In his Character Sketches series, Mr. Gothard retells many of the stories found in Scripture to illustrate some aspect of character, either good or bad.
Often, however, these sketches are better at illustrating how Mr. Gothard will twist Scripture with points that are many times theologically poisonous and logically absurd. In light of the theme on Recovering Grace this month, it should be enlightening to examine how Mr. Gothard deals with the issue of sexual abuse as found in Scripture, particularly rape. Obligingly, Mr. Gothard provides us with sketches of the two instances of rape we find in Scripture where the victim is named. Let’s see what these sketches can reveal about Mr. Gothard’s view of Scripture and women.
First of all, it’s worth noting that these sketches reveal a lack of respect for Scripture. In order to make his point, Mr. Gothard has to continually insert ideas, motivations, and thoughts into the story to make it fit his attempt to illustrate a particular character trait. Notice how this works in his retelling of the story of Dinah (found in Character Sketches, volume 1, pp 287-289, and Genesis 34).
Dinah’s motives and thoughts according to Gothard:
“A young girl in her mid-teens wandered into a strange city with the intention of exploring and making new friends…
She may have considered asking her father’s counsel…perhaps a flood of memories prompted her to discount his opinion…She recalled the many arguments between her mother and her father’s other wife…Even if something did happen to her, he probably wouldn’t care.”
What was on Dinah’s mind according to Scripture:
“Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. “ (Gen. 34:1)
According to Mr. Gothard, Dinah went into the city with the intention of exploring and making new friends, and she came up with many reasons to support this decision. But Scripture simply says that she went to see the young women of the land. Now did Dinah wish to explore and make new friends? Maybe. But maybe she just wanted to see the local styles and customs. Or maybe she was going to a local festival. Or maybe…. Well you get the idea. The point is that Scripture doesn’t say. All it says is that she went to see the young women of the land. Claiming more than that is inserting into Scripture things that aren’t there.
Now, the above may seem like I am splitting hairs. After all, what’s the big deal if she went to make friends vs. going to a festival. Why does it matter if we say that she went to explore or not? And really, by themselves, these insertions don’t matter all that much. They are, after all, the sorts of insertions we naturally make whenever we read stories sparse in details. In fact, these particular insertions are fairly reasonable–so reasonable that it seems almost silly to protest against them. Now, maybe if all Gothard was doing was retelling the story with no ulterior purpose, one could easily forgo any mention of these sorts of insertions. However, this is clearly not the case.
This retelling is about examining and illustrating character, not simply trying to make an incident more understandable, interesting, or easier to read. In context, Mr. Gothard’s insertions work together to make Dinah seem a frivolous, flighty sort of person–someone who was doing something they knew they probably shouldn’t and had to come up with excuses to assuage her conscience. Mr. Gothard takes a single verse which says nearly nothing about her motivations or character–certainly nothing negative–and turns her into an example of initiative gone wrong. Without these sorts of insertions–insertions which, by themselves, may seem fairly innocuous–Gothard would have absolutely nothing to work with for his character sketch. So now that we have seen the seemingly reasonable insertions, let’s see how Mr. Gothard uses these to slide in his next, not-so-reasonable insertion.
Dinah’s initiative according to Mr. Gothard:
“Taking initiative which would have been contrary to her father’s wishes…
But none of these reasons justified the practice of exploring new areas of interest without the protection of wise counsel…Exploring our world may also expose ourselves to danger.”
Gothard goes on to claim that she decided to make this trip on her own initiative, without permission, and against what would have been the wishes of her father. However, Scripture says none of this, not even a hint of whether she did this with or without permission, or whether her father would have disagreed with her plan. As far as we can know, she very well may have had permission. The idea that she went without permission or that she took initiative on her own is pure speculation–even worse, pure speculation presented in Character Sketches as if it were Scriptural fact. In the sketch itself, Mr. Gothard spends a long paragraph speculating why Dinah may have gone off without “the protection of wise counsel.” He takes a passage which says nothing about the nature of Dinah’s initiative and assumes authoritatively that this as an unauthorized trip.
Without first using seemingly reasonable insertions to make Dinah seem like a teenager who is (thoughtlessly) out to have some fun, the part he inserts about her taking bad initiative wouldn’t make nearly as much sense. It is another classic tactic by Mr. Gothard: Propose ideas which seem so reasonable that it would seem silly to dispute them, and then use this as a basis to propose ideas which, absent from this foundation, wouldn’t seem nearly so reasonable as they do.
This same sort of tactic can also be seen at work in the character sketch about Tamar (found in Character Sketches, volume 2, pp 112-113, and 2 Samuel 13).
As with the story of Dinah, Mr. Gothard makes seemingly reasonable insertions in the story so as to find fault with the character of the rape victim. Yet when examined logically or compared with Scripture, the logic of his sketch falls apart.
For instance, he gives things which he claims should have been signs of danger if Tamar had had the proper level of alertness. He writes that “The first signal of danger came in the form of an unusual request. It was given…by her father the king.” Yet this makes little sense. Remember, this request first went to her father David–a man who was wise and had the experience of many years, not to mention he was no stranger to making requests of women with an ulterior motive in mind. Tamar, on the other hand, was young, inexperienced, and most probably highly sheltered. Yet Tamar was supposed to have seen this first sign of danger when her father didn’t? Furthermore, the narrative implies that such a request wouldn’t have been seen as a sign of danger. After all, the advice of Amnon’s “subtle” friend could reasonably be expected to not set off any danger alarms…otherwise such a plan wouldn’t have been very “subtle.” Such a claim is absurd and can only serve to call into question the character of Tamar.
The second sign of danger Tamar supposedly should have detected was…. HEY, BACK UP A SECOND!! I thought we had learned from the story of Dinah that wise counsel from one’s father would protect a girl from danger. Wasn’t one of the main points in the sketch on Dinah that if she had just gone to her father for permission she wouldn’t have been raped? But now Tamar is being faulted for going into a situation after being commanded to by her father! I am so confused now. Does this mean a girl is safe if she takes initiative as long as she is alert? Or does it mean that a girl shouldn’t follow the guidance of her father if she isn’t alert? Or does it mean that, when it comes to rape, it’s always the girls fault somehow?
Well back to the character flaws of Tamar…
The second sign of danger Tamar supposedly should have detected was that “he watched her with lustful eyes as she prepared to bake cakes for him.” As we can see in this Scripture passage, Amnon certainly had a lustful look in his eyes… err wait–Scripture says no such thing. This is nothing more than another insertion by Gothard into the story–an insertion which, again, works to call into question the character of the rape victim. Lastly, Gothard faults Tamar for failing to cry out to God. He claims that she didn’t cry out (another insertion which Scripture is simply silent on) and implies that if she had just done so, then she wouldn’t have been raped.
So we see with both of these sketches the sort of respect Mr. Gothard has for Scripture… Very little. Instead of sticking with what Scripture does say, he inserts his own thoughts and suppositions into the story and treats these as on par with Scripture. Without such insertions he would have no basis for presenting these women as examples of bad character, nor any basis for faulting them when Scripture never states or implies even slightly that they are at fault.
What is very ironic is that the story of Dinah could have been a very good sketch of initiative gone bad if Gothard had just focused on different characters. Instead of the near absence of any details about Dinah and her motives or initiative, very clear details are given about her brothers taking wrong initiative. They are said to have answered with deceit and to have made a plan to get revenge without the knowledge or counsel of their father. No blame or default of character is ever attributed to Dinah in the biblical story, yet the character and actions of her brothers are clearly faulted. In a story where one party is innocent and never faulted by Scripture, while another is clearly guilty of evil and faulted as such, why in the world would Gothard see fit to twist Scripture to turn the story on its head?
An incident which is primarily about the evil actions of others is twisted by Gothard to be an incident which would become “a constant reminder of [Dinah’s] uncontrolled initiative.” The rape of Tamar becomes a lesson on crying out when in danger of rape. All the focus of bad character is placed on the wrong people. The victims’ responsibility becomes the focus instead of those who actually perpetrated evil.
Thank you David for writing this. These character sketches, along with those on Abigail, were read to my siblings and I early on in my family's regrettable foray into ATI-think. Arguments erupted over these stories so severe that my brother and I ended up spending the winter night outside in our underwear to 'reflect on our rebellion to the scripture."
A second, and secondary motive, for Gothard's interpretation with Dinah's story is to provide some anecdotal means of having parents forbid their children, specifically daughters, from having friendships outside of the family or ATI.
As to Tamar, if she had cried out, who would have come to her rescue? Any guards nearby were likely in Amnon's service. Amnon was David's eldest son, probably a favorite of his father, and at the point in time, presumably the future king. The idea that she is at fault for somehow knowingly flaunting herself before Amnon's lusting eyes and is at fault for her rape because of a failure to cry out is both idiotic and horrifying.
My mother used the story of Dinah in an effort to persuade my sister and me to conform to her modesty standards; surely Dinah's being raped was for no other reason than the fact that she must have been dressed immodestly and went into the city so men would notice her. I don't remember whether she got that from Gothard or not...it's a safe bet that she did
Interestingly enough, Gothard actually has the gall to discuss this very thing in section on Tamar. In the after-section, he raises the question "Was Tamar responsible for Amnon's lustful desire?". He addresses this question by saying that she dressed modestly (long sleeved dress) and had proper conduct (basically no interaction with him) so therefore there is no evidence she tempted him to his "disgraceful act".
Well at least Tamar gets a pass on that...only problem is that such reasoning strongly implies that a young lady who doesn't dress perfectly modestly and has "improper conduct" with a guy can then be held responsible for the guy lusting (and, consequentially, raping her)! Astoundingly bad theology.
I didn't intend to address Tamar's attire as her part in any 'flaunting', but the sideways assertion that Tamar must have noticed Amnon's lustful looks and continued with her meal preparation rather than remove herself as stumbling block.
again adding footnotes here to an ancient comment.
I just want to add some oomph to the thought in David's comment, that when you consider that all of these standards were used to judge the behavior of a young woman WHO WAS WITH A FAMILY MEMBER! A BROTHER! gag me! so i guess brothers who rape sisters because they were in their scanty flannel nightgowns are ok because we all know there is no place, no time, that a woman or even a girl is safe. not even with family members, so obviously not in her house. I guess that explains why my mom wore her headcovering to bed. dang.
This is so sad now knowing what happened to the Duggar girls. They really weren't safe with their own brother.
The classic example of blaming the victim is blaming a lady for being raped.
There is something amiss when these teachings can go unchallenged for so long. Gothard is selling something worse than snake oil here but he's selling it to an audience that acts as if it doesn't know better, and perhaps it doesn't. One wonders how our churches could have done a better job instructing and preparing people to reject this sort of dangerous twisting of Scripture. I used to point a finger at pastors and blame them for being lazy. Now that I am involved in ministry I often find myself wishing for more success in actually helping people to think and become like Bereans who are able to study both Scripture and their culture.
Thanks for this excellent piece, David. It works overtime to be fair in acknowledging that the assumptions on Gothard's part seem much like the sorts of things we normally imagine might have been when drawing a passage out - but the difference between good exegesis and Gothard's teaching here is that we normally attempt to draw out the real life nature of a passage while discovering what is in the passage itself, not building morals and principles upon the things that we ourselves freighted into the passage in the first place.
I grew up with these stories as well, many of them leaving lasting impressions in my thought process that I didn't even know about. I am just now realizing that I put so much blame and responsibility on women, and things like this are why I do!! As someone mentioned earlier, these teachings were used (whether intentionally by our parents or not) to keep us girls scared and completely under the control of our "authorities"...often with disastrous consequences.
"Exploring our world may also expose ourselves to danger.” Wasn't this an erroneous presupposition (pardon my French) that Gothard used to control people and keep them in a bubble? As in the Truman Show, curiosity and exploring was, in and of itself, reason to accuse someone of sin. Who says Dinah even needed permission to go into town?? I certainly don't seek "godly counsel" prior to every shopping trip, that would be a ridiculous overspiritualization of everyday events, and I sure as heck don't need anyone's permission!
Thank you very much for exposing the twisting of Scripture and blaming of victims. I'm so glad Gothard knows that "crying out" automatically protects one from rape in all or nearly all circumstances, although I doubt he has any personal experience on which to base this. He's one of those people who always knows what someone else should do, having never been in their shoes. Good article.
And let's not forget, Tamar would have missed any "warning signs", even if she was quite streetwise (which, according to Gothard, no godly girl would *ever* be), as the guy was her BROTHER! She would not have been expecting such attentions from her brother.
I really appreciate this article, not only for its relevance to the other articles this month, but also because *Character Sketches* is the one part of IBLP that has some mainstream appeal. It is nice to have a concise article that highlights some of the worst aspects of it, since it looks so innocent and has such pretty animal pictures.
I really like this article. I like how it pays careful attention to exactly what the Bible does say, as well as exactly what it doesn't say.
I think one thing that made the Character Sketches books have the kind of influence on people that made it so they were willing to accept these kinds of erroneous extrapolations is that the books were so finely manufactured, and had such beautiful illustrations, and obviously took a lot of work and time and money to produce. Unfortunately, we tend to be more gullible when something is packaged so well like that. I know I was.
By the way, for most of my life I let the same kind of "packaging" influence me regarding church. I would see the nice clean building, the orderly proceedings, the fancy Sunday-best clothes, the printed bulletin, the nice hymnals, and the fact that everyone seemed to be in agreement that the service was surely taking place just as God intended. Subconsciously, all of that "packaging" had a lot of influence over me, and it wasn't until I was in my forties that I even started to give much weight to what the Bible actually had to say on the subject.
How can anyone say a woman is at fault for being raped!?!? Walk down mainstreet bare naked and you're STILL not "asking" for rape...GAH!!! *is too angry to speak* Let's not point out that Scripture talks more about what Dinah's brothers did to the men that did it then whether she had the appropriate response....
I am so ashamed to say that I used to think this way. No wonder I got some weird looks from my coworkers.. God forgive me for my ignorance and unloving heart!
I believe that when you study out the times you will find women in Dinah's time were usually not out by themselves in a strange place. In fact if they did it they were often looked upon as being "strange women" I therefore would agree with the fact that she was probably not out with permission a specially since her father was a man of status.This does not mean she was responsible others actions. But she didn't show much wisdom in her own actions. But with Tamar, I believe that although David had a wonderful heart for the Lord, he fell short as a father. He was reaping the consequences of his own immorality. Unfortunately you don't see David step up as a father until the very end of his life. But you do see his repentant heart. Tamar suffered at the hands of her bother and was not protected by her father because he didn't take the time to really know what was going on with his family. He also didn't want to deal with the issues at home. It is noble of her to be a women of modesty! Although we will all stand before God and give an account for our own actions, God does hold us responsible if our actions cause others to stumble. If I dress immodestly then I will be held responsible for that. But the man that doesn't control his eyes, thoughts and actions will give an account for himself and he will not be able to blame anyone else! Just like those who have bitterness due to being apart of ATI. God wants us to learn from every experience. Look at Corrie Ten Boom, she went through so much can you really say your experience with ATI conpares to that? Yet, look at the sweet spirit of grace and forgiveness that she has! Every situation God can use for good, but it is our choice whether it becomes a classroom or a prison! Our reactions reflect our heart.
Majenta, this may come as a surprise to you, but you are making additions to the text. Did you read that part of the article?
Sounds like you're still blaming the victim here Majenta.
My pain is not lessened by the fact that someone else somewhere was hurt more than I. I am not bitter if I choose to warn others of dangers and consequences I faced, to share lessons from my life experience as testimony to how the Lord has delivered me from those who deceived, manipulated and abused me.
Yes, God wants me to learn from every experience. I pray that lessons I have learned are beneficial to others, and will help them on their journeys, wherever in life they are.
Rape is rape. There is NEVER EVER EVER any excuse for blaming the victim. EVER!!!!
Also, way to get a nice jab in at the "bitterness" of those ex-ATI.How dare they be upset over what happened to them? The nerve!!
Why even go there? Shame on you!!! Why the need to compare suffering? I would NEVER compare my life with Corrie Ten Boom. We both suffered differently. Does that make either of our suffering any less real? I think not! Would I say to you, "Oh you only lost a finger, WELL.... I lost a WHOLE leg. My pain is worse!" Never!!! Instead, having suffered pain, I would then empathize with you and offer to help you in your healing process.
I understand that you suffered severe emotional and spiritual abuse at the hands of ATI, but bitterness is a sin to be repented of. God asks us to forgive those who wrong us.
Your statement is true. Furthermore, bitterness is an acid that will damage the person who drinks it. The road forward often involves venting for a time yet one who heals is one who will not be held back by bitterness.
However, have you ever noticed how much easier it is when someone in power does something wrong to a person who has less power, to call down the victim for bitterness rather than confront the powerful person for doing wrong? I would hope that you are just as bold to speak truth to Bill Gothard for his abuse of power and other habitual sins as you are in warning his victims against bitterness. (and you may very well be, I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing this common power and truth differential out)
Did someone pull the "bitterness" card, again? Really? Y'know, I am losing all patience with this label. I am seeing it used as an excuse to discount another's pain. Welcome to the party, Job's Comforters. You say, "bitterness", don't expect that you're going to get through to me.
Jesus was not bitter when he threw the lying, cheating moneychangers out of the Temple at the end of a whip. Paul was not bitter when he accused Peter of hypocrisy and false teaching to his face and in a letter to one of the Asian churches. Nathan the Prophet was not bitter when he told David "you are that man, and God's gonna punish you for your sin."
There is a huge difference between exposing error --- pointing out wrong teaching, wrong actions, and wrong attitudes --- and wallowing in anger and a need for revenge over wrongs suffered.
Bitterness is a desire for revenge, carefully nurtured and enjoyed for its own sake. None of the writers or contributors here is, as far as I can tell, indulging in such self-serving self-pity.
Love corrects, demands truth, insists on restitution when it's possible, and tempers justice with mercy. Too many Christians today throw the restitution and justice out completely, and just want everyone to make nice. It doesn't work that way.
We have a moral right and a moral duty to point out erroneous teaching. Especially if we are the living, breathing examples of the pain and damage it can cause.
This is not bitterness. It is truth. Can you handle it?
You have got to be kidding me. Bill Gothard's whole erroneous approach is just awful and smacks in the face of anyone who has ever been assaulted. To insinuate that it could EVER be the victims fault is horrific. Yes I mean those words. Bill Gothard twists scripture and I am still in shock that people can not see it.
I think your word "bitter" is poorly chosen. The better word is wounded. These teachings wounded people b/c it allowed systems to be developed for encouraging and hiding abuse!!
1. Majenta, you are adding to the story things that don't appear in Scripture. For one, we don't know the circumstances of her trip. There are many possible reasons why she might have legitimately been out alone...oh wait, Scripture doesnt even say she went out alone to begin with. These are all assumptions made which don't appear in Scripture. Let's stick with one simple fact...SCRIPTURE NEVER FINDS FAULT WITH DINAH! The story isn't even really about Dinah. Why find fault were Scripture finds none? Why add details and assumptions to the story which Scripture is silent on in order to find fault where Scripture finds none? It's nothing less than Scripture twisting to do so. And it's fallacious as it argues from silence and begs the question.
2. There is a huge HUGE difference between a guy stumbling into passing lust and a guy committing, premeditated rape. They don't even compare. It's the difference. Between your brother doing something which makes you angry and murdering him in cold blood. While the question of whether a girls dress or actions might contribute to a guy stumbling into lust *might* be meaningful to some extent, the idea that such a consideration has any meaningful bearing on him raping her is absurd logically and morally.
3. Not even sure why you bring up the issue of my experience in ATI since I never reference it. I deal soley with Gothards continual abuse of Scripture. Totally apart from any particular experiences good or bad, his lack of respect for Scripture is more than sufficient to call his ministry into severe criticism. That it also lends itself to abuse and abusers simply deepens the need for criticism.
Majenta,
You seem to have vastly more knowledge of life, in intimate detail, 3,000 years ago. Where did you gain all this amazing knowledge?
Wow you guys, give a bit more grace. Even if Magenta is ungracious or incorrect in her response, is that an excuse to tear her to shreds? If you can't give a gentle rebuke meant in love, then don't give it until you have checked your own heart.
Sammy dear, it's always a good idea to follow your own advice before you give it to others. :)
As a history major, I enjoy looking at the cultural and historical context of events in the Bible. While it may be true that women didn't normally go out alone, scripture is silent on whether Dinah was out alone or without her parent's permission. Okay, maybe she did sneak out of her house to go meet up with some friends or whatever, but SCRIPTURE DOESN'T SAY. You cannot ASSUME. More importantly, whatever the situation, it is NOT HER FAULT.
Furthermore, she was a teenage girl! Of course she's not going to show wisdom in her actions, she was a teenager! But this still does not justify the actions of the rapist or make it her fault!!
I agree, Magenta, that Corrie Ten Boom's forgiveness was the key to her relevance. However, she never called the Holocaust admirable or spiritual. Imagine her saying, "Now dears, our Gracious Lord used this for good, so let's not throw out the baby with the bath water!" It is our duty to call out the inaccuracies with boldness, especially when they are twisted by parents seeking to justify undue control.
Marie, I love your comment. I am inspired by Corrie Ten Boom's courage and the way she allowed the Lord to give her a loving and forgiving heart. But moving forward for her never involved denying the wounds or glossing over the evil that was done. It did not involve looking the other way and refusing to help other people who were hurt.
I would encourage people like Majenta that when you use Ten Boom's story as a club to shut people up, it is as if you are hijacking a great story and ruining it for people. Maybe it would be better to learn some of her empathy and heart for others instead of shutting them down.
Darn straight, Matthew and Marie! Corrie forgave with God's help, after a period of time. But she never stopped telling her story, or pretended that any of it didn't happen. She never decided Nazism was "not that bad", as she knew its evils, firsthand.
"Or does it mean that, when it comes to rape, it’s always the girls fault somehow?"
This is my favorite line in your whole article, David. It is so freeing as a woman to be validated and valued in the sarcasm of this comment. I felt so much pressure and hopelessness reading these and stories in the Wisdom booklets that seemed to promise safety to women only if we chose the proper response in every situation. It is a terrible burden to place on a young, innocent woman, that she is responsible for her own virtue as well as for the actions of any sexual predators she might encounter. Date rape? She should have said no, cried out, not worn that outfit, put herself in that situation, or dated at all for that matter.
When it is HER fault, both parties are deprived. Women are deprived of compassion, and men are deprived of responsibility.
Look, that first line about Dinah going in to see the women of the city? It's an opening line to the story -- you know, the story is about Jacob's sons (the ones who took wrong initiative). Imagine sitting around a cookfire, trading stories, and someone starts to tell the one where the sons of Jacob wipe out the men of a city in revenge for their sister: "Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land." It's an introduction, not an accusation.
And you know who's really at fault in the story of Tamar? Not Tamar. Not King David. AMNON. He was the evil man who plotted to rape his sister. No matter what Tamar said or did or WORE, he intended to attack her.
Thank you, David, for pointing out how the author (I've heard it's Larry Guthrie's work, but regardless, it was endorsed and taught by Gothard) built his entire case not on Scripture, but on his own insertions. For years I've been haunted by the fear that if I ever were raped, I could be held responsible if I were dressed wrong or didn't respond correctly. No woman should be told that. God certainly didn't say it.
"And you know who's really at fault in the story of Tamar? Not Tamar. Not King David. AMNON."
Could not have said it better myself. Thank you.
I was raped, regardless of wearing a turtleneck several sizes too large and a skirt that nearly grazed the ground, and headcovered. I was told it was my fault, that I must have been looking at him wrong, that an ankle or wrist was showing, etc.
J.A. I just saw your comment here. I am so sorry that you were raped, and my heart truly goes out to you. I hope you have gotten the support and love you need for healing, and that you know and believe that it was truly *not* your fault at all, regardless of what harmful things may have been said to you. I hope you have moved on and have found people who support and love you.
I could give all kinds of proof for what I have said but from your responses It wouldn't do any good! So I encourage all of you to really study scripture, that also means studying the customs and believes of the time it really helps you understand what really happened. Don't just take any persons opinion, we are all human and therefore fallible. I'm sure DAVE would agree that you all should be studying out everything being said even on this site. Just so you all know...I was sexually abused by someone that had nothing to do with ATI. I have also been through many other things and have found that true grace is in truly forgiving. Everyone that has been hurt at some point will have to make a choice...to either let go, forgive and let God turn that hurt into a portrait of His Redeeming Grace. Or focus on the hurt and become bitter. That is why I brought up bitterness...if you've been wounded you will face a choice whether you want to or not.
You are missing a key thing. Regardless if whether or not you are accurate about the customs, you point fails in one key aspect: Scripture doesn't say she went out alone. Claiming she did reads more into the passage than is there. In fact, one could just as well reason that, since it was against the custom of he land for her to go out alone, we can assume that she didn't. So assuming she wasn't alone is just as valid an assuming she was alone.
So, regardless of what may or may not be true about the custom (and knowing precisely what it was is impossible, but let's assume your view is essentially correct), IT DOESN'T MATTER! It doesn't matter because Scripture doesn't give enough details for us to know one way or the other. Speaking where Scripture doesn't and placing fault where Scripture is silent is fallacious and twisting of Scripture. Does that make sense?
Another point, if I may.. even if she wasn't alone, who is to say that it wasn't a servant with her, or someone easily intimidated by the big bad prince, or quite possibly, they got separated in a crowd and the big bad prince posed as a kind stranger offering to help.. the possibilities are endless. The Scripture says, "And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he TOOK her, and lay with her, and defiled her." Took indicates a certain amount of premeditation, or at least, a deliberate decision. It's quite possible, based on the context of the next verse (where it talks about where he loved Dinah) that it was a 'date rape' in a manner of speaking, or at least, not a brutal rape, more of a seduction that culminated in non-consensual sex, he decides she was worth the effort, and she is probably confused, terrified, and has no idea what just happened. Of course, all of that is mere conjecture as well, and I do not say that that IS what happened. I suppose the point is that we are not told. And if my conjecture is correct, Dinah was young, inexperienced, completely taken off guard perhaps, it's still not her fault, she didn't ask for anything. We ARE told what her basic intentions were. She went out to see the daughters of the land. She wanted to make some friends, perhaps see the fashions of the city, as young girls tend to do, it's possible that she wasn't even at the age where she would have been interested in men yet. Given the culture of the day, she probably wasn't old enough to be married yet, or there weren't eligible suitors if she was. Anyway... Sorry, kinda went on a ramble there.
And let's skip over the issue of bitterness. It's a valid point but not the one under discussion in this article. Ignore the bitterness issue for now and address this: Do you think these sketches accurately reflect a Scriptural understanding of rape and how we should view the victims of rape? Why or why not? Do you think Gothard accurately handled Scripture in making these sketches?
Why does focusing on hurt make one bitter? I don't see a connection. When physically injured, it is actually necessary to focus on the hurt in order to treat it properly. Even after the wound has healed, you can still have residual pain or scarring requiring careful handling of the limb. "Focusing" on the hurt does nothing to inhibit healing, and actually a lot to help it.
And one thing I can guarantee you... If someone is putting their story of pain out there for the world to see and criticize, they've already accomplished a significant amount of healing, to be able to do that.
So, what about Corrie ten Boom? By your logic, she should not have written the Hiding Place, she should not have traveled the world repeatedly telling her story.
Perhaps you will say it was ok for Corrie, because she gave glory to God in it. Well, if you will click around and read more stories, I think you will often see a similar theme from individuals. Bear in mind, that not all of the contributors are Christian, and RG allows people to tell their own stories without any obligation to tack a "Christian" ending onto it. But I don't for minute believe the perception that we are all wallowing in self-pity, here.
One thing to note about bitterness and Corrie Ten Boom: she wrote her story well after the Nazi regime had crumbled, and the threat from it was gone. Her story might have sounded very differently had Germany won the war. I'm not saying she wouldn't forgive,n her individual captors, but she may have continued to sound a warning about a brutal regime had the Nazi regime still been in power. Would you have said that Corrie Ten Boom was expressing bitterness by telling her story to warn others about evils of the Nazi regime?
Now I don't want to say that Bill Gothard is anything like Hitler, or ATI is like the Nazi regime, they aren't, but Bill Gothard and ATI are still around and there are still people following BG's teaching. One major purpose of this site is to warn others, and telling individual stories is one way to do that. So its not about bitterness, it's about using personal stories to warn others.
Wow!!! And then the clincher at the end with Dinah's brothers!! Very well written article!!! Nobody asks for rape and certainly Dinah and Tamar didn't. Thank you so much for writing this!! It has been very helpful and I can't wait to share it with others.
A classic sign of a sexual abuser is the twist to shift the blame on a victim, causing the victim to feel it was their own fault for unintentionally asking for the assault or rape.
These stories were clearly twisted to shift the blame to these young women. Interesting... tragic interpretation. And very sad considering the fact that Gothard overlooked several cases of sexual abuse.
Joy, something I noticed in that vein - in the Easter email by Gothard (https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/04/bills-new-approach-to-easter/) he seems to refer to Saul's temporary repentance as if it were an impossible thing that miraculously came true. However, that repentance better fits the cycle of violence than Gothard's narrative. In chapter 24, Saul weeps and repents and says some truly nice things (like the honeymoon or making-up stage) but 2 chapters later in chapter 26 he's right back at it with a vengeance.
I think it's possible that Gothard's read of this vignette is as superficial as his read on abusive families, namely, that a dad simply needs to "repent" and invoke the umbrella and Gothard sees a miracle. Except that the cycle repeats and often gets worse.
Which is why chapter 24 closes with "Then Saul returned home, but David and his men went up to the stronghold." They entered a calm stage but David knew better than to trust the guy.
Wow, great point.
Teachings like this are why I always said that if anything like that ever happened to me I wouldn't tell anyone - especially my parents.
@ Dave I will answer your questions even though If it's anything like before then others on this site will be outraged and rip into me for it. It would appear that unless you totally agree with everyone else then you all you accomplish is making them angry and defensive...in which case there is no reason to share. As far as the sketches go, as I have said before I believe you should never take the opinions of a man as solid facts! Humans will always fail you if you put them on a pedestal. I like the sketches as a reference, do I agree with every thing in them? No! But I also cannot judge the motive of Mr. Gothard's heart, If I do then I am setting myself up as God. Only God can truly know what is in our hearts for "our hearts are deceitfully wicked" When you share something like the article above you also have some of your own opinion in there like in Dinah's case. Right or wrong once again only God knows. I have already shared what I believe in the case of Dinah and Tamar. I believe many people in ATI started following man instead of God. Many parents used ATI to justify there wrong actions but, the reality is that there have been just as many homes damaged by abuse that had nothing to do with ATI. In fact we have work with many kids in foster care that have the same feelings regarding abuse as the once in ATI and yet the kids haven't been exposed to such "abusive teachings" So why do they struggle with the same feeling of guilt and fear? Because the bible says "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." You all are more then welcome to your opinion, but I'm not 100% for or against ATI I believe some of the things can be used for good but I also believe people can choose to abuse anything! I have seen ATI become more prideful over the years and that corrupts ones view but, every human being will struggle with pride surely you agree with that. I believe we need a balanced view, and that it is our job as Christians to study things out for ourselves and that if the parents didn't do that then they themselves have erred from the grace of truth. I will not continue to post on here due to the fact it would seem to only upset so many and you will only see and believe what you want to see and believe. I will pray that God will use everything you've all been through to draw you closer to himself and that those who are strugling will "let no root of bitterness spring up"
Who is outraged and ripping into you? Refuting, yes. Feeling that you do not understand, yes. Outraged and ripping, no. If you don't wish to be refuted, don't post in a public forum.
Majenta, I have been on boards before where I was the minority voice so I have some sympathy for you there.
However, I think a lot of people here are likely to perceive you as being both more defensive and more attacking than you are realizing.
I will make an attempt to illustrate; I hope this works. For comparison, I think if I were an objective 3rd party I would take Hannah's response to you (right above mine) to be direct and a little blunt but I think I would find your comment off-putting. It is long, without paragraph breaks, and makes several assumptions and implications about people's character and motives. There is little discernible effort on your part to really reach out and understand why some of the others feel as they do. I get the impression you think their perspective is invalid but your perspective and your experience is valid. Further, you seem to be implying that the reason people disagree with Gothard is because they are bitter. I don't think you are doing this on purpose. I think you honestly mean well.
I hope people show you grace in any attempts you make to converse here. You might want to re-read your own comments as if there were against you and ask yourself if you are modeling the grace to others you yourself desire. Every once in a while, I try to take my own advice on that! The golden rule is easy to agree to, hard to do.
Regarding Character Sketches: you say you use it as reference. If you want to demonstrate for us how this can be done, feel free to share something meaningful from it that you think is Scripturally accurate and helpful. I guess I have to add that if you are unable to acknowledge where it is clearly wrong then your credibility won't be high with me. I don't mean to be rude, just honest.
Meh, from her perspective I can see a couple responses which would reasonably come across that way. But they are the minority. Still, there seems to be little effort overall to try and understand her position better or involve her in actual discussion. Altogether such responses are going to come across as "ganging up" (at the least) on someone. It is something we as a group could work on if we wish to retain much participation from those of differing views. Just sayin. :)
1. Everyone both pro and anti Gothard seem to agree that we shouldn't take the opinions of a man as solid fact. Such a principle being so universally agreed upon, it can safely be ignored as having little meaning. Instead let's focus on the actual details - the parts where you think he got it right and the parts he got it wrong. Specifics, not generalities which are generally meaningless.
2. As to judging what is in his heart, notice I refrain from ever doing so. The closest I can come is stating he has a lack of respect in how he treats Scripture...but only after I demonstrate numerous instances of said lack of respect. Regardless of what he feels toward Scripture, the evidence is that his actions demonstrate a lack of respect.
3. This isn't about being 100% for or against Gothard. Again such statements are (over)generalizations which tend to obscure or ignore the specific issues under discussion. Little more than red herrings if that's all one can deal with.
4. Do I inset my opinion into the article? Absolutely. That's not the issue. What Gothard does with seeming abandon and what I assiduously avoid doing is I inserting pure speculation into where Scripture is silent AND THEN, treat such insertions as on par with Scripture. That is the problem I have with Gothards approach - not the simple fact that has or uses opinion.
I simply note that all of your responses to me have simply ignored the fundamental problems I raise with these particular sketches. I assume from your silence in these issues that you agree with me.
It's hard being the minority opinion. I, too, have have a multitude of retorts blasted in my direction. Even if everyone is gracious, the sheer numbers can be overwhelming. On a subject like this, it's hard to stay mild. I can see how Majenta could feel backed into a corner.
That said, the article so clearly demonstrates Gothard's misuse of Scripture that any accusations of his detractors being "bitter" are irrelevant. (I think those accusations are irrelevant anyway, but certainly is in this case.)
If RG wants to continue to hear from Gothard supporters, then we commenters will have to be full of grace. But his supporters have to realize that "grace" doesn't mean "we just smile and agree to disagree."
I think connecting to the pain of others is a good step in showing grace. While I don't agree with much of what Magenta says, I do want to meet her where she is and say that its very sad that someone hurt her and abused her. No one deserves that, ever. May you continue to be guided into the healing you seek.
Totally agree. I was sad to read of this pain as well. I can only guess at what this must be like but I know it is horrible and should never happen to anyone. I respect your courage in facing this and moving forward in healing from it, Majenta.
Meh. People here disagree with me all the time. So what?
And since when does saying "this was wrong" = "I am bitter"???
Seriously. We were given voice for a reason. And some of us are just learning how.
Let's assume some things for a moment. Let's assume that Dinah did go out alone. After all, her name was the only name that was mentioned, and she seemed to be alone at the point where she was assaulted, since nobody stopped the attack. Let's also assume that by being unescorted she could possibly perceived as a "strange woman (i.e., a prostitute)."
Assuming these things, there are still a couple of large leaps of further belief one must make regarding her culpability:
1.) You must believe that her going out alone was in opposition to her authorities' wishes. I think this has clearly been demonstrated to be unsupportable biblically. I can kind of see where this conclusion might easily be drawn in a Gothardian worldview, but I don't agree that it is plain fact in the least.
2.) You must also believe that prostitutes are okay to rape. This is where I really balk. Prostitutes get *paid* for sex. Saying that it's her fault that she got raped because she might have been mistaken for a prostitute is like saying that that a street vendor deserves to get robbed since he has wares to sell. An appropriate response to desiring sex with a prostitute is to proposition her, not to rape her.
I don't agree with prostitution, but I don't have to in order to see that even a woman who is purposefully selling her body should not be expecting to be raped. See the story of the other Tamar and Judah (Genesis 38) as an example. Funny enough, Tamar is never called out as being at fault either- Judah himself takes the blame even though she planned and succeeded in seducing him purposefully.
That is a surprising story for sure. Judah concludes, “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah.”
Whatever else we can say about her decisions, Judah acknowledged that he was more in the wrong than she was. He was the one who had put her in a bind by his false promises.
Another one of Gothard's teachings that diminished the value of women to me was his teaching on Mary Magdalene. I don't have any material handy to quote from, but I remember that he downplayed her love and gratitude to the Lord Jesus in this way - According to Bill Gothard, her sinful life had lessened her capacity for things of the Spirit. I remember the diagram he drew of two hearts as cups. The untarnished person's heart was represented by a deep cup, but the heart of one who had sinned much was very shallow.
This really bothered me. Jesus commended her faith and love for him to the "untarnished" pharisee who judged her as a sinner beyond hope.
The Lord honored Mary very highly by appearing first to her, and upbraiding the disciples for refusing to believe her testimony.
Then there was Gothard's teaching on Rebekah and the way she kept Isaac from conferring the blessing on Esau. Of course, if they had had Bill Gothard there to advise them, everything would have worked out perfectly. Esau would have married Leah, Jacob would have married Rachel, and God's perfect will would have been accomplished. (I am feeling a bit sarcastic here, but I also feel angry at the way I just swallowed everything this man had to say.)
Many of those of us who enrolled in ATI were new Christians who had not been raised in the teachings of the Bible and were looking for a guide in raising our children. Mr. Gothard appeared to be so wise and godly that we were willing to follow him and believe his interpretations of scripture over our own.I recall some instances in my early walk with Christ where the Holy Spirit taught me and led me into the truth. For instance, when confronted with the teachings of Seventh Day Adventists, the Lord led me to Galations and taught me that that was not the way to go. But with Gothard, well, the whole seminar enviornment, the amazing stories he shared, the excitement of the people there, the overload of scriptures, the great promises of God's beat for our family, it just swept us up into this movement.
I am very sorry now; that is why I keep visiting this site, to keep recovering grace.
I think the main point that we should all keep in mind is that:
1. Whether or not Dinah or Tamar did anything "out of custom" of the day (which is left wide open since none of us really knows because we weren't there) those actions SHOULD NOT have lead to rape.
It doesn't matter! Why does it matter to Gothard? Because he has to prove his ideals that if you stay under the umbrella of authority (i.e. under the control of your parents) then you won't get hurt. And that is just one big fat lie.
What happens when your dad folds up the umbrella and starts hitting you in the head with it? HAHAHA
Right on. Human authority can become tyranny. Then what?
Of course, he can't even remain consistent with the points his embellishments are supposed to prove. Dinah wasn't under the umbrella and she got raped - proof positive one should remain under authority. Errr, wait, Tamar was raped while obeying her father. So why no kudos for Tamar being under authority but instead critiquing for not being alert enough? The dad gets a by but not the daughter under authority?
[...] through one of the many ATI and IBLP (Institute in Basic Life Principles) seminars, as well as the Character Sketches stories of Dinah & Tamar, I was informed that the sexual abuse I’d suffered as a child was also my fault. During the [...]
How about if the Bible mentions these 2 rape victims is to because God wanted to show not only the good of his people, but the bad and ugly and that even men of God have faults. OT is history, but not revised history. Atheists often use the argument that the bible was made up stories of men but what men in their right mind would tell bad stuff about something they wanted to promote? God does not hide the bad things done by his people.
Recovering Grace! That is such a beautiful name for a website. A Character Sketch set was for sale at the GE Library last winter, and although I always admired the pictures in the book, I had no desire to own the books. The story of Tamar tells us that Absolom lusted, tricked her, tricked his whole family by deceiving them, raped her and caused her death. That is the story. Corrie Ten Boom was imprisoned, tortured along with her sister, her sister died and she lived. Corrie overcame the horror of her torture with God's grace and great mercy by appropriating what Jesus won for her in his death and resurrection, his overcoming love. I am sure that this did not happen overnight, but took time. I bet she had a lot to "work through." The IBLP group has expressed a low opinion of women by keeping them shackled in long hair and long skirts, pregnant, under an umbrella of oppression, etc. What about Mary, the mother of Jesus, do you ever hear the ministry reverence her, or use her obedience to God or her self sacrifice as a character sketch? Jesus is "the summation of the Law"! Is he referenced in a Character Sketch? (I don't know, so I was just asking.)
[...] Point 7 is an interesting choice of Biblical example of sexual abuse, but has some merit. Here Gothard conflates correlation with causation, indicating that Daniel’s wisdom, understanding, and position were direct compensations for physical trauma. Also telling is the absence of rape victims Dinah and Tamar as examples of guiltless survivors. Other IBLP materials denounce these women for inviting or failing to thwart their own abuse. [...]
Was thinking how this article takes on new significance in light of the recent testimonies.
David I agree. When you start connecting the dots, it gets creepier and creepier. His teaching on sexual abuse is basically that it is all the victim's fault. I guess this is how he justified his sexual abuse of these girls- they were really the ones to blame.
No kidding! All of this teaching is creepy in light of the new allegations. {shudder}
It's obvious that the rape of each of these daughters is more of a reflection on the condition of the fathers and the men involved than the character of the daughters themselves.
In the case of Dinah, the young man who raped her wanted to marry her and tried to do so, and the deception of Dinah's brothers and Jacob's silence through the whole thing is the point of the story.
The story of Tamar isn't about Tamar, but about David and his sons. When David sinned, the prophet Nathan pronounced God's judgement on David's family: "Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife." 2 Samuel 12:10 Amnon's rape of Tamar and Absolom's murder of Amnon was the beginning of Absolom's rebellion and the fulfillment of that judgement on David's house.
Thank you for making this clear: the telling of these stories in Scripture is clearly not blaming the raped women for the sins of the men who took advantage of them. The stories focus primarily on the men involved and the consequences of their choices. "Let God be true but every man a liar."
In the late '90s, my children participated in a homeschool co-op that met twice a week. Several of the young people were also ATI students, one of whom revealed to my daughter that she was being molested by a friend of her older brother. My husband spoke to this young lady's father about this information. The result? According to what she told my daughter, SHE was reprimanded for not following the chain of command and "couldn't talk about it any more." (BTW, several years earlier, this father had been relieved of his duties as deacon of our church for adultery with a married woman in our congregation.) I was saddened and confused by the parents' response. After reading through this site, I am no longer confused, but more saddened.
[…] this to the rapes of Dinah and Tamar as recounted in the first two volumes of Character Sketches. The Institute version of Dinah’s story begins with what can be generously […]
Was Dinah to blame? No! And Scripture doesn't blame her either. I felt so sorry for Dinah after reading that story.
As far as Dinah's actions - if she was in a new place of course she was curious. And the Bible never states that women are supposed to be in purdah like Islamic women. Biblical women were quite independent in comparison. Maybe she went with an escort and got separated? Maybe she went out with permission from her father but got lost? Who knows?
As far as blaming the rape victim - as a parent I think it's wise to caution one's daughters - don't dress like a prostitute, don't go alone to a frat party and drink too much or leave your drink unguarded, etc. That doesn't mean the girl is to blame though if she is raped. The rapist is to blame.
It's like someone who gets robbed while in a bad part of town. Maybe it's foolish to be in that part of town - but the person doesn't deserve to be robbed and the thief is still the one to blame. It's like the situation with the good Samaritan. Maybe the guy who got robbed was traveling at night or in a bad part of town, etc. So what, he's still the victim! And the good Samaritan was virtuous for helping him.
I also think, if a rape victim can forgive her rapist, that is a good thing and the best thing for her spiritually. That doesn't mean the rapist should not be punished though! And punishment is more than counseling with the elders of the church and getting a slap on the wrist.
[…] the assault, then the victim bears responsibility. The story of Tamar, daughter of King David, is used to illustrate this point. It is easy to see how these teaching have set up a system where the victim bears the […]
[…] Old Testament case of Tamar, which Gothard drew some lessons on molestation from, bears some resemblance to the Duggar situation and the Old Testament laws mentioned above. In […]