05/10/judge-holds-hearing-on-motion-to-disqualify-lead-attorney-in-bill-gothard-case/

  260. Lindsey77 May 23, 2016 Reply

    https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/05/23/lead-attorney-for-plaintiffs-disqualified-from-bill-gothard-sex-abuse-case/X

  261. Lindsey77 May 23, 2016 Reply

    I'm not sure why I made an X at the end of the website. At any rate, it appears the judge has made his decision.

    • rob war May 24, 2016 Reply

      It looks like he threw out the lawyer but not the case. Reading through the judges ruling, it almost looks like G III was playing both sides of the fiddle. While this may look like ILBP/Gothard won the battle, there is a bigger war coming their way. I didn't want to believe G III was in this to trip the law suit up but the way the judge laid it out in the ruling, it looks that way. It almost would seem that G III would have disqualified himself from any other type of similar case in the future. Who would want to use him? It seems like there are some good suggestions for the plaintiff for other lawyers on HA and praying someone much better with come forward and move this forward. You were correct Huzandbuz, I think I didn't want to believe it and desired to support in any way the plaintiffs.

      • Karen May 24, 2016 Reply

        Does anybody know who the two attorneys are who, according to page 10 of Judge Popejoy's ruling, have "filed appearances in this case alone on behalf of the plaintiffs."? It sounds like the Judge knows of attorneys qualified to represent the plaintiffs and even of some who are interested in representing them in the case.

        It certainly sounds like the judge sees this as a case worthy of being heard and that he expects it to go forward, just with an attorney without a conflict of interest representing the plaintiffs. To me, though it may seem like a snag, I believe this is a very positive development for this case.

        Frankly, I was among those who saw this conflict of interest as a very real potential if not actual problem with Gibbs III as representative. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, it sounds like Gothard's influence on the Gibbs family has seriously impaired the soundness of their judgment in many areas! I hope everyone is taking note and learning from this experience. I hope the plaintiffs will pray and begin inquiring into some good attorneys who are seasoned and experienced in this area. There are a couple who have been suggested in comments at the HA web site. I live in the Wheaton area and it seems to me there has to be a glut of resources in terms of well-qualified Christian professionals in this area. What about asking for references from some place like the Evangelical Child and Family Association or Wheaton College (which has clinical psychology Masters and Ph.D. programs) or one of the healthier Evangelical churches in this area? I know some victims from the IFB scandal have found a good refuge at Willow Creek Community Church, and it seems to me that is certainly a church with broad resources and potential for some good leads. May God grant grace and wisdom to all concerned!

        • huzandbuz May 24, 2016

          To Karen:

          "To me, though it may seem like a snag, I believe this is a very positive development for this case".

          I concur!!

          You presented wonderfully creative and viable options for seeking adequate legal counsel.
          I, too, added a suggestion from my own personal experience.

          There is no reason that this most worthy legal action cannot only persevere but be in relentless pursuit to achieve its ultimate goals. Eph. 3:20.
          Amen!!

        • Don Rubottom May 25, 2016

          Karen, people, particularly lawyers who go on radio to find clients, can have unsound judgment with no assistance from BG. But it would be nice to see someone in the case who has NO prior relationship with BG or IBLP. It's just been an ugly family squabble to date.
          I would not seek any references from any evangelical institution save G.R.A.C.E. All are tainted by past dealings and cross-relationships. Look how many outstanding preachers have stayed silent in the face of the BG collapse, while they helped to promote or protect him in the past. The evangelical world is only in its infancy in handling abusive authoritarianism properly and Scripturally. Better rely on secular trial lawyers than the evangelical world for solid legal advocacy. Secular courts require secular legal energies. Prayer is good, but solid lawyering is necessary.

        • Karen May 25, 2016

          Don, having just gone over to HA to read the recent expose on Gibbs III, "The Fixer", you have no argument from me about Gibbs needing no help from BG to have unsound judgment! I'm absolutely sick at heart after reading Stoller's most recent report (and that's an understatement), so you also have no argument from me about the problems you see with conflicts of interest and "cross-relationships" in Evangelical institutions. Consider also that bastion of the Evangelical world, Moody Bible Institute's radio station still regularly broadcasts Gibbs, Sr's advice! My suggestions were actually a concession to the plaintiffs' sensibilities. I'd opt for a truly competent lawyer myself if I were in the plaintiff's shoes, and going completely outside Evangelical institutions is probably a good idea for the reasons you mention.

          I now consider the whole Gibbs family enterprise to be completely satanic. I don't know how anyone can read the Gospels and then read what the Gibbs, father and son, have made their careers defending and not come away with that conclusion. It's beyond the pale!

        • Don Rubottom May 26, 2016

          Karen, probably all of our enterprises "of this world" are tainted by the king of this world. Lawyering above many! But please understand: if the Gibsses had not filled this role, another would have. I thank God I didn't have the opportunity. As a young, Christian law student with a growing family to feed, it was very easy to desire a "Christian law practice" crusading for the rights of Christians and the church. Unfortunately, the money is usually not on the side of the good and humble in that business, leading such lawyers into all kinds of questionable cases. I never knew the faults with BJU until I started reading here and on FB about the authoritarian abuses in Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches. I just thought they were all just sincere legalists. But everything that is not of faith is sin. So, graceless churches that rely on works are led into all kinds of sin. Not to mention the traps brought by the love of money. The Gibss clan has merely played a role in this American drama of fundamentalism. Others would have stepped in had they not done it.
          What Evangelical institution, particularly Wheaton, his alma mater, has pointed out the flaws in Gothardism? These plaintiffs need lawyers disconnected from conservative Christianity. We all (conservative protestants) are guilty of tolerating the abuse. We are not able to recommend solutions without others in the loop to check us! (A reason I greatly appreciate the Orthodox contribution to this site!)
          Church refuge and good legal referrals are quite distinct. I recommend anyone seeking a lawyer for a specialized case to talk to a lawyer they know and trust in their own community for help in finding the right lawyer. The best thing about a competent experienced lawyer, as opposed to a zealous crusader, is they can tell you up front whether you have a viable case. Such wisdom can save years of heartache and provide confidence to a long fight if pursued.

        • Karen May 26, 2016

          Well, Don, sadly clergy sexual abuse and abuse of authority can be issues (as mass media have made us aware) for Catholics and Orthodox as well. Their members just may have a little bit of an advantage over their Evangelical counterparts in terms of recourse to the accountability of a hierarchy (or at least the prophetic ministry of recognized Saints--in the event virtually the entire hierarchy becomes corrupt!) as well as more well-defined and stable dogmatic frameworks and normative practices by which to measure false teaching or grossly-distorted applications of Scripture that try to creep in. The important thing is to find an honest and reputable attorney with the right kind of experience. Your perspective as a lawyer on all this is very valuable.

          Wheaton is my alma mater, too, so I really am extremely disappointed they have not taken a more public and outspoken role as an institution to bring correction to one of their own in Gothard. At the very least, he should be stripped of any honorary doctorate they gave him (can't remember details here)! As has been well documented here, at least one of their Bible professors tried to bring in this accountability with Gothard early on, to no avail. Trying to get Evangelicals all on the same page confronting things like this is apparently a bit like trying to herd cats!

          It's true if Gibbs & Son hadn't done what they did, somebody else would have, but then I'd be pointing out the satanic m.o. of those as well! :-) Truly, this is the work of the enemy, and he'll use whatever hooks we give him in our vices--whether that be love of money, our bondage to fleshly lusts, our love of power, our idolatrous thirst for the approval and affirmation of others, for status and prestige in the eyes of the world, or whatever. None of us or our churches is immune.

          Lately, I've listened to several testimonies of people coming out of secret societies and/or the occult (including the son of famous Satanist Anton LaVey, Jess LaVey, who is now a pastor with a ministry to those in the occult). It's pretty deeply dark stuff and I don't recommend it to everyone (I just happen to have extended family members involved in New Age practices, hence my interest), but if you are willing to believe it, there is also the factor (not a direct one in Gothard's ministry as far as we know, but indirectly at least likely an influence from his roots in IFB circles) of overt and intentional satanic infiltration of churches by practicing occultists (Freemasons and Satanists) in order to undermine the gospel. (Certainly, there is a dominant influence of these secret societies on the upper echelons of all our western governments going on from at least the dawn of the modern era.) These pretend to be believers and even become pastors or priests to do their dirty work (which, of course, involves leading people into authoritarian abuse and sexual abuse of children in the name of God as this kind of total inversion of the gospel is the central hallmark of occultism). I also listened to an ex-satanist, now believing Catholic, miraculously saved through the mission of a Catholic layperson, who stated his group of Satanists had overt missions to specifically target and infiltrate Catholic and Baptist churches in this country. (You can be sure satanists in historically Orthodox countries have identical missions to infiltrate the Orthodox hierarchies and monasteries of their nations!) I'll leave readers to draw their own conclusions about why Protestant mainline denominations weren't apparently subjects of this kind of targeting! I also listened to a former Satanist and Freemason, who stated one of the specific purposeful goals for him as a satanist was to become both a Freemason and a Catholic priest (which he did and went up to the 90th degree of Freemasonry--apparently there aren't just 33 degrees). So, all this is to say we should not be naive about where the Apostle Paul makes clear our real battle is--the principalities and powers of darkness that wage war against us. This kind of pervasiveness of abuse and perversity in a religious subculture like that among the IFBs, may not just be sincere Christians gone bad, but rather vulnerable sinners intentionally targeted to become tools of the devil by agents of the enemy of souls.

        • Don Rubottom May 27, 2016

          Karen, in ATI family conferences we were exposed to enough teaching and testimony about demon possession and demonic influence, as well as exorcist-like counseling situations to unsettle the security of a soul in Christ. These were part of the use of fear to keep us "in the fold" and suspect our children of being "outside their umbrella of authority". I'm sure some was demonic and some was just screwed up families. But I also suspect that the leaders engaged were completely off track! (BG and his acolytes were constantly preaching against "the iniquities of our fathers" to the point that I have prayed for deliverance from the bondage of my own grandparents' sins, even though Jesus's death has dealt with all that needs to be dealt with).
          I do not fear any conspiracy. I agree our war is in the domain of spirit and that we must pray and trust that God is fully engaged in the battle, but also we must KNOW that the enemy is already defeated and these are mop up operations, even if they delude some to believe they are on the advance and threaten all human flesh.

        • rob war May 28, 2016

          Karen,
          I always have a concern when people start to get caught up in different conspiracy theories such as commitment Satanist infiltrating different Churches, usually the Catholic. There are different fringe Catholic groups that like to promote these ideas such as SSPX etc. The late Fr. Malachi Martin wrote books claiming these theories along with the late Fr. Gruner who was ex-communicated. I remember listening to Bob Larson in the 1980s who likewise involved himself (and I think his daughters have continued) with demons, infiltration of Church etc. I also remember Mike Warnke who based his ministry on the claim that he was a former Satanist. He later was exposed to be a fraud and the story fabricated. All of the above individuals mentioned were off on the deep end and ran into trouble. Another fringe Catholic Michael Voris, who is local to me, has been censored by AOD (Archdiosces of Detroit). He is involved with another radical magazine called The Remnant.
          The actual number of "real" Satanists is really very small and some of them don't even consider LaVey to be a "real" Satanist but more of a charlatan looking for attention and show. While I totally agree with you that child abuse especially sexual is evil and even satanic, I would be hard pressed to start calling people doing this and even defending this as Satanists though. You and I and I think most on the blog see major problems with IFB and their theology and we would both agree that bad theology leads people to do bad things. That is why early Church Fathers and their counsels fought so hard about the importance of having their beliefs orthodox or true to what Christ taught. In a take off of a book "Rapture, the end times error that leaves the Bible behind", I would say the fundamentalist dispensationalist theology leaves the Bible behind completely. That is what Bill Gothard as well as the Gibbs, IFP, BJU, IBLP and even Alfred are.
          Yes, there are demons and there is evil in this world. I think we can run into trouble when we start to look under every rock for them. Jesus Himself had a betrayer in one of the 12 apostles. Jesus mentioned that there always will be false people in the Church until the end of times. Jesus gave the sternest warnings to those that hurt children. Jesus also said that the "gates of hell will not prevail" against the Church. I think that this gives me confidence and hope on who will be in triumph in the end and that is Jesus not Satan.

        • Karen May 29, 2016

          Don and Rob, I appreciate your replies about the spiritual warfare aspect of false teaching and abuse of authority. The conspiracy theory stuff that is out there is certainly a deep dark and very tortuous rabbit hole, and I'm equally cautious (especially now I've peered down certain parts of its labyrinths) about the vast amount of disinformation that is out there along with the information. I'm certainly not the type to go looking for demons under every rock, and I've seen plenty of abuses in this area like Don describes at the Institute and also of the charlatanism Rob describes. I was a member for a while of a Pentecostal denomination where excesses of this sort were more common than in more staid Evangelical churches, and I have a relative who is mentally ill (helped only by medication) from whom misguided and immature charismatic Christians tried to cast out demons (that weren't really there--my relative is and was a believer at the time). Yes, we all loved Mike Warnke. He is a fantastic story teller, and it's a shame he turned out to be a fraud. There are definitely some problems with Jess LaVey's testimony, but also a lot that to me seems very consistent with the abuse he describes. There's no question he is still adversely affected by his past and this affects his present-day testimony and the credibility of aspects of it--but at the same time validates it, if that makes sense.

          For my part, I also have the added factor that I have had first-hand acquaintance in the past with at least two very credible survivors, who had memories of satanic ritual abuse in childhood (which did not emerge until adulthood) and had, had some of those memories validated through medical examination and who were getting therapy through Christian counselors (and, thank God, substantial healing). One was raised in a Roman Catholic family and immediate family members were knowledgable and complicit in the abuse. The other was raised in a Fundamentalist Baptist church and extended family members were among the abusers (though, I do not remember if those extended family members were also members of the Fundamentalist Church). So, there's also that. . . .

          I don't know if you, Rob, have read it, but I recently read the book, The Rite. It is the account of an American Catholic priest, who was summoned to the Vatican to be trained by its exorcists after the Roman Catholic hierarchy realized with the recent rise of peoples' involvement in the occult in the West, that the U.S. needed more trained exorcists to meet the demands of demonized people coming through her doors for help. (I recommend reading the book, not watching the recent movie based on the book, which seriously "Hollywoodized" the account, such that the occult gets more credit and power than it deserves! Hollywood has demons killing some victims, whereas this did not happen in the book--rather the victims were eventually successfully delivered!) I have another Evangelical relative who recently overheard an Elder at his large very mainstream Evangelical church mention to someone how frequently the pastors and elders of that church are being confronted now with demonized people coming in for help and counseling, such that they were having to increasingly participate in deliverance ministry. Then there is the matter that it is a known fact that many of our nations' wealthiest people and top political leaders are members of secret societies like the Freemasons, Skull and Bones, etc., and have been bolder and bolder about their vision for a global government and a New World Order. A lot of this is a matter of public record today, though it wasn't always so overt. Nevertheless, I completely agree Jesus has the last word. He has won the victory. We are simply called to be wise as serpents, innocent as doves as we seek to be discerning and not inadvertently complicit with evil as the squirmishes play out in this world until Jesus returns. It was just on my mind as a possibility with the IFB scandal because of the things I had been reading. But that could just as easily have been no humanly initiated conspiracy, but just the devil doing the same stuff in temptation and lies that he does everywhere. Certainly, like you said, Rob, only a very small portion of present day (and past) occultism has been overt and internationally organized worship of Satan. Most of it is involvement in things like Wicca, astrology, yoga, Eastern meditation, and all the New Age and Theosophical stuff that is out there (that the relatives I mentioned are into).

        • rob war May 31, 2016

          Hi Karen and thank-you as always for your thoughtful response.
          Yes, I've heard of the book "The Rite". I am not sure if you are aware of this but each Catholic diocese in the world has or is suppose to have a specific priest assigned by the Bishop to do exorcisms . Like the book talks about, they are specifically trained for this kind of work, they are usually very quite holy men and this sort of ministry is not flaunted out in public for attention. I have no doubt the movie glamorized the book. I would suggest people not to take their ideas from such movies like The Rite or even the Exorcist but read actual Catholic documents and articles and even interviews that are out there about this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) has several warnings not involved oneself with the occult, astrology, contacting the dead, seances, ouija boards, tarot cards etc. Being a Mason is strictly forbidden and condemned as incompatible with one's Christian faith. This is also seconded by Orthodox Churches as well as more conservative Protestant groups. Joining a Masonic lodge will ex-communicate you. And yes, involvement with any of the above can and will open oneself up to demons.

          What I think happen with Bill is that he went well over and beyond items listed above and things (usually involving children's toys) were labeled as demonic. It is one thing to have a ouija board or even a magic 8 ball which are clearly occult items but Bill expanded this to cabbage patch dolls which has no know occult connections. While tarot cards are one thing, is the standard 52 playing card deck the occult? Bill was against all rock music but then he went after electric guitars. Now most rock bands use electric guitars does that mean electric guitars are evil in it of themselves? Like you, I've seen some pretty nutty things with Charismatics and "deliverance" type ministries. Many years ago, my husband and I traveled to the Grand Canyon and spent a day at the south rim. When back home, I was talking to a prayer group leader about our visit. She told me that her daughter went to Grand Canyon too but got a bad headache which she blamed on all the "Indian" stuff sold in the various gifts shops. I told her that I had no headache and enjoyed the visit. She then retorted to me that she and her daughter were very "sensitive" to evil spirits because of their "deliverance" ministries and I just wasn't sensitive enough. Now, the rim of the Grand Canyon is quite high up in elevation and I think the headache probably had more to do with that then Navajo jewelry being sold. But like Bill, this is all overboard. Bill also went after cultural native type of items. There is a big difference again in owning something that might be used in some ritual and having jewelry or pottery or other types of crafts that is just a symbol of another culture. I probably wouldn't own a dream catcher but I do have wonderful southwest jewelry, weavings and pottery made by Zuni and Navajos Native Americans. But that's the trick, understanding and discernment over blanket fear mongering.
          I think the fear mongering plays more into the devil's hands than possibly picking up a craft item at the rim of the Grand Canyon. Bill's ideas about different cultural crafts borders on the brink of racism in my opinion.

        • Don Rubottom May 31, 2016

          Karen, the social inbreeding of the Ivy League is many times more damaging than any smaller "Skull and Bones" conspiracy. I do not fear Skull and Bones at all. I do fear the elevation of such as Yale above we lesser categories of humanity.
          As for Freemasonry, its worst contribution in our age, from my perspective, is the confusion it imparts to its Christian members about the nature of Scripture, the Gospel and Christ's Works. It neuters many such men's capacity for the "works of ministry" as Ephesians calls the end of discipleship. But even that may not do as much damage as the fundamentalist legalism we have discussed here on Recovering Grace.
          Finally, I accept your declarations regarding your two acquaintances, but also point out the wave of "false memory" cases that counselors and pastors have ginned up in the past 40 years. Some of my acquaintances could not possibly have done what one of their children wildly accused them of. It can be manufactured by the counselor's leading questions such as: "some of my clients with problems like yours have been sexually or ritualistically abused by their parents. Has anything like that ever happened to you? Sometimes people suppress such difficult memories. Could you be suppressing such memories? Would you like for me to hypnotize you to bring out anything suppressed?" Similar suggestive methods are used by pastors who desire to separate people from their families in a cultish way. As a lawyer, I would not trust a "recovered" suppressed memory any more than a dream. This does not deny the truth of some claims, but the ability to prove something once suppressed. Corroboration is essential to prove such matters. When real abuses have happened, there is very often corroboration.

        • Karen June 1, 2016

          Thanks again, Don and Rob.

          As you point out there are errors in both directions (minimizing and exaggerating) as involves the work of the enemy, and he likes to take advantage of both in order to obscure and obfuscate the real snares he sets out there for us. The only way to avoid either is to pursue Christ with all one's heart (which involves casting ourselves on His mercy and grace and not relying on our own devices or human strength, all of which are futile for connecting us with God or resisting the enemy's snares). Then we will develop discernment as it is needed. There are so many ways to get things wrong, the best approach is to make ourselves students of the One Thing that is right, whole, and holy in every way: the completely faithful and merciful love of God shown us in Christ.

        • Karen June 1, 2016

          Thanks, Rob, for your comments about the Catholic Church's approach. I'm sure that was covered in the book I mentioned, which is non-fiction, of course. What I gleaned from the book is that (perhaps just as the Catholic Church has struggled in more recent times to recruit enough vocations to the priesthood in general to cover current needs) with the decline up until more recent times in overt occult involvement in the Christianized West, the number of exorcists being trained for posts in the West had also been allowed to lapse. The Rite recounts the Vatican's recent efforts to improve this situation in response to the needs being presented. I'm sure the Orthodox Church has similar goals and guidelines. I know those of her priests allowed to do exorcisms must meet strict requirements and operate in complete obedience to those, which include operating under the oversight of his Bishop (for his own safety and protection).

        • Don Rubottom June 2, 2016

          My "sola scriptura" commitment allows me this wisdom about exorcism: 1) It comes by "prayer and fasting", according to Jesus. 2) It comes by an abiding identity with Christ, according to the demons: "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?". 3) Apart from a filling of the Spirit, exorcism can end in even more demonic influence (the seven who moved into the "clean house" after one demon was cast out).
          For these reasons, I put more stock in spiritual oneness with Christ than in training. The "itinerant Jewish exorcists" in Acts 19 were apparently trained, but not abiding "in Christ" as was Paul.
          I also wonder if some demonic possession is not mistaken for mental illness in this "age of reason", naturalism and "science".

        • Karen June 2, 2016

          Don, it really depends on what you mean by "training." There are many accounts in my tradition also of simple faithful holy believers putting demons to flight--not just those priests so trained. Abiding in Christ is certainly crucial. My understanding is care of his own soul in this sense is a critical part of an exorcist's training. I have been taught as an Orthodox believer that prayer that is not united with one's entire way of life is not true prayer, does not unite one to God, and has no true power. It is also the teaching of my tradition that the quality the demons fear most in a believer is true humility because in its presence they completely lose their power over us. There are certainly fake exorcists and exorcisms, too. Today we have New Age ghost hunters and the like, who certainly have no true power over demons though they may perform all sorts of fancy rituals to "cleanse" evil spirits and "negative energies" from people, objects and places. The training an Orthodox priest undergoes (and likely Catholic as well) is based in what is taught in the Scriptures, of course, and also in the real-life experience of tried and tested skills of spiritual battle learned from generations of experience in the Church (much of which would likely be recognizable to any believer as an extension and reinforcement of things we all learn going through our own bouts of temptation and struggles to grow in Christ). Part of that training (and something touched on in my Abnormal Psychology class at Wheaton College, too) was learning ways to discern between mental illness requiring psychological and/or medical care, and demonic possession/oppression. People whose mental illness has psychological or physiological causes tend to respond favorably to counseling, emotional support, and appropriate medical treatment. Unless they have a history of negative experiences with religious contexts, they tend also to respond favorably to objects used in Christian worship and Christian symbols, offers of prayer, etc., and are often people of deep faith in Christ themselves. Those whose symptoms stem from occult involvement will not respond to medical and psychological treatment and will react very violently to Christian symbols, blessed objects, and prayer in the Name of Jesus, and they may have knowledge they could not have acquired in any human way, etc. Ministry to the demonized requires extraordinary Christian maturity/integrity, discernment, wisdom and accountability, but it's not rocket science.

      • huzandbuz May 24, 2016 Reply

        To rob war:
        Perhaps the plaintiffs would consider phoning:
        The American Center for Law and Justice.
        If they cannot offer legal help, maybe they could guide them via their advice.

        In 1993 I secured an attorney (in my state) by contacting their VA office for a referral. My legal counsel was phenomenal!!

        TRUST that my situation was dire!! My attempts to secure adequate representation on my own proved disastrous. My initial lawyer was as corrupt as the individual who filed charges against me!! (It is a long, ugly story.) Praise the Lord I was exonerated!! Without the devoted assistance of the ACLJ's legal expert, I shudder to think of the outcome. Enough said for now....

        • rob war May 24, 2016

          yes, I've know about them. It looks like HA site had some very good suggestions with experts on clergy sex abuse cases and SSB mentioned that lawyers have come forward to help. I think in the court of public opinion, at least on the internet, sympathy, prayers and well wishes are with the plaintiffs and not with BG and IBLP. I think that is why Alfred isn't jumping up and down on his blog and IBLP is silent. They may have "won" this little battle but like the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for" because whoever the plaintiffs do get, they going to come back bigger and stronger and take BG and IBLP to task and bring some justice for all.

        • Don Rubottom May 25, 2016

          I would not use ACLJ. Too many cross-relationships with Gothard type activities. ACLJ is good for religious liberty and pro-life activism, but "religious liberty" is on defense in this case, not with the plaintiffs.

  262. rob war May 23, 2016 Reply

    thanks Lindsey!

    • huzandbuz May 23, 2016 Reply

      To Don Rubottom:
      Any comments??

      I personally believed Gibbs III would be disqualified. Of course Gothard, the IBLP Board and dear Alfred must be ecstatic. Their 'discerning spirit' will determine that this is further proof that the plaintiffs do not really have a case. Yeh, right!! Perhaps Our Heavenly Father will burden the heart of the appropriate counsel to represent them 'pro bono'.. Wouldn't that be something....

      • Don Rubottom May 25, 2016 Reply

        One thing I "discern" in reviewing the Phelps matter discussed by HA and the judge's "letter" excluding DGIII is that all these people in "the business" have an excessive degree of incestuousness. Is Stancil's son a long time friend of DGIII? How would putting Gothard back into his position "help" the plaintiffs, DGIII's only admitted clients? I found it notable that, in light of the very long term relationship between BG and DGII and DGII's "internal investigation" in the current IBLP matter, no mention of DGIII's past role in CLA or in DGII's law practice was even raised. Why would Bill Gothard have ever talked to DGIII in May 2015 except that he was the son of DGII?
        The judge's letter is embarrassing as prose. Here it is:
        https://homeschoolersanonymous.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/iblpgothardopionletterdisqualifyingdavidgibbs05232016.pdf
        The excessive exclamation points!! and bad grammar (or editing) such as "to" for "too" and "confident" for "competent", plus calling DGIII "William" twice, makes one wonder why it took 2+ weeks to so sloppily draft these apparently unavoidable conclusions. To the Judge it was not a close call. I am not surprised but lack any information to have known whether it should have been close or not. Also, in the matter, DGIII seems to have represented himself--never a good idea!
        People make a big mistake finding a lawyer through shallow knowledge of public cases that "seem" similar. DGIII's changing sides in the church protection racket should give anyone pause. He may (or may not) be an excellent legal thinker and a valuable consultant on a case, but his past representation of an entire industry of secretive, unaccountable, authoritarian figures has long made me squeamish about his being a good public face for victims. It's almost like Hitler's assistant general counsel representing holocaust survivors. He offers more as an expert witness on the methods of deceivers than an advocate for victims. Our capacity to confuse political advocacy with legal advocacy is part of our problem. The best demagogue is rarely the best legal counselor. Many would rather draw attention to themselves than advance the interests of victims. Even more would rather "win" in a public fashion than find the truth or obtain a close approximation to justice.
        In this matter I am and have always been most desirous that the truth come to light. I think it is healthier for the church to know the truth and how to avoid repetitions (and clearly identify doctrinal error) than for any particular individual to get their comeuppance, retribution, compensation or a judgment in their behalf. Yes, I lack empathy. But practically speaking, in such messy matters it is often easier to get a pound of flesh in the form of a lucrative settlement than to get justice. Justice is illusive, particularly so in matters that are decades old an so entwined with personality, emotional damage, confusion, sincere doctrinal error and fear of God and fear of man. God will bring Justice, but rarely in our timeframes.
        When looking for a lawyer regarding such matters, do NOT resort to media stories, popular reputations, public self-promotion or even "past success". I recommend anyone to contact a lawyer you know and trust in general to help you locate and retain a lawyer of quality and skill for such a sensitive matter.
        In the present case, I fear that the lawsuit, as it stands, may be fatally prejudiced. From what the judge says, much of the notes and allegations developed by DGIII are tainted by his inappropriate conduct. Any new lawyer would be well advised to not read a single note of DGIII, to listen to the witnesses anew, and to build a case from scratch. It may also be necessary that the witnesses remain as unfamiliar as possible with DGIII's invalid information in order to keep the witnesses from being barred from testifying due to their being tainted by the illegally obtained information. For those of you old enough to remember the Iran-Contra affair during President Reagan's tenure, no one could be successfully prosecuted in criminal proceedings because the witnesses all watched days of televised Congressional testimony which was "immunized" (given under agreement it could not be used against the witnesses). Watching that testimony tainted everyone's subsequent recollections, voiding the convictions. If DGIII's clients have all read all his notes, part or all of their own testimony might be suppressed by Gothard's and IBLP's lawyers, greatly prejudicing the case.
        I would love to see the plaintiffs find competent counsel. They could inquire with the local Bar Association or the local Trial Lawyers association (now The American Association for Justice) for referrals to zealous, competent trial counsel. Such lawyers are most likely to gain a favorable settlement for their clients, if not justice and full disclosure of truth.
        What I would be personally delighted to see is plaintiffs approaching G.R.A.C.E. for a referral, and possibly the engagement of G.R.A.C.E. as an arbitrator. It may be that truth and justice could be found in a reconciliation process whereby plaintiffs waive any right to compensation in exchange for IBLP agreeing to fully cooperate in a comprehensive independent investigation and arbitration of all allegations as well as a fair review of doctrine and teachings by a competent, conservative, orthodox Bible-believing team of theologians.
        No victim has any duty to the rest of us to sacrifice her claims for the welfare of the rest of us. But neither should the rest of us expect any public finality in litigation that is likely to end in a settlement without any admissions of guilt. Paula Jones received a settlement in excess (I believe) of one million dollars but President Clinton never admitted to sexually harassing her. She got "justice" but the truth remains hidden behind the settlement such that the Clinton campaign in 2016 can claim that none of the allegations against BC have ever been "proven".
        That is how our civil justice system works. It is fraught with compromises, such as the suppression of real evidence developed by DGIII because he violated HIS professional obligations and victimized Gothard and IBLP in the process of obtaining the evidence. It is not "just". But it is the best that fallen humans can do. I certainly should NOT be looked to as our hope or the source of true Justice.

        • Don Rubottom May 25, 2016

          "It should not", rather than "I should not"!!! (sorry)

        • huzandbuz May 25, 2016

          Don, as you so aptly emphasized....

          "He may (or may not) be an excellent legal thinker and a valuable consultant on a case, but his past representation of an entire industry of secretive, unaccountable, authoritarian figures has long made me squeamish about his being a good public face for victims. It's almost like Hitler's assistant general counsel representing holocaust survivors. He offers more as an expert witness on the methods of deceivers than an advocate for victims."

          "It certainly should NOT be looked to as our hope or the source of true Justice". (Amen!!)

          We thank you, Don, for your valuable time and legal mindset. :+)

          Joshua 10:25

        • B Badger May 25, 2016

          Thank you also!

          "God will bring Justice, but rarely in our timeframes."

          Though the mills of God grind slowly; Yet they grind exceeding small.
          Though with patience stands He waiting, Yet with exactness grinds He all.
          - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
          (adapted from an ancient Greek proverb, and frequently used in the Reformation)

        • huzandbuz May 27, 2016

          I just finished reading 'The Fixer'. I am not shocked or even surprised just further disgusted by yet another deceiver.

          I trust that all of those individuals who are far more 'connected to social media' than I, fervently pass this most noteworthy article along to enable MILLIONS to read it.

          If it had not been for me 'happening upon' Recovering Grace, subsequent postings & links, I would still be clueless regarding all that I have become aware of. I had NO idea of the rampant sexual abuse that was taking place and continues to do so especially within the christian community!! And the coverups involving so-called christian attorneys....!!!! Beyond heart-wrenching!! God helps us!!!! :+(

  263. Larne Gabriel May 24, 2016 Reply

    Throughout the ruling Judge Popejoy talks of attorney David Gibbs III. In the last two paragraphs of the summation it says; "Therefore, it is the order of the Court that attorney William Gibbs, III shall be disqualified from his representation of the plaintiffs from this point forward." In the last paragraph he again mentions William Gibbs, III. So maybe William Gibbs, III can no longer represent the plaintiffs but David Gibb, III can :-)

    Or maybe the document needs to be corrected or it was an intentional Freudian Slip.

    • rob war May 24, 2016 Reply

      William Gibb III sounds like a scary creature to me.

      • Don Rubottom May 25, 2016 Reply

        WGIII sound triple scary!

  264. huzandbuz May 24, 2016 Reply

    I read that too and assumed it was an error as I could not make sense of it otherwise. Hmmmm....

  265. rob war May 25, 2016 Reply

    HA latest article by R.L. Stollar "The Fixer" is an incredible piece of research about G III and what seems to come across is that he looks have been the lawyer in the current law suit against BG and ILBP in order to derail it. His claim to Julie on SSB that he "broke" away from his father is a fabrication. I think that is what I hoped to be true and wanted to believe. The trail of defending abusers in IFB is just incredible. He really never left that group or it's mindset. It also make me wonder about his work with the Terri Schiavo case. I had followed it closely at the time listening to Catholic media and interviews with Terri's brother and Fr. Frank Pavone from Priests for Life. What always puzzled me about Terri Schiavo was that her marriage was in trouble and the signs of abuse were ignored when she was brought to the hospital when she "collapsed". The husband then starts to live with someone else and has 2 children with the other woman. I never understand why the husband who basically has abandon his wife, was abusive to her had such sway in saying she should starve to death. It seems like the Gibbs again botched the case because they would have had to bring out Terri's husband was abusive to her. From the interviews i remember at the time, the day she "collapsed", she got her hair cut against her husband's wishes and was discussing that with a girlfriend in a phone conversation and I think she indicated she might be seeking to leave her husband. I don't know why Terri's parents didn't push to have her marriage end or even have themselves declared guardians do to the abuse. It seems like the abuse of Terri by her husband came out too little too late to save her life. The husband's claim that Terri watched some TV show about severe handicaps and told him that "she never wanted to be like that" is all suspect considered the he probably was choking her over the hair cut which caused her to collapse due to lack of oxygen. And the Gibbs botched this case and a poor young woman, a victim of abuse was starved to death as the ultimate act of abuse.

    • Don Rubottom May 25, 2016 Reply

      It is just as likely that DGIII has seen the winds changed and tried to surf the new wave in favor of victims, albeit while trying to take inappropriate advantage of his former "friends". If he had ANY intent to screw his clients, they will have a bigger case against him than they do against Gothard.
      I am very familiar with the Schiavo case, independently reviewed of the matter on behalf of the Florida House Speaker. The Gibbses entered the case after Terri's family's personal lawyers had already failed to protect their interests in protecting her welfare. The fact is that by the time that the Gibbses, Jay Sekulow or the politicians got involved, the judiciary was already committed to Terri's demise under Florida doctrines favoring "substituted judgment" and a perverted notion that death can be in a non-suffering patient's "best interests". The trial judge made the decision to starve Terri, not her husband. The husband's lawyer is a euthanasia activist who got an award from the Florida Bar for his trail blazing in Terri's case. He cleverly knew what cases to present to the judge to get the judge to do their will. Jeb Bush, the Legislature and everyone else, including DGII and DGIII arrived too late. Once the courts take over your life in Florida, you are at their mercy alone. No one else can do a thing. The courts had already decided. Terri had no hope. Sadly.

      • rob war May 25, 2016 Reply

        thanks Don. I knew Terri's husband had an activist euthanasia lawyer that seemed to know what he was doing in this case. I'm just not sure why her parents didn't bring up or push on the abuse by him in the beginning. Yes, a judge did order her to be starved to death. I think Terri talked to her girlfriends about her troubled marriage and not her parents which might have played a role. While the situation was about care for severely handicapped and end of life issues, I always felt at the heart of it, this was a case about spousal abuse and it is curious why the Gibbs as fundamentalists took on a case for a devout Catholic family which involved spousal abuse as well as the other issues mentioned above.

      • DAVID PIGG May 26, 2016 Reply

        Mal.3:15"And now we call the arrogant blessed.Evildoers not only prosper,but they put God to the test and they escape".Don't think for one minute that the relevance of this verse to the ruling Gothard and his adherrants seek does not involve using the maxims of his natural religion,and evil psyche, to contrive how he wants to spring the jaws of justice open,slap God in His Face and torment the victims'dignity,validity,and meaningful existence outside his tarnishing controlling ball and chain enslavement. I considered GibbsIII,empathetic,compassionate,but I believe I am wrong.AS Don has written and I must acknowledge,there's money,power,ego,and perhaps ethics.All in summation point to disqualification.Could this passage,and I hate to think of it also apply to DGIII?

  266. rob war May 25, 2016 Reply

    Another question Don and it refers back to your example of the Iran/contra hearings. I think the current law suit is requesting a trial by jury. But is that possible with some of the plaintiffs having previously publishing their stories on line as well as possible jurists having attended Bill's conferences in the past and having a favorable view of his teachings? Wouldn't it be nearly impossible to find a jury that has not been previously prejudice by either one or the other?

    • Don Rubottom May 26, 2016 Reply

      Over 300 million Americans have never been to an Institute Seminar. Only a few thousand have even heard these stories of harassment and abuse. OUR own world is full of people with knowledge, rumors and opinions. But our world is quite small compared to the jury pool in Illinois. There are probably more locals who think IBLP is a cult than who think it is good. Neighbors often don't like big secretive institutions nearby! The Oklahoma City bomber, McVeigh got a fair jury. This case is no problem.

      • huzandbuz May 26, 2016 Reply

        To Don:

        I read your text from today, May 26th, several times.
        How incredibly profound and encouraging as well!!
        It all makes sense....:+) Thank YOU!!

        Blessings....^i^

      • Karen May 26, 2016 Reply

        Yes, Gothard's Institute is really small potatoes. It's really not on the radar for many Evangelicals even, never mind the wider population in this area and in general. There are plenty of other more visible cults and abusive groups (including the IFBs). Among those most familiar with it (long-time movers and shakers in major Evangelical institutions like Wheaton College and major Christian publishing groups in this area, etc.,), it had a reputation for having become very cult-like even way back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

  267. Lisa May 26, 2016 Reply

    Please, as an outsider, I beg you to seek competent counsel without reference to the counsel's religious affiliations or lack thereof. There are many non-Christian lawyers with high ethical principles. Just look at those who work tirelessly for the Innocence Project, for instance. Professed Christian beliefs are not a guarantee of anything. The lawyers who took down Sanduskey and those working against Bill Cosby, those representing victims of Catholic priests... who knows what their religious beliefs are? They are persons of character and skill.

    • Don Rubottom May 27, 2016 Reply

      Do not put the Innocence Project "lawyers" on one side of a line and Bill Cosby on another. I know you are talking about the private lawyers who went after Cosby, but the same criminal system now prosecuting Cosby also prosecuted any innocent people (not many) who are the proper objects of the Innocence Project's efforts. The sad fact is the Innocence Project is seeking perfect process (to the enrichment of lawyers) and a form of penance for the legal profession that locked up all these people. But many of their clients are inarguably guilty, cold-blooded murderers. They don't care about innocence. Only about their own self-righteous sentiments. In one case here in Florida they RESISTED !for years! DNA testing that ultimately exonerated their client...because they honestly believe most of their clients to be guilty!

      • horse June 7, 2016 Reply

        There are a lot of claims here regarding lack of integrity in The Innocence Project and the idea that they honestly believe most of their clients to be guilty. These are very bold assertions. Do you have any citations to support each of the claims in your post?

        Also, what do you mean that they are seeking a perfect process?

        • Don Rubottom June 9, 2016

          "many" is not "most". I choose not to supply citations to individual cases. I would encourage you to use the internet whereby you can easily find careful analysis of many cases of guilty people whose death sentences are challenged and reversed on mere technicalities. "Innocence project" does not seek to find and prove innocence, but to find an challenge less than perfect convictions.
          What I mean by a perfect process is a process that has not one mistake, not one possibility of acquittal unexplored fully, not one prejudicial thought occurs to the mind of any law enforcement or prosecuting authority and where any and every mistake by a defense lawyer, however slight, is remedied by a new trial.
          In illustration of my concerns, I will cite one murderer recently executed in Florida. He brutally murdered three separate women in three separate sets of circumstances. In each one, he was tried three separate times, 4 times for one, because the Florida Supreme Court is the leading advocate of perfection in death cases, Innocence Project being a cheap imitator of Florida's jurisprudential excesses. TEN separate juries recommended death. It only took 30 years. Perfection, however is unattainable. Its pursuit is delusional.
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3386645/Florida-man-killed-3-women-scheduled-execution.html (says Bolin was tried and sentenced to death 10 times in the 3 cases)
          http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bolin-oscar.htm (a concise summary of his history up through 7 trials) (Please not the reference to the 3 victims' mothers sitting with each other through each and every trial. This is torture perpetrated by the judicial system.
          This is more than I wanted to write on the subject. This is not the place for a complete analysis of modern jurisprudential nonsense. I simply wanted to point out that prosecutions like Cosby's are conducted by the same system that the Innocence Project reflexively questions.
          Courts are not places of perfect justice. They are merely places where a community of imperfect human beings attempt to find an approximation of justice in order to END disputes and avoid perpetual conflict and violence.

        • huzandbuz June 10, 2016

          To Don:

          "Innocence project" does not seek to find and prove innocence, but to find an challenge less than perfect convictions. What I mean by a perfect process is a process that has not one mistake, not one possibility of acquittal unexplored fully, not one prejudicial thought occurs to the mind of any law enforcement or prosecuting authority and where any and every mistake by a defense lawyer, however slight, is remedied by a new trial.

          How enlightening!! Thank you for defining the purpose of the 'Innocence Project'.

          (OMG!! I read the info provided via the link.)

        • Don Rubottom June 10, 2016

          I cannot speak for I.P. I acknowledge my description is a caricature from a critical perspective.

        • huzandbuz June 10, 2016

          Don:

          Understood & Acknowledged. :+)

  268. nicole gardner May 28, 2016 Reply

    I read "The Fixer" on Homeschoolers Anonymous & agree with the common sentiment here about G3. Although it makes me very sad to have to admit he really doesn't have a decent track record of fighting for justice in abuse cases. I agree with him that the state needs to let parents raise their children & that nobody should go to jail for SPANKING a child that they have charge of. But he seems blind to the abuses of religious institutions in his getting them free of having to have state licensure. Also his treatment of Anderson just by representing Phelps!!!! That was just gross on his part. Maybe he was right to represent the mother of this woman, but PHELPS?!?!? Phelps should have gone to jail for that right along with Willis.

    What article bothers me even worse is the part found if you scroll down to the heading saying Suarez teenager molests Igarashi boy. G3's conduct regarding this felony abuse case, if G3 acted as aledged, is atrocious.

    https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2014/10/08/
    when-homeschool-leaders-looked-away-the-old-
    schoolhouse-cover-up/

  269. LynnCD June 1, 2016 Reply

    The public side of Gretchen W.'s fb account stated they had new legal representation as of May 27, and that she felt upbeat about going forward.

    I don't know if this has already been stated. My apologies if it has.

    • DAVID PIGG June 2, 2016 Reply

      I am praying;I have prayed,and will pray.This explanation of what the attorney,DG3 has done to misrepresent underlying motives,of pretending to reinstate Gothard,while attaining evidence against IBLP is playing into deceptions that sink down into the abyss of Gothard's own tactics.Its been said so many times"How can DG3 even feint at using the ruse of this potential enticing;for replaying haunting scenes 20 years ago,some sooner,some fairly recent,if indeed his ploy is empowered as potential reality? On Homeschoolers Anonymous there were supporters of Mr.Gothard; trying to say the testimonies of the girls were always false and to some effect,this more or less "proves it".These comments were thankfully never published.The momentum of lies carrying with it the devinations of a wicked tyrant,ready for the ongoing abuse,now so familiar to so many, ready to be served again to as many hapless,and helpless,under different labels,a few cosmetic changes,processed,ready,well planned.[To exploit.]After all they are mere women,needing only the patriarchal authority he has always offered.Patriarchal authority so grievously misunderstood. May God Himself show His Right Arm in the midst of all this darkness.Oh by the way maybe DG3 ought to be disbarred.

  270. Pegasister June 12, 2016 Reply

    I just posted this on Covering Disgrace. I doubt it will actually be posted so I've reproduced it here.

    “When it was time for Him to suffer, then He COULD have cried out . . . and had 12 Legions of angels immediately protecting Him . . . but He declined.”

    Interesting that you would say this, Moderator. Elsewhere on this website you, or another member of the moderating team, have used Christ’s example as an example of the need to cry out. You say He cried out for help on the cross. Problems with that aside, now you claim He “declined” to cry out? You can’t have it both ways and prove either point you were trying to make here. Plus, by your logic, if Jesus really didn’t cry out, then He carries part of the blame for what happened to Him. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before but I can’t do that now. You wonder why so many people call Bill’s teachings unbiblical? How about blatant contradictions like this one, or the logical conclusions that many of these teachings lead to?

    @Rob War Help me out if you’re willing. I’m pretty sure you saw the initial conversation I’m referring to.

    • rob war June 12, 2016 Reply

      Yes I did and you are exactly spot on here. Alfred was trying to make a case that if a potential rape victim didn't "cry out", then God is not obligated to supernaturally rescue them. Then Alfred tried to justify this with different verses about "crying out" or verbalizing one's salvation. The problem is that Alfred logic is horrific to begin with. He is using classic "name it/claim it" ideas here. Then he states that why believe in a God that doesn't "keep His promises". One's faith should never be dependent on what one thinks are so called "promises". One believes and trusts God because he is God. It's that simple. As others pointed out to Alfred over there, not everyone can "talk", not everyone especially children and those mentally challenged can "cry out" as Alfred claims they should. Just as the recent rape conviction of that college student that assaulted a passed out girl behind a dumpster, she couldn't "cry out". People have been gagged and knocked out many times before being sexually assaulted so they can't cry out either. Alfred is grasping at straws here and trying to justify Bill's teaching. It doesn't work. It is cut and paste WoF garbage and it sets up those that follow it for major faith failures because they are lead to believe false things about God. They put God in a box in that if you do X then God will always do Y in response. God is not a formula, He is God. God is not some candy machine and if you put in right coins in the right order, then pesto, God will do it. Alfred can quote all the Bible verses he wants about calling out and crying out but none of them are about prevention of assault and I think God is much bigger than this and I don't think even someone has to "verbalize" or talk or cry out etc to even be saved. I hope this is what you are looking for.

      • Pegasister June 13, 2016 Reply

        Thanks, yeah, that helps. I learned a while back that the internet is no place to have an intelligent conversation (most of the time anyway, this website being the exception :) ). But sometimes I just have to say something, and this was one of those times. I think it might be a good idea for you to tell Alfred what you've told me, unless you feel you've cast enough pearls before swine for a while.

        • rob war June 13, 2016

          Alfred checks this blog everyday.

        • rob war June 13, 2016

          There is nothing wrong in challenging Alfred on what he is putting out there on his blog. In fact, challenges is pretty much all he gets, he basically doesn't get the supportive atta boy type of responses unless you want to count brother David K. Either he really is a lone wolf die hard supporter that the other die hard supporters don't want to be with or there is so little real support left for Bill that anyone with half a brain knows better than to go on the internet and promote Bill and his teaching even if they agree with it (secretly). I did think that I would see more support posts there, but that's not the case. I'm even a little surprised because here is a perfect opportunity for all of the "i love Bill" types to jump in and talk about how great Bill is. They haven't come forward at all. So either there are about 100 left in this world or the true die hard supports want nothing to with Alfred.

      • Pegasister June 13, 2016 Reply

        Miraculously, my comment did go up and the Moderator told me that apparently his reference to Christ's crying out was in the Garden of Gethsemane, not on the cross. So He was heard in the garden but because it was better for Him to suffer, God chose not to deliver Him. Of course, this answer really doesn't negate my point and if anything makes the whole situation worse. So if God had a purpose for Christ's suffering, and His ultimate deliverance from death was the resurrection...how can he claim from this example that everyone who audibly cries out to God will be saved from assault? If God in His omniscience didn't even spare His Son, because He knew he could bring good out of what man meant for evil, why should Alfred's attitude toward abuse be any different? I'm not advocating Bill's "mighty in spirit" nonsense, just trying to highlight logical inconsistencies here. Of course Alfred does a beautiful job of that without anyone's help.

        • rob war June 14, 2016

          Alfred has backed himself into a corner and is now trying to wiggle out of his own failed reasoning. If one looks at honest statistics about sexual assault, an extremely high about ( I think it may be 70-80% but don't quote me) are between people that already know each other and have some kind of relationship (teacher/student, family, extended family, pastor/congregant, coach/athlete etc). So usually there is already a trusting relationship and the victim is alone with someone they trust and do not have a chance to "cry out". The trusting relationship is taken advantage of. Alfred failed reasoning opens the door to all sorts of other problems because his ideas just don't stop with sexual assault and he created a false promise based a a couple of verses taken out of context. One of Jesus temptations by the devil was to jump off of a building and the devil quoted Psalm 91 to Jesus. It isn't a matter of whether you or I believe in angels, divine rescue and intervention. It is about being realistic about all these things. If Alfred proposed justification that if one "cries out", God is going to send in a legend of angels to the rescue, then why don't we see more of this sort of thing happening all over the world? You don't think the Christians currently being killed in the middle east are not 'crying out"? You don't think the early Christians being feed to lions didn't "cry out"?
          When I was in JH, I walked to school (about a half mile) through a sparse area. One morning, I realized that I was started to be followed slowly by a man in a car. In order to get away from him, I ran to the nearest house that had lights on and stood on the front porch ready to ring the bell for help. The man stopped and watched me for about 5-10 minutes before slowly driving off. When he was gone, I ran as fast as I could to school with my heart pounding scared out of my mind. I didn't "cry out" or scream but used my common sense to get away. If you have spend any time reading about crime prevention, there can be some simple things people can do to try and help themselves from being victims. None of these suggestions are fool proof but tools. But they are a whole lot better than being lead to believe that all one has to do is "cry out" and God will send angels to the rescue. That is a false promise and assurance. I do know that one of the suggestions about what to do if being attacked is to scream and make noise to scare off the attacker or get help. So Alfred's claim of "crying out" fits that to an extent, but that doesn't bring on the angels, it brings one others that hopefully can help. But again, that isn't fool proof either. The famous case of Kitty who was stabbed to death and her screams were heard by her neighbors. No one came in her situation.

          The other part of this that Bill and now Alfred allude to is about God's providence in these matters. So if something really bad happens to you, then since God didn't prevent it, it must be God's will for you to be raped or harmed or hurt in order to teach you some kind of lesson. This is hyper-Calvinism at it's worst because it makes God the author of evil. The other part is that God is punishing you for something. You are to blame for bad things that happen to you. Bill and Alfred have put themselves with Job's friends, telling Job he needed to confess his sins and that God is punishing him. Jesus also spoke to this in Luke 13 when He was being told about different disasters that had befallen others. Jesus response was "do you think they were more guilty than others? By no means". All of this is pretty sick and evil. It twists the Bible into saying things the Bible does not. It makes the Bible out to be some kind of magic potion in that if one just quotes it long enough and hard enough, then God is going to do your beckoning and if not you are to blame or it's God's will for you or you had a negative confession or you had doubt or you are sinful or you need just to "thank God" (Alfred's current sick response). No wonder people that follow this junk lose their faith in God because they believed in the wrong God to begin with.

    • Karen June 12, 2016 Reply

      Wow, sisters! What you describe of Alfred's (BG's) reasoning is sheer devilish lunacy! From my perspective, getting the spotlight on this nonsense in a court of law can't come soon enough. Enough is enough already! I'm praying for that new lawyer on the case and for all the plaintiffs.

  271. nicole gardner June 13, 2016 Reply

    And Alfred says that if a victim doesn't cry out, calling on the Lord- as they're being victimized- it means they're not saved, either. So, a rape victim's salvation is "tested" by rape &, if they don't prevent their own rape, then they automatically go to hell, to boot. But then he complains that the cost of bringing rapists to justice is too high in the civil cases mentioned in the Bible. It's like, "Okay, just have the rape victim go to hell, for convenience sake. Because society at large shouldn't have to deal with rapists; THIS would have too serious of consequences." I think Gothard's emphasis on earthly "blessings" has tripped Alfred's mind into not even knowing how serious eternal destiny is by comparison. Even his saying all rape victims will go to hell is like he thinks that's just a trickle-down effect from their horrible experience here on earth. He needs to realize that, as far as behavior goes, going to either hell or heaven is the main deal & that it's having one of these 2 destinies that trickles down into each of our earthly lives. Then he might get it that the concept of free will concerns rapists just as much as it concerns anyone else. Rather than strangely claiming that the exercise of free will is isolated unto the captive(s) of (a) rapist(s) while they're being assaulted.

    @Rob War, thank you for your logic & observations, both here & over there.

    • Karen June 13, 2016 Reply

      Nicole, this would go right along with Rob's observations that the BG/Alfred logic is the same as WoF beliefs, but what you describe of Alfred's logic here is indistinguishable from that of all occult belief systems. I think Don Rubottom has rightly dubbed it man's "natural religion." It's tragically ironic that this is being justified by what amounts to a completely anti-Christ, anti-gospel hermeneutic of the Christian Bible.

    • Don Rubottom June 14, 2016 Reply

      Crying out was so abused by BG. Just think about it. If crying out was for God to act and prevent, was God not in the country but only in town? (Deut 23:25) As a lawyer I see clearly that "crying out" in Deut 23 (applicable to betrothed virgins) was an evidence rule to prevent false accusations AND discourage unfaithfulness by a betrothed young woman. It was not a preventative. It's lack does not exonerate the male, but if he is innocent, it surely protects him from punishment. It's like modern rules that ensure that "10 guilty go free before one innocent" is convicted and punished. That's all it is.
      It was a means to limit the cycle of violence. Consider that, apart from a betrothal, if sexual relations are consensual (or thought to be) the punishment was "marriage" subject to the protection that the girl's dad could forbid it (the boy paying a bride price but not being executed). The only time consensual relations were punishable was when one was betrothed. Our translations use "rape" in a conservative social sense that all non-marital sex is "rape". For heartless men like BG and other legalists to read these passages as anything but protecting people from excessive anger and punishment is to put their own evil views into God's mouth. It's like "eye for eye": a limitation on human vengeance.
      In the broader biblical context, it appears that God hears those who cry out because He is just and compassionate, not because they are righteous! But for BG, crying out proves righteousness. And God's failure to act indicates that he is cold and heartless, but the one who checked the box of crying out is assured (by BG) that God wants them to be victimized for their own sanctification. Creepy.

    • David June 14, 2016 Reply

      Gee.....so if Alfred is correct (i.e., Bill is correct) then in the history of the world there has never once been a Christian person under attack who has cried out and not been delivered? Right? I mean, either God delivers ALL the time, or He doesn't deliver ALL the time. These kinds of reasoning from Bill Gothard and his fanboy Alfred are so utterly and completely ridiculous that they are embarrassing. I used to listen and read some of Bill's interpretations of scripture and absolutely CRINGE because they were so completely stupid, let alone ungodly.

      • Larne Gabriel June 14, 2016 Reply

        So I am wondering why Bill's crying out didn't stop the onset of stories in early 2014 which lead to his being placed on administrative leave then resignation. Or why his crying out hasn't got him reinstated by the board.

        I have given up on Alfred as I believe God has put scales over his eyes and hardened his heart to the truth. He still brings up Ruth’s name and tries to quote her from obscure or unreliable sources. This is what Bill has done for years, using out of context conversations or documents to support his sins, and Alfred has adopted his practice.

        We have all done our part and in the end God will be the final and truthful judge regardless of what the outcome of the lawsuit. That does not mean that we need to stop proclaiming the truth, as God leads us, and to be good shepherds to the flock and warn them of evil.

        • nicole gardner June 14, 2016

          @Larne,
          I am most sorry for saying things that spark Alfred's (Bill's) lame attempts to slander Ruth.
          We all know that Bill Gothard persisted even more in his knocking on Ruth's room door even than he did to the other women because of the fact that SHE never opened it. His coming calling to solicit hugs from women already in their nightwear wasn't him being "given" an opportunity to "take advantage of" ANY ONE of his victims. Least of all Ruth, who wouldn't give him the opportunity to take advantage as he frequently demanded & also piggishly did to other women.
          As for Ruth's crying out for help in her attempt to prevent the assaults, she not only did so even though not obligated by betrothal; she did this in the wake of having been cruelly used as a status symbol by way of Bill posing in a role as her fiance. One might say she wasn't merely in a state of "neutrality-to-betrothal" -as compared to the state of being betrothed- but rather that that she was MINUS a betrothal, having been defrauded by Bill's being a player. At ground level, an NON-engaged person is innocent for not "crying out"; it says nothing about someone whose UN-engagement put them into negative balance by this defrauding done by one posing an engagement with them. Yet she went above & beyond the standards of Moses' Law & she did indeed fulfill all the requirement of an ENGAGED girl. Alfred admitted it over there in relating that Bill's response was to tell her to give up everything so as to rescue herself; SHE was told to give up everything so that her harasser/assaulter could KEEP all the same things she was told to give up: career, home, socio-economic status. When Leviticus 22 has laid responsibility on all HEARERS of objections to sexual assault (such as the objection she made in the form of appeal to a higher authority for help), it is really disturbing to see God's stated mode for preventing of it meet with failure in conjunction with Bill having thwarted God's design. Especially since Ruth went above & beyond what the Bible says in attaining to a higher standard than the Bible delineates. It's very sad that God's grace working through her did not accomplish the work that the Bible makes clear that Bill, if even nominally righteous, would have basically completed by fulfilling God's ordinance in Leviticus 22.

        • Larne Gabriel June 14, 2016

          Thanks but no apology necessary. The issue is Alfred and his reliance on Bill. He knows the facts but chooses to believe the Bill's. He like all of us will have to answer before the Holy God for each action and each word. I know the truth, lived the story and saw and experienced the heartache he caused.

          Alfred's June 13th DG statement, from somebody, is unfamiliar to me: "Concerning Bill, she told me that if she were put on a witness stand she would have to testify for Bill. She mentioned that she had given Bill plenty of opportunities to take advantage of her, but he would only treat her in a fatherly way." I would only be a guess who she is and obliviously didn't know Ruth very well at least after 1980. It is probably someone who Bill is manipulating. There are other statements Alfred's is aware of but does not post because they validate "Ruth's Story" on RG.

          Alfred has to have the last work or the last email in every conversation and he speaks from a condescending position, I have told him that. He gets that from Bill. The difference between Alfred and Bill is I believe Alfred has a good heart but is just blinded by his loyalty to Bill.

        • Elizabeth D June 15, 2016

          Just a comment - As I *think* I recall (but am not sure where to locate it), Alfred told you, Larne, that he would refrain from representing Ruth. Yet when he was recently called on this over at the Disgrace site, he said he never said such a thing. I could be mistaken, or he can just be pulling another Bill. So aggravating, yet so predictable.

    • Pegasister June 14, 2016 Reply

      So now over on Covering Disgrace, apparently anytime a Christian is murdered, it's martyrdom for God's glory. No matter whether he was targeted for his faith (the very definition of martyrdom) or just was mowed down because he was, you know, there. But Christians aren't supposed to be killed, raped, etc. anyway because if you were really saved, you'd cry out to God and He'd rescue you every single time. Anyone who ends up dead or violated is a horrible sinner because they failed to cry out, or didn't cry out quick enough or loud enough, or couldn't (you know, because they were gagged or unconscious). Their refusal (or inability, apparently) to scream for help demonstrates that they either wanted it, or they aren't saved because they didn't trust God to completely save them every time. And yet Alfred can quote Hebrews and say that the people who did scream and weren't immediately delivered suffered for God's glory, and thus it was God's will and the victims will be rewarded? This is convoluted enough, but I've not yet heard an explanation of how anyone apart from God can tell the difference. How can anyone say that Sue's cries to God were insincere or whatever and that's why she was raped, but Mary's cries to God weren't acted on because she was suffering for Christ? (Before anyone asks, these are hypothetical ladies.) Unless it's obvious that one victim was targeted for her faith, how can anyone know for sure?

      • rob war June 15, 2016 Reply

        Yes, you are looking at what years of following heretical teaching will do to you, melt your reasoning and thinking to the point of totally lunacy. In many ways I feel very sorry for Alfred, he is so caught up emotionally with Bill that he can't or won't break free because that would be like loosing his father all over again. His blind loyalty has given Alfred access to Bill. I do pray for him because it's going to almost take a St. Paul like conversion experience for him to be free. He was raised in Fundamentalist Plymouth Brethren which is also on the edge. I think the combo of that and Bill is what we see today. Alfred is really a very intelligent man, he has two math degrees. But he comes up with total lunatic thinking and reasoning as you can see. The best thing is to challenge him when able on his blog and pray for him. I've read enough conversion stories from people that one would think would never convert, people do caught up in sin, atheists, and even those caught up in heresies, so I guess I'm someone that has this hope and I think that there is no one beyond the reach of God.

        • Karen June 15, 2016

          ". . . He was raised Fundamental Plymouth Brethren . . . "

          Well, here's something that creeps me out a bit, Rob. In my research into occultism recently, I learned the most infamous satanist in the modern era, Alistair Crowley, was raised in a wealthy fundamentalist Plymouth Brethen home. Now, there's a cautionary tale about what can happen when legalism supplants love and faith!

        • rob war June 16, 2016

          In reference to Crowley and at least giving myself a cash course on his life, it seems like there were two major traumas in his life, the loss of a baby sister and the death of his father at age 11. He was sent away to boarding school at age 8 and it sounded like a school from hell where the head of it was pretty sadistic and cruel. He also had a poor relationship with his mother and it was pointed out by biographers the poor relationship with this mother contributed to his poor view of women. So I would guess the combo of traumatic loss of his father, poor relationship with mom, a rigid toxic fundamentalism which probably put the dad's death as "God's will" most likely lead him down the road to occultism and immorality. When one buys into a fixated type of rigid predestination, the kind that Alfred seems to believe via Bill and Plymouth Brethren, God is put in a terrible light and makes God the author of evil. This doesn't help a person in dealing with traumatic losses so one either rejects God altogether or one falls into occultism which seems to be the rout Crowley took. Sometimes I think people get mixed up with the occult because it promises power and answers to their hurt and pain. Of course you and I know the occult is not the answer at all but if someone is hungry and hurting and their Christian faith as they know it or been taught it doesn't help or make things worst, then that door is open. Crowley became a totally immoral evil man and rejected God. I think that is the lesson I would take from rereading about him. Growing up, a couple of block from where we lived, there was a woman that suffered from some kind of mental illness. I'm not sure how my mom got to know her but this woman eventually became afraid to leave her home. I think my mom felt sorry for her. This neighbor also became heavily involved with astrology and the occult. I don't know what eventually happen to her (moved or passed away) but the lesson I learned from it is to have compassion on such people and that they end up in the occult to have some kind of control or power over their lives. Of course it is the wrong answer to hurt, pain, loneliness etc. I think my mom tried to reach out as a neighbor and friend in calling and talking to her once and while. I think that should be all our focus in reaching out to those such as this old neighbor, compassion and hopefully compassion shown will be the start to help someone leave their involvement with the occult.

        • Karen June 16, 2016

          Rob, I have read boarding schools for the elite in Great Britain have a reputation for a culture of abuse (including sexual) of the younger by the older and of students by some their masters and teachers. (There's a reason for Pink Floyd's song, "We don't need no education.") As problematic as the legalism of Plymouth Brethren might have been, it's obviously not enough of an explanation for Crowley's occultism, and I'm sure the observations you make here are spot on. I spent a good portion of grade school and my junior high years in British public schools. At both schools I attended, the headmaster, even that recently (late 60s, early 70s) and in public schools for the common folks, delighted in intimidating students and especially the boys, and there was still corporal punishment, which was quite frequent for certain of the boys. In 5th grade, my older sister witnessed the headmaster who was teaching the class she was in throw one of the boys in a fit of temper across a desk and onto the floor.

        • rob war June 16, 2016

          Karen,
          those boarding schools just sound horrific. I can only imagine for your sister to witness such abuse to be very traumatizing in it of itself . I remember in 1st grade (in the 1960s) before corporal punishment was removed from public schools watching a friend get his hand smacked hard by a ruler from the teacher just for talking to me and just feeling sick from it. I would guess that Crowley's immorality which included bi-sexuality could have come from being abused himself sexually at one of the boarding schools. The big mouth atheist Richard Dawkins himself went to such a school and he talks about being sexually touched by an art teacher that made boys sit in his lap in order to stick his hands down their pants. Dawkins now passes it off but it is such types of sexual abuse like Bill Gothard on innocent children that sets them up to go down a path away from God. Jesus toughest words was towards those that harm children, "it is better to have a mill stone hung around your neck and thrown into the sea". This is recorded in all three synoptic Gospels. People who abuse children to the point that the children will end up rejecting God will answer to God for this and for Bill, that millstone is coming.

      • nicole gardner June 15, 2016 Reply

        I'll bet thinks he's never going to die, period. That's probly the only thing that keeps him from drinking the Kool-Aid. (Why bother? He's invincible & besides, the one he follows is here on earth just a phone call away). Each time I think he's reached the enth-degree in following that cult leader, there's yet another symptom showing the severity of Gothard-syndrome. When is he ever going to learn that life isn't broken down into one of just 2 views of God: (A) God is a gumball machine or, (B) God wants you raped.

        I just posted this over there:

        "You see so much moral significance in crying out, & indeed it is presumed that one hearing an assault victim crying out would at least testify to having heard this, even if not able to come to her defense due to their own fear. Given your emphasis placed here in this medium (DG), it's kind of ironic that you've (in the past) used this same medium to negate what Lev. 22 says about such a hearer being counted on BY GOD HIMSELF to testify accurately as to what they heard or did not hear. The bulk of recorded evidence proves to any thinking person that Ruth let Bill know she was being sexually assaulted by his brother/subordinate. Maybe Bill was, for some reason, unable to save her in response to this cry for help. But to not give whatever this reason was, but instead lying about what he'd heard firsthand, is not only AGAINST the due course of the Law; it usurps God's clear intent in specifying the whole course of His expectations in Lev. 22."

        As to Gothard's blame-the-victim rape teaching that started circa 1982; this has less to do with upholding people "to a higher standard" (due to God's standards branded as "too low") & has everything to do with Gothard's conduct concerning sexual assault being well below God's standards (in spite of however low he discounts Lev. 22 standards as being).

      • nicole gardner June 15, 2016 Reply

        Your logic is very solid, yay there sister! I appreciate this sanity afforded by you & others in riding the bat-mobile over there. The reason Alfred is desperate to differentiate between a Christian who cries for help in facing sexual assault (Mary) from a Christian who cries for help in facing sexual assault (Sue) is because there is no difference in them/their cries. The only difference is in who it is that heard such cry (Ruth's): a difference established by Bill Gothard versus most other professing Christians as well as every employer everywhere in western civilization.

        • Pegasister June 15, 2016

          I just realized I inadvertently used a variant on "Mary Sue" LOL. That's what happens when an author has been awake too long, ladies and gentlemen.

          I appreciate your support Nicole. Mom wonders why I keep going back to websites like this one or DG and I think I mainly just want to understand the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind all of this. Case in point: until Alfred told me he believes every Christian suffering is a martyr, I couldn't understand why he kept quoting the Hebrews verses in that context. Now I know. Of course I still disagree but now I have a more deep-rooted assumption to factor in. Getting to the foundation of an argument is very, very important and helpful.

    • rob war June 14, 2016 Reply

      thank-you Nicole for your kind words.

  272. nicole gardner June 13, 2016 Reply

    Don Rubottom you're being prayed for concerning this tragedy in your home state. May God bless & keep you & your's.

    • rob war June 13, 2016 Reply

      Amen, prayers offered for all the victims and their families and the first responders as well.

    • Don Rubottom June 14, 2016 Reply

      Thank you. I cannot even comprehend it. And the politicization of every aspect is deeply grievous. I was in OKC when the bombing occurred. When this many people are killed and injured, the impact is on hundreds of lives: neighbors, co-workers, family, family's neighbors, etc. Pray for all. Pray for comfort for the grieving. Pray for peace in our cities. Pray for God to show Himself and His Grace to all who will see.

  273. David June 16, 2016 Reply

    Is there some sort of existing gag order on RG regarding news and updates on the progress of the lawsuit? Because this thread stretches back now 6 months without so much as a whisper from the RG team on new developments.

    • rob war June 16, 2016 Reply

      I am guessing myself here but on behalf of the RG team, I think that they have been threaten with possible lawsuits from Bill Gothard himself. So updates etc mostly likely can't be posted from the RG team due to this potential. HomeSchoolers Anonymous blog has been able to post accurate updates about what has been going on with the lawsuit so I would look there. Pray for the RG team here because none of this would have happen but for a few brave ATI students willing to get together and be honest and talk about Bill and his teaching and behavior and how it has affected thousands. This has been done at a great risk to themselves and their families. For many of them, the ATI world was all they ever knew, that was their circle and family so starting this blog took a lot of bravery on their part. Again pray for the RG team.

      • David June 16, 2016 Reply

        "This has been done at a great risk to themselves and their families."

        That speaks volumes about a ministry, and the leaders and staff who are supposedly "fellow believers". Sounds more like challenging a mafia family.

      • esbee June 16, 2016 Reply

        what does it matter if HomeSchoolers Anonymous prints updates on BG as opposed to RG? How come one will get in trouble and not the other since they
        are mostly stories coming from former ATI-ers?

        • rob war June 16, 2016

          HA seems to be a broader based blog and they discuss a number of other issues and things than just Bill Gothard and ATI. RG has focused mostly and exclusively on Bill and his teaching. HA discusses the broader home school movement from what I have read over there. Bill would focus on the blog that started his eventual downfall (he really is to blame for his own demise not RG) and that really is RG. I wanted to say that these are my own thoughts, ideas and observations. No one on the RG team has asked me to state anything on their behalf. HA has many more articles by those that have lost their faith or traditional Christian views. The RG team here seems to have mostly kept their tractional Christian faith and views, hence the name "Recovering Grace" because their is an effort to rediscover God's real and true Grace.

  274. Julie L. June 16, 2016 Reply

    So it looks like Gothard is back on the speaking trail. And that he will be for the next 40 years, since he apparently claimed he will be living to 120 years, like Moses. https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/06/15/christian-conference-features-alleged-sexual-predator-bill-gothard/

  275. Julie Anne June 16, 2016 Reply

    So it looks like Gothard is back on the speaking trail. And that he will be for the next 40 years, since he apparently claimed he will be living to 120 years, like Moses. https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/06/15/christian-conference-features-alleged-sexual-predator-bill-gothard/

    • Helga June 16, 2016 Reply

      I... just... don't know how to respond to such a statement as his claim that he'll live to 120. He doesn't live in reality.

      "based on Gothard’s new book “Life Purpose Journey to the Heart and Reins for Genuine Love and True Success”."

      That title sounds like poorly translated Japanese.

      "This details how our reins (digestive system) hold the secrets to success, spiritual power, and long life."

      He's starting to sound like a witch doctor. If he pulls out a rattle and starts dancing in a circle I won't be surprised.

      "He testified that since he started meditating on scripture day and night and keeping his rhema journal 2.5 years ago he’s only had 2 or 3 sensual thoughts."

      Oh I bet.

      "In spite of these serious charges Total Outreach for Christ Ministries invited Gothard to speak at their Overcomers Conference. Total Outreach for Christ Ministries was founded by Bishop Robert E. Smith. Bishop Smith’s church, Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, hosted the conference."

      OK, I have to ask what is it with Gothardism and Arkansas? This Smith guy, the Duggars, Mike Huckabee. Why is Arkansas so firmly in Gothard's grip?

      • rob war June 17, 2016 Reply

        The response to 120 years is that he has become completely delusional and off the charts.

      • rob war June 17, 2016 Reply

        My next thought is who is this "bishop" or what is he a "bishop" of? He seems to be a WoF wacko. They are very good at proclaiming themselves bishops and apostles. I remember Marilyn Hickey proclaiming herself to now be an "apostle". A lot of Bill's teaching falls under this umbrella of heresies so it almost isn't surprising that some WoF type would give Bill a platform for his "new" insights from the Bible. I think I'll stick with real bishops that are ordained as such instead of self-proclaimed ones.

    • esbee June 20, 2016 Reply

      here is the report on homeschoolers anon about BG's latest talk and it is about how to cure mental illness and what causes it--- interesting to note that communist countries often diagnosed anyone who did not agree with them as mentally ill and had them committed (to concentration camps in Siberia)
      https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/06/20/bill-gothard-claims-to-have-secret-cure-for-mental-illness/

  276. nicole gardner June 16, 2016 Reply

    If RG were to get sued, by anyone, then it's because of people otherwise totally unconnected to it (such as me) who have posted our experiences with IBLP/ATI on here. So it would be a lawsuit over what we out here have said on our own initiative more than anything RG team has said. If there's any suing over the kinds of things I myself & many others have reported on here, I for one will be referencing the police report that was filed along with the handwritings-&-drawings-diagrams of the hammer/chisel & Umbrella paradigms, as well as having a lawyer dig up court records & other reports that others made to police concerning the pervert whom the Gothardite both promoted & covered for after most of the others had made their reports. There are other witnesses of the Gothardite's direct verbal Gothardism in handling all this, too.

    I would take it as personally trying to shut me up from warning others of imminent danger if RG's ministry were threatened in this way & would respond accordingly.

    I'm sure we all would.

  277. rob war June 18, 2016 Reply

    This is my latest response to Alfred. I am reposting it here because I am not sure if he has the guts to publish it.

    You have picked apart the Cabin story as bogus, you have made a big deal about approaching the late Gary Malley and claiming the he has told you that this story was not true. So either you believe the Cabin story as false with an un-named girl or now you are stating that the story is "true" because Gary Smalley told you that it was Ruth. You can't have it both ways here. Two of your sources are not in heaven. Unless you can post or prove by letter or email from Gary Smalley that the woman in the "Cabin Story" is Ruth and this is true, I think you are making it up to bash Ruth and now that she is in heaven, that is pretty pathetic on your part. You have made a big deal about the fact that the "cabin story" was pulled from wikipedia and according to you was a sign that this whole story was not true. Now it's true to you because you want to say it's Ruth? You can't spin this any better Alfred because you are beginning to spin out of control and you can't keep your excuses straight"

    I find it totally disturbing to quote and claim things about those that are no longer here on earth. Alfred has spent a lot of time on RG here, picking apart the "Cabin Story" in order to support his claim that this was all made up. But if Alfred can twist the testimony of Ruth where she has stated that Bill repeatedly made her sit in his lap as secretary a number of time, then the Cabin Story is true according to Alfred because he can use it to bash Ruth. That is totally disgusting to me. He can't prove anything the late Gary Smalley said to him either. If someone has to go to this level to defend or support Bill, then Bill has twisted that person to be a liar like himself and that is pretty pitiful and that's being polite.

    • huzandbuz June 18, 2016 Reply

      To rob war:

      It appears to me that Alfred inflates his knowledge regarding everything and anything. He purports himself an authority on all aspects of any situation because 'Bill has told him the truth'.

      It is useless to correspond with him. His convoluted narratives encompass all manner of digressions.

      WE KNOW THE TRUTH!! Nothing we say is going to change his way of thinking one iota!!

      Blessings.... <

      • rob war June 19, 2016 Reply

        yes, agree 1000%. One can't spend nearly 900 posts still here on RG about the Cabin Story as being false and then turn around now and say that it was Ruth. If the story per Alfred is false, then is wasn't Ruth or anyone else. I personally believe that the Cabin Story is a conglomeration of many different encounters of people walking in on Bill and he had one of this secretaries sitting in his lap combined with encounters of people walking in on Steve with others secretaries.

        • huzandbuz June 19, 2016

          To rob war:

          Personally, I believe whatever details were given by Gary Smalley (at the onset of his discovery) are the facts. Nothing has changed except that Gary is now with Our Lord & Savior.

          And, personally, I do not care what Alfred thinks or feels. I have zero time and tolerance regarding his 'fantasy world'.

          There are other issues pertaining to IBYC/IBLP which I would like to see discussed more extensively at RG. :+)

          Psalm 118:24

  278. huzandbuz June 20, 2016 Reply

    Sigh....another group of vulnerable individuals who could potentially 'buy' into his harrowing and mindless rhetoric. How incredibly dangerous for Gothard to even broach such a sensitive topic!! The complexity of mental illness being easily cured via scripture memorization is, of course, ludicrous and appalling!!

    I doubt if even one parishioner, who 'may be' aware of the BG 'rumors', has taken the time to truly investigate their probability. Reading thus recognizing the parallels within the testimonies provided by RG is a must!!

    I believe it is up to us, those 'in the know' to continually strive to make others aware of Gothard's incessant, self-serving interests....

  279. rob war June 21, 2016 Reply

    The Bible says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". I'm not sure how Bill's four fears and how he seems to promote not only now but in the past this idea that any so call "negative" type of emotions whether it be fears, anger, doubt, grief etc fit into "fear of the Lord" and a Christian is sinning if having them. One can just see how twisted up as a human he has become. A healthy person has negative and positive and is balanced between the two, not in denial of any of the above. He is just repackaging his earlier teaching and is showing signs of delusions. For someone to claim that one is controlled by their "guts" based on a misunderstand on how the brain communicated with one's digestive track is completely nuts. I was reading an article about Christian music and the observation by the author that most all of modern Christian music emphasizes just one emotions "happy happy happy". It is such an imbalance when one considers that the Psalms expresses all kinds of emotions, fears, doubts, disappointments, feeling of abandonment, frustrations, anger etc. "Be angry but do not sin" St. Paul.

    To have taught the there is no mental illness as he has through the years and then still deny this now but turn around and claim that people that leave the faith or belief in God is do to mental illness is basically CYA. He is doing this because the results of following him and ATI is a huge drop out into atheism. The problem isn't mental illness but his own heretical teaching. talk about blaming the victim.

    • David June 21, 2016 Reply

      Obviously, "the fear of the Lord," is REVERENCE for God, and not a, "being afraid of God," type of emotion. But since a REAL reverence for God is always based on a true knowledge of God, Bill would not know about that. He would come up with his own definitions. Gothard's interpretations of scripture betray an unsound mind. He is a man who does not know Jesus Christ -- and his twisted religion is nothing more than a manifestation of his obsession with himself. Shame on the body of Christ for lacking the discernment to shut this man down before he could do damage to tens of thousand of spiritual lives.

  280. huzandbuz June 21, 2016 Reply

    To David:

    You stated, "Shame on the body of Christ for lacking the discernment to shut this man down before he could do damage to tens of thousand of spiritual lives".

    I ask: What about 'all those pastors' so many years ago who NEVER came forward with warnings regarding Gothard's exegeses?!?! (In my research, 'it appears that a few attempted to exhort', but we lacked the internet to alert the masses at that time.)

    *WHAT could BG possibly have taught them in the 'pastors' seminars'?!?! Presumably all those thousands of 'men of the cloth' attendees were graduates of an accredited bible college (and should have known better).

    So many of us were 'new converts' and clueless as to the Word of God. We initially depended on our church leaders for discernment, spiritual direction and understanding. In MY experiences, we were either encouraged to attend IBYC seminars or our attendance did not provoke any reaction from the pastor, deacons or elders etc.

    Does anyone have any input regarding my query??

    • B Badger June 21, 2016 Reply

      My perspective is personal and limited. I first became aware of the Basic Seminar in 1973, attending my first one in 1975 while in between my first and second years at an accredited Bible college. (I was there for four years, not quite graduating.) Some of Bill's teachings had not yet been introduced, e g divorce and remarriage, family size; moral standards among Christians were stricter and more in line with what he promoted. (I have a Biola Hour booklet about divorce published in 1977 [before Bill made his position on the matter public] that promotes basically the same standard.) At Bible college I saw Gothard mocked in The Wittenburg Door magazine: something about a Bill Gothard Chain of Command bondage game. I also came across an article about the Basic Seminar in a Christian psychology journal, opining that attendees with serious problems are harmed rather than helped.

      I was able to attend three pastor's seminars in the early 90's (when they were open to seminar group coordinators). They were not essentially different, e g about practical matters. Some material ended up in shorter versions of the Advanced Seminar and the Anger Resolution Seminar.

      During my decades as a cultic Gothard devotee, I would run into those who disagreed with him to one degree or another, clergy or lay. One such pastor, circa 1990, contended that Bill had covered up his brother's immorality, something that I was then unwilling to believe. (The version that I heard later from the local [Vancouver BC] Seminar coordinator at the time was that Bill had been at first unwilling to believe it. Later, devastated, he had wanted to resign and shut down the ministry, but his board wouldn't have it.)

      • huzandbuz June 22, 2016 Reply

        To B Badger:

        Thank YOU so much for responding. I see that the Wittenburg Door is often referred to as: The Mad Magazine of Religion, noted for its satire & humor. Until a few minutes ago, I was not familiar with this magazine nor the Biola Hour booklet.

        I sure wish that I had been aware of the 'BG Chain of Command Bondage Game' mock. I would have pondered that ridicule as I was already uncomfortable with that concept. I may have gained a new & better perspective back then had I realized that some were actually poking fun. (I was only aligned with serious Gothard followers as well as articles extolling his virtues & teachings.)

        Was there something in particular that caused you to stray from his teachings? Do you feel as if you are still recovering?

        Regarding the coverup: It appears that the general consensus is that Bill was always aware of his brother's immorality & did whatever he felt necessary to conceal it. Devastated is NOT a word that I would attribute to Bill.

        Blessings....

    • David June 22, 2016 Reply

      Those pastors are to blame as much as anyone for taking their congregations to Gothard seminars, for affirming that teaching, and for practicing it. They are supposed to know the Truth and to protect the flock. In many cases, pastors have been approached by members of their congregation about Gothard and they responded by refusing to listen. That is what happened when I went to my pastor decades ago -- I was branded as rebellious. The question here is as to WHY those who supposed to be leaders are so easily deceived? Hardened against the Truth? Do we realize that Gothard's teachings are ANOTHER GOSPEL? People are deceived by error because they do not know Jesus Christ. That is the shame. But thankfully many are now coming out of that error. God has promised to guide us into all Truth and exposing error is the first step.

      • Don Rubottom June 22, 2016 Reply

        The teaching on authority empowered pastors. It fed their worst instincts to "lord it over". That provides a power explanation for the attractiveness of the teaching to pastors.

        • Don Rubottom June 22, 2016

          powerful

        • huzandbuz June 23, 2016

          To Don:

          OMG!!!!!

          I am 'trying to catch my breath' to enable me to respond!!!!!

          :+(

        • David June 23, 2016

          Gothard's teaching on authority is grave heresy. The Bible says, "There is one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ." Gothard's teaching on authority and his demonic umbrella of protection undermines Jesus Christ as my personal and individual Mediator unto God, and insert OTHER mediator through whom I must pass, and under whom I must submit, to be right with God, garner God's blessings, and find God's will. It is, in fact, directly contrary to the Truth of grace and to the core of Christianity itself, which is CHRIST IN YOU -- the individual.

        • Don Rubottom June 23, 2016

          A better diagram would have had the "authority" underneath, bearing burdens of those he served. With Jesus on the bottom, bearing all our burdens! The protection racket was...a protection racket!

        • Julia Fetters June 23, 2016

          Don, I loved your "better diagram" explanation and could not agree more!

          David, you wrote of the "demonic umbrella of protection. That it is. The One Mediator between God and man was completely missed by thousands and thousands of children as they grew up. They were taught to look to Mom and Dad. The fall out from this is horrendous. I mean horrendous - as I watch grown adults SO stunted in their growth and some even paralyzed. What do you do? Where do you go? There has always been a person made of flesh and blood to tell you what is right and wrong? How can they trust an unseen God when the micromanagement of parents (or some puffed up "preacher") was always right there to give the answer?
          It pains my heart to see this in so many.

          The total silver lining in all of this is that God is able. He is good. He answers prayer. What Satan meant for evil, God is using to make strong, strong Christians - such as those behind RG. Those who can smell a rat a mile away now - having been so intimately acquainted with one.

          Yes. The stinkin', rotten umbrella teaching is d.e.m.o.n.i.c. It turns our eyes from Christ.

          (someone tell this to ALL the excellent Bible teachers who STILL use that stinkin' illustration. I'd love to call one out just to let him know it is wrong and would he please stop propagating it. He is an great Bible teacher otherwise).

        • Lisa A June 24, 2016

          Wow, Don, your comment about a better diagram is awesome! I would even say profound. It really helps to contrast Jesus' truth with Gothard's evil lies.

        • Don Rubottom June 27, 2016

          My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus's blood and righteousness.
          Not on His authority, but His gift of Himself.

      • huzandbuz June 22, 2016 Reply

        To David:

        Thank You! Thank YOU!! THANK YOU!!! for you input. It is greatly appreciated.

        You stated: People are deceived by error because they do not know Jesus Christ.

        (Would you elaborate on that statement?)

        I KNOW I was sincere when I asked Jesus to save me, subsequently receiving His Holy Spirit within my heart. Like so many others within our group of 'new converts', I was seeking God's truth and answers to life's complexities. We were all deceived as per Gothard's gospel. :+(

        • David June 23, 2016

          "People are deceived by error because they do not know Jesus Christ."

          Contrary to teachers like Gothard, Christianity is not a list of principles to follow. Rather, Christianity is CHRIST IN US, the hope of glory. (Col. 1:27) How does Christ dwell IN US? According to the apostle Paul, when we were saved, we were. "joined to the Lord and made one spirit with Him." (I Cor. 6:17) That is HOW Christ dwells in us -- we are united with Him in spirit.

          Once we are united with Christ it is the work of the Holy Spirit to "form Christ in us." (Gal. 4:19) Amazingly, this was Paul's answer to the error of the Galatians -- which is really the answer to the heresy of Bill Gothard. The Greek word for FORMED means, "to inwardly realize or express." So, in other words, God's purpose for Christians is that we might come into an inward realization or KNOWLEDGE of the Person of His Son, with Whom we are joined in spirit. This will enable us to discover, and life from out of, Jesus Christ as our life. The Galatians thought following law and principles were the answer. Paul said Christ in us was to be our life and our answer.

          This knowledge of Jesus will, of course, agree completely with scripture -- the written Truth will obviously always agree with the Living Truth -- because there is only ONE Truth. But when everything is said and done ALL discernment -- including the discernment of what the Bible means by what it says -- must be the outcome of knowing the Person of Jesus Christ -- who God wants to reveal TO us, IN us, and then THRU us.

          At the end of Galatians, Paul also said, "circumcision nor uncircumcision avails nothing. But a NEW creation." There it is -- Christianity is not a matter of taking Bible verses and morphing them into a list of basic life principles that we are supposed to follow to garner God's blessings, or to keep safe from the Devil. (I'm all for obedience to the Word, but I trust we understand that there is something far greater behind all of this!) Gothard is proof that if you do not know the Truth that is a Person that you will take even Bible verses and corrupt them into a destructive religion -- just as the Galatians had done. Rather, Christianity is a matter of receiving THE PERSON in whom there is all life -- from above -- and then living from out of Him by faith.

          These are basic definitions. They are right there, front and center, as primary Truths of Christianity in the Bible. But if people do not know the Truth, how can we recognize error -- let alone protect other from it? It is very profitable to do an autopsy on the teachings of Bill Gothard because people need to see the error. But it all must be gathered up and defined by the Truth that it corrupts.

        • Don Rubottom June 23, 2016

          Good stuff, David. But it is not a wordless transformation by the Spirit. It is not pure mysticism. And it is not only that the change conforms to the Word, but the Word is an instrument of the Spirit's work. "If you abide in me and my words abide in you", "If you continue in my word, then you are my disciples and you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free". You are correct, it is not a list of principles to follow in the flesh and not merely mind/heart conversion by word or meditation on BG's latest pet verse (especially out of context, misapplied word) but Word applied by the Spirit, because of Whom we "have no need that any man should teach us..."

        • huzandbuz June 24, 2016

          To David:

          My deepest appreciation for your time....:+)

          I am printing copies of your explanation for those I know who are in need of a better understanding.

          I have always equated the term 'not knowing Jesus' with NOT being 'saved' or 'born again' as that is the expression used and thus the general consensus
          within the churches I have attended.

          However, we can receive God's free gift of salvation by asking Jesus to come into our heart, but getting to really 'know' Jesus is a process....
          wouldn't you say??

          I, like so many others, 'knew' Jesus in that we were 'saved', but we were still deceived as a result of unsound doctrine.

          To me, the term 'knowing Jesus' can be confusing.

        • David June 24, 2016

          To Don R:
          I think you missed the point. It was not my intention to write a book on all of the facets of Christianity. My intention was to get to the bottom of things. I was not suggesting a "wordless transformation." Everything God does is in absolute harmony with his written word. But if you think that the only way in which God works in us is if we have an open Bible on our lap then I disagree. I would assume you realize that Jesus Christ is a living Person -- and that the object of our worship is not a written Word, but the Lord who is the Living Word.

        • Don Rubottom June 24, 2016

          David, I agree. I only wanted to supplement what you said with the truth that open Bible is and essential means, not the only means of the transformation.
          We can't write comprehensive treatises, but please feel free to correct or supplement anything I write that might mislead anyone. We have all kinds of people reading these discussions. Let none be misled.

        • Karen June 24, 2016

          David, I know you weren't responding to me, but your explanation and the distinctions you make here in response to husbandbuz's questions are good ones and helpful. They certainly resonate with my Orthodox understanding of the nature of God's Self-revelation in Christ.

          There is a difference in how we approach the Scriptures if we think of them as a sort of mystical/magical, self-interpreting text (perhaps analogous to how Muslims understand the Qur'an), which seems to be Gothard's approach, or if we understand them as texts inspired by God within and for a particular concrete Divine-human context (i.e., the historical Apostolic encounter with Jesus Christ as God Incarnate and the Holy Spirit-infused and guided life within the Community Christ founded upon the Apostles' confession of faith in Him), and ultimately intelligible in their fullness only by sharing in that same concrete context of actual encounter with the living God within His Church by the Holy Spirit (which, of course, includes hearing His words and their meaning to and within that community expounded in prayer, preaching, teaching and, most importantly, in its life and actions).

      • DAVID PIGG June 23, 2016 Reply

        Time in the realm of spirit,God's realm is so different than our understanding.With sin from the heresies so endorsed by so many back in the 90's,back in the 80's,and 70's,when I first became exposed to him,the crystallization process was already going on.Such deeper life teachers as DeVerne Fromke,gave assent,articles in Time Magazine,June '74 hailed him as having more relevancy,in application,practical solutions "where the rubber hits the road",as one adherrant put it to me,and also making the appeal for total protection from defined dangers.All the while a subtle hardness,mixed with pride inextricably bound souls to dead works,natural religion,rationalism tied into the Adamic nature.DELIVERENCE from GOd's vantage point can only take place with renouncing all such heresies as were so enthusiastically received.As the day it happened.Was it endorsed from the podium?It should be renounced from the podium.With the same emotional zeal.Why isn't it?Too much pride.Natural self promotion.No real understanding of battered lives consumed in the" Triumph of religious flesh".Now comes the afterward.Face the damage now,the real cost,if brave enough,or the sheer inevitability,ultimately of a sovereign intervention by CHRIST.My prayer is that He'll come after His sheep.First hailed by self promotion,will be last.

      • rob war June 24, 2016 Reply

        David,
        That use to be my question too. I ended up here looking for answers to this. What I have come to realize in reading different article here as well as different interactions with others is that the "answer" can't be painted with one brush stroke. Now this isn't an excuse but I think your standard pastor is too often spread too thin with too many responsibilities. So a new popular teacher comes along quoting the Bible like a machine gun and you have parishioners that have attended that give glowing reports as well as other pastors supporting Bill, then one can see how your standard pastor is taken off guard and caught up in supporting or promoting Bill. Early concerns as well as the 1976 book critical of Bill were ignored and over looked. Yes Bill was very clever in working with pastors in order to promote seminar attendance. That was very true in the Church I attended when I went to Bill's seminars. I think the bigger broader question is this: do para-church ministries have too much influence and sway with your standard American Christians and your standard American pastor just too busy and overwhelmed to take a stand.

        • DAVID PIGG June 25, 2016

          Rob,your comments and evaluations on this matter,have brought a subtle disillusionment with Protestantism,as it was;not because they weren't true,but they were,and in back of all that took place back then,has to be a certain acknowledgement that all or most all was hollow.I don't expect to hear much confession from the authorities,those that were,that Gothard was wicked;things went"too far".Religious zeal gave out the false impression that we knew the lord.And thus pride will continue to promote the fallen Adamic nature.At a cost few would dare be bold to admit.

        • rob war June 26, 2016

          David Pigg,
          I understand more than you realized but not all not all Protestant pastors got caught up with Bill. Those in mainline, liberal, high liturgy denominations and groups did not. This list would include Lutherans, Anglican, UMC etc. So the real tough question is this, why have these sorts of Protestant groups avoided Bill. And these groups are deemed as less Biblical or spiritual than those that promoted and supported Bill.

    • Don Rubottom June 22, 2016 Reply

      I went to Legislators Conferences and one Men's Conference. There is much encouragement among peers. Gothard is skilled at appealing to a sense of self-importance among "leaders". Just calling our children "leaders in training" is part of that shtick. "If you are a leader, you are important. Therefore, you are important to God". Nowhere is "lording it over" preached against. There is some emphasis on "servant leadership" but with an example (BG) who is not subject criticism, it is a fraud.
      I think preachers at the conferences were encouraged to be with others (it is a lonely life), I think they were built up by BG in their self-importance, I think they were (artificially) cleansed by confessions and self-examination (you know, because you can't be forgiven unless you follow the steps) and I think that challenging BG was the furthest thing from their minds. They were open to him just by attending. And as always, the information was so voluminous at such meetings, and the schedule so strenuous ("if you want to be spiritual, you will meet Bill in the tower (Northwoods) at 5:00 a.m. for prayer") that it is impossible to perceive and identify the error. Remember, he used pastors to market his wares. So he would make them feel good being with him.

      • Larne Gabriel June 23, 2016 Reply

        YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well articulated!!!!!!!!!

        • Don Rubottom June 23, 2016

          Thank you, Larne.

        • Larne Gabriel June 23, 2016

          Don,


          Have you heard anything recent on the State of Florida AG's lawsuit against Bills brother David? I have not been able to find anything and its been about 18 months since it was filed.

  281. Larne Gabriel June 23, 2016 Reply

    Two great articles worth reading.

    Chicago Magazine, June 2016, "The Cult Next Door"
    http://www.chicagomag.http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/bill-gothard-fits-and-me.html

    Christianity Today, June 23,2016, "Bill Gothard, 'The Fits,' and Me"
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/bill-gothard-fits-and-me.html

    • huzandbuz June 30, 2016 Reply

      Thank YOU Larne!! These articles are a good read:

      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/bill-gothard-fits-and-me.html


      http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/July-2016/Institute-in-Basic-Life-Principles-Hinsdale/

      Blessings.... ^i^

  282. Don Rubottom June 24, 2016 Reply

    I don't really follow the prosecutions of financial fraudsters. They are a dime a dozen here in Florida. Sorry.

  283. DAVID PIGG June 27, 2016 Reply

    For what it's worth there were attempts to stop Bill Gothard in the 70's and the "what ifs" come up on one of them.Wilfred BOckelman,a high ranking,well respected clergyman from the Luthern church,was asked to write an analysis on Bill Gothard,to which he was initially unwilling,or did not have the time,but "came around".It was no light task,he took the assignment with the idea that an evaluation could only be made with scrutiny and research.Bear in mind that the mostly protestant world was eager to consume books with positive spin;to already supplement the authoritarianism of the submitted body movement.IN full swing,the standard nod was given after the book was written,with some 40,000 waiting to go on the shelves.They never did.Now right here is the point that suppression came from fear that the "good" GOTHARD was in evidence to the outwardly observant religious zealot,had to be maintained;in patriarchal circles,in fundamentalist circles,in evangelical submitted body circles;at all costs.Bockelman dared cut against their already established endorsements,and the book had to go;it was cleared from the shelves to the quantity of 40,0000.Bockelman was warning;uncomfortable with what he saw,too much potential damage was at stake;lives could be hurt,but that's all right the book was taken care of instead.The delicate tapestries of hearts,the intricately woven relationships ripped apart and redifined by this "triumph."The spiritual kingdom was replaced by natural religion.

  284. nicole gardner June 27, 2016 Reply

    David P., I would love to get my hands on that book. Although others were written in the same time period that did the same thing.

    • DAVID PIGG June 27, 2016 Reply

      Wilfred Bockelman "Gothard The Man and His Ministry".

    • rob war June 27, 2016 Reply

      It is out of print but I bought a used book off Amazon. I would check with Amazon.

    • huzandbuz June 27, 2016 Reply

      To Nicole:

      I, too, just purchased one for $8.00 (to include shipping). Amazon sellers offer many used copies for this total price.

      We can read what we WISHED we would have known back in the day....

      Blessings....

    • rob war June 28, 2016 Reply

      A couple of things to keep in mind if you read this book. He focuses more on Bill's over all theology and view of God. That is a different approach than the others that have focused on how Bill used the Bible. It is one's overall theology that sets up how one uses the Bible. Not visa versa. Two, the book was written in 1976 and some of it is dated.

  285. huzandbuz June 28, 2016 Reply

    Hi rob war:

    The fact that the book was never distributed angers me, but I am very interested in reading Mr. Bockelman's insight regarding 'Gothard's overall theology and view of God'. (I understand 'dated' and will easily relate to that time period. :+)

    Was this a recent 'read' for you? Dare I ask, "How did your comprehension of the knowledge provided in the book effect you? :+)

    • MatthewS July 1, 2016 Reply

      It's a very good book, very helpful. Not sensational. You get the impression Bockelman truly cared for Bill and for those who were following him.

  286. rob war July 1, 2016 Reply

    Hi Huz,
    Even though I have heard of the book from the past, I only bought the book from Amazon last year. I highly recommend it. I liked it better than Venoit's book. The author points out that Bill has a very mechanical view of God and man. That sets up how Bill uses the Bible which is very mechanical and sets up Bill's abuse scripture. That at least for me is better than Venoit's approach which is just Bill is wrong and I am right. The book also lacks the sarcasm of Venoit, another beef I have with them.

    • huzandbuz July 1, 2016 Reply

      To rob war:

      Is the book you are referencing??:
      A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life
      Authored by Don & Joy Veinot & Ron Henzel

      To me, that book was a real 'eye opener'!! I read it three times and purchased additional copies to share. Personally, I felt their approach was very balanced and sensitive. I am sorry that you find them sarcastic. :+(

      • LynnCD July 2, 2016 Reply

        huzandbuz, that is the book she referenced. I gave my copy away years ago, and just reordered it recently. I am looking forward to reading it now that I can think a little more critically than I did when I first read it.

        By the time the book was written, there had been numerous attempts by the authors to confront Bill, all unsuccessful except maybe one of the meetings they had on circumcision, but even after that meeting, Bill kept insisting on teaching health benefits of circ., and maybe toned down a little of his online teaching. Bill also made legal threats against them, and they were aware of most details of the earlier sex scandal. With all that background and knowledge of the authoritarian spiritual abusive behavior, I can completely understand the sarcasm - and yes that exists, starting with the cover picture. Bockelman, whose book I also read (actually mostly skimmed through) MANY years ago - I don't believe he had near as much contact or attempted contact with Bill, but I could be wrong on that score.

        I agree with you A Matter of Basic Principles is well researched. I will try to see if I can find a conversation from the Yahoo group that will show the utter obstinate character Bill exhibits to this day - but one that took place back then, and post it over here, in order to show that the sarcasm directed at Bill was well deserved by that point in time.

  287. Ron Henzel July 1, 2016 Reply

    Rob War,

    As one of the three co-authors of "Venoit's book" (Don's surname is properly spelled "Veinot"), and as one who did much of the heavy lifting in the sections providing biblical exegesis and historical theology, I would say that if anyone thinks our approach was "just Bill is wrong and I am right" that person certainly have not read our book very well—or perhaps at all. We spent many pages going to great length to explain exactly how and why he is wrong.

  288. huzandbuz July 2, 2016 Reply

    To Mr. Henzel:

    What a pleasant surprise!! I did not realize that you post on RG....

    I initially read 'A Matter of Basic Principles' nearly a year ago. Powerful!!

    After realizing your post just an hour ago, I opted to investigate as to
    additional texts that you may have authored. I began here:

    http://ronhenzel.tripod.com/GothardZone/08-BG2BG/index.html
    :+) :+) :+)

    Now I am about to read: 'The Bible and Spiritual Abuse'.
    http://www.batteredsheep.com/bible_spiritual.html

    Thank YOU!!

    • Ron Henzel July 6, 2016 Reply

      huzandbuz,

      Thank you for your kind words.

      • DAVID PIGG July 7, 2016 Reply

        Ron,Did'nt you also write "A Beginner's Guide To Bill Gothard"?This is a must read for many reasons.First of all it put into proper perspective by way of humor the outrageous,ridiculous teachings that were far from harmless,in a world of bondage,and oppression,by someone free enough to tell it like it is;and that before the Great and Powerful Potentate,Regent KING!Back at seminars,there was a hush of awe,[Twin Cities,1987]as Bill stepped to the podium.Someone pretty close complained that at another seminar there was too much "talking and rudeness".Not enough garnishing of respect and adoration.The idea of the illustration from the French artist Seurat,of people standing around,milling around with umbrellas[of protection]put his deadly serious lie into a hilarious sideshow.Another aspect was once the true nature of repression is exposed,the whole deadly serious morass of hyperegoism is also exposed behind the lie and the"Untouchable can be objectively touched"the machine comes tumbling down".IF I were a minister[which I'm not]and I always took myself seriously,I would not be worth following.If I were easily offended,touchy,proud,never mind my lies,manipulative,the answer would be much like you wrote.

        • LynnCD July 7, 2016

          I'd forgotten about that piece you referred to: http://ronhenzel.tripod.com/GothardZone/08-BG2BG/

  289. LynnCD July 2, 2016 Reply

    Again, after this and much more kind of treatment from Bill, including threats and demands that Midwest Christian Outreach take down their articles critical of IBLP, I cannot blame them one bit for the sarcasm. This is from Fall 1998, almost 18 year ago now, by Ron H.:

    ". . . Our articles in the MCO Journal led to two face-to-face meetings with Bill Gothard, both at Gothard's office in the IBLP Staff Center. The first was on December 4, 1997, and lasted from about 8:30 pm to 1:30 am. Bill Gothard, John Stephens, George Maddox and Nathan O'Bryon attended on behalf of IBLP. Don Veinot(president), Marty Butz (researcher and writer), Fred Greening(pastor and MCO board member), and I attended on behalf of MCO.

    The second meeting was on July 14, 1998, from about 7:30 pm to 12:30 am. Gothard, Stephens and O'Bryon attended on behalf of IBLP, and Veinot, Butz and I attended for MCO (although Marty Butz had to leave early).

    Gothard has repeatedly claimed that he was willing to change any false teachings we would point out to him, but his actions have indicated the opposite. A major test-case for us was his teaching that it is a biblical (and hence a moral) requirement for Christian parents to have their infant male children circumcised on the eighth day. He even provides a liturgy for a circumcision ceremony (an evangelical bris?)and a "Certificate of Circumcision" to be signed by the officiators, parents, and witnesses, and instructs parents to keep this with other important papers, such as the child's birth certificate.

    Gothard's circumcision teaching was a major focus of the last article I wrote for the MCO series on him, and it was a major topic of our meeting on July 14. Twice Gothard attempted to assert that he merely taught that circumcision was justifiable on medical grounds. Unfortunately for him, we had a copy of what he wrote right there in the room -- sitting on his lap (we'd faxed it to him earlier). I asked for permission to read it back to him, and I did -- twice. He then fell into silence from about 11:00 pm to midnight. You might say it was an awkward hour for everyone there.

    During that hour, John Stephens piped up, and -- looking directly at Gothard (who was sort of staring off into space) -- said, "We can say that circumcision may be of medical value, but we can't say it's a biblical requirement for Christians today." It seemed to be a critical moment.

    We felt that we had scored a major concession from IBLP, and we didn't think we should rub Gothard's nose in it. He had given us his word right before the meeting that he was "very willing" to change his teachings if we could show where he was wrong. Now we had the confirmation of John Stephens, his own Director of Seminar Operations, sitting in an official meeting with Mr. Bill himself, that we had actually demonstrated that IBLP (in this case its subsidiary, the Medical Training Institute of America (believe it or not!)) was guilty of false teaching. Gothard could say nothing. We expected no less than to see immediate steps taken following this meeting to retract it.

    But instead, a few days later we received a 20-page fax directly from Bill Gothard in which he continued to *justify* his circumcision teaching, mostly from a medical perspective. We responded with a 28-page letter, in which we pointed out that it was his use of the *Bible* to justify circumcision that we had problems with (in his 14-page booklet on the subject, only about 5 pages are devoted to a medical defense of circumcision), and then we heard nothing for weeks.

    Finally, I called him on September 6, 1998, to ask him where we stood. He informed me that he was preparing a 12-page article on the subject of "The Role (or Place? (I forget)) of the Old Testament Law in the Life of the New Testament Believer." At that moment, he advised me, it was being reviewed by "biblical scholars" for accuracy. He said that, since this is what he believed the whole matter boiled down to, he needed to write this. I told him that I
    looked forward to receiving it.

    It has now been 45 days since I had that conversation with Bill Gothard. We *still* have not received that 12-page article. Perhaps it is still being reviewed by his "biblical scholars?" Guess again. Just a few days after that phone call, it was mass-mailed to *thousands* of his Basic Seminar alumni. MCO president Don Veinot has since obtained a copy. In order for that to have
    happened, it must have been on its way to the printers at least very shortly after I spoke with Gothard.

    It now seems pretty obvious to us that Gothard's agenda all along has not been to allow himself to be held accountable for what he teaches. Rather, it has been to get us to stop critiquing his teachings in a public forum. In our September 6 phone conversation, he even referred to concerns we've been raising (and there are many others) as "peripheral issues." He made it very
    clear that his main goal was to get us to take our materials off the Web, and stop publishing them in print.

    . . .

    Meanwhile, I think it all boils down to accountability. I personally
    believe that Bill Gothard is a lot like all of us, in that he is a mixture of right and wrong opinions. However, in Mr. Gothard's case, since he has not demonstrated accountability to anyone, there is no one to keep what is wrong with IBLP teachings in check. Lack of
    accountability leads directly to lack of correctibility, and I believe that is what we're seeing in Bill Gothard's behavior.

    . . ."

    • Larne Gabriel July 2, 2016 Reply

      Just remember one simple fact about Bill, "your all wrong and only he is right"! Does my sarcasm show?

    • huzandbuz July 2, 2016 Reply

      Hi LynnCD:

      Thank you for the post & offer of 'helps'.

      Yes, consistent & thorough research enlightens us to the facts. In this past year I have utilized countless hours of internet searching uncovering anything that I deem necessary for my purposes. (That does not include the books I have read.) :+)

      Have a Blessed Holiday weekend. :+)

  290. huzandbuz July 2, 2016 Reply

    Hi Larne:

    :+) :+) :+)

    I am believing that the general consensus is: 'Conveying Godly contempt when it is deserved is certainly acceptable'.

    We know that Holy Spirit lead individuals do not resort to irony or cynicism. Arrogance was not the catalyst for the publication. Thus all scorn that was directed at Gothard's dogma, via the authors, was certainly not motivated by a spirit of sarcasm. We are also aware that sarcasm is MORE than just WORDS (Galatians 5:13-15; Mathew 5:21-26)
    and that it takes courage, strength and conviction to 'go against the grain'.

    Whatever derision was manifested appears to be displayed in Bill's own words and actions. (Proverbs 18:3)

    God Bless you and your family. Each one has endured soooo much. ^i^
    I consider it a privilege to correspond with you. :+)

    • Larne Gabriel July 2, 2016 Reply

      Thanks for the pass. But I think a little of my East Coast NJ humor (sarcasm) might be shining through too. You can take the boy out of NJ but you can't take NJ out of the boy, even if its been 50 years. Exit 83.

    • LynnCD July 3, 2016 Reply

      huzandbuz:
      "We know that Holy Spirit lead individuals do not resort to irony or cynicism. Arrogance was not the catalyst for the publication."

      I agree that arrogance was not one of the factors in the publication of the book. However, irony can be a literary device, and in circumstances we often point out how something is ironic in that the unexpected happens. Also, cynicism can mean skepticism. It appears to me that Holy Spirit led people can see and express irony, and at times be skeptical. It all depends upon the motivation, I guess.

      I enjoy reading your thoughts, huzandbuz. And while I don't believe I've seen anything ironic in your posts, I do think your writing is irenic, and for that, I am appreciative.

      • Larne Gabriel July 3, 2016 Reply

        yep, Seaside Heights, "the shore" with apocopate tonal emphasis.

        • LynnCD July 3, 2016

          Having had relatives from Long Island and White Plains, I assume that means the r in shore is not pronounced.

        • huzandbuz July 3, 2016

          Larne & Lynn:

          lol Yup, 'the shore'....w/apocopate tonal emphasis. lol

          Seaside Heights....:+) Picturing that borough in Ocean County is reminiscent of fond memories indeed. My FIRST seashore experience, at age 16, was spending a thrilling weekend enjoying all there was to behold!!

          After Hurricane Sandy's devastation in 10/2012, the area became a ghost town. The blazing inferno of 9/2013 destroyed 50 businesses (including those rebuilt after Sandy) & the Funtown Pier. I believe the area reinvented itself and has been back in business for the past year. :+)

      • Don Rubottom July 3, 2016 Reply

        I find it ironic that Paul himself, in Scripture, wished that circumcision teachers would go all the way and castrate themselves. Sarcastic? Such false teaching may require it at times. Jesus was as harsh on the legalists in his day.

        • huzandbuz July 4, 2016

          Don & Lynn:

          Thank you for expressing your insight.

          I did realize that Paul, once I read Galatians 5:12 in the NIV, spoke those harsh words.

          Yes, the Bible does indicate Jesus spoke angry words numerous times. God's Word reveals that He did 'reprimand & rebuke' (in addition to demons.) His disciples were reprimanded; He certainly rebuked the Scribes & Pharisees.

          Can we consider or equate the Apostle Paul & Jesus remarks in those instances with 'sarcasm'? Apparently....

          I just NEVER thought of using the word 'sarcastic' to describe their utterances.... Regarding Jesus, SINLESS, of course, will always come to mind. Reflecting on that truth, I can only think of PERFECTION. :+)

        • Don Rubottom July 5, 2016

          "fat cows of Bashan" is pretty harsh as well!

        • huzandbuz July 6, 2016

          Hmmm....

          I thought the women of Bashan were disciples of a cult and referred to themselves as 'Cows of Bashan'.
          I thought the 'fat' in that situation was synonymous with wealthy. Chuckle. I had better re-read this scripture....:+)

  291. huzandbuz July 3, 2016 Reply

    Hello again Larne.

    "Thanks for the pass." Chuckle.

    Hmmm.... Exit 83 off the Garden State Parkway....

    'Unless the Lord returns prior to', I hope to relocate to The Sunshine State. I guess ya can't take NJ out of the girl then either. Even if it has been 70 years. lol

  292. huzandbuz July 3, 2016 Reply

    To Don:

    I believe that it is extremely easy to misunderstand the correspondence/text of others especially if we do not already know them personally. :+) To me, 'sarcasm' is frequently difficult to comprehend. (However, I feel some individuals speak 'fluent sarcasm'.)

    Expressing 'contempt' (synonymous w/sarcasm) of false teaching, certainly may require 'sarcasm at its finest'. :+)

  293. nicole gardner July 4, 2016 Reply

    May I chime in with some sarcasm of my own:
    I think Bill must has been so busy making $$$$$$$ saying that every Christian would be more spiritually blessed if they practiced circumcision to even take the time of day to address the fact of his brother's severe sexual abuse. Even though his colleagues quit when they realized the spiritual weight of sexual abuse, simply for what it is as an objective issue, weighs-in at zero on Bill's conscience.

  294. nicole gardner July 4, 2016 Reply

    ^^^^^Now that's irony, also: the American champion of spiritual-blessing-by-way-of-ritual-performed-on-the-sex-organ nonetheless still maintains that what he was clearly informed was being performed WITH the sex organ was/is not of any importance at all.

    Sorry to be so blunt, but this doublespeak is very ironic.......

  295. LynnCD July 7, 2016 Reply

    I have been reading through A Matter of Basic Principles again, and came across where the authors wanted to quote Dr. Allen to get a point across.

    rob war wrote: "I highly recommend [Bockelman's book]. I liked it better than Venoit's book. The author points out that Bill has a very mechanical view of God and man. That sets up how Bill uses the Bible which is very mechanical and sets up Bill's abuse scripture. That at least for me is better than Venoit's approach which is just Bill is wrong and I am right."

    In contrast here is a major point Henzel and the Veinots wanted to get across, so they quoted Dr. Allen here, on page 66:

    "The Book of Job presents a point of view that is dramatically different from Gothard’s lists. In fact, Gothard is a splendid modern example of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar — each of whom approached the problems of Job from a mechanistic, cause-and-effect, point of view. Here was their principle error: while there is a cause-and-effect approach to reality that is found at times in the wisdom literature of Scripture, that is not the only approach to life that the Bible teaches.

    The clear teaching of the Book of Job is that a mechanistic, cause-and-effect, approach to life may be way off base! Is it any wonder that Gothard tries to evade the clear teaching of the Bible that Job was a righteous man (the only reading on which the book works!), and finds many sins and character flaws in him (overwork in Christian causes, neglect of his family, embittered sons, estranged from family, wrong attitudes toward the workers). In this way the book is turned inside out and by this strange alchemy Job supports Gothard’s lists."

    Dr. Allen's point may also be found on their website: http://midwestoutreach.org/issues-of-concern-bill-gothard-and-the-bible-a-report/

    rob war, I don't know what your problem is with the people at Midwest Christian Outreach, but you made a blatant, total, undeniable, 180 degree misrepresentation of their work. I am curious as to why you would to such a thing.

  296. rob war July 11, 2016 Reply

    I think it is totally pathetic that there are only two books about Bill's teaching and one of them is out of print. For all the people that passed through his seminars through it's many years, it's pathetic. Different people can have and like different books or ministries and express them here or anywhere else. To Lynn, I could ask the same thing about the Don/Ron's book. I am reading it and I found it to misrepresent and mischaracterized and even make false connection between Bill and the Catholic church. For all of the problems about Bill, there were not due to or had nothing to do with the Catholic Church and her teachings or theology. Bill was and is a fundamentalist Christian. He used literalist Bible hermeneutics, he was raised as a fundamentalist and attended all his life IFB type of Churches. Bill was not supported by the Catholic Church, Catholic priests and bishops did not send their people to him. Bill does not quote any Catholics, he does not recommend study of Catholics and the Pope did not fly in in 1980 to yell at the staff for rebellion. All those things were done by "Bible" believing Protestant pastors and so called leaders. The Catholic Church likewise does not in any way teach Catholics to follow OT laws as a form of "legalism". All those complaints talk about in the book have no connection to the Catholic Church. I get that the book was useful and helpful to you and many others. I didn't not find that to be the case for me but insulting and I spent more time trying to avoid land minds. I read the book all the way through twice "very carefully" as well as different chapters more than that. Likewise, the book is written from a very strong Calvinist view point which if you don't share in that, another landmine field to tiptoe through. I can applaud the effort of the authors that they focused on Bill's teaching instead of his behaviors with female staff. I thought it was insightful to point the subtle racism about "rights" and well as culture happenings that were the perfect storm for the rise of the seminars. People can have and do have different opinions and ideas and my world isn't going to end because there is disagreement here. Again if one can't listen to another view, even if they don't share it, then God help them.

    • Karen July 11, 2016 Reply

      Rob, thanks for pointing out the obvious that Protestant Fundamentalist legalism has absolutely no basis in the historic teachings and understanding of the Church, but rather is the result of modern literalist and idiosyncratic interpretations of the texts of the Scriptures. Your understanding isn't likely to be a sensibility shared by many Evangelicals reading Don and Ron's book, particularly those of a more Reformed bent, but though I'm grateful for their efforts and whatever good fruit it produces in lives freed from that legalistic bondage, I also was acutely aware of this shortcoming of the book. (I think you have my email if you'd like to talk about this privately.)

      The sad thing is in Russia, Gothard's teaching and other heresies have gained a foothold because of the huge spiritual vacuum and hunger created by the decades-long subjection to Communist brainwashing and the religious genocide of a host of courageous and godly Orthodox spiritual leaders and teachers. This has left the Russian Orthodox Church in a very weakened position to combat all the incoming heresies like Gothard's (who is one of many such groups) and serve the spiritual needs of her people.

      • AVID PIGG July 11, 2016 Reply

        Karen,This will trigger something from me for although I'm still protestant,I'm ashamed of what happened in fundamentalist camps,in patriarchal circles,and certainly the counter attacks that if one doesn't injest the predetermined denominational mindset hook,line,sinker,then I'm a "liberal".There may be "high places," vaunting themselves against the true knowledge of GOD in the orthodox and catholic churches,I do not know.What I do know is the price one may have to pay just to go on and know Jesus.NOT know denominational beliefs,traditional substitutes for the living God,or religious activity.As a Gentile,I'm reminded by PAUL,that I'm grafted on.If in the rejection of Israel,we as GENTILES are being blessed,how much more will we be at their inclusion.I don't believe any denomination has a direct line to God,but many have glorified Him,and some thought of Him as being in their camp only.One of the most respected,and eloquent advocates of GOD's Kingdom,I believe is Messianic Rabbi Jonathan Cahn,but I'm not Jewish,and hope on eternal life based on God's grace for all gentiles.Stephen Wilber once said"I hungered and thirsted for the Word of Life,and was offered a program."Henry Blackaby wrote"We've exchanged the "SHAKINAH GLORY" for religious activity.Do we indeed know the difference?I did not;though I hope to have improved some.The "otherness" of Jesus,so different from our "religious best,"probably the most apparent in Bill Gothard,but it's in me waiting to come out if I'm not careful.

      • rob war July 12, 2016 Reply

        A million thanks! I don't have your email but I hope the moderators here would pass mine onto you at least. I understand that MCOI in trying to take on IBLP and Bill is like a David and Goliath situation, a small shoe string apologetic blog run out of Don and Joy's home taking on a multi-million dollar ministry which was not being held accountable by anyone or to anyone. It's an interesting dichotomy, that they were in Bill's backyard. I guess that really is the only way to do it. Against a lot of risks to themselves and even threats, they stuck it out and their efforts resulted in the book and their blog was the precursor to this one. I understand the feelings of loyalty and gratefulness to them. Again, it really is pathetic that there are only 2 books about Bill and one is out of print and the other while key also reflects biases that should have no place in the book.

        I also thought Russia was being invaded by WoF type of thinking as well. That would go hand in hand with a lot of Bill's teaching about use of the Bible. It's a shame because there is such a rich history with Russian Orthodoxy. When I was in college and I took a course on Christianity. Now this is a secular campus and was taught by a liberal Protestant theologian. The book we had to read and I forgot the title was by a Russian Orthodox. He described the conversion of Russia to Christianity in the 800-900s. It was very impactful and of the three books, I liked it the best. I thought under Putin, he seems to be encouraging Russians to rediscover their faith roots. I had the privilege once to attend a Greek Orthodox Church with a college girlfriend. The liturgy is just beautiful even though at the time, I sat there in more of a state of shock. But what touched me is that the people there were so welcoming and excited that a couple of strangers joined them. The priest afterwards came to talk to us wanted to know our backgrounds etc. Now at this time, I was still a Charismatic Protestant and my girlfriend Catholic. Today those tables are reversed and she has become a Fundamentalist Christian with BJU connections. A very positive experience with some wonderful Christians and hopefully the right and left lung will work together again.

    • Ron Henzel July 11, 2016 Reply

      rob war,

      You wrote,

      "I think it is totally pathetic that there are only two books about Bill's teaching and one of them is out of print. For all the people that passed through his seminars through it's many years, it's pathetic."

      Quite a bit of ink was printed on the topic of Gothard and his teachings back in the '70s, especially in evangelical magazines, which was the primary way to reach Gothard's audience back then. Books would have done little more to alert people to Gothard and his teachings, and they probably would not have sold enough copies to justify their printing costs. Magazine pieces, such as the kind that were printed in Moody and Eternity magazines were far more effective, but they still didn't keep the people away.

      We explained how Gothard managed to fly under the radar, especially after the sex scandal in the early '80s, which nearly halted the spread of the seminars, eventually relegating them to VHS tape. Up til then it was almost impossible to get copies of anything he wrote unless you attended his seminars, and since the seminar ministry slowly ground to a halt and Gothard and his Institute had virtually fallen off the radar screens of all but his most devoted followers (mainly homeshcooling ATI members), one wouldn't expect to see much written about him at all during the bulk '80s and '90s, let alone books. During that time Gothard put his energies into writing for his cult following, which alone was able to obtain copies of what he was writing.

      You wrote:

      "I am reading it and I found it to misrepresent and mischaracterized and even make false connection between Bill and the Catholic church."

      Well, contrary to your claims, you obviously did not read it very well. You certainly did not read it fairly. As a former Roman Catholic I find it absurd for you to say we made a connection between Gothard and the Catholic church. The relevant section of the book is found in a section of Chapter 5 titled "The Road to Rome," on pages 147-153. I am the primary author of that section, and all I do there is demonstrate certain undeniable affinities between Gothard's definitions of "grace" and "justification" with those found in Roman Catholic theology.

      You wrote:

      "For all of the problems about Bill, there were not due to or had nothing to do with the Catholic Church and her teachings or theology."

      You may not want to see the affinities between Gothardism and Roman Cathoicism, but I backed up my assertions with citations from the Roman Catholic Council of Trent.

      You wrote:

      "Bill was not supported by the Catholic Church, Catholic priests and bishops did not send their people to him."

      The first person to recommend that I attend a Gothard seminar was a Roman Catholic friend of mine while I was still attending St. Dominic's Catholic Church in Bolingbrook, Illinois. That was in 1976 or '77. And it's widely known that many Roman Catholics attended Gothard's seminars back then, sometimes even nuns wearing their habits. I can't speak for priests, though.

      "Bill does not quote any Catholics, he does not recommend study of Catholics and the Pope did not fly in in 1980 to yell at the staff for rebellion."

      Just because he didn't quote Roman Catholics does not mean that some of his doctrines do not bear a striking resemblance to theirs. And the Roman Catholic concepts of grace and justification are not found only in Romanism, but have also seeped into various groups and individuals who hang out on the periphery of fundamentalism and evangelicalism, the way Gothard does.

      And why would he quote Catholics? That would have been the kiss of death in the Fundamentalists circles in which he mainly traveled. I've talked to Gothard on several occasions and I firmly believe that his theological understanding is stuck somewhere at the high school level. This allows him to absorb and pass on ideas from sources that are fundamentally at odds with evangelical and even fundamentalist theology.

      You wrote:

      "The Catholic Church likewise does not in any way teach Catholics to follow OT laws as a form of 'legalism'."

      This is a straw man argument. We never said that Gothard's brand of legalism, which emphasized the Mosaic Law, was the same kind of legalism that Roman Catholicism practices.

      You wrote:

      "Likewise, the book is written from a very strong Calvinist view point which if you don't share in that, another landmine field to tiptoe through."

      I'm afraid you're just showing off your ignorance here. As a Calvinist, I find this claim laughable. My co-authors, Don and Joy Veinot, are decidedly non-Calvinistic; they would not have allowed me to commandeer the book in the name of Calvinism, since they disagree with it. And, as I respect them greatly, I would not have asked them to put their name on a theological perspective that they are not comfortable with. Therefore you will find nothing in what I wrote (and obviously nothing in what either Don or Joy wrote) that is distinctively Calvinistic. Everything is consistent with mainstream evangelical theology.

      • LynnCD July 12, 2016 Reply

        In the year 2000 or so, Gothard came out with a statement on grace where he pit himself against Martin Luther, and claimed initial grace for salvation was unmerited, but grace for sanctification was merited. Gothard also said the Protestant definition of grace as "unmerited favor" was a "faulty definition," because sanctifying grace was merited.

        Look on the left hand side of this page of the Catholic Catechism, which says basically what Gothard said back then: http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html#504

        Don Veinot told me they had multiple meetings and e-mails with Gothard on this subject, and in the end he dismissed them and in essence, told them he agreed with Roman Catholic theology on this point.

        So yes, Gothard's position paper on grace from 2000 is quite comparable to Roman Catholic theology.

        • LynnCD July 12, 2016

          Excuse me, you have to start on the left page and read both pages, but that is most definitely what Gothard taught. It remains as an archive on the Gothard discussion list. I will see if I can fetch what Gothard said.

      • rob war July 12, 2016 Reply

        You can't even define mainstream evangelical theology. Evangelical is quite a catch all gab bag of all sorts of things, many of witch conflict with each other. Bill might have borrowed ideas about Grace from the Catholic Church but is in incomplete and he ignores the sacramental understanding of Grace which is also what is being ignored here. I really think Ron if you have an ax to grind against the Catholic Church, your arguments should be taken to other places. I also think there are enough serious issued going on in your own camp with TGC and John Piper and redefining the trinity, complimentarianism etc to keep you very busy. While some Catholic encouraged you to attend in the 1970's. he actually was doing so out of the general discouragement by priests not to involve oneself with Protestant seminars and Bible studies. I just didn't like your book and I would think as one of the "snarky" apologists on MCOI, that you can take some criticism yourself.

        In reference to magazine articles, people read them and then throw them out. I would think in the 80's someone somewhere would have taken the time to investigate and document. I think RG has done a great job in trying to gather as many as possible and I have read them all but the list is not a big one.

        If MCOI is really fair about who or what they evaluate, I'm kinda surprised that Rick Warren gets pummeled over there but when there was a discussion about Mark Drisco and how he had to leave Mars Hills in a scandal, he gets a pass with prayers because he was a tough guy that Don liked. MCOI just republished an old article about Rick's book "The Purpose Driven Life". I didn't see any offers of prayers for the lost of his son by suicide. Whether you like him or not, I think some Christian compassion on his family would be a "better" outreach than republishing an article that picked apart his book and I have not read Rick's book but making an observation of prejudice. The last I checked Rick is still at his mega church and Mark is not. Likewise, it is noticeable again that TGC and the complimentarian movement and it's problems and the ESS that is coming out of some of them in the movement. The dual definition of Grace by the Catholic Church as well as some mainline Protestant groups has always been around, but redefining the trinity to fit some notion of the roles of men with women is not. An apologetic blog that claims to be committed to "orthodox" Christian teaching maybe ought to start looking into it which is current instead of republishing old articles.

        Ron, all you have done here is confirm what I've experienced through the years with those committed to their Calvinism and I totally understand why people end up on Spiritual sounding board to sounding off about it.

        In final, I would suggest to you Ron to read the article by Scot McNight on Pathos/evangelical channel under Jesus Creed dated 7/8/2016 titled "Heresy: Who Decides?" , then just maybe you might understand my previous statement about para-church groups and comparing MCOI with IBLP.

        • LynnCD July 12, 2016

          Wow. That's quite the kitchen sink you threw at him. ;-)

          "I really think Ron if you have an ax to grind against the Catholic Church, your arguments should be taken to other places. I also think there are enough serious issued going on in your own camp with TGC and John Piper and redefining the trinity, complimentarianism etc to keep you very busy."

          You are getting pretty bossy here, rob. You were the one coming out swinging that all the book was about was "Gothard is wrong and we are right." And they did make a comparison of Gothard's original definition of grace to what the Catholic church teaches, which is in response to you stating they misrepresented the RC Church.

          They have the right to have their say here, just as you have, and just as I have. Especially in response to the claims that you initiated against them.

          It's kind of like you are saying you have every right to say what you want about them, and they have no right to respond, which is rubbish.

        • Ron Henzel July 12, 2016

          rob war,

          It’s usually considered a good idea that before one tries to characterize a whole movement that one actually reads what its authors have written. Defining mainstream evangelical theology is no problem for those who actually take the time to learn it.

          As a Calvinist (which I only mention because you have), I agree with the Arminian Roger E. Olson when he characterizes evangelicalism theologically as follows:

          “Evangelicalism is a loose affiliation (coalition, network, mosaic, patchwork, family) of mostly Protestant Christians of orthodox (Trinitarian) denominations and independent churches and parachurch organizations that affirm a supernatural worldview; the unsurpassable authority of the Bible for all matters of faith and religious practice; Jesus Christ as unique Lord, God, and Savior; the fallenness of humanity and salvation provided by Jesus Christ through his suffering, death, and resurrection; the necessity of personal repentance and faith (conversion) for full salvation; the importance of a devotional life and growth in holiness and discipleship; the urgency of gospel evangelism and social transformation; and the return of Jesus Christ to judge the world and establish the final, full rule and reign of God.”

          [Olson, Pocket Dictionary of Evangelical Theology, (Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 14-15.]

          Olson’s definition is totally congruent with the description provided under the heading “Theological Meaning,” R.V. Pierard and W.A. Elwell’s article on “Evangelicalism,” which includes the following points:

          1. “…Scripture as the divinely inspired record of God’s revelation, the infallible, authoritative guide for faith and practice.”

          2. “…the total depravity of humanity. All the goodness that exists in human nature is tainted by sin, and no dimension of life is free from its effects.”

          3. “Christ made atonement for sin on Calvary’s cross by shedding his blood, thereby redeeming us from the power of spiritual death by dying in our place.”

          4. “…salvation is an act of unmerited divine grace received through faith in Christ, not through any kind of penance or good works.”

          5. “…the biblical proclamation of the gospel which brings people to faith.”

          6. “…holy living [as] part of the process of witness…”

          7. “…the visible personal return of Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom of righteousness, a new heaven and earth, one that will never end.”

          [Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 406.]

          Similar definitions can be multiplied from various standard works. Thus it is patently false to say “Evangelical is quite a catch all gab [sic] bag of all sorts of things, many of witch [sic] conflict with each other.” On the contrary, it is well-defined by a short list of theological positions.

          And I never said that Gothard borrowed any of his ideas from the Catholic church. I don’t know why you keep implying that I said things that I never have. I don’t know from exactly where Gothard derived his definition of grace. All I know and have stated is that it bears significant resemblance to the Roman Catholic definition.

          And just because I pointed this out does not mean that I am grinding an axe against Roman Catholicism here. In case you haven’t noticed, my subject has been Bill Gothard, not the Catholic Church. I am an ex-Roman Catholic, and so I obviously disagree with their theology, but to accuse me of grinding any axe against them here is disingenuous.

          The only reason you can possibly have for citing differences within evangelicalism at this point (as if both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not themselves rent with all kinds of internal divisions!) is to throw up a smokescreen to hide the vacuity of your argument. I have been following the Complementarian/Trinitarian issue closely and in spite of some of the rhetoric it has not been established that anyone has “redefined the Trinity.” Bringing this up is a sign of either desperation or intemperate opportunism on your part.

          As for my good Catholic friend who recommended Gothard’s seminars to me back in the ‘70s: I know why he recommended them; you do not. It’s best not to comment on things about which you are utterly uninformed. I also know full well how Catholic parish priests were advising parishioners concerning Protestant organizations like Gothard’s back then, and your account of it is fundamentally inaccurate. And, yes, I am fully able to take criticism, but criticism that has no basis in fact deserves a response, which is why I’m responding to you.

          I don’t think your evaluation of the relative impact of magazine articles versus books carries any weight. In the ’80s Gothard went from a rather Big Deal in evangelicalism to someone who’d completely fallen off the vast majority of people’s radar screens, and no one to my knowledge was emerging from IBLP or ATI back then to cast light on the extent of abuses that were taking place with Gothardism—so no, it is not reasonable to complain about the dearth of printed material on Gothard during that decade.

          Regarding those whom we profile and those we do not at MCOI: we have not given Mark Driscoll “a pass.” We certainly have not endorsed him. We have limited staff and resources and cannot comment on every problem person in the church, so we give priority to people and topics that are being neglected or ignored in the Christian media. Driscoll received such a high level of attention that anything we could write about him would have been superfluous.

          While we certainly did pray for Rick Warren when his son committed suicide back in 2013, we violated no known canon of compassion or code of etiquette when we failed to offer condolences when we recently republished an article about him. It’s not that we don’t like Rick Warren; I have heard him speak and have spoken with him and found him to be a very likable individual. But I have no idea how your observation is supposed to represent some kind of lack of compassion on our part, although it apparently makes sense to you. Meanwhile, your reasons for citing TGC, complementarianism, etc., are equally inscrutable in this context. And if you were truly keeping up with what we publish, you would know that we cover current issues and do not merely republish old material. Again, it’s best to comment on what you’ve actually checked out.

          I don’t know why you keep bringing up my Calvinism, since none of this is about Calvinism. You are clearly the one with an axe to grind about irrelevant topics. And as for Scot McKnight’s blog post on heresy: it’s interesting and has a lot with which I agree. The term is overused and we should be careful with it. However, he contents himself with Harold O.J. Brown’s definition of “heresy,” in which Brown refused to consider anything heretical that was not doctrinally defined by the time of the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. According to such a definition T.D. Jakes would certainly qualify as a heretic while Rick Warren would not (not that I would necessarily call Warren a heretic, as much as I disagree with him). But Brown’s apparent motivation for using these criteria was that it allowed him to avoid declaring either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism as “heretical,” which, of course, neither the 16th century Reformers nor papists would have been happy with. The definition is historically unsustainable. And McKnight’s citation of an Eastern Orthodox bishop (Kallistos Ware) in support of his approach is of questionable value for anyone in the Protestant (i.e., sola scriptura) tradition.

        • Karen July 14, 2016

          Ron and Rob, my observation is that where there are human beings involved, there will be conflict, divisions and sin--even abuse of power and gross sin, even in the Church. It happened in the New Testament Churches (or we wouldn't even have most of the NT epistles). I have said in comments here more than once the Eastern Orthodox Church is certainly not immune. One need look no further than the failed attempt, more than 50 years in the making, of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch to convene a Pan-0rthodox "Great and Holy Council" in Crete last month! How true the word of the Lord, "A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). Man rules, but God overrules. Some things never change, and thank God for that! :-)

          There are some significant similarities in the kind of divisiveness and sin that occurs in the Eastern Orthodox Churches with those in the Protestant world. The same general categories of perversion of Christian faith and practice can occur (e.g., legalism, externalism, and nominalism). Yet there are also some significant areas where there is not the same kind of division at all. I don't think I could ever emphasize enough for the benefit of my Evangelical and Protestant brethren what a huge difference this latter reality has made for me in how I experience the presence of Christ in worship and in my ability to form a coherent overarching understanding of the meaning of the Scriptures and of Christian history. It is the difference between standing on a rock or standing on sand that constantly shifts beneath my feet to become something else. I will always appreciate what I received in the Evangelical churches to which I belonged--a wonderful education in the Scriptures, the emphases on making the faith my own and reaching out to others with the truth of the gospel--but I have found the Orthodox Church a much more stable and sane place, dogmatically and liturgically, from which to "work out my own salvation" and to which to invite others in.

        • Don Rubottom July 17, 2016

          Two people whose participation here has greatly blessed me are now locked in a battle. I pray that one will understand the other is speaking from the heart and that that one will appreciate that the first is speaking from extensive intellectual rigor. You are talking past each other but you have the same Lord and the same Spirit who has called us all to a ministry of reconciliation.
          I greatly appreciate the Catholic contributions of Rob and the Orthodox contributions of Karen here. I as that you two pray for us Protestants that we can love Christ with our hearts as fiercely as we love His Truth with our minds! And please, little children, love one another!

        • Elizabeth D July 17, 2016

          Thanks, Don. So often I find myself looking for the "Like" button here.

        • LynnCD July 17, 2016

          Don wrote: "I pray that one will understand the other is speaking from the heart and that that one will appreciate that the first is speaking from extensive intellectual rigor. You are talking past each other . . ."

          Speaking from the heart does not mean telling a falsehood about someone's published writing, and then, when challenged, deflect, and then, when the author defends himself, tell him to take a hike, basically off the forum where he was attacked in the first place. Is that what you mean by "speaking from the heart?" Because that is what happened, in a nutshell.

        • Don Rubottom July 21, 2016

          No Lynn [Moderator note: edited the name per subsequent comment from Don], "that" was not what I meant. What I meant was your legitimate reaction as a sincere and faith filled Roman Catholic to what you consider to be mean-spirited comparisons between Gothard's ideas and Catholic teaching and Ron's legitimate, if Protestant in perspective and style, attempt to articulate comparisons that his studies have disclosed. I do not think his responses to you were a "gentle answer" sufficient to turn away wrath and I do not think you understand where he is coming from.
          I too found the book difficult to read in some respects. But I do appreciate the courage it took to patiently work through meetings with Gothard and to self-publish their critique when all mainstream institutions continued to mostly look the other way and provide Gothard protection by silence.
          My appeal was to both of you to hear the other, not to belittle or suppress either of your points of view.

        • LynnCD July 21, 2016

          Doon Rubottom (why the misspelling?) replied to me:

          "What I meant was your legitimate reaction as a sincere and faith filled Roman Catholic to what you consider to be mean-spirited comparisons between Gothard's ideas and Catholic teaching and Ron's legitimate, if Protestant in perspective and style, attempt to articulate comparisons that his studies have disclosed. I do not think his responses to you were a "gentle answer" sufficient to turn away wrath and I do not think you understand where he is coming from."

          What? I understand very well where Ron is coming from, because I asked him off-line. I asked him if comparisons were made in the book to the RC Church and he explained where. I got another copy of the book and compared the relevant portion to a Catholic online teaching tool Ron provided to me.

          I don't blame him for responding to rob war's claim that all they do is say they are right and Gothard is wrong; also her overstatements about what they said in the book about Gothard's definition of grace bearing some resemblance to Catholic teaching, and I certainly do not appreciate her telling Ron to go elsewhere and discuss other issues. What's sauce for Alfred, Bill Gothard, you, me, is also sauce for everybody on this forum. If we want to make a claim that attacks a person or persons, we better be prepared to be challenged if someone disagrees.

        • LynnCD July 21, 2016

          Oh, I understand what you meant, Don. I still disagree with you. I don't think Ron's responses to rob's disparaging comments were unloving. If she had just left her response to she didn't like the sarcasm, I could understand, but she said a lot more than that.

  297. LynnCD July 11, 2016 Reply

    rob war, if you don't mind, I'm taking the conversation to the most recent article which only has a couple dozen comments so far.

    • huzandbuz July 20, 2016 Reply

      LynnCD:

      Do you have any facts as to why 'Doe 1 & 2' are no longer a part of the lawsuit?? (Did I miss something?) :+)

      • LynnCD July 20, 2016 Reply

        huzandbuz, no information but what I quoted. I am not following the suit closely, and have difficulty understanding a lot of it, including the legal maneuvering. It was just what I saw on Alfred's site. He is in very close contact with Bill Gothard, these days, including in person.

        • huzandbuz July 20, 2016

          LynnCD:

          I thought I had read here or somewhere that one of the 'Doe' stories 'might' have been fabricated. I cannot imagine why someone would suddenly cease to remain a part of the legal action. Perhaps another RG reader has additional input. Thank you. :+)

        • Don Rubottom July 21, 2016

          Huz, such litigation saps emotional energy. It may be that the Does were discouraged by being abused by the attorney who was tossed out. It may be that their claims were contrived by that attorney based on information obtained wrongfully. It may be that the new lawyer did not find their claims strong or that they do not have sufficient trust in the new lawyer to persist at this point. There are many reasons people withdraw from such cases. They could be just sick of the whole mess.

      • huzandbuz July 21, 2016 Reply

        Don, thank you. Understood. I am always seeking others' perspectives and knowledge.... :+)

  298. LynnCD July 13, 2016 Reply

    If anyone reading wants to get back to the topic of this entry, I heard it fourth hand that a hearing was scheduled for today. I hope and pray the truth will come out, whatever the outcome.

  299. LynnCD July 13, 2016 Reply

    http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2016/02/19/558/#comment-3800

    "Hearing was held today (07/13) for the new law firm to engage. They were granted until August 15th to prepare their version of the suit. Two plaitiffs dropped out: Jane Doe II and John Doe I. After the August 15th hearing will be a month for responses, motions, etc. . . . with a hearing to move ahead end of September (will get the exact date). No new plaintiffs will be added, regardless."

    • DAVID PIGG July 20, 2016 Reply

      LynnCD,Thank you for the update.Know as always the challenges in this realm of what may be endorsed,and what may not be accepted,due to the ongoing struggles facing the suppression of the truth.It is only my opinion,but when John Doe 1 dropped out,and Jane Doe 2 dropped out,the power of darkness won again;and the façade of religious impeccability, Bill's constant smokescreen,will be active,alive,knocking on doors,extorting,slandering,discrediting,exacting heavy demands for the price some refuse to acknowledge,for the perpetuation of darkness.A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.I appeal that fighting this giant with one hand tied behind the back,and subtle blindsided maneuvers be now accessably discerned and dealt with.

      • LynnCD July 20, 2016 Reply

        DAVID PIGG, whenever I read Don's legal thoughts and others' remarks, I am completely lost with respect to this suit. I can't comment on it, but we all can pray for the truth to come out, regardless of whether the final rulings are what we think should have occurred, or not. It is heartbreaking to know that mediation, for whatever reason, was not an option.

        From what I understand, enough truth has been revealed for the public to be aware and informed of IBLP teaching and behavior, no matter the outcome of this suit. Blessings to you . . .

  300. JPU July 18, 2016 Reply

    Thanks, LynnCD. I saw that the date is September 29. It is a Thursday. I went to look at which one Jane Doe II is, and it goes straight from Jane Doe to Jane Doe III. Not sure what I can say about that, or about the one John Doe. Praying for them all.

    • LynnCD July 20, 2016 Reply

      JPU, I believe prayer is key. You're welcome.

  301. rob war July 19, 2016 Reply

    To Don, I greatly appreciate your comments and yes, I regularly pray for my many Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. thank-you as always.
    To Karen, I likewise appreciate your comments and love as I always have the wisdom of the Orthodox. I knew the meeting in Crete didn't go as well as hoped but sometimes unity takes baby steps to make it happen and with all of the problems in the middle east which the Orthodox Churches are on the front line of, unity and working together is a must.

    Let me tell a little story here. In my third year at college, 3 so called Christian friends needed a fourth person in order to rent an apartment. Even though I didn't know them well, they seemed like sincere fellow Christians so I became the fourth person. BIG MISTAKE and it became the year of roommate hell for me. They were wild partiers and a couple of them had their boyfriends over for sex. Sometimes, in order to try and get some rest, I turned on my radio and started to listen to a half hour show called Focus on the Family. Dr. James Dobson became a life ring for me, his steady voice, traditional moral stance helped me deal with the immoral chaos I was living in. I remember listening to him announce that the show now had enough support to become an hour show. I followed him through the many years, turning on the radio to listen to who he was going to talk to. He was a strong pro-life voice. He was and I think still the evangelical idea of conservative politics. His book "Holding on to your Faith even when God Doesn't Make Sense" saved me from atheism. I have nothing but gratitude for how Focus on the Family has touched my life and helped me starting in 1981. However, even with warm gratitude and memories, I'm not going to let that turn a blind eye to some of the more unhealthy ideas he promoted, the Christian celebrity subculture his show created, and now his endorsement of Trump who has lived a life totally opposite of everything Dr. James Dobson promoted. I still can't grasp how someone that sat in on gambling commissions and was a strong voice against gaming can endorse someone that made millions off of gambling. I think there is a danger when we let ourselves get too emotional caught up with a person or ministry to blind us to problems and inconsistencies with fallible people and ministries. We can be grateful to people, books and ministries that have greatly helped us and it is not betrayal to also realize imperfections and problems.

    • Larne Gabriel July 19, 2016 Reply

      Rob,

      Regarding your recent questions to Alfred on DG, regarding Gary, Ruth and when Bill knew about his brother many of his facts are mixed up. This is probably a result of him listening to Bill and Billy's changing story. Alfred is not an expert by any means on the 1980 scandal and what lead up to it. Bill on the other hand is trying to be a historical revisionist to make himself look good and shift the blame. Take whatever Alfred writes on the subject with a grain of salt. The story is much bigger then he knows or is willing to admit. There are facts he is aware of that he doesn't mention because they contradict Bill's story, some come from his own witness. Regarding Gary and Bill's relationship is complicated and Alfred is completely in the dark as to the truth, again Alfred only believes what Bill says now that Gary is gone. I personally believe there is no malaise on Gary's part and I watched him step up to the plate in our June 2014 Denver meeting with Bill. Alfred will read this but this is something I have told him privately. Bill is using him and he will get burnt.

      • rob war July 19, 2016 Reply

        Thank-you Larne. I agree 100% with what you are saying. I always understood that Gary confronted Bill about Steve in 1976 (which apparently caused Steve's ouster) and this wasn't over just kissing 4 staff girls. That must be Bill revision, that he and his father were only told it was just kissing. But I also thought that issues with Steve went back as far as 1969. I wanted to ask you if the emails from Gary to Bill that Alfred has published look genuine? It is curious that they are found after Gary has gone to heaven. Yes, I do think Bill is using Alfred's devotion and loyalty. That is very sad.

    • Don Rubottom July 21, 2016 Reply

      I share your angst about Dobson's goofy endorsement of Trump. I fear his age and circumstances are affecting his judgment. I am convinced that he is only still "in business" to supply his son employment. I hope Trump does not make a fool out of him, or the rest of us.

      • huzandbuz July 21, 2016 Reply

        ....like he has made a fool of himself. :+( In my humble opinion, from DAY ONE, Trump has been a DISTRACTION from the 'best' candidate for the presidency as well as all other pertinent issues....:+( Scary....

      • rob war July 22, 2016 Reply

        Yes, I thought it was a real compromise on Dobson's part considering all his previous work on gaming. I thought Dr. Dobson was no longer with Focus on the Family due to his son Ryan's divorce and remarriage and the rule at Focus that they will not employ someone who has divorced and then remarried. I wonder if the pressures of being a Dobson child put a lot of strain on their marriage. It sounds very sad. I think this is the fruit of adopting a Christian celebrity culture and status. His radio show became a who's who and anyone of note went on it many times more than once. I think these pastors that are now stumbling over themselves in support of a particular presidential candidate ought to take a good hard look at history. When Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne in 800, he set a horrible president of becoming a king maker and the result was entanglement with secular rulers and it leads to compromise and control by secular rulers. I don't understand what these guys are doing.

    • Karen July 27, 2016 Reply

      Don and Rob, thank you both for the candor and perspectives you bring and for the kind words.

      The Scriptures as well as Christian history and life are full of examples of how God works through imperfect people to bring salvation (ultimately, the Savior His Messiah) into the world. I can so relate to Rob's example of Focus on the Family. It seems to me there is no substitute for the Incarnation of the Living Word, nor for the ongoing living witness of the Holy Spirit to that Incarnate Word, for us to truly encounter and know God in Christ. I thank God He also works through us highly imperfect servants and that the Holy Spirit, Who in His omniscience and omnipresence knows all hearts and "blows where He wills", works even outside the norms and boundaries He has established for those of us within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

  302. Larne Gabriel July 19, 2016 Reply

    Rob,

    I have no idea regarding the authenticity of the emails but the relationship Bill and Gary had was complicated. Often stray documents need to be read in the complete context that they were written to fully understand them. Bill is famous for pulling these out of context documents out of his files to discredited someone or to get an out of context endorsement. He has done that with me and others many times. The same goes for words like "inappropriate" what does that mean and to who or what era was that written. The term is completely subjective on the part writer and reader and NOT specific. Sexual harassment was not well defined in the 70s like it is today. A staff woman then might have endured a behavior based on social norms of the day but today they would be calling an attorney. This is particularly true in the setting of a authoritative religious order (umbrella doctrine).

    • rob war July 20, 2016 Reply

      That makes total sense to me. Out of context documents fits with out of context Bible verses as well. Having secretaries sit in one's lap is totally inappropriate even by 1970's standards and even "dating" those in one's employ the same. This is even more true with a Christian ministry that teaches high standards and character. Bill's own behavior should have been above approach, back then and now.

  303. Larne Gabriel July 25, 2016 Reply

    Interesting Gothard family link from the public record dated July 14,2016, Naples, FL: I am only passing this on as an investment warning to my friends!

    http://www2.colliersheriff.org/arrestsearch/Person.aspx?p=0001082624

    • huzandbuz July 25, 2016 Reply

      Larne:

      I viewed the link/police arrests....

      Which one is the 'Gothard family link'....

  304. rob war July 25, 2016 Reply

    You have to type in the name Gothard and then David Gothard's arrest for fraud on 7/14/16 will come up along with his mug shot.

    • Larne Gabriel July 25, 2016 Reply

      Thank you Rob, the original link I was sent goes right to the page:

      http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/David_Gothard_28125905/


      I tried to get too fancy and use the Collier County Sheriff's website without checking, sorry for the confusion. Anyone want to donate to the $100,000 bail? It might be interesting to see who pays for the bail bond.

      • rob war July 25, 2016 Reply

        Well, maybe David will now have time to meditate on the Bible since he is in jail. Maybe Bill should visit him in FL and take a brake from the stress of being sued himself and have some quality brother time together.

  305. huzandbuz July 25, 2016 Reply

    What happened with the sons in the Gothard family!?!? Was their father 'considered a criminal in any way'?? What about the Gothard daughters??
    Mind boggling....

    (I had seen the name David Gothard listed among those with criminal activity in the past. As I have many relatives in FL, I often search the internet for various reasons. None of my family members are criminals, however.) :+)

    • rob war July 25, 2016 Reply

      I think one of the sisters might have passed away from breast cancer but I am not 100% positive on that. The other who seemed to have worked with Bill sounds like a nasty old bat by the descriptions and interactions others have had with her.

      • huzandbuz July 25, 2016 Reply

        To rob war:

        Hmmmm.... 'taking a break from the stress of being sued'....
        At this point, I envision Bill to be too self-assured to feel any signs of stress regarding the lawsuit.

        Here is the link indicating his sister Joan's passing.
        https://www.meaningfulfunerals.net/home/index.cfm/obituaries/view/fh_id/10184/id/2322340

    • Elizabeth D July 26, 2016 Reply

      The siblings:
      Anne Garvin - the one mentioned in Meg's story. Alfred writes: "Anne has always jumped to conclusions, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. She has had to apologize on numerous occasions for laying into the wrong person for the wrong reason."
      Laura Heiniger
      Bill
      Steve
      David - accused of racketeering in Florida, has served time in California in the 80's for fraud, and been "in trouble" in Nevada & Washington
      Joan Musil, deceased

      It would seem there was a significant degree of malfunction in the family, but probably few will ever know for sure.

    • DAVID PIGG July 27, 2016 Reply

      Huzandbuz,If you really want to find what was happening in the inner essence of Gothardom,try wrapping your mind around "THE Sex Scandels GOTHARD Files"one of which is particularly sickening "The Early Years".I could have sworn I read everything,but when I came on to this I wanted to throw up.The one source I would not hesitate to admire for how he dealt with the shocking information he himself both knew and revealed,after having known essentially nothing was done about it is Larne Gabriel.He knew firsthand the IBLP Machine.The "nice guys" who threw into the ditches the hurting victims,then onto the alter of the "One" who created a "world" for the victims to be exploited for little more than "recreational eroticism".GET this,for years!!Not one person valuing man's intrinsic worth upon reading these accounts wouldn't be madder than a hornet.And yes there are many extremely hurting girls now turned to women left out there for sacrificial expedience.FACE IT:It's either GOTHARD or them,and it's not been Gothard,.... up till now.

      • huzandbuz July 27, 2016 Reply

        David Pigg:

        Thank you for your input. Actually 'The Early Years' is one of the first articles I read when I became aware of RG more than a year ago. I remain horrified & angry....

        Larne & Ruth did all they knew to do. Many did not know what to do or out of fear did nothing. Tragically, many took part in the cover-up (for one reason or another).

        My continued prayer is that we who have been traumatized by this evil man and his 'religious' system are now able to reach ALL those who also need a healing touch by sharing our own experiences and especially making them aware of Recovering Grace. ^i^ ^i^ ^i^

  306. Don Rubottom July 25, 2016 Reply

    Misspelled my own name when I logged in recently in a cookie blocked machine. If moderators could correct, it would be appreciated!

  307. huzandbuz July 26, 2016 Reply

    Elizabeth:

    During this past year or so, I thought I had read everything there was available pertaining to the salient facts of the Gothard family & IBLP etc. Not so. I did just locate some additional information regarding the Sr. Gothard's 'actions' during Steve's scandal cover-up (and more). To me, these facts speak volumes. (He held such a prominent position with the Gideons yet he did not believe it was morally reprehensible to be a part of such a facade.... As a result, the influence he had on his sons is tragic. One cannot help but wonder what his personal life really entailed.) Enough said.

    (As Alfred, in my opinion, 'chooses' to be continually deceived by Bill & his 'ministry', I opt to disregard anything that he reports.)

    Thank you for your input. :+)

    • Elizabeth D July 26, 2016 Reply

      I agree, huz, that reality wasn't nearly as "upstanding" as appearances, and that goes for father AND sons, of course. What we will never know, though, is the female influence (mom and daughters) in that family. Considering the severe misogyny exhibited by Bill in his actions and teachings, I suspect there was a significant difference in reality and appearances on that side, too. I have no basis for anything specific there, so I'll just leave it to say that, based on Bill's pattern of behavior and teachings, I do believe there was significant dysfunction in his family of origin.

      • rob war July 26, 2016 Reply

        I've often wondered about the father's attention he was able to give to the boys in that he has been described as a hard worker and worked long hours. Of course that is pretty typical for the depression type and style of parenting back then but if dad is gone a lot then that leaves the kids with mom and might explain some of Bill's misogyny.

        • huzandbuz July 26, 2016

          rob war:

          Maybe there was contempt or even an ingrained prejudice against women in general that purveyed within the Gothard household....

          Yet, I have read that his wife, Carmen, was an arrogant, opinionated woman. Perhaps both assertions are correct.

          Possibly the 'tributes' provided by Bill contained, in part, the attributes he wished his parents did possess....

          I believe it is reasonable to assume that both parents were well aware of Steve & Bill's ongoing immorality from the onset. If they were so compelled with proclaiming truth, righteousness and the law, why did they allow or even take part in the cover-up?

          It certainly appears that the disparity could not have been much greater within the inconsistencies ALL of their attitudes expressed versus their actual behavior. Mind-boggling.... Worst of all, destructive. :+(

  308. huzandbuz July 26, 2016 Reply

    Elizabeth:

    Did you ever read Bill's 'tribute' to his father??

    Interesting.... Especially this line:
    "My father’s life was characterized by his willingness to proclaim and stand by the truth, whatever the cost".

    http://iblp.org/about-iblp/bill-gothard/tribute-william-gothard-sr

    (I certainly understand that we are ALL SINNERS and must continually be conscious of our 'standing before God'. In this day, however, we must be especially mindful that those 'transgressions against God's Law' cannot only be exposed but sprawled across the internet.) :+(

    • rob war July 26, 2016 Reply

      The description by Bill of his father as willingness to stand by truth is probably really saying that his father was a hard rigid man and unyielding. It's been coaxed in spiritual sounding language to make him look good. I thought that William Sr. first job before Gideon was with one of the Chicago's paper and he was refusing to print advertising for something Will Sr. considered immoral. I could be wrong but it might have had to do with something like cigarettes ads so he quit his job over this. Maybe someone can clarify this. He did this with a non- working wife and six kids. I think it is one thing to take a stand against something that is blatantly immoral but it is another to be so fixated and rigid over incidentals to the determent of one's own family. It seems the extreme in Christian standards to be non reasonable is what Bill inherited from his father's views and practice.

      • huzandbuz July 26, 2016 Reply

        rob war:

        I do believe you are referring to the '7-Letter Word' that Sr. refused to place alongside any advertisements:
        'A L C O H O L'....

        BTW, though it was the 'Depression Era', Sr. had held an employment position enabling them a reasonable, steady income for quite some time. No doubt he was thrifty. He could not have given a missionary a sizable check otherwise. (For some reason, I will assume that statement to be truthful....)

        • rob war July 26, 2016

          Thank-you. I forgot whether it was cigarettes or alcohol. But quitting over the word alcohol is really extreme. I can understand that in the depression, the country was just coming off of prohibition and that views on alcohol use were much more firmly held among Christians than by today's standards but this is kinda still over the top. There are much bigger sins to fight over or "take a stand" on than the use of alcohol in advertising in a secular magazine.

        • huzandbuz July 26, 2016

          rob war:

          My 'comment is awaiting moderation'. :+)

        • huzandbuz July 27, 2016

          rob war:

          I do wish to make a correction to the 'implication' I made in a prior post:

          Other than 'Bill's own words' specified within his 'testimonial' to his father, I have NOT read any other source whereby I can actually verify the information 'regarding the ALCOHOL' to be factual. (Though I did attempt to research 'William Whitmore Gothard, I was unable to glean any additional details or a biography as a result.)

          I certainly believe it is conceivable that Gothard Sr. would forfeit an employment position over religious convictions. (I have.) In the event, however, that the ALCOHOL employment reference is not fact-based, I do not want to be guilty of perpetuating an untruth.

          Though the 'testimonials' to his parents 'may hold truths', since we KNOW what a deceiver & liar Bill is, personally, I am skeptical to believe anything he says or puts on paper. :+(

        • rob war July 27, 2016

          thank-you for the clarification. All I know was that it had something to do with advertising and he felt it was wrong or immoral and refused to print it. Maybe if someone does know, they can clarify it factually. Bill has repeated refer to it in very vague and general terms but it left quiet the impression on a young Bill. My late mother worked briefly as an advertising illustrator for the Chicago Tribune. In the 1930-40s, they had a whole department of illustrators for advertising and ads. I thought it was over cigarets which is in the same vein as alcohol. With the country coming off of prohibition in the 1930s, advertising for alcohol might have been seen as more controversial. I hope someone comes forward with the facts.

      • huzandbuz July 26, 2016 Reply

        rob war:

        Apparently his censure of alcoholic beverages was extremely important to him at the time. (Assuming this intolerance is factual and that he made the decision to leave his employment position as a result.)

        Such a disdain for ALCOHOL but a lack of contempt for SEXUAL GROOMING & FORNICATION?? Was he aware of the unreported SEXUAL ABUSE within the home schooled families?? :+(

        • huzandbuz July 27, 2016

          rob war:

          Chuckle. I guess I still did not make my point.

          Maybe Gothard Sr. never forfeited an employment position over anything at all. This 'could be' a complete fabrication on Bill's part to make his dad appear exceptionally righteous.

          Outside of the immediate family (remaining), perhaps no one has all of the 'facts' pertaining to this *issue. If there was an advertising dispute, I do not believe the product in question really matters. I read Bill's 'tributes' for the purpose of attempting to ascertain the 'personality traits of the parents' in my quest to determine 'what the heck happened in the minds of the sons'!!

          The ONLY reason I mentioned Bill's 'tributes to parents articles' is to highlight the disparity. Bill clearly specifies what he feels his parents virtues were. He then persists in mentioning that the impressions & impact of their paragon of morality will continue to be a lifetime influence for him. WoW!! Really??

          His 'tributes' to his parents SPEAK VOLUMES with respect to how he views his own character qualities!! Is he completely delusional?? OR does he continue to believe that he can keep up this pretense as most view him as virtuous??

          Bill clearly stated:
          "My father’s life was characterized by his willingness to proclaim and stand by the truth, whatever the cost."

          Really?? Was his adherence to the truth feigned?? If not, why didn't he expose both his sons' blatant immorality, no matter what the anticipated outcome might be?? (Certainly Bill NEVER abided by the character trait of proclaiming truthfulness at all costs!!)

          Bill clearly stated:
          "She instilled in me the strong commitment to be a protector by helping me to understand the meaning of my name."

          Really?? His mother firmly established in his mind a discernible comprehension as to the German meaning of the name 'William'?? (It means: !Resolute Protector!) With that, Bill also understood & accepted the fact that he was to fulfill these expectations?? OMG!! (It appears Bill NEVER protected anyone but himself!!)

          *(As per the father's 'tribute' penned by Bill):
          The seven-letter word would not have attracted undue attention from most business magazine editors in 1943, but it did get the attention of the editor-in-chief of the Domestic Engineering Company.

          IF this statement has merit, I assume the 'missing word' is ALCOHOL. It is the only seven-letter word that I determine fits the situation. Re-read it. He does mention barroom stool. :+)

          Enough Said!!

        • nicole gardner August 2, 2016

          I'm glad to read up on all I missed out on while I was gone a hundred miles away working another one of my temp jobs for 80 & 90 hours a week. I missed everybody on here so much I feel like I'm at a family reunion tonight!!!! Better than getting back to my cat, even.

          Huz, there was no fornication. Just rape. If Steve & Bill's joint venture had laundered sex in the form of fornication, then at least one of the 7 female "participants" would have been a gal met at church...... or the supermarket....... or the post office....... who would have actually had the resources to get away from these 2 men. The fact that not a one of these had any personal autonomy whatsoever for quite a while leading up to their rapes eliminates fornication from among the many personal tastes that were indulged in by both these men. Steve was a serial rapist who may not have been able to carry out his crimes without his accomplice-brother-Bill.

          On a related note, for a while there over on DG Alfred was trying to say that these crimes as well as the sexual misconduct of Bill himself are either (A) not civil wrongs at all, or, (if they were actually wrong) (B) this wrong that they are is the girls' fault. Either one of (A) or (B) hinges on his reasoning that any sexual misconduct is immediately recognizable for what it is and therefore somehow, on the basis of awareness, becomes the recipient's sole responsibility to put a stop to. This line of reasoning had Alfred saying "What is with the Lot-honoring?!?!?" in response to me quoting 2 Peter 2:7 to him. I guess he'll have to hear God answer him on that one someday. What the Bible makes clear in it's recorded instances of sexual assault is that the subjects knew they were being sexually assaulted. WE know in reading the accounts circumspectly is that the dominant forces weren't out to take their victims for a literal walk around the block. What's more........ is that we know that the victims of these assaults knew the exact same thing about what was intended at the time that verbal suggestions were 1st made to them (that what was expected of them was sexual in nature). How do we know that these (Lot & the Levite-with-the-concubine) were mindful of the sexual nature of what loomed over them? NOT BY THEIR MORAL RESISTANCE, as Alfred insisted must be the test-proofing, BUT RATHER BY THEIR BARGAINING IN ACCORD WITH COMPLICITY to the dominant threat. The Bible makes clear that acknowledging a sexual assault can occur just as well by complying with it, not merely by resisting it on moral grounds. In cases where compliance occurs, if the scenario starts out by dominance being wielded by the assaulter(s) before additional sexual advances are made, then the victim is innocent. It's no wonder that Bill's P.R. rep won't acknowledge the Bible's indictment of abusive dominance as being the onus of intimidated complicity. Especially since the Bible clearly condemns the perpetrators & affirms the lack of culpability on the part of the prey.

          When a Bible-thumper refuses to acknowledge what the Bible clearly states, he also is yet another indicator of guilt; Alfred has thereby indicated that Steve raped those women & that Bill also sexually intimidated (assaulted) all those girls. Why else deny what the Bible says about sexual assault, unless he knows that it says what it says?!?!? & also knows that what happened, happened....... in light of this divine spelling-out of justice/mercy?!?!?

          I'm glad that the truth about God's Biblically-expressed heart concerning sexual abuse gets acknowledged here on RG rather than suppressed in order to cover for unrepented abuse.

  309. huzandbuz July 26, 2016 Reply

    Elizabeth:

    Then there is Bill's 'tribute' to his mother:

    (Interesting as well especially since she passed in 2000.)

    "She instilled in me the strong commitment to be a protector by helping me to understand the meaning of my name."

    James 1:8???

    Like many Bill has made, that statement is deceptive.
    (The name William was given the German prestige of 'resolute protector'.)

    http://iblp.org/about-iblp/bill-gothard/tribute-carman-gothard

    (I feel such contempt for BG and all those who participated in his fraudulent atrocities. I have no idea WHY I continually attempt to understand any of it....) :+(

    • Elizabeth D July 26, 2016 Reply

      Huz - It's been a while since I've read those. Without making too much of the stories, I'd say they are both consistent (especially his mother's) with an inordinate emphasis on appearances and good works. A desire for parental approval is evident, especially from his mother. I wouldn't be surprised if it remained elusive.

      Be good, but if you can't be good, make sure you at least look good. Keep striving to perfection. Makes sense.

      • Karen July 27, 2016 Reply

        Elizabeth, well said!

        Correct me if I'm mistaken in my impression, but this seems to be an apt description of a common m.o. within great sectors of American Fundamentalism (and certain sectors of conservative Protestantism, Catholicism & Orthodoxy even) to the present. A pastor and his wife I met who both came from a Fundamentalist Baptist (GARB) background also described among their extended family the extreme shunning and/or censure of "fallen away" family members that would occur for those who didn't toe the line of the standards, i.e., who left to join a more moderate Evangelical church and/or who adopted a more relaxed lifestyle code (or "worse").

        Now, I'm sure this misplaced emphasis on appearances occurs in other groups and even among non-religious people as well, and it is damaging, especially to children, wherever it occurs, but it is especially difficult to heal from, it seems to me, when it is done in the name of "obedience" to the God of Jesus Christ. :-(

        • rob war July 27, 2016

          Karen,
          what is your assessment of William Sr. quitting his job over the use of the word alcohol in advertising in a secular newspaper? Even given the more conservative times of the depression, I kinda think it is another sign of extreme misplaced priorities of right and wrong and application in society. His quitting didn't stop the use of the word really, it just put him out of job with a big family to care for. I think Bill's over emphasis on what is right and wrong, godly or ungodly came from this sort of misplaced views in the home. It is twisted moral theology. Examples of this in Bill's teaching is his own vow and then courtship teaching about kissing. The emphasis stops being on real morality and purpose of sex in marriage but on kissing as if that is now the new test for virginity and to save your "first kiss" for your wedding day. It is badly misplaced thinking here. There are bigger morality fights than the use of alcohol in adversing. What ever evil Will Sr. thought the word alcohol would bring, it wouldn't be on his head but the paper's. It really is an explanation of Bill's over the top ideas.

        • Karen July 27, 2016

          Rob,

          Elizabeth's last sentence is what resonated with me as being a great succinct expression of the message that when internalized would result in the sort of behavior you mention by Bill, Sr. It's classic legalism and hypocrisy in my view. This is totally different than, say, refusing to drink because alcohol addiction has destroyed members of your family. Or, declining to meet a friend who is a recovering alcoholic for dinner in a venue that serves alcohol, for another example. These latter ones are clear examples of following the spiritual principles the Apostle Paul outlines in Romans 14. Bill, Sr.'s behavior, as it has been described here, sounds like a classic example of "straining out gnats and swallowing camels" to use Jesus' metaphor for the m.o. of the hypocritical Pharisees who opposed Him.

          Back in my Pentecostal days, I attended a large active A/G church in my area whose pastor, a very popular preacher with a good reputation in the community, had been raised a very straight-laced, old-fashioned Pentecostal preacher's home. Worship style may have been different than the Fundamentalists, but lifestyle wasn't. He was very contra any Christian consuming alcohol at all, and was shocked when a visiting Christian celebrity singer ordered a beer at the hotel restaurant with him and his kids after a concert at the church (I happened to be there--that's how I knew about it). However, several years later this same pastor was discovered secretly using pornography when he was traveling and had to be disciplined. He also was overweight and died early of a heart attack. May the Lord have mercy on him, his family and his memory! Unfortunately, this pressure to keep up appearances, and neglect of true inner spiritual health, can be deadly.

        • rob war July 28, 2016

          Yes, the early Pentacostal movement had many fingers and toes and one of the out growth was so called holiness movement where in order to be consider holy, there was a huge list of no's similar to fundamentalism. Women had long hair and no make up, there were no movies, smoking, drinking etc. etc. Similar to the holiness movement was the oneness pentacostal where they basically denied the trinity. I think AoG came out or was a reaction to these two streams that were heading in the wrong direction. The late Tammy Faye Bakker came out of such groups where she was raised with wearing make up was a sin. When she was set free from that, she went the other direction and went overboard with the makeup and ended up in the opposite camp of the prosperity gospel which is the extreme in the opposite direction. I sometimes wonder in stepping back and looking at all of these things, if bad theology attracts imbalanced people. What I mean is that rigid hard inflexible theology will attract such people. Authoritarianism will attract abusive people. Or does bad theology make people imbalanced? I think it is a little of both. A hard, inflexible man like Will Sr. seemed to be will end up with a group with a hard inflexible faith. And the imbalance of all of this bad theology is what we see in the children.

  310. rob war July 27, 2016 Reply

    I just reread Bill's tribute to his father on IBLP web site. What he quit over was the fact the word "barstool" was going to be used and Will Sr. felt that this was a violation of the paper's policy against any liquor advertising. The top of the tribute first says 7 letter word which implies alcohol. But barrstool is not only misspelled, (should be barstool) but is not even 7 letters but 8. According to the tribute, Will Sr. wanted to change the ad to say restaurant stool and his boss did not agree. Bill states that this was in 1943 which is not the depression but WW II. Again, this was an add for furniture and had nothing to do with liquor, bars or drinking I just find this whole thing over the top reaction. This reminds me of the singer Katy Perry's father becoming so obsessed with certain names, that they couldn't eat or have "deviled" eggs because of the name "deviled" was too close to devil. Of course, we know where she stands now with the faith she was raised in, she left. If this is the model influence for Bill, one can see how he ended up with some of the nutty, unrealistic ideas he taught. I am also curious how his dad without a job was able to write some check to a missionary to Germany no less while we are at war with Germany at the time. It doesn't add up and is irresponsible on top of that. Of course the opening lines about a seven letter word make one thing that it was about alcohol when it was all about a simple name for a high stool like chair that everyone knows as as "barstool".

  311. huzandbuz July 27, 2016 Reply

    rob war:

    Chuckle. We sure do interpret text differently. :+)

    Let us assume this to be a true story. As I understand it:
    The initial advertisement used the seven-letter word ALCOHOL.
    (Bill does not clarify everything. Born in 1934, he was only age 9 at the time of his dad's job loss.) He states his father was opposed to using this seven-letter word in the ad. There was also no compromise by using restaurant stool as a replacement. His father had to make a choice.

    Hyphenated 'Bar-Room' or 'Bar-room' was the accepted spelling in my day in the area where I resided. Spelling & even the traditional meaning of many words has evolved over the years.

    I do not see where 'Depression Era' is mentioned in the text. An add for furniture...???

    An editor-in-chief employment position in 1943 would have realized a decent salary even for that time period. No doubt the family was extremely frugal & saved diligently. From the accumulated savings, his father could have easily supported a missionary with a 'large' check. (We do not know the amount, however.) Wars do not matter when it comes to missionary giving. :+) Irresponsible in giving?? That is a 'matter of perspective'. I say, "Ya cannot out give the Lord". :+)

    • rob war July 28, 2016 Reply

      Huz,
      I'm not following you point. People here can certainly have different takes and understandings. I do believe that his father quit his job over the wording of the ad. I do remember Bill mentioning it at the seminars I attended in the past and he made it sound like it was during the depression time period. WWII was no cake walk either. I think the way the tribute was worded leads one to think his dad was taking a stand against alcohol but the reality was over the word barstool which in that tribute is misspelled as "barrstool". This current discussion was really about how the Gothard children were raised and speculations about family dysfunction due to the current legal problems of Bill and David. We actually only have bits and pieces about their parents and their childhood. Someone quitting their job over barstool is over the top. Now yes, he probably was very frugal and savings to use in the meanwhile. He also could have had some foreknowledge of possibilities of job openings in different ministries like Gideon which gave him the incentive to quit over the evil word of barstool. His boss could also have been sick of him and his crazy fussiness and told him no, knowing Will Sr. would walk in order to get rid of him. We will never know and all of this is speculation.
      While it is natural to look back at what went wrong or was wrong about their childhoods, we are talking about 70 to 80 year old men here and I am sure that they had plenty of time to overcome any dysfunction from a long ago past.
      I think more of the problem lies with the theology they were raised in, which Bill turned around and taught to others. What went wrong with David is anyone guess and while Steve had obviously major moral problems, it does seem like now that he may have turned his life around.

      • huzandbuz July 29, 2016 Reply

        rob war:

        As I felt it was 'noteworthy', I guess I initiated or renewed the topic of 'Gothard family dysfunction' with the mention of Bill's statements regarding his parents 'tribute'.

        This side of eternity, it is all just conjecture....but not without merit.

        I strongly challenge your discourse:
        "While it is natural to look back at what went wrong or was wrong about their childhoods, we are talking about 70 to 80 year old men here and I am sure that they had plenty of time to overcome any dysfunction from a long ago past."

        I am in that 70-80 age bracket. Hmmm.... Any impairment or deviation from the normal childhood development should no longer affect me??....

  312. rob war July 31, 2016 Reply

    With all due respect, I think you might have missed my point. "Family dysfunction" is a term that is too often batted around and over used without thinking about setting any kind of parameters and definition. Many times, family dysfunction is culturally defined. I have worked with those from other countries and what is considered normal in their home land, is not considered normal in USA. I worked with a Filipino national that not only lived with her mother, the household included her siblings, their spouses and children with only a few working to support this big group. She told me that she considered America very anti-family because for her this was normal and this is what families do. I also worked with an Indian national that had her in-laws live in with them because in that culture, the parents went to live with the oldest son and that was normal. I know with the Gothard family we are not talking about differences in cultures but differences in time. In the depression/WW II time, an authoritarian father that worked long hours, probably used corporal punishment, his word rules was standard mode of operation. I think if we want a picture of Bill's family, it would be better to look at the dysfunctional things he taught about how families should be which is an authoritarian father, corporal punishment, a mother that has little say, children that are expected to blindly obey their parents, siblings that are expected to be each others best friends etc etc. The sibling enmeshment one can see because Bill's ministry before 1980 blow out was an all in the family operation. Sometimes there is a fine line between being a close or close knit family and being enmeshed as adults. Bill obviously saw his family as the ideal Christian model and used what he grew up with as a basis on what he taught should be the Christian ideal and held it out as an alternative to our cultures turn to more permissive parenting modes. But it is the length of time that makes it difficult to judge the level of dysfunction in Bill's family because of culture norms and ideas have greatly shifted in 80 years and yet realize that Bill taught a very dysfunctional family model mostly likely based on his extreme childhood. It's a fine line to walk.

  313. Larne Gabriel August 22, 2016 Reply

    Any of you that have read Alfred's latest post on DG regarding the third amend lawsuit filed 8/18/16 his comment and observation misses the elephant in the amended suit and focus on legal maneuvering. As I was reading in my DAB bible reading today I loved what Proverbs 21:15-16 says in relationship to Alfred's post and his mentor; "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers. Whoever strays from the path of prudence comes to rest in the company of the dead."(NIV) I believe Bill and IBLP are terrified. The "elephant" in the 306 page 1,948 point complaint is Bill's sexual harassment and the Board's complicity in not protection their legal responsibilities. (I don't have access to an online copy maybe RG could publish it.)

    • rob war August 22, 2016 Reply

      Where did you get this copy and is it available on line?

      • huzandbuz August 22, 2016 Reply

        https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/08/22/lawsuit-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp-amended/

        • Larne Gabriel August 22, 2016

          Thank you for posting the link!

        • huzandbuz August 22, 2016

          Larne:

          I still cannot locate Alfred's post....????

        • Susan's Saddle Stands August 22, 2016

          just a little warning to anyone wanting to leave a comment at homeschoolersanonymous.org---be VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE---they are very sensitive to the mental injuries suffered by their writers and readers from misapplied home schooling---.---I sent what i thought was encouragement to one of the writers and they would not allow my comment or other comments i have written since then because to them it appeared to be victim blaming, which was the last thing I meant.

        • rob war August 22, 2016

          Huz,
          you need to click on the right side recent posts

        • rob war August 22, 2016

          sorry, the link is comments. Click that

        • Elizabeth D August 23, 2016

          huz - You may be looking for Alfred's comment here, but he has "been away" for some time now. His comments (ad nauseum) are on his own site, discoveringgrace . com, not-so-affectionately known here as "covering disgrace." You should be able to find the recent post there, under the topic "About the Lawsuit." He's ranting now about how the plaintiffs are just on a Recovering Grace bandwagon, and making offensive generalized statements. RG has served a tremendous purpose, but he really does give them way more credit than they deserve, if you know what I mean. It's just fingerpointing - whatever complaints exist against Bill exist solely because of RG. Pleeeeease.

    • huzandbuz August 23, 2016 Reply

      Alfred is so deluded that he never considers taking, ("Did he do it?") in earnest prayer, to the Almighty. This truly astounds me. That is my prayer for Alfred....that he would become so profoundly frustrated & feel such incredible unrest that he would plead with God to KNOW ALL TRUTH....
      NO MATTER WHAT IT ENTAILS!!

      • Larne Gabriel August 23, 2016 Reply

        Huz,


        I am guessing you found it, but if not: http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2016/02/19/558/#comment-3978

        His latest comment two down from that one is also interesting, he is now an attorney or listening to Bill who is "smarter" then the attorneys, (At least in his own mind).

        • huzandbuz August 23, 2016

          Larne:

          Thank You!!

          Alfred remains so incredibly focused on protecting Bill that it appears he cannot consider he could be wrong.... even regarding the frequency or extent of his mentor's actual conduct. (This side of heaven, I doubt he will EVER be able to re-consider his 'God-man's' TRUE MOTIVATIONS for his actions.)

          The fact that Gothard has already admitted to 'some impropriety' should be a cause for concern with Alfred. Yet, he keeps him positioned on that pedestal.... while piously insisting "Eternity will tell all". YES IT WILL!! In the interim, it appears that Alfred envisions himself as the God ordained defender.

          He also states, "There are times . . . I tremble to ponder what some folks will have to answer to Jesus for what they are attempting to do or allowing others to use them for." Ironically, these are OUR sentiments concerning Alfred as well as Bill. (The god of this world can so thoroughly blind.... )

        • LynnCD August 23, 2016

          huzandbuz,
          You nailed it when you said Bill already admitted to some impropriety. Bill said he held hands, gave hugs, touched feet and hair with "young ladies," and that these actions "crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong." He went on to confess these actions were a double standard and violated the trust the parents put in him.

          Alfred claimed what Bill said was *wrong* and made the footsie into merely a teacher's way of getting the young lady's attention. He also brought up some Elsie Dinsmore type prose where godly older men hold the hands of young maidens and fondly gaze into their eyes to show how innocent it all was. But Gothard already said what he did was wrong.

    • kevin August 23, 2016 Reply

      Larne,
      I'm glad to see that the suit has been amended and is moving forward. The new law firm appears to be much more professional than the previous representation that they had.
      I think that Gibbs heart was probably in the right place, but he was in over his head with this one, and I had doubts how well he would perform against the big legal guns of IBLP's. Ironically, IBLP may have done the plaintiffs a favor in seeking Gibbs disqualification, in that now they will hopefully get decent representation.
      I read the comments by Alfred at Discovering Grace. They should disgust anyone with any sense of decency. Those verses that you site do indeed apply to his comments. We have a just God. Those who do evil and cover for evil will get their justice.

  314. nicole gardner August 22, 2016 Reply

    Rant:
    (Sorry, I can't help but state what we all know). He misses the elephant in the room b/c his mentor has published propaganda saying there is no such thing as sexual abuse that isn't to be blamed on the recipient. The fact that the courts are even trying to ascertain the degree of wrong of IBLP's sexual abuse is against 2 people's actual religion.

    Relevant:
    ty for update, Larne...... please keep on giving us anything you find, esp. anything you wade through............. because 306 pages is a lot. & whenever I descend to DG, I feel my JesusFishSymbol getting re-drawn as a bottom eater.

    • Larne Gabriel August 22, 2016 Reply

      We you know what the Torah (OT) says about bottom feeders. My neighbor is a retired Alaska King Crab fisherman so I can relate. The third amended suit is basically too much inappropriate touching and a lot more very inappropriate touching (molesting)similar to Charlotte's account, not protecting employees by Bill and the BOD. It also defines the living, working and authority relationship to Bill. There is a new rape charge against another IBLP employee and the punishment of that victim for being raped. There are other false imprisonment charges for the extreme punishment. It is an interesting but very sickening read and I believe a much better and stronger presented case, this group of attorneys is definitely the "A" team. They have also requested a jury trial. When I finished reading it yesterday on a flight from LA to Seattle, after taking my youngest to a Christian college. The thought of what these women experienced happening to her was upsetting to say the least.

      • huzandbuz August 22, 2016 Reply

        Larne:

        Please copy & paste the link that includes Alfred's post
        & anything else you may be privy too. I cannot seem to
        locate it. Thank YOU!!

        ....A young person off to christian college. How wonderful!!

        Blessings....

  315. rob war August 22, 2016 Reply

    To Susan,

    There are some truly horrific stories on HA. Many of them are more shocking that even here. We never homeschooled, my husband was very much against it even though at times I would of like to because of some special needs of our children. Many of the reasons he was against it have been brought up on HA. I would suggest if anyone is thinking about homeschooling their children is to read many of the articles there and consider both sides, pro and con of such an endeavor. While our boys went through parochial schools, our daughter is at the public school and out of parochial and charter, the public has been the best place for her hands down. The grades are good and she has been student of the month a couple of times and she can't wait to get back this fall. I don't think there is a right or wrong when it comes to the education of one's children. Parents need to decide what is best for their children and situation. For all the glowing praise and promotion of homeschooling from Gothard or even what I heard on Focus on the Family, just reading here and even more so on HA has made me glad we didn't homeschool our kids. Yet for all the bashing public schools usually gets, that has been the best place for our girl.
    I also wanted to tell us Susan that I enjoyed looking at your art work and crafts.

    • huzandbuz August 23, 2016 Reply

      Rob:

      Click on the right side of what?? Are you replying regarding my inability to locate Larne's reference to Alfred's post (in response to the lawsuit??) I am clueless.... :+)

      • huzandbuz August 23, 2016 Reply

        rob:

        TU! I did locate Alfred's response to the 3rd amended lawsuit.
        Sigh....

      • rob war August 23, 2016 Reply

        Huz,
        Take a deep breath. His comment is not worth the time and effort.

    • Susan's Saddle Stands August 24, 2016 Reply

      thanks for the clarification. My comments that got deleted were more along the line of sharing the terrors happening to both students and teachers in public schools because of all the state testing and the intense rules, security and lies governing those tests.-----kids are being medicated and attending counseling sessions just to go to be able to go to school because they hate it so much because of the one main test that is under so much security and rules you would think bill gothard had designed it. Graduation can depend on passing the one test despite how good the grades of the past 12 years are. Parents are rising up and saying no and opting their kids out of the test, many even going to homeschooling to keep their kids from becoming basket cases. So that was the kind of comment that got deleted when I was trying to say public school has its own sets of problems and is causing kids and teachers emotional distress.

    • Susan's Saddle Stands August 24, 2016 Reply

      p.s. thanks for your complements about my art. God has allowed that talent to be a blessing to others in my life.

  316. nicole gardner August 23, 2016 Reply

    Relevant: I've been reading the 306 page lawsuit here:


    https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/08/22/lawsuit-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp-amended/



    Rant: This way I don't have to experience Alfred's ridicule & derision of other people's experiences. I'm not sure why his own experience of never having been sexually abused by his Billy-buddy could anyhow counterweight the sexual abuse of this one done against many others......... but in Alfred's mind, it does. He relies on personal experience more than any of us do; it's just that he amputates all other eyes, ears, also fillets all skin/nerve receptors- other than his own. He's thrown out the majority of first-hand accounts, instead being so emphatic about a tiny fraction of what "experiencing-Bill" is...... yet still claiming "first-hand witness" as his clout. It's so illogical it's pathetic. But it's standing proof of the type of reasons why this ended up in court after years of the plaintiffs (& others) attempting to grieve it. There is no way to arbitrate with those holding to such unreasonableness. God bless both the plaintiffs & RG, respectively, for their respective roles in performing the civil & ecclesiastical service necessary to address the public menace that is (& has been) IBLP.

    • Julia Fetters August 23, 2016 Reply

      Like

  317. Julia Fetters August 27, 2016 Reply

    I have a question and did not know where to post it.
    I have read part of the case - long sad read. My question is this for those who have read it or just know the answer -

    Is it stated in the case against BG IBLP that he/they knew of abuse in the home(s) of one or more plaintiff and neglected to report?

    What these girls suffered at the hands of a supposed man of God and his ministry is without conscience. Having said that, to me some of it began with the knowledge of abuse by a father in the home that went unreported. If I do my required diligence as a mandated reporter, I am far less likely to take advantage of the victim. I find the lack of reporting alone - with nothing following it - enough to disqualify BG IBLP from ever being granted the privilege of working with young people and families.

    Was this addressed in the suit? I am not out to skewer anyone. I just see this as a very important part of this case and one that MANY ministries (back in the day and very recently) fail to take seriously and follow through. Mandated reporting is mandated - not an option. Neglecting or refusing to do so should be case to shut a ministry's doors. Even with zero tolerance. Maybe that will cause those in the position of Mandated Reporter to take it seriously.

    I see us ALL as mandated reporters. Certain positions carry even more weight and responsibility to do so.

  318. nicole gardner August 27, 2016 Reply

    Julia,
    The point you brought up was so well made that I barely have anything to add, especially since you asked a question about the case. I read both of the other lawsuits that were filed before this amended one, as well as this one. In the 2nd one (which got bogged-down in the details), Copley-Burger was badly sexually abused by her father throughout her childhood. Bill Gothard called her home with his phone on speakerphone (with Ruth C.-B. & others present) to demand to know from her father whether this were true; under such circumstances, of course the father denied it. Bill let him know that this "lie" had been told by his daughter. After Bill himself reamed this girl out in front of the others for "lying", as well as continuing on to punish her in other ways as well, he eventually sent her home where her mother threw her down a flight of stairs. The parents also took Bill's direct advice & "un-adopted" (Bill's own invention) her for her "rebellion."

    Sick as "un-adopting" is, it's even sicker when it occurs as in retaliation for reporting incestuous child abuse. I use my real name on here, so I will not elude to my own childhood friends who were raised A.T.I. But I can assure you, what happened here to R. C.-B. was NOT an isolated expression of brutality & disownment.

    With regard to at least one of the others who are suing, I know that Bill Gothard 2nd-classed her in talking about them to others as soon as they got to the Institute. He had a label: "Encouragement Case." It is apparent, by his use of it concerning at least one of the girls, that it was a label given for CPS having come to her home & taken this child & her siblings away due to abuse in the home.

    So, yes; it IS apparent from IBLP's handling, that: once mandated reporting has been eschewed, (by a negative label & discrimination against the victim &/or by calling them liars/blaming them for the abuse), pandora's box is opened in the spiritual life of the one hurting the child in this way. A couple more steps in the same direction, & they're molesting this child themself. Apparently. It stands to reason; if you keep shoving a drowning person away each time they make a reach for the shore, what's to say it's not wrong to also lash a ball & chain onto them while you're at it?

    Sorry if I made you as sick as I myself feel by my summary of R. C.-B. & the person who on here is called "Charlotte" at the hands of Bill Gothard.

    • huzandbuz August 27, 2016 Reply

      I recall reading about the 'speaker phone' incident.
      THAT father was NOT Kenneth Copley, however.

      THE FOLLOWING WAS COPIED & PASTED:
      As a child, Jane Doe II was raped by Kenneth Copley, a counselor at ATI Indianapolis training center. Jane Doe II reported this rape to IBLP staff, but nothing was done and nothing was reported to authorities.
      Jane Doe II later told Gothard about her abuse.

      128. On at least five occasions, JANE DOE II told Bill Gothard that she was being sexually abused by her father and that her younger siblings were also being abused. Bill Gothard took pleasure in the details presented and kept pressuring JANE DOE II for more explicit details of the abuse that took place.

      129. On one occasion, when JANE DOE II disclosed details about her abuse and the abuse of her siblings, Bill Gothard called JANE DOE II's father on a speakerphone and asked if the allegations were true. JANE DOE II's father denied the allegations.

      NOTE:
      JANE DOE II was ALSO RAPED by (Dr.) Kenneth Copley while he was employed at IBLP training center. However, Kenneth Copley IS NOT HER FATHER.

      The following was also copied & pasted:
      Ruth Copley Burger -
      Ruth is the adopted daughter of Kenneth Copley and lived at the Indianapolis Training Center from 1994 to 1995. Her father had already been forced out of a previous ministry due to sexual misconduct, and was forced to leave IBLP in 1995 due to “sexual misconduct involving other IBLP staff in the age range of 14 to 20 years old.” In 1994, when Ruth was 11 or 12 years old, Copley began sexually abusing Ruth. Copley used the IBLP facilities to conduct this abuse, which I will not describe.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/a-summary-of-allegations-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp.html

  319. nicole gardner August 27, 2016 Reply

    *Re. whom the 2nd example I refer to; I do not know that C.P.S did, nor do I know that they did not, get involved. Rather, what I believe is, that this girl's father had lost jobs specifically for his own inappropriateness toward young girls before turning this girl into the hands of Gothard. My mistake.

  320. nicole gardner August 28, 2016 Reply

    Thank-you Huz! Needless to say I can barely follow without having someone break it down. Thank-you.
    btw, just as a sidenote, predators count on the confusion of people such as myself; what I just did here is a perfect example of what Alfred would point to say something such as, "See, she should be blown-off because she's obviously confused on this." But one of the reasons this kind of thing is so confusing is because it is such a mess, compliments of the mess-makers- the ones incurring so much harm that I can't even keep track of what's what.
    My ATI-raised friends will have to start telling their own horror stories on here because I don't want to botch that up, too.
    And thank God for attorneys.

  321. huzandbuz August 28, 2016 Reply

    Nicole:

    OMG!! Who can possible keep track of it all?!?! I ONLY recall those specifics as I read every heartwrenching testimony numerous times (and recently too.)

    The ONLY reason I brought the oversight to your attention is for clarification 'in the event you needed it' (as you stated.)

    (Dr.) Kenneth Copley not only brutalized and raped his adopted daughter....but Jane Doe II, and who knows how many others?!?!
    It is curious that he was removed as an IBLP counselor, considering....
    the other degenerates. I cannot help but wonder who was responsible for that decision....the sexual predator Gothard brothers??

    • nicole gardner August 28, 2016 Reply

      Ty for keeping track- I needed it, alright. I got mixed up between Copley-the-predator & Copley-Burger the victim, who is also the victim of Copley-the-predator but whose predator also preyed on other victims who were already compromised by other predators........ which predators were also protected by Bill Gothard's negligence with regard to mandatory
      reporting......... which is pretty non-sequiter because he never called the hotline on himself, either.

      About Kenneth Copley's removal: It's obvious that, by the time he was removed, he'd already done a LOT of raping. Deja vu for Bill, since he'd already gone through the same thing with his brother's actions at the Institute. He obviously was not so cocky this 2nd time around. There's a veneer there. He knows his impressionable patrons are, well........ impressionable. And even in hardcore ATI circles, violating a young girl is considered distasteful, shocking, & indelicate. Bill knew/knows this. It threatened the huge swath of permisiveness he had made for himself. I'm sure he valued his target market from the start- 1982- for the fact that he zeroed-in on this small demographic for one main reason. The reason being that it was they who had bought his made-up dogma of twisted Scripture, treating women & all subordinates just as he considers them. What other demographic would, as a whole, accept his articulations of woman/girls being just as guilty of rape as their rapists? And implement his dictations that molestation victims are to apologize to their molesters for having caused the molester to molest them? And........ have as dictator one whom the church, as a whole, had ALREADY rejected for his promotion of sexual abuse to such an extent that it had imploded his very substantial following?

      He knew he was getting away with murder...... so he had to make sure he made example of another, in-broad-daylight 'murderer'; otherwise what HE had long been getting away with would finally become apparent. I wouldn't even be surprised to hear if, concerning Kenneth Copley's dismissal, Bill called a staff meeting to turn it into a big show of how "disappointed" in him & how "grieved" he was. Like the show he put on on Valentine's Day 1980 concerning what his colleagues had long made clear they were walking out over....... 4 years prior. It's crocodile tears for long-standing negligence. It's crocodile tears for complicity. It's crocodile tears for crock. Nobody's crock but his. And I'm sure the Kenneth Copley dismissal was more of the same.

  322. nicole gardner September 7, 2016 Reply

    I'm probably the last one here to have read this 4-part series, but in case anyone else missed it, also- here's the 1st part of the 4-part breakdown of Gothard's actual material:

    https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/08/09/gothard-explains-why-god-allows-child-molestation-part-i/

  323. nicole gardner September 8, 2016 Reply

    And all these articles are even more comprehensive & more insightfully written:


    https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/04/there-is-no-victim-a-survey-of-iblp-literature-on-sexual-assault-and-abuse/

    https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/04/how-counseling-sexual-abuse-blames-and-shames-survivors/

    https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/03/silencing-the-lambs-twisting-matthew-18/

  324. nicole gardner September 10, 2016 Reply

    I'm worried it's my having said something offensive in my post(s)? that has affected this great thread..... am not trying to be a nacissist (in thinking it's me) but I have counted on the input of all the *regulars* & been blessed by all the newcomers & even one-timers who chp in here....... & I miss it very much. I have read & re-read my latest long-ish post to see what I might have said that might have been offensive to everyone because I know that the consensus can't be wrong. I think it's my failure to clarify "1982". What I was referring to by that year is that this is the 1st time in the Basic that Gothard blamed victims for rape as a general rule. By then the church as a whole had left-off his dogma in a massive fall-out after his 2nd-in-command & other high-eschelon-minions' raping at the Institute had hit the press. It's all too obvious that his incorporation of his blame-the-victim-dogma was the result of his "own morality dictating his theology." Thus, he had to depend on manipulating a relatively small group of followers to buy into his theology so they wouldn't identify his (im)morality. Hence, deliberate brainwashing became his absolute imperative. To afford what he'd already done. And, in his confidence that he could pull this off, he was equally confident that his brainwashing could afford him in what he was still doing & intending to continue to do.

    That's all I meant by what I said. I'm sorry if I didn't say it clearly before. I miss the plethora of comments from everybody that I used to get to read every day........

    • rob war September 11, 2016 Reply

      Nicole,
      Don't worry, you have done nothing wrong at all. I think the drop off in conversation would have more to do with a lack of new articles here. Likewise and at least for me, I'm not sure if I have anything more to say or add to any of the conversations here. Again, I think at least for me there comes a point in time when one realizes that they need to begin to move on and to continue is unhealthy. If you look at the people that participated in the beginning of this blog to now, there has been a turn over. It's natural process. Maybe that is not where you are at but for me, that is where I'm at. There is nothing wrong with you and at least for me, you certainly haven't written anything that is offensive to me or towards me. A couple of the exchanges I've had were really bothersome for me and it made me begin to rethink involvement here and whether participation was going in a direction that was unhealthy and uncharitable. But again, that had nothing to do with you. I have other interests and maybe it is better to pursue them and move one.

      • rob war September 11, 2016 Reply

        I mean move on

  325. nicole gardner September 11, 2016 Reply

    Thanks for putting me at ease, Rob. I appreciate it & I think you're right- after all it's not all about me here!

    I just didn't want to have made it sound like I was judging the people who joined the IBLP (or ATI) band-wagon post-1982. After all, I'm among this group. I've pretty much forgiven myself for being the one to drag my mom into IBLP as an 18-year-old; yup, I was an ADULT when I was outright told by our pastor behind closed doors that "The 7 non-optional principles are the most practical breakdown of the gospel I've ever encountered", among other endorsements. My poor mother had her reservations, but I pushed her to attend the seminar at our church with me, & argued with her about it afterward. After all, the seminar barely told us anything we hadn't already heard our pastor copy straight out of the Red Notebook's numerous times, diagrams & 'examples' & all. Too bad my mom didn't call adult protective services on my pressuring of her!!! Seriously. It might have pulled me out of the mire, too. It's taken me until I found RG to find my voice re. my IBLP indoctrination.

    Rob, I have read some comments in which you & others were contending strongly for the practices of the faith that are especial each to their own. For almost a year now I've been noticing that the one-man defender of Gothard & this defender's wing-man, Brother David K., have been throwing *bait* with the fact that you're a Catholic. Both on Covering Disgrace & on here, they've tried to bring this up quite a few times, seeming to mostly 'dare' the rest of us to somehow be embarrassed or to turn on you for this. (This is apparently such people's idea of Christian fellowship; to imagine that it's them doing refining-work to call attention to the fact that solidarity among Christians has (a) Catholic(s) among this constituency. What.Ever. I think the Bible calls their gig "stirring up strife among the brethren"??!!) In spite of their bait, this did not happen. And certainly no singling-out of Catholics occurred in the book "A Matter of Basic Principles"...... this was published long before this blog-community existed. After my mom bought this book, I caught sight of it & started reading it without asking her :P By then, our church was starting to undergo it's 3rd split & I was trying to get the pastor to stop lampooning individuals (& to stop instructing his son to do so, also) from the pulpit. (Guess who this rendered to be up next?!?) The book was the cinch-er that gave me insight to get out- it made me realize I was dealing with a leader subscribing to false doctrine, not just a maverick IBC. I had finally realized Gothardism was terribly wrong from it's implementation there. Without the Catholic church being involved at all. However, I do believe Gothard at least tried to market to Catholics, too. Back before 1982 when IBLP was bigger than ATI. As the authors of "A Matter of Basic Principles" pointed out, he had elements of Catholic doctrine intertwined in his dogma. Which was a also cocktail laced with ingratiation to parents everywhere, heavy references to Amish-type cultures, a nod here & there to youth leaders -letting them off the hook re. any kid whose parents wouldn't let them attend youth group- it's like he figured out what issues of common confusion were the most cross-denominational & then gave a nod to various sects in championing "solutions." Always looking to expand his customer base. Nothing about actual workability or actual right-doing; just politicking. I'm sure the component(s) of Catholicism he included was just another bid at getting many of you sucked in, too; just like he already did with Independent B.C.s. Or, I should say: "Independent" B. C.s And, for the most part, it didn't work. Congrats to yours (& now you) for not getting grand-scale-conned in this way! ILBP is WAY off as a different gospel than either the gospel rendered by Protestantism or the gospel rendered in Catholicism. WAY off. "3,000 Word Amplification of the Sermon on the Mount"????? How much more disproportionate to the Bible could anybody render one passage of it?!?!?! It seems ATI was even worse. The printed material is blasphemous & heretical. I'm happy for you that you, post-IBLP, are no longer lead as far off from the truth as many IBCs were/are.

    I cannot wait for the day when ILBP is effectively sued & RG will again be allowed to post more on the theme of justice's enactment.

    Everyone will be commenting then! Yay.

  326. rob war September 12, 2016 Reply

    Nicole,
    Don't worry, I think the hardest person to forgive sometimes is oneself. At a young age such as 18, one isn't going to have either Bible know how or understanding or even practice life experience to see through Bill's body of teaching. Don't beat yourself up over it and realize now that you have moved on. Bill Gothard's teaching is a mixture of all sorts of ideas and theologies. He basically was and is a fundamentalist of the IFB type. His use of the Bible comes from that. I think he took different ideas from others as well. He had some big name reformed/Calvinist support him and speak at his retreats such as John MacArthur and Joni Tada. I don't think that if some of Bill's teaching was is much conflict with that theology, that they would be there. ATI also appealed to Anabaptist groups because of the emphasis on limited education, simple lifestyle and alternative to the general culture. Bill I think was a part Arminism, which appealed to those people as well. I've asked on a couple of Catholic blogs, who has gone to IBYC/IBLP conferences and the only ones that step forward are those that attended while they were still Protestants, not as Catholics. A Catholic priest isn't going to encourage his parishioners to attend a week long fundamentalist seminar that has full backing from BJU. Not going to happen and a Catholic priest isn't going to tell or encourage any Catholic to involve themselves with non-Catholic seminars and teaching. He would get in pretty big trouble with his bishop, I guarantee you. I think the biggest exposure for any Catholic is the Duggar show which did attract a number of Catholics in watching it. I think the emphasis of pro-life and anti-contraception was the draw. I read on one of the Catholic on-line article defending the show. I can't remember where or who but there was one. I think the few Catholics that filtered in attendance were a small number of the curious and more of an urban legend.

    • nicole gardner September 12, 2016 Reply

      Having been in an IFB-type for 10 years as the 1st church I went to, I was told that these types "rely soley on the Bible whereas 'denominational' churches rely on tradition." I had no idea that "non-denominational" & "IFB" was a denomination in itself!!! Scattered outposts, no real connection with each other, no accountability. But still a denomination by these very same distinctives. I see somebody spearheading one of these as being a claim-jumper. The seizing of an opportunity to put their stake in someplace to call their own, & it's totally their own to do whatever they want with, since it's self-made. Bill Gothard did the exact same thing. I think it has more to do with pragmatism (the fact that it works) than it does to do with doctrine. I could open up my Bible, lay unroasted peanuts on it's pages & leave it outside to absorb the dew. And then declare that the peanut's sprouting was the Scripture's exclusive rendering of the sprouts. "I didn't use anything else!!! Therefore, the fulfillment of God's Word not returning to Him void is in these sprouting peanuts! This means that God communicates through Scripture that it is His desire that it yield peanuts in the life of every person who's truly obedient to the content of this book!!!" This is how some of these types qualify their claim of "rely soley on the Bible." What's worse is, instead of taking peanut seeds (which are amoral or even good since God created them to sprout), they are taking what's contrary to the Bible & then misusing the Bible to give it credence. Like the Umbrella teaching, the blame-the-victim teachings, the 'bitterness' teaching(s), etc., etc, etc. One of my ATI-raised friends (we are now friends as adults since she wasn't allowed to do more than wave at me in passing while we were kids) told me on the phone 2 days ago that one of The Journey conferences at which Bill spoke had a whole booklet on "The Sin of Bathsheba". She threw the pamphlet away, but said that throughout the whole week it was made clear that Bathsheba neglected a bunch of things that would have prevented that whole Psalm 51-inspiring-scandal. Also it was her sin of commission of taking a bath that started the whole thing. Bill's apparent solution for sin: "No woman should ever get rid of her B.O. because, [apparently], never taking a bath is the only way to avoid a man's taking advantage of her. The Dirt Stays, thus TheSinBeGone, The End." Maybe he figures that the only possible way his brother would have ever behaved himself towards anyone of the students he compromised would have been if she'd never washed throughout the whole time of her being apprehended by Bill? Who knows.

      Anyway I would have to say that wrongful fancies packaged in Scripture- even nothing else but Scripture- is nonetheless NOT superior to actual Scripture that's been handed down the generations to form a doctrinal tradition. I like to think that I'm better now at discerning when Scripture is being high-jacked to sell a concept. I've been in a church movement for a few years that has as it's church-wide standard the serving up of Scripture verse after verse, chapter after chapter, book after book. I know IFBs & IBCs make the same claim, but those champion topical sermons. And the common topics are allegiance to human authority, Calvinism (in which false claims are made about the beliefs of Arminianists), & what hate of the the world is supposed to consist of. Since the Bible barely uses up it's space to speak to any of these things, the majority of it gets totally neglected (as it likewise does in IBLP & ATI). I feel more comfortable in a church where there's a proper standard-, & sources of outside accountability to said standard-, but where the pastor could nonetheless go beserk & it would take a while for him to get censured by the rest of the movement for it. This way, I know that he's actually choosing integrity in preaching through freedom rather than ruled by fear so as not to do anything otherwise through having no freedom. Part of why I want this kind of leadership is because I am not a good reader of subtlety & I kind of need (& have had) spiritual leaders going completely off the rails before I've realized they're nuts. Maybe if I were a better reader of people I could be in a denomination that has more hierarchal accountability & could still detect whether my pastor was a God-fear-er or not. Anyway, Rob, you are in a way better place than I ever was while I was under IBLP dogma for 10 years, or even when thinking I had left it behind but instead ended up under new leadership for 4 more years that secretively subscribed to Gothardism. Even abusive authority (& I am in no way saying Rob that you now have abusive authority) is not as bad as the Umbrella teaching that gave 'license' to a whole burgeoning franchise of abusive authority. I'm happy for you for where you're at- & am even happier with where I'm at now. It's about time.

  327. rob war September 13, 2016 Reply

    Nicole,
    It really sounds like you are in a good place or much better place and all of this is really a journey. It's hard when one has been in a Church that emphases and teaches that they are the only "true" church and everyone else is corrupted and bad and when you come out of that environment, it is hard to go elsewhere because it's been pumped in your head that everyone else is all wrong. The groups that really get off on this sort of message are hiding who really is in the wrong, and it is not everyone else as much as themselves. There is a good book that I've read and can highly recommend is "Girl at the end of the World" by Elizabeth Ester. She also has a blog and it is her testimony of being raised in and escape of a fundamentalist cult that is very similar to IFB and Bill Gothard. It's a tough book to read due to the abuse documented in there. I will also be getting her second book "Spiritual Sobriety", published this year. She talked about how she was raised homeschooled, without any TV or media and under the extreme courtship teaching ideas. Much of it looks copied from Bill's body of teaching, so I think his stuff was making the rounds in extreme fundamentalist circles. I think you might find it helpful after being in IFB type churches for 10 years.
    praying for you

  328. nicole gardner September 13, 2016 Reply

    An oft-repeated notion in the opening prayer: "Oh Lord, please gently but firmly close the doors of all the churches in this community that do not proclaim Your Word in truth." I'm told that that same pulpit & same occupant of it now scarcely has before it 25 persons on any given Sunday to hear this- if it's still being said. It would seem a prayer that is being answered! So I am sure that attention is no longer being called to the concept of any church being ended via means involuntary of it's pastor's direct will that be ceasing.

    I will order those books today. I may end up recommending them, too. Also I want to add that, if I had any children, I would be looking to get them into a denomination so that, as young adults, they would be less likely to pick a bad Independent Church in a quest to still be in an Independent one. Even though I would be delighted to see them grow up in a congregation that's centered on Scripture, I know that's an easy claim to make but very hard to do in a proportionate, inductive way without the sermon content being denominationally pre-prescribed -which just as often as in IFB's- includes extra-Scriptural emphasis. I wouldn't want the blessing of them wanting to go to church on their own to be foiled by their getting into one that they'd be better off without. And I feel that extreme, fringe-edge risk of this is greater in IFB/IBC circles than in the denominational realm. So, as I said, having kids would likely change how I do church. As an autonomous adult, to protect myself, I keep an ear & eye out for Scripture twisting. I have experienced so much of that! A Scripture-twist is the best indication of what the Bible DOESN'T say. After all, if a trained pastor (or seminar speaker!!!!) has to contort the Bible to make it seem to say what he claims it says........ this has to be because, no where in it's pages, does it actually say that. Otherwise they'd just quote a passage & expound on this by cross-referencing. And especially by having done the same thing with the passage right before this one & then following this up with the passage right after. It's more obvious when peas are being called oranges if the context is maintained in this way. What the Bible DOESN'T say shows up easier when any Scripture-twisting occurs in this format; it's just more obvious. Which is why topical sermons are the bane of existence for the con-artists. Especially when, at the local congregation level, the topic & how it's presented is at the whim of the sermon-izer! So, like I said, having kids would likely have had me in a denomination by now. To prevent us having to uproot to different congregations (due to my discernment) quite frequently & to lesson the risk of young grown kids resorting to really fringe-edge maverick-led congregations due to their lack of it.
    So, like I say, I'm going to go order those books now; thanks, Rob!

  329. DAVID PIGG September 13, 2016 Reply

    A major movement that Ron Henzel hit on in his treatise "A Beginner's Guide to Bill Gothard",but hasn't been discussed at all,was endorsed,promoted,and hailed as legitimate by many fundamentalist churches,who in endorsing the movement,cracked the back door open for Gothardism.What Ron wrote was by no means an overreach.The movement's name was Keswick Theology,and I'm asking Ron Henzel or anyone else to explain the destructive capacity in laymen's terms,which began somewhere around 1870,lasting until the middle 1920's.Gothardism came,not necessarily in a vacuum,but attached to fundamentalist perfectionist hype and psyche.

  330. DAVID PIGG September 14, 2016 Reply

    In an effort to stimulate discussion I'll put in my nickel's worth.Keswickian Theology came from conferences,meetings,conventions in the 1870's from Keswick England,and it included many big name Christians and writers missionaries,and thinkers. After a few modifications of Wesleyanism,a somewhat loose body of revamped holiness dogma came out something like this:"You have taken Jesus as Savior,but is He Lord of your life?"If there is sin,carnality,even the slightest sign of your individuality,wants,desires the answer is "no."Self will must be eradicated by passivity,so that the already existing "Christ in you",can ward off all fleshly motives,carnality.A second work of "GRACE",Is needed.Rededication is needed;total consecration;sinless perfection,the higher life,the deeper life,are all yours.Now.One badley needed aspect,neglected by this heavy manipulation was the much gentler way Christ leads causing self control to come,not so much from outward forces of harsh self rigor,but His own quiet loving acceptance.Gothardism's perfection,denial of any good coming out of individuality of the soul's longings or so called "rights,"led to self mutilation,escalated by false authority,towards hopeless nihilism.

  331. nicole gardner September 14, 2016 Reply

    David,
    I want to reiterate first that "A Matter of Basic Principles" was used by the Holy Spirit to save me from bondage to IBLP's trappings, the breaking-free from which I simultaeously experienced the launch into my most exciting & productive 5-year season of life with Christ. I'm not surprised to see you refer to another of Ron Henzels' works as very enlightening, as well; I will look up "A Beginner's Guide to Gothard" shortly.

    Keswickian Theology sounds like a valid TREATMENT (think physician) for a gospel-claiming person who still lies sick in their own sin. And I mean any sin that has an individual conscience crippled &/or is resulting in other(s) being victimized by this individual's behavior. But treatment is not acceptable, or safe, unless one is sick. Those already made healthy by the gospel should not be undergoing treatment- they should have the freedom to exercise their faith in grace. Do you know if Keswickian was directed to the spiritually sick? Or was it mass-marketed as a "must" for everyone- even those already made mostly whole? It certainly should NOT have been directed toward most all children- children have intrinsic reference for God & inclination to obey intimidating personages. I think you've provided at least part of the backstory I'm looking for in having figured that Gothard picked up Christian-ese theology, by-words, & a grab-bag of pet religiosity to market his peddled product. Getting people to endorse it was merely a matter of sales-pitching what people were already doing. (Except for the rape stuff. I'm pretty sure that nobody else sold the notion that there's no such thing as rape of a single girl/woman. Probably because most Bible teachers want the Bible's backing for what they're saying & also because most also have either daughters or daughters-in-law or granddaughters & therefore aren't looking to invent a 'doctrine' of destructiveness toward females). People will obviously pay $$$$$ to get the endorsement of a 'Bible/gospel' theological belief system that seems to validate their penchant for doing things a certain way. If Keswickian theology-for-all entered in, that could help explain Gothard's IBLP-for-all hyper-vigilante-ism: relegating strong believers into a category of needing treatment, & for no other reason than that these demonstrate a lack a weakness of conscience. In other words: "You're not sick, so you must be even sicker than sick!!!" The hobbling of the strong re-defined them & the 'weak brother' (1 Cor. 8:7,12) in insisting that weakness isn't to be compensated-for-by-the-strong, or improved-upon by the weak, but is, in fact 'right'. TA-DA!!! The strong is now wrong! For being......... strong. The whole of 1 Cor. 8 is Paul's appeal to the strong of behalf of the weak so that the weak's conscience wouldn't get messed up during the love feasts at church. That referred to the strong needing to accomodate the weak since they were in this all together. And maybe it's the strong's failure to do what Paul tells them to do in chapter 8 that led to both the weak & the once-strong that IBLP rendered-as-weak to becoming like the Essenes out of subjection to Gothard in the 20th century. I don't know. Anyway, instead of proclaiming the Bible, Gothard just pandered to the weaknesses of the weak, inventing even greater constraints -born of weakness- than they'd ever even imagined. It wasn't just the strong that IBLP & ATI rendered as weak- they rendered the weak to be even weaker!!! And then, instead of appealing to the Church as a whole to treat more gently all these whom his teachings had weakened, he instead had already segregated the weak from the church. He did this by instilling pride in his subjects, telling them they're so much better than the rest of the church because of their practices that he stipulated they were to abide by.

    By the synergy of IBLP's compounding popularity, there also grew a a big name; now there was a 'strong' brother to associate with. Who was/is, in fact, championing weakness. David you said "Gothardism's perfection,denial of any good coming out of individuality of the soul's longings or so called "rights,"led to self mutilation,escalated by false authority,towards hopeless nihilism." It's what Gothard stipulated. Yet, it was pride that he appealed to & banked on in instructing people to garner more pride by his brand of 'gospel'...... feeding his OWN pride in this false gospel. Even though the true gospel has always been for the weak, to make us strong. Why another? Why not the real deal? And why try to weaken the strong by saying these DON'T have the real deal, & try to keep the weak from having it, making it so that they stay weak? How could pride in weakness ever be worth generating all this in other people's lives?!?!? Isn't 1 Cor. chapter 8 about a person stewarding their OWN conscience, & respecting the stewardship that others exercise concerning THEIR own conscience?!?!? We'll know that systematic countering of chapter 8 is no longer deemed necessary to personal pride if there's ever repentance of IBLP/ATI's utter contrariness to what chapter 8 clearly says. But I can't hold my breath for 40+ years & that's how long others have waited already. Besides...... we breathe without you, IBLP!!! How dare we.

  332. DAVID PIGG September 15, 2016 Reply

    Really appreciate your comment Nicole.Keswick theology is in my opinion just another "high place" in the church,needing to be brought down,lest the flesh triumphs over grace.

  333. DAVID PIGG September 15, 2016 Reply

    This will probably be my last comment for awhile,and its open for [please]anyone;entitled"We thought we knew God".How much or at what point is deception dangerous enough to maybe cost us our own souls?In the quest for God,did we realize that He became obscured,and instead we knew a movement;we knew principles;a denominational interpretation of their concepts and traditions.Does Bill Gothard's teachings in themselves,carry the potential for us,upon reaching the ultimate logical conclusions from its known intended purposes,to separate us eternally from God?Did we think that the truth was not important enough to warn others against lies;or were there too many respectable men with their qualifications,attainments,and acclaimed status,for us to speak up?You and I have seen the fruits,but lying about what we saw enabled fleshly momentum to continue the darkness.

  334. Sara September 15, 2016 Reply

    I'm so deeply saddened by all I've read on here. I hope those who have been deeply wounded and hurt are on the path to restoration and healing. One day I'll expound more but my daughter was on staff at IBLP on and off for like one to two months at a time over a period of two years. Thankfully, the Lord's hand of protection was over her and the things she's needed healing from is this: being told that she needed to cut off all friendships and relationships back home, in order to focus on her goals and ministry up there. WHAT??!! That was our reaction after she told us much later on. It has taken her years to process all that and the loss of friendships she needed during a most vulnerable time in her developmental years (age 15-17). Btw, she was already on her way home for good but Brother Bill decided to call us and tell us that he needed to send her home a few weeks early due to her and another young man "liking" each other. He wanted to stop a potential friendship and relationship from happening. She got in trouble for sitting next to him at dinner a few times and for talking to him on campus.The young man admitted to Brother Bill that he did like her and that was it. He was just being honest and I commend him for his honesty. He was a very honorable young man who had his own shortcomings but admitted it and asked for prayer. Okaaayy??? So, my husband took off work from his medical practice and we boarded a plane to bring our daughter home. IBLP graciously offered us housing for a few days and we used that time to talk with her, visit some sites of Chicago and visit some relatives. I will say, we were impressed with the young people on staff up there and I'm grateful to this day for the young ladies who led both of our daughter's through "Journey To The Heart".
    Our youngest daughter flew up there at age 14 (a few months before our oldest daughter returned home for good)to attend Journey. One of the things we encouraged her to do is that if anyone (such as Bill)tells you to make a vow to God and you don't mean it but you're being pressured to, do only what you feel God is leading you to do, not what any man tells you to do. That is, don't make a vow to God that you don't intend to keep. Sure enough, Brother Bill asked these girls before going through Journey to join hands in a circle and make a vow to not listen to rock music. Well, our youngest and her friend remained seated while all the other girls stood and walked through the motions of this vow. I was so proud of her being courageous to be honest and not give into the pressure. After all, our non denominational church is mostly pop/rock and our family likes it as well. I could go on but it was only a few months after our oldest daughter left that all of this came to light. Wow....it was shocking and some of it added up and made sense and then some didn't make sense b/c she personally didn't see this behavior from him and the staff up there. I grieve for the girls who walked through this, that must have taken place years before. Please know we will be praying for all to have emotional and spiritual healing. Breaks our hearts.

  335. Pegasister September 16, 2016 Reply

    I just left DG and wanted to put this up here in case my post over there gets edited:

    Why did I come back here…
    First of all, that comment was not directed to you but to Mr. Knecht. As dismissive as his attitude has been, I think that he could at least be convinced to entertain the possibility of the “allegations” being true. I doubt that you, the moderator, would be convinced if literal video evidence of Gothard fondling Charlotte surfaced. We both know that will never happen, but I’d love to see your reaction if it did.
    Furthermore, I was speaking generally of the many, many girls who have spoken out on RG and how their stories line up with one another, and with the accounts of people from the centers at the same time. You should have known that and responded in kind.
    I won’t go to too much trouble to repeat here what’s been said over and over on RG, but you all but demanded witnesses, so here you go. The very nature of the behavior Bill is accused of requires that he keep it secret–thus it will be hard to find someone who can say he/she saw some of the more intimate things happening. But here’s the important part: people can confirm that the circumstances, and sometimes details described, were correct. People like Marcus can relate how they spoke to one of Gothard’s alleged favorites and were slandered and sent home. Even if the dirty details cannot be proven true or false, many other things can. But you’ve been on RG long enough that you should know what they are, even if you refuse to believe them. I will not waste my time or yours by compiling the accounts and confirmations that convinced me this was true.
    Finally, a “witness” doesn’t have to be a literal person. Let’s say I walk into a public bathroom on my college campus. (I know, a young adult female going to a Christian college–gasp!) If I see the walls splattered with blood and I recognize a bloody kitchen knife on the floor as belonging to my roommate, and the bloody corpse as a freshman that she hated with a passion, I think it’s probable cause to tell the campus police my roommate might have done something terrible! Definite proof? By no means. Legally it’s considered circumstantial evidence. But the Lord saw Abel’s blood as a witness against Cain. Isn’t it possible that the “circumstantial evidence” of these other people can serve as a witness, if not of the actual behavior, certainly indications that something was wrong? And if there were enough indications, as I fully believe there were, that maybe it’s time to actually listen to some of these girls?
    That’s all I have to say. I’ve presented my understanding and reiterated what others have said on RG, and unfortunately made the mistake of revealing my age so now I’m just a rebellious teenage girl. I’m done arguing. It just wastes my time and yours. In closing: actually consider that there are corroborations for the stories on RG. You just refuse to believe that they exist.

    • nicole gardner September 16, 2016 Reply

      @ Pegasister:
      You go, girl!!! You're merely expressing your usage of your own eyes. It's evident to anyone who reads Bill's victims' accounts that they're relating what actually happened to them. Good for you for not letting Moderator over there scare you off from reading the obvious. Those girls were under a keep-mum dome while they were at headquarters- much like what Moderator said about his own daughters: "If any of my daughters tried saying the things that these girls are saying about Bill"....... & then saying he'd set-them-straight in a hurry. You've probably realized that in Gothard-land, it's not speaking the truth in love that indicates conducting oneself as set-straight, but rather it's hiding the truth in fear of a loveless one. Good for you for speaking the truth in love even in the face of such opposition! There's a lot of indignation over there over the fact that ANYONE would listen to victims of Bill's that he thought he'd effectively silenced. And, since you're a teenager too, well, that must really rock their boat. You go girl!!! Just because the truth has been suppressed by Bill's methods for so long doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

      • Pegasister September 17, 2016 Reply

        @ Nicole Thanks for the support, it means a lot. :) But that will probably be my last post on DG, unless I just get so mad by what I read that I can't keep my mouth shut. I think when Alfred found out he was dealing with a teenage girl, he kind of pulled out all the stops and decided that someone needed to put me in my place. I haven't allowed him to succeed, of course, but it just gets emotionally exhausting trying to keep up a fight with someone I know will just twist or rewrite my comments and challenge me based on who I am instead of what I said.
        Anyone who still wonders why people stopped personally confronting Bill Gothard: spend five minutes reading any comment thread on DG and tell me again that such an exchange would be successful. If a supporter of Bill treats dissenters the way the Moderator does, what's that say about Gothard himself?
        He claimed in his reply to me that he would believe video evidence, but he hasn't been able to prove that since none has surfaced. How many here believe that? Nixon's accusers had to fight for audio evidence, and even then had to fight disbelieving supporters of Nixon. Who's to say Gothard-gate (couldn't resist :) ) would be any different?

      • Pegasister September 20, 2016 Reply

        @Nicole You may be interested to know that one of my current class assignments is performing part of the short drama "Doubt: A Parable". It's in a Catholic setting but I think very applicable to the entire situation. :)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9x7DF48MRI

        • rob war September 20, 2016

          Pegasister,

          I guess I'm not following the connection of "Doubt" with Bill Gothard. From everything I've read about the play, the point or analysis is whether Fr. Flynn was having an "inappropriate" relationship with the student and the suspicion that Sr. Aloysius is more based on rumors and innuendos, not so much on hard cold facts. Her manipulations to prove her points seemed to backfire in the end. I'm not so sure if that is what you mean by bringing this up because this play would fall more into Alfred's points on DG that the accusations against Bill are rumors and innuendos. It would seem like something he would bring up than you. Now, maybe your discussions in class lead to something else but all the analysis of the play from a number of sources was that there is doubt about the guilt or innocence of Fr. Flynn which seemed more circumstantial. Now maybe the meeting between Sr. Aloysius and the mother might fit the picture of ATI parents where the mother wasn't as concerned about her son possibly being molested but about getting him into a good high school. This would imply that ATI parents are more concern about their girls being chosen by Bill to work with him and glamorized by that flattery. Again, from everything I've read about the play and the author's purpose was to create doubt, thus the name of the play. Just like Bill, was Bill just being a father or grandfather in holding hands and stroking hair or was Bill being a sexual predator? Was Fr. Flynn giving wine to the boy to get him drunk to abuse him, or did Fr. Flynn catch Muller sneaking sips of wine illegally? The play really falls more with Alfred's points on DG. I'm not so sure if that is what you wanted by bringing it up.

        • Pegasister September 21, 2016

          @Rob War You make good points about that. The play mostly caught my eye because, from what I've been reading here and in other places, there's no doubt in my mind that Fr. Flynn was a child molester. I just had this conversation with my scene partner literal minutes ago. While it's never confirmed for a fact that the accusations are true, Flynn's behavior raises multiple red flags. He tries to shift blame to Donald (ie, I caught him drinking sacramental wine and punished him, and are you aware that his father beats him because his son is effeminate?) But more than that, his behavior when the nun tells him she called a previous parish and knows his past transgressions. He never really denies the accusations, more just insists that she's human too and has done things she should be ashamed of, etc. He displayed classic blame-shifting and a desperate effort to keep the spotlight off of himself, both of which are things I observe in Gothard's behavior. I did not mean to imply that the accusations were rumors--just that I observed similar behavior between Fr. Flynn and Bill Gothard. Apologies if that was not made clearer.

    • Karen September 17, 2016 Reply

      Pegasister,

      It makes me sad to see and hear about the disgusting sycophant behavior of the Moderator at DG. He will be in for a rude awakening some day when his delusion is exposed for what it is. It seems to me Proverbs 26:4-5 applies to him. May God give you wisdom as to which part of those verses to apply with regard to commenting at DG: sometimes we are to answer fools, sometimes we are not! I'm reminded by your comment of 1 Timothy 4:12 and that's my encouragement to you. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, another passage from the apocrypha in the OT, in the book of Wisdom comes to mind, too (this passage is used in the EO Church lectionary for days in the Church calendar when young martyrs are being commemorated). Wisdom 4 states the following:

      7 But the righteous, though they die early, will be at rest.
      8 For old age is not honored for length of time,
      or measured by number of years;
      9 but understanding is gray hair for anyone,
      and a blameless life is ripe old age.

      In case you didn't get that, it is teaching that "understanding" (i.e., godly wisdom) and a "blameless life" are as deserving of honor (at any age) as is living to a ripe old age and genuinely having the wisdom to go with that long experience. The supreme irony here is the Moderator at DG, though an adult, apparently does not possess this wisdom, and you a teenager do because you correctly perceive the injustice of this situation and the credibility of the witnesses at RG! :-)

      • Pegasister September 18, 2016 Reply

        @Karen

        You have no idea how much I needed to hear that today. :) Thank you, sister. I'm not planning to comment on DG for the foreseeable future, although there are times when I just can't keep my big mouth shut. But for now, I don't want to have to debate tiny details of what I did or didn't say and focus on saplings when there's a whole forest to take note of. David Knecht, whom my original comment was directed towards, replied to me recently. I had said that we shouldn't expect much direct evidence of sexual misbehavior because that misbehavior is necessarily done in secret. His reply asked if we should consider the lack of evidence to be evidence itself because we wouldn't expect direct evidence. Wha...on a nerdy note, I have analyzed the heck out of just about any fictional story I take an interest in, reading some pretty crazy yet logically sound theories, and yet the logic on DG still baffles me.

        But I also continue to comment here because if I mess up (and I will), I want someone I trust to tell me. While I refuse to let people despise my youth, I also recognize that my age necessarily means I have nowhere near the amount of experience that most people here do. That doubles when you realize I didn't grow up in ATI, and though I think my family could be legalistic at times, it was tame compared to the stories I read here all the time. Basically, this is new ground for me. I'm just here because what I've read infuriates me and I think it needs to be spoken about, regardless of whether the speaker has a personal stake in the fight or not.

        The closest my family ever came to getting into the hardcore stuff was attending a couple Vision Forum film festivals. I won't lie--most of the movies were actually really good, and we still have copies of some of our favorites. My brother was actually working on a short animation submission when the truth about Doug Phillips came out. I have mostly pleasant memories of the festivals. But I distinctly remember the atmosphere. Everyone was smiling and happy, but there was something underneath. I can't remember being directly judged. But the very first time we went to a festival, I showed up in jeans. One, maybe two, other women there were in pants too. That was it--EVERYONE else was wearing skirts or dresses and several even had full Amish clothes. The sheer number of women dressed like this made my mother and I very uncomfortable, and we were certain to wear skirts every other time we went in. (I should point out that I LOVE skirts and dresses, but I don't think they're always required or even appropriate attire.) At the time I just saw this as respecting the very conservative rules of people who felt I shouldn't dress differently. But now looking back, it makes sense. It was, in essence, peer pressure to adopt a certain style of dress to look more "righteous", regardless of comfort or appearance. (Mom is adamant that skirts do not flatter her. :) ) I only wish I had realized this sooner.

        • Pegasister September 19, 2016

          Hey Moderators, I think my reply to Karen is stuck in moderation. I submitted it yesterday and it's still got that message about awaiting moderation.

        • Karen September 29, 2016

          Pegasister, I'm so glad you were able to take my encouragement to heart and that it was timely. It comes from 56 years of experience if that helps! :-) With that same experience I will exhort you to trust your instincts and avoid judgmental people, no matter what the context. Try not to return the judgment (that can be difficult when you feel judged), but commit such to the Lord and pray for them. But please do listen to your gut. In situations like the one you describe, it will definitely serve you well. Try not to confuse what pleases the Lord with what conforms to some person or group's expectations. They are rarely the same thing. I can see, though, you've got a good head on your shoulders--a gift from God for sure. Don't let others despise that, but use it to serve Him and help others.

          I don't believe you can expect sound logic over at DG. The moderator has definitely been "drinking the Koolaid" for way too long. His mind is not sound because it has been programmed by BG's false teaching. BG is a very dangerous false teacher. I have never been subjected to his predation, but I have seen enough of his teaching (some of it on this site) to know it is false without a doubt. Avoid him and those deeply committed to his teaching like the plague. BG's teaching uses Scripture in an unScriptural and unspiritual way (just like the devil). This is a common problem where the Bible is considered the ultimate spiritual authority, but there is no universally-recognized authority or authoritative interpretive framework for understanding the Bible's proper inspired meaning and application. Every reader then becomes his or her own interpreter, and the charismatic and manipulative narcissist can gain a following by persuading the vulnerable that he or she has found the "key" to unlock the Scriptures' meaning, and, in so doing, can begin to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives and consciences of his (or her) followers. You are very blessed not to have been subjected to ATI teaching. I will leave you with the verse that most convicted and helped me when I was struggling not to come under the influence of a legalistic cult-like group a family member was involved in when I was in my 20s--Galatians 5:1, "It is for freedom that Christ set us free. Therefore, stand fast, and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."

        • huzandbuz September 30, 2016

          Karen,

          .....the charismatic and manipulative narcissist can gain a following by persuading the vulnerable that he or she has found the "key" to unlock the Scriptures' meaning, and, in so doing, can begin to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives and consciences of his (or her) followers.

          Galatians 5:1, "It is for freedom that Christ set us free. Therefore, stand fast, and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."

          How enlightening and refreshing!!!!

          Jesus stated, "Follow ME". HE did not command us to follow those who insisted they were following HIM.

          Freedom in Christ!! Like so many others, how I wish I would have been cognizant of those truths so many years ago. We know them now, however, and we eagerly share. Blessings.....

        • Pegasister October 1, 2016

          @ Karen

          Boy that comment was in moderation for a while!

          Anyway, thanks again for the encouraging words. I just wish that I hadn't revealed my age on DG-or maybe even here since the Moderators would probably see it anyway. I mean, my gender isn't a secret ("pegaSISTER" :P )and others have already pointed out how the Mods attitude toward women on DG takes on a more condescending tone. "You shouldn't even be on a website engaging in debate!" etc... I think the fact that I'm a teenager, in college, wearing jeans while coming up with my own opinions about the Bible and Gothard, just made things way worse. Although in a way that's good. It lets them know that young Christians like me are just as much involved in the fight as we should be. :)

          And again, if you or anyone else sees a point I make or something I say that is wrong or doesn't seem to hold water, please let me know. I'm not perfect and I want to be taught. ;)

        • Larne Gabriel October 1, 2016

          @pegasister

          I think anytime that every single comment has to be moderated on DG says volumes on their willingness to seek the truth or even discuss the truth. It isn't just the moderation or approval of each comment but the moderator having to have the last word on every dissenting view. If you consider DG was established to be a voice against RG, which is an open forum and the moderator only got kicked off RG after years of participation you have to come to the conclusion that there is nothing open about DG. His arguments are the same we hear from the extreme left that don't want to even allow a dissenting view that differs on their beliefs.

          God gave us a brain, use it (its evident you are!!!) and never stop learning and drawing nearer to Him. In the 60s the buzz words of the counter culture was "Question Authority". I don't believe in questioning God but I will question anyone who says they have a special revelation or new interpretation of the Bible straight from God. Or someone that places themselves between you and God and demands your obedience.

        • Karen October 1, 2016

          Pegasister,

          The moderators here are volunteers offering a service out of their convictions, and I'm amazed they moderate as frequently as they do. My understanding is this is not their full-time calling--rather, it's a labor of love and service offered in their spare time. Sometimes comments on RG are stuck in moderation for a while, but I don't think I've ever had a comment not eventually post, and usually it's not stuck for more than a day or so. Here there are all kinds of dissenting voices expressed in comments and many different perspectives offered. That's a healthy thing. On the other hand, there are some sites that moderate much more strictly for good or ill. There's a definite agenda at DG, and, unlike RG, it's not a healthy one.

        • Karen October 1, 2016

          Actually, that didn't quite come out right. Moderate is what moderators are supposed to do. I meant I was amazed RG's moderators manage/facilitate the RG site as consistently as they do. My observation is sometimes because of settings, certain comments go into moderation because of technical reasons rather than an intentional moderator's action. It's possible any post that mentions a specific topic or that contains a link could be screened to go into moderation. Or the "moderate all comments" function could be turned on during periods the moderators don't have time to read comments as they are being posted to avoid potentially offensive or inappropriate comments being left up on the site while the moderator is absent.

        • rob war October 1, 2016

          To Karen,
          I think or at least my impression is that there is more than one moderator here and when there is more than one moderator, there is more diversity of ideas allowed or at least different voices to be heard. I do think the moderators here have allowed some of the different views expressed which likewise have added to the blog's strength. In blogs that have just one moderator, often that is not seen and I'm just not thinking of DG, I have other blogs in mind in saying this. Maybe the moderator duties are done here on a rotation basis, I am not sure. A rotation likewise, allows breaks from moderating and keeps it fresh and free and not heavy handed.

        • Pegasister October 4, 2016

          @ Larne That means a lot coming from you! Thank you. :) I have to agree with you about the Moderators on DG. (In case it wasn't clear, they were the "Mods" and "Moderators" I referenced in my earlier comment.) From my first time on DG, I remember finding it both interesting and telling that the Moderators replied to almost every comment ever made, almost always on dissenting comments, trying to prove them wrong or demand evidence. Meanwhile here on RG, a Moderator comment appears once in a blue moon and the refutation that occurs is an actual exchange of facts in a sophisticated and healthy manner, interspersed with prayer...as opposed to being dared to produce evidence of immorality on Bill's part, as I was.
          On another subject, I've read extensively about Ruth and I wish I could have met her. She sounds like an amazing woman. When we all get to Heaven, I'd love to finally meet her.

        • Pegasister October 4, 2016

          @ Karen
          It's been a little while since that initial comment sat in moderation, but as I recall my original thought was just a website glitch. I know sometimes if threads get really long the system gums up. But to be fair, if you get me talking about a topic I'm passionate about I can just go on and on and on and on and on... So my comments can get long anyway. :P
          But as I said to Larne, the Moderators on DG just show their true colors by the frequency and nature of their posts. I spend a LOT of time reading through RG material, and I come across a Moderator comment every few days. Usually the comment deals with explaining a website malfunction that was or is being fixed, or warning a specific user that their offensive language may get them banned. (The latter is quite rare though from what I've seen.) Meanwhile the DG mods take up almost one out of every three comments, if not more, almost all of them argumentative, sarcastic, and combative toward the people challenging them.

        • Karen October 4, 2016

          Pegasister,

          "Out of the heart, the mouth speaks." Yes, there are some big differences in the quality of moderation on the Web. A moderator's m.o. speaks volumes, doesn't it?

          As for being able to go on and on and on about things you are passionate about, you and I definitely have another thing in common there! LOL!

        • Larne Gabriel October 4, 2016

          @Pegasister,

          Thank you and yes Ruth was special and would have been everybody on RG's best friend. God broke the mold when she was born. Keep up the good work and remember you can learn from anybody, either good or bad, but only follow one, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the only one who deserves and demands our worship and praise. The rest are "just men". His plan and commands are simple, Matthew 22:36-40, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

          These two command puts aside the original sin of pride. It put God first and all the rest of use on an equal plane below where we treat each other with Love and Respect.

        • Pegasister October 8, 2016

          @ Karen

          This may be a not exactly the nicest joke, but I was looking up the meaning of names a while back (I'm an author, we do that :P ) and came across a European translation of "Alfred". It means "sage" or "wise", but specifically in the realm of elves or fairies. So basically in fifteenth-century England, naming your son "Alfred" was a nod to superstition and the supernatural. Surprisingly appropriate. :) But what actually made me laugh out loud was this "urban dictionary" elaboration on the name:

          Alfred: A real patriot, and a person who is kind but has a terrible work ethic, often runs around shouting utter nonsense. His laugh is very VERY obnoxious. Likes to bug people about how great he is, especially if their names are Arthur. An Alfred tends to wear glasses and has blonde hair. Alfreds also are afraid of ghosts even though they claim they do not exist, but they easily believe in aliens.

          I could rewrite that to be more RG applicable but I think I'll leave that to someone who's dealt with "Alfreds" longer than I have. In the meantime I hope I made someone smile. :)

    • Helga September 19, 2016 Reply

      Well said, Pegasister.

      • Tangent October 10, 2016 Reply

        You did make me laugh with the urban definition of Alfred

    • David S. Knecht Sr. September 19, 2016 Reply

      Dear Peg,

      I just found you over here.

      I replied to your 9/16 post over at DG if you're interested. No need to post again there if you'd rather not. But I did see your post and posted my reply.

      Peace and love,
      David K

      • Pegasister September 20, 2016 Reply

        Hi Mr. Knecht,

        I saw your comment but as I said previously, I am pulling back from DG for now. I'm tired of trying to keep up with everything other there.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. September 20, 2016

          That's quite all right, sis.

          David K

  336. rob war September 19, 2016 Reply

    Pagasister,

    I Timothy 4:12 says, "Don't let anyone look down on you because of your youth". I think the Taylor Swift song says "Shake it off" states it better. Don't worry about it or let it bother you.
    There is always difficulty in going on blogs etc. with an opposing view or idea that is in contrast to the bloggers own beliefs and views. As you go through life, one begins to learn to follow the idea of being careful of the fights one picks. We have all made mistakes this way. You are ok, just let it go and move on to what you know to be the truth. I think it is very telling that if Bill resigned with the idea that he was coming back after the controversy blew over, that the board DIDN'T bring him back and stated so on their web site. It's kinda obvious that there were some serious issues with him and the pretty young ladies he surrounded himself with which was by his choice. Intent is not the same as action. Bill can claim till the cows come home that he never had "sexual" intent, however it is his actions that got him in trouble. If someone kills someone, intent or motivation isn't what that person is being charged with, it is the action. If someone didn't intend to sexually harass someone else, then they wouldn't have put themselves in the position to have access and be alone with them, especially young, pretty and troubled girls. Bill may claim sex was not his motivation but all his actions speak otherwise and for someone that has at the heart of his teaching to have wisdom and make wise choices, he obviously seemed to lack that here and should never as a single man as head of a multi-million dollar ministry, surrounding himself with young pretty girls in the name of ministry. The die hard supporters of Bill won't see it any other way, whether there was a video or not. Bill should have been "wise" and not "counseled" anyone especially pretty young girls alone etc. For as busy as he must have been running IBLP/ATI, it is curious how he has all this time for "counseling" pretty young women. Is that wisdom or is it male hormones? I think it is obviously the second one. This is no longer 1980's where he stepped back due to the sex scandal then, only to come back in and rescue the ministry. Back in the 1980s, he had a host of leading big name Evangelical leaders coming to his rescue. But times have changed and he didn't have the big name buddies coming back to defend Bill's honor and there was something obviously wrong for them not to bring Bill back again whether some of them begged Bill not to leave in the first place. The Alfred excuse that the board got caught up with a frenzy is just a red herring. If Bill was truly the most innocent of men and a victim of a bunch of angry jealous females, then I think the board would have brought him back in a heart beat, other opinions be damned. Now they can be buddies in the lawsuit. What a den of thieves. Again, just chalk it up as experience, don't sweat the small stuff and don't feel bad that as a young person, you have your own opinions and ideas and not afraid to express them to opposition no matter what reaction they gave you. God gave you your brain, don't be afraid or intimidated to use it.

    • Pegasister September 19, 2016 Reply

      @ Rob War

      Thank you. :) I sometimes think the brain God gave me was intended to provoke arguments, civil or otherwise. At least that seems to be the result frequently. But no problem--I love a healthy debate. :)

      And I have to agree with you about the issues. I believe that an older pastor can "counsel" a young woman under STRICT conditions and not be inappropriate--I've been in this circumstance once or twice myself. But in ATI, even appropriate counseling like that shouldn't have been taking place. If opposite-gender siblings couldn't even talk to each other, in public, how could an older pastor ever justify being alone in his office, or a hotel bedroom (!) with a girl a fraction of his age? Even if the touching or harassment never happened, the one-on-one experiences alone prove a huge problem with hypocrisy, double-standards, and irrational paranoia. But most of all, a desire to control everyone's actions short of your own. Those problems alone warrant more severe disciplinary measures, up to and including permanent removal from ministry. I mean...even what Alfred admits took place: footsie, hand-holding, counseling sessions, etc. poses a huge problem for the blamelessness he promotes. I haven't even lived on Earth two decades, and even I see that.

  337. nicole gardner September 20, 2016 Reply

    Peg & Rob, between the 2 of you, you both hit the nail on the head.
    I do want to say on one point though, that the reason some big-name leaders blamed the staff in '80 for Bill's way of administrating was because Bill had already initiated a witch hunt against the girl(s). When he knew that at least 4 years of suppressing the truth of his brother's ongoing behavior wasn't going to contain the problem, HE got the word out by way of slandering the girls OUTSIDE of the Institute as well as inside. Thus, he thwarted any semblance of a Mt. 18 investigation. I think the Charles Stanley types must have been horrified at the loss of popular following without any consideration whatsoever of Mt. 18 or other related Scriptures. Gothard's business was a train wreck even in spite of his efforts to blame the girls for his own gross negligence. These other men of fame no doubt imagined that the sink in IBLP sales was tantamount to a church exodus (though I'm not really sure why; there's no real comparing of a peddler with a pastor). It's too bad that concern over the viability of a lucrative business was much more commiserated with by these than their staying in keeping with their callings as shepherds. They were called by God; Gothard never was (or, if he was, he dodged it by fancying himself "to only be called to attractive young people"). However, this time around, no brother's predations exist to detract from Bill's. He can't blame anyone else's actions for bringing him down- & this even after these big names sacrificed their own credibility by coming to his rescue before!!! There's simply no one else to pretend as the culprit for his not learning a lesson from the initial backfire of his way of dealing; it's not his brother it's himself. So: any of his former big-namers HAVE to know that bailing him out would be calling into question their own ministries to do so. Which, if their followers were more discerning, would have happened in the '80s as well.......
    Just my 2 cents. I just had to add it because you both already said it all very well.

    • Pegasister September 21, 2016 Reply

      @Nicole I'm actually not really familiar with the stories of Bill spreading lies about the girls outside ATI as well as inside it. After everything I've read here, I certainly wouldn't put it past him. Is that documented here on RG? I've been reading a LOT of stuff here and maybe I just missed it.

      • nicole gardner September 21, 2016 Reply

        @Peg
        Yeah in the documentation on here about the early scandal it's a witnessed fact that Gothard called up the Pastor of the church that at least one of the girls was attending & was a member of. The pastor then told at least one of the girls to never come to that church again. He never asked her a single question, just took Bill's word for it that she was "immoral" (total disregard of Mt. 18) & stripped her membership. Like, if I called up a pastor & said "So-and-so girl was seduced by my brother- you need to kick her out of your church for letting him do that to her" any Pastor with a brain would say "Really, I'm sorry to hear you so upset. Thank-you for sharing your concern with me. I have just grabbed a pen & paper & am ready to jot down your brother's phone # if you could supply that to me please. You can let him know that I'll be calling him shortly to follow up on your concern for his well-being." Then, after getting his congregant's (the girl's) side of things, his calls to the brother would hopefully have been returned & by then he would have both sides to the story. But, what any pastor with a brain would do if any of us out here called him to make such claims is far & away from what happened when Bill Gothard called. Also Bill sent out a letter about the girls that trashed their chances of getting any other job (since he canned them for his brother's abuse of them even after knowing about the ongoing abuse for at least 4 years). It's all here on RG.

        Also the Moderator at DG insists that the girls are just as guilty of immorality as the brother. Also, by inference, he insists that they are all MORE guilty than the brother. You may have seen over there my correlating what happened to the girls to the O.T. stories of Lot getting sexually assaulted by 2 different parties, the 1st assaulting him & the 2nd attacking (raping) him. Also the story of the Levite & his concubine (again, the circumstances themselves allow for clear differentiation between one being assaulted versus one being both assaulted AND attacked). Concerning the cases of both these men, there is precedence set that God imperatively punishes ASSAULT (assault defined as intimidating a weaker party for the sexual purposes of the dominating party). And, adjunct with that, there is precedence also set BY GOD'S OWN RECORDED DEALINGS that: a victim of assault is to be believed re. that assault, that their assault is to be avenged, that they themselves have done nothing deserving of punishment or discounting of their report, &, even if making appeasement to their assaulter(s) by complicity with demands for sexual gratification, all these rights as victims still stand. So perturbed was Alfred over the fact that God even calls Lot righteous in 2 Peter 2:7 that he conjectured "Lot offered his daughters before he knew he was in over his head." He's made a HUGE deal over on DG in saying that it is ONLY when a person is terribly threatened with no other way out that THIS is the moment their faith is tested. If the person in such situation "cries out to God", well, then, what's in their hearts is proven right. Versus being proven unrighteous by not calling down angels. Alfred is adamant that only awareness of dire straights, only trust in supernatural intervention as a way out, is required of any prey that they call down to protect themself. He insists that Lot's being still qualified as "righteous" by God is BECAUSE he offered his married daughters to rapists "before he knew he was in over his head". The only way to not lose one's righteous standing, apparently, is to peruse one's options & land on complicity with sexual immorality. According him it's a NON-PANICKED approach to accomodating perverts that still affords God's brand of righteousness. And it's only when you don't see anything but the water that's closed in over your head that you're supposed to "chose" to not be thus overtaken by way of "crying out to God." A no-worries have-whatever-you-want, I-could-just-as-well-get-out-of-this-another-way mode is Alfred's interpretation of how he Lot can be approved by God. Instead, the Bible makes clear it's a NO OTHER OPTION mandate that is put on a victim by an assaulter. It is a position unique to the victim in that the assaulter has them hemmed-in to his demands. Therefore, only the victim is innocent of whatever ensues during an assaulter's domination. (Hence God is just order punishment of sexual abusers for sexual immorality). However, Alfred (Bill) flips it: by defining this "overtaken" position as the ONLY one in which a person's righteousness can undergo testing, he puts the moral responsibility onto the victim. And simultaneously excuses the assaulter. So, theologically, they've said that the secretaries are guilty & Bill & his brother are not guilty.
        Which is the sum of Bill's teachings on sexual issues, also.

        I admire you, Peg, for having still talked to him. God still loves him & Bill, too; I guess He shows it by giving you the hope to try to talk to Alfred.

        • Larne Gabriel September 22, 2016

          Nicole, if you are referring to Ruth, just one minor correction in the following statement:

          "The pastor then told at least one of the girls to never come to that church again. He never asked her a single question,"

          The pastor never had the courtesy to called Ruth, she was told of her church discipline through a friend after the publically executed church discipline was administered! Never mind the fact that she was repentant for her part, even though anyone in their right mind would consider it abuse, grooming and coercion. Ruth then called the pastor to confirm the facts to which he was unapologetic. Never mind that Matthew 18:15 would not have gotten any further then vs. 15 because of her repentance. This pastor was the one who recommend attorney John McLario to Bill and took over the Institute for a short time after the scandal. Both were on the advisory board of Bob Jones U., need I say more regarding that group. Lastly Bill had directed her to join the church so he would have a connection to the Bob Jones group through this pastor, this was not a church she chose.

          Nicole your are right-on regarding your post!

        • Pegasister September 22, 2016

          @Nicole OK I must have missed that story. Which is entirely possible. It's not unusual for me to have more than a dozen different RG tabs open and spend an entire afternoon reading my way through all of them. I guess not many college students do that. :)

          The absolute lack of mercy or even absolute certainty in that church discipline just floors me. Honestly, it sounds as if this church already had some serious problems, whether from Gothard's influence or not. I'm sure there's other avenues for that influence to occur, but it seems like as a minimum, their view of the Bible certainly lines up with what Gothard says.

          Lot getting assaulted, don't even get me started...I read that comments thread a while back and I honestly don't know if I could do it again, it's just so confusing to me. I constantly have one thought when I read about "crying out": two of my best friends are into Harry Potter (I'm not) and I can tell you from what I know of the books that "crying out" and expecting divine deliverance every time isn't a sign of trusting God. It's a textbook attempt at magic. I don't want to get into a debate over how appropriate or not the Harry Potter books are (I personally don't like them, let's leave it there) but I think we can all agree that actually attempting to practice magic is not something we should be doing. Even if it's called "crying out". It's not magic per se, but it's a form of trying to assert control over God and that's never permissible. The best we can do is say "Lord, help me!" verbally or silently, instead of pulling out a wand and demanding that God use it to save us. (The only reason I haven't said this on DG is I don't want the comments to start focusing on my friends' choice of books instead of the actual topic at hand...)

          And I appreciate your support. I don't know how much hope I really have, other than that someday the Moderators will wake up and realize how bad they're making themselves and by extension Bill look. I think there is hope for them even if I can't see it. The author of Pilgrim's Progress once was such a proud sinner that a prostitute had to rebuke him for his constant cursing. If he can change, well, anyone can. :)
          --Pegasister

        • Karen September 30, 2016

          "Also the Moderator at DG insists the girls are just as guilty of immorality as the brother."

          I just watched the new Netflix documentary "Audrie & Daisy" about teenage rape. There's no question the victims in this video acted extremely unwisely as immature human beings are prone to do, which is why we have laws in place to protect them (underage intoxication was to blame in most if not all the cases, and there is no indication any of these young ladies were Christians or getting Christian guidance in their families). But it is despicable this failure on their parts would be used to excuse or minimize the evil perpetrated against them (rape and bullying in social media). The Moderator at DG (as well as BG himself) are quite in sync with the attitude of the sheriff in one of the documented cases. Like that sheriff, they remain oblivious to how very damning their own testimony is! There is a huge double standard in play here and, as depressing as this is, the recent Brock Turner case shows this issue isn't going away any time soon. Looks to me like BG and sycophants are taking their cues in this area from our wider "good 'ol boy" secular culture--they're definitely not taking them from Jesus!

    • Pegasister September 21, 2016 Reply

      So...apparently the next set of stories to disprove are the ones about abuse at TCs. Buckle up everybody.

  338. rob war September 22, 2016 Reply

    The blog Heresy in the Heartland March 5th 2014 heresytheheartland.blogspot.com/2014/03/investigation-into-indianapolis.html has a very curious history of the ITC and it's connections with the city counsel and judge James Payne and how it looks like the so called investigation that Alfred is touting over on DG as having cleared ITC of being abusive was really another cover up and indicates corruption of government officials by Gothard. The investigation was not completed, violations of Indiana's State laws of reporting sexual abuse were ignored. The city counsel's so called apology was another shame and the people that voted for it were connected to IBLP in attendance. Sending troubled youth to ITC by Judge Payne to an unaccountable and uncredited institution is corruption of State government. Admitting paddling as a form of discipline at ITC is ABUSE whether it was legal or not in Indiana. Judge Payne was forced to resign in 2012 for ethical violations. This is all one big cover up. It is sick and sad and the hell hole that ITC was should cause the place to be burned down. Judge Payne is also the judge that gave custody of Bettina to Bill Gothard which Alfred and Bill are touting as a "positive" story. I always thought it was fishy that a judge would be assigning a minor to the personal care of Bill Gothard. For whatever one so called positive story, there are too many more about abuses of ITC and the whole IBLP organization. The city counsel of Indianapolis had not business issuing their "apology" to Bill and ITC. It was rammed through by people sitting on that counsel with connections to IBLP. It is governmental corruption. The claim that the so called positive stories not being public due to fears of criticism is just a red herring because they are not there. Likewise, one cannot use a couple of verses out of Proverbs to justify child abuse. Michael Pearl and company that have taught this stuff in parallel with Bill and the rest may have had to "tone" it back because the Pearl's books have resulted in children's deaths.

    When I was in first grade back in the late 1960's, corporal punishment was still legal in Mi. I will never forgot watching a fellow class mate get his hand smacked with a ruler for talking. It was traumatizing to watch as a 6 year old. It was over the top punishment. The other 1st grade had a Mrs Q who likewise smack children and lifted girls dresses up to humiliate them in class. I have Facebook friends that still taught about Mrs. Q and her abuse still after 50 years. Corporal punishment should not place in any school or institution that deals with children. It is child abuse. The fact that ITC admits to "paddling" children in its care should be enough to know that this was an evil, sick abusive place run by evil people and the heartbreaking idea that children already traumatized by life being sent their by a Judge with ties to Bill is just beyond the beyond in order for these "delinquents" to be straighten out ought to cause anyone with a heart to throw-up.

  339. nicole gardner September 22, 2016 Reply

    @Larne
    ty so much for your clarification of facts- the reality was even more unjust than I'd managed to remember! I also want to add that, in addition to the nepotism of somebody calling to *tattle* on whom they're blaming for their brother's actions, it was wrong of Bill to not likewise call a pastor of Steve's to report the same thing. Of course, Steve was *above* having a pastor, & he certainly wasn't ordered to attend a particular church to attend by his brother-boss so as to boost business. The perks of nepotism, you know. Also, I forgot to add that, even if it weren't for the nepotism, it's still crazy for someone to call a pastor & complain "I'm a CEO & my next-in-command seduced 7 of my employees & one of your congregants is one of these who failed to stop him!!!" This should have been met with: "Well, what did YOU do to stop him? Do you hold less power over your next-in-command than the employees of your company have?!?!?" I repeat myself: "Any pastor with a brain..........." Anyhow, the Bob Jones thing does totally explain it!

    Also I want to add that the Bible does not say whether either Lot or the Levite repented of not having warded of the assaults. God simply did not let us out here know whether or not repentance for being sexually coerced is necessary for right standing with Him. It may be. Or it may not be. What we DO know is that no one has any Biblical basis for declaring as unrighteous any assault victim over their having been complicit in face of demands made in dominance over them. God's Word makes this human-to-human judging standard very clear. Regarding married women, no less!!!! And the only reason Alfred/Bill claim this as the moment of testing is because it's the moment that the assaulter never finds themself in. It's a positional *requirement* so tailored because the assaulter is simply never put in that position. Thus, they're never at fault for what happens. It's sick. I'm sure you also saw- before it was taken down- DG Moderator statement: "There's no such thing as the rape of an unmarried or un-engaged female." And also when DG Moderator said that if any of his daughters ever said the things about bg that all these other girls have said, he "would paddle their bottoms!" So, in that world, single women have NO PROTECTOR (not even their own father!!!), also are fair game with the first male who grabs them having the right to their bodies with no rights of their own concerning this, but are nonetheless 100% morally responsible for any assault. I HOPE I GET TO WATCH IT WHEN DG MODERATOR & BILL TRY TO EXPLAIN ALL THIS TO GOD AT THE WHITE THRONE. Larne, I know you & Ruth have earned the right to look on at this scene........ I hope I get to see it, too.

  340. rob war October 9, 2016 Reply

    to Pegasister,

    I really don't think that going down the path of mocking someone's name is funny or even Christ like. Whether one agree is someone or not, mocking their name and trying to make jokes about them is not the path to go down even if we disagree with them. All this does is lower oneself and it begins to lower the level of discussion, not raise it. There is a difference between young and mature. Your joke about Alfred's name is not mature. I think you can do better. As Christians, even if we disagree with each other sometimes very strongly, we do not help our view if we begin to resort to sarcasm, name calling and mocking. Those tools are the sign that one is beginning to lose the argument. Whatever you think about Alfred and his defense and support of Bill Gothard is also a man that lost his father traumatically at a young age, worked hard with just a single mother support to get through college with no debt, has 11 children and a lovely wife that likewise had some pretty difficult pregnancies in the end. His mother who just turned 90 raised Alfred to be bi-linguel with German and Alfred is a sign of his German heritage which I think he is quite proud of. Alfred has been banned here after some 900+ posts. What does mocking someone's name or it's meaning do for us? Make us better than someone else? Does it help those who support Bill not do so or does it just build up more walls and barriers?

    • Pegasister October 9, 2016 Reply

      @ Rob War

      You're very right. To everyone who read this comment, including Alfred if he saw it, I am very sorry for my immature attempt at a joke. It was entirely inappropriate for me to even jokingly criticize someone based on his name, which he did not choose and cannot change. Please accept my sincere apologies and forgive me.

      Also, thank you rob war for being frank with me. I appreciate that you just told me point-blank that what I did was wrong.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. October 13, 2016 Reply

        Dear Peg,

        That was a brave and gracious thing to say. It doesn't involve me, but attagirl all the same. And kudos to Rob for courage and grace, too.

        Peace,
        David K

    • Pegasister October 9, 2016 Reply

      Moderators, I don't often ask this, but is it possible for you to delete my earlier comment about Alfred's name? If not I understand. I just don't want my carelessness to be a stumbling block to him or to anyone reading this site. Thanks. :)

      • huzandbuz October 10, 2016 Reply

        Dear Pegasister,

        This is coming from 'an old gal'....:+)

        Please do not 'beat yourself up'. I read it and smiled.
        I hope that helps. :+)

        Often the meanings attributed to names are deemed humorous no matter who possesses the title. I seriously doubt your post content would negatively effect Alfred even if he became aware of it. I hardly think your words initiated any 'stumbling blocks' either. Chuckle.

        I certainly would not 'lose any sleep' over what was stated in jest and meant to be amusing. Be assured that, before long, your comment will be lost in the shuffle. Chuckle.

        God Bless....

      • Karen October 10, 2016 Reply

        Pegasister,

        Who ever said God doesn't have a sense of humor? My given Christian names, first and middle, mean "pure" and "graceful" I have always joked that I will spend a lifetime trying to live up to my name (and, no doubt, falling seriously short on both counts most of the time)!

        My prayer for Alfred would be that God in His grace would grant him a TRUE discernment of spirits, so that he will be enabled to live up to the best connotation of his name. In my experience, there's no true wisdom apart from a huge dose of humility--and most of us have to learn that the hard way. I know I do!

        Sometimes, we need to be able to see the ridiculous side of someone's sin so that we can get relief from the stress and wound their words and behavior cause. It's best done in private with a close trusted friend, but don't fret--your public funning a bit at Alfred's expense implied a very mild criticism compared to what he accuses others of by his adherence to BG's false teaching and his stubborn refusal to face the truth. It was well earned by him, whether he realizes that or not, and I doubt he would be made to stumble by knowing you believe that. Even God is characterized in the Scriptures as scoffing and laughing at hardened sinners as He declares their coming judgment from His throne. I've read many NT scholars who point out Jesus' use of irony and humor especially when exposing the hypocrisy of His foes--He did characterize them as blind guides leading others to ruin. I see a lot of humor in His image of a blind person being super confident of being able to show another person the way to go! Alfred's sins are very public. I'm not sure a rebuke just as public isn't, in fact, in order. But we do have to watch our own attitudes, too. None of us is immune to sin.

        The words of another "old gal"--I hope this helps!

        • Pegasister October 10, 2016

          @ Karen

          Thanks Karen, and everyone who replied. :) While we're on the subject, my first and middle names (neither of which are Pegasister, clearly :P ) mean "follower of Christ" and "shining light", respectively. Pretty strong meanings for someone who almost lost her faith in the last two years! But I serve a wonderful God who keeps calling me back to what my names really mean. :) That's not to say I believe there's some mystic power or whatnot in names or their ancient meanings--but I know my parents deliberately chose my name because of what it meant.

        • Larne Gabriel October 10, 2016

          @Pegasister

          Speaking of Alfred, he has often stated that Bill's actions against the plaintiffs were grandfatherly and that the legal interpretations of “sexual harassment” does not include those actions. What I found interesting in last night’s debate was Anderson Cooper’s use of the Justice Department’s definition in describing the behavior Trump bragged about in the conversation, calling it “sexual assault.” Maybe Alfred is right it wasn’t sexual harassment, but was really “sexual assault” which I would quantify as worse! Below is the DOJ’s definition from their website. (I put the quotes around “fondling” to highlight the term used in the current court documents.)

          “Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, “fondling”, and attempted rape”. https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

          I would think with the Crosby case leading the way in public opinion and now the Donald Trump tapes, it might not be a good time for Bill to have to face a jury. If only Bill would have dealt with his sin by confessing, repenting, asking forgiveness, changing his ways and making restitution (not necessarily financial), in a godly fashion 36 years ago, he would not be facing the humiliation and failed legacy he does now. But more important will be his eternal consequences when he stands before his Holy Maker in eternal judgement.

    • Pegasister October 10, 2016 Reply

      @ Larne

      I guess I misunderstood that part of Alfred's claims. Sexual harassment as I understand it consists of verbal or emotional harassment, ie, unwanted and inappropriate compliments or advances. Sexual assault only begins when physical touch is involved. With that definition, I would absolutely agree that what Bill did was legally sexual assault. Personally though, if a boy (other than my as-of-yet nonexistent boyfriend :P ) slapped my behind, I would hesitate to call it an assault. I'd get mad and he'd probably walk away from me with a broken tooth, and I would probably tell campus police, but it pales in comparison to what other survivors of sexual assault have had to endure. That's probably Alfred's logic in referring to the fondling as "sexual harassment", but it's still a leap. In my example, the touch lasted a fraction of a second and since I've been trained about such situations, I know I'd be justified in sucker punching that pervert. But in the case of Bill and the girls, the touching was long and intimate, and the girls had been trained from a young age to not refuse the "Man O' GAWD'S" attention.
      With those added factors in mind, I would not hesitate to call Bill's actions a form of sexual assault.

      • Larne Gabriel October 10, 2016 Reply

        @Pegasister

        Over the past several years in both his public posts and private emails he has argued that Bill actions did not meet the criteria for sexual harassment. Needless to say we did not agree. Personally I was unaware that the definition of sexual assault either had changed or always did included fondling. I should have known but never looked sexual assault up, just sexual harassment.

        You and I are in agreement. Fortunately, date rape, sexual harassment and assault have garnered much deserved public attention and awareness. There is an out cry for "boys being boys behavior", even locker room talk to stop and it should always be considered wrong. Women need the same respect that God intended all of us to have!!!!! In the stone ages when I went to college a slap on the butt from a friend would get a dirty look, but I like your response better, a knuckle sandwich! I would expect that my daughters to do just that! As men we should treat all women the same way we would expect our sisters and mothers treated but more important as God would treat them.

        1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 addresses this abusive behavior in a relationship.

  341. David Pigg October 10, 2016 Reply

    Pegasister,So glad these kind people encouraged you;I'll begin by venting my anger with Alfred's attempts at presenting himself as a "truth seeking idealist",only forced by empirical evidence to have to present a defence not only for Bill's suppressed ,{evil}, victims apparently not documented enough,but his teachings oh so wholly scriptural from the most evil conclusions;[molesting} of his half baked tenets, going on all the while behind his feigned posturing of heightened moral purity.RG gave them a voice;Alfred denied them it,and of the decency of their beings,bludgeoning smearing,distorting,and as E.Stephen Burnett put it so eloquently,pumping up justifying his mentor,even though thousands were mistreated,wronged,violated,all because "he blessed me".In Alfred's world this justifies everything;they got in the way;they didn't see his heart but he saw theirs;and as he can't stop me I'll say each time he defends Bill's defenseless position,a new callousness distorts him,a new acceptance of perverted religious hypocricy erodes him,leaving him a mere caricature of fallen religious man.

    • Pegasister October 10, 2016 Reply

      @ David Pigg

      I read a lot of stories and watch a lot of movies, and one common trope is the suspension of disbelief. First of all, on the audience's part so they can get as immersed into the story as possible. But more importantly, within the story itself there's usually one skeptic. Even if you live in a fantasy world where legend after legend has been proven true, this skeptic still refuses to believe anything until he sees it. "I don't care if that ancient monster turned out to be real, or that prophecy was fulfilled, or whatever. THIS legend can't possibly be true!" Of course they're almost invariably wrong in such a scenario.
      Being confronted with the truth and thus deciding that it must be real and I must believe in it is a very common theme in stories, especially fantasy. And yet in real life, people tend to behave just like the skeptic. "Belief" doesn't have the same importance as a story gives it. In the real world, it's all about seeing it yourself. The problem with that is, just like the skeptic I talked about above, they have plenty of evidence! Maybe they didn't personally see the monster, but they can talk to hundreds of others who did. They can look at footprints or destroyed towns, and see the disaster the monster left behind. They can talk to people who saw the signs that a monster was about to emerge and tried to warn others. In some ways, that's better than actually seeing the monster because it proves there's a multitude of witnesses and that it really happened!
      Recovering Grace has provided corroborating testimonies, "precursors" (doctrinal errors), and "footprints" (results of Gothard's teachings and the abuse and broken lives). I don't need to see the monster. I've seen enough evidence that I know there was one, and potentially still is.

      • huzandbuz October 10, 2016 Reply

        David Pigg,

        And MONSTER Gothard was and continues to be!!

        It appears that Alfred purposely refuses to seek the truth.
        How incredibly pathetic.... And, like his 'mentor', I believe he will go to his grave fervently defending what he chooses to accept as truth. :+(

        • David Pigg October 11, 2016

          That's bad enough,Huzandbuz:the natural man does not,I mean not, consider the cosequences,{and it scares me} of eternal costs;prices that are exacted upon those who spent their whole lives feigning "sacrifice" masked over the temporal gratification they were really getting from people they abused so their lifestyle for a lifetime could be sustained!!!Huzandbuz:I am a byproduct of the 1970's submitted body movement,I saw spiritual abuse,emotional abuse,and know that for the most part people in the movement long since gone,don't want to acknowledge what happened.Don't want to acknowledge having given or received spiritual abuse.Time that grayed my hair did not make "it" disappear;time did not make "it" redefine it's goals;it's intentions.Time deceived us compartmentalized us into believing the past has no relevance.Check this out by Alexandre Isayevich Solzhenitsyn..."Remember the past and lose an eye;forget the past and lose both eyes".

        • huzandbuz October 13, 2016

          David Pigg,

          ....and Alexandre states....
          "The battleline between good and evil runs through the heart of every man".

          ....How often do we consider our present deeds in light of eternity....?

          Blessings....

        • Karen October 13, 2016

          Husbandbuz,

          I love that quote from Alexandre Solzhenitzyn about the line between good and evil running through the middle of every heart. Insight from the Gulag . . .

Leave a Reply to Daniel Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *