An Institute publication entitled “Lessons From Moral Failures in a Family” [Click here for the full pdf document] was first mailed to Advanced Training Institute (ATI) families in the late 1990s, and it has been periodically distributed at conferences since. Recovering Grace does not know the identity of the family members who shared their story in this document, so we don’t know whether, or how much, the two first-person accounts in the document were influenced or edited by Bill Gothard or other Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) staff. As we examine the message of this document, we understand the young man and his mother may have been under pressure to present a certain type of message at the time this was written, and that their views might be very different today. So it’s the influence of the words, not the family itself, that we wish to examine. The entire document is available at the link above, and specific quotes are reproduced below. It’s helpful to read the entire original document before proceeding to our analysis.
“The parents were shocked and grieved as social workers visited their home and confirmed reports that an older brother was guilty of sexually abusing younger ones in his family. The damage to the younger children, the ridicule to the cause of Christ, the shame of detailed publicity, and the scars to the life and reputation of the boy were indescribably painful to the family and their friends.”
It’s interesting to note that of the four listed consequences of sexual abuse in this case, three concentrate on damage to public image. The abuse is presented as tragic, but public exposure of the abuse and the resulting damage to appearances are presented as at least as tragic. The piece uses the humanizing language “scars to the life and reputation” to describe effects of the abuse and its subsequent exposure on the young perpetrator, but uses the term “damage” to describe effects of the abuse and its subsequent exposure on the much younger victims. Hopefully unintentional, this subtle yet troubling choice of language presents the young victims more as harmed goods than as harmed people, and they remain almost abstractions throughout the piece.
“The boy did repent of what he had done; now that time has passed, he was asked the following questions:
1. What were the early indications that you had the problem?
2. What conditions or circumstances contributed to the problem?
3. What steps could your parents have taken before it happened?
4. What could have been done to avoid it?
5. What teaching could have been given to each child to resist evil?
6. What factors in the home contributed to immodesty and temptation?
The boy wrote out the following answers to these questions. The information he gives is so helpful that every parent should read it and diligently apply the lessons that this family learned the hard way.”
In this list of questions, “immodesty” in the home was presented to the young man as a leading question. It’s assumed to be a motivating factor for his sexual abuse of his siblings, and he was asked how not only he, but also his victims, could have been trained to “resist evil.” This is the first time the piece displays a presumption that the very young children were somehow complicit in their own abuse by exhibiting “immodesty” and/or not effectively resisting the sexual assault of a much older and stronger perpetrator — let alone their very own brother whom they knew and trusted. The implication that the younger children were “immodest” and did not adequately “resist evil” will be made explicit by the young man’s narration later in the piece, and the suggestion that the younger children were “immodest” and inadequately resistant due to their lack of training does little to blunt this subtle assignment of blame to child victims.
The bulk of the piece is then turned over to the young abuser to get his analysis of what led to his actions, as well as his speculation of how the abuse might have been avoided by his parents or his victims. His insights are described as “so helpful” and are clearly meant to be prescriptive in nature. He is always assumed to be a reliable narrator, and his words are elevated to an authoritative status. At the end of the document his advice is reworked into a list of direct action steps.
“I think that the laziness I demonstrated toward my responsibilities around the house and towards other people who asked me for assistance, was probably the only symptom my parents saw that would have shown any problem in my life. One way I showed this laziness was by arguing with my parents when I was asked to help around the house.
“This behavior of course did not help me and only created strife between my parents and myself. The root problem of moral purity created in me a lack of self-control. With the arguing that I did with my parents, I became depressed. I tried to fight it by trying to make myself feel good. This only led to immoral habits that eventually led to offending.
“Laziness is similar to slothfulness, and both words point to the spirit of doing what I want vs. doing what I ought, or better put for me, obeying the flesh vs. obeying Scripture. In my case, it was displayed physically and morally. If a parent sees that his son is showing signs of being lazy, it is highly likely that his son is also struggling in other areas of his life.”
While this self-examination was doubtless a valuable exercise for the young man, the unclear application for parents seems that any young man who struggles with laziness, argumentativeness, or depression may also be a sexual predator. These common teenage struggles are suddenly all likely indicators of extreme danger to younger siblings. While this portion of the letter is narrative, it directly follows an exhortation to parents to “read it and diligently apply the lessons that this family learned the hard way.”
“I was expected to baby-sit and change diapers, etc. Baby-sitting gave me the opportunity to offend; without it I think it is possible that I might not have offended. I would still have had a problem with the immorality, but I do not think I would have violated my sister in such a way.”
This is the first time the parents are indirectly blamed for the abuse by the abuser, and his speculation is not countered or qualified in the document. This is the second time the document uses the term “immorality” (a term generally used within IBLP to describe adultery, premarital sexual activity, use of pornography, and other voluntary sexual behavior) to also describe one person sexually assaulting another. [It’s interesting to note that this document (and other IBLP documents that Recovering Grace is aware of) never distinguishes between morally objectionable (but not illegal) consensual sexual activity and the illegal activity of child molestation. Instead it categorizes all of these activities under the same generic term of “immorality.”]
“Modesty was a factor. It was not at the level it should have been in my family. It was not uncommon for my younger siblings to come out of their baths naked or with a towel.”
This is the first time the extremely young sexual abuse victims are indirectly blamed for the abuse by their abuser, and his speculation is not countered or qualified in the document.
“They would often run around the house for the next twenty minutes until my mom or sister got around to dressing them. Changing my younger sisters’ diapers when they were really young may not have been a big thing, but it really did not have to be that way (if we had only applied Levitical law).”
This is the second time the parents (and now an older sister) are indirectly blamed for the abuse by the abuser, and his speculation is not countered or qualified in the document. His reference to Levitical law presumably refers to Leviticus 18, which prohibits “uncovering the nakedness” of various family members. However, Bible commentaries interpret this often used phrase in Lev. 18 as actual acts of incest/sexual intercourse — not simply an innocent uncovering of nakedness by a child.
“My younger sisters used to wear dresses often, but as they were young and not aware of modesty, they did not behave in them as they should.”
This is the second time the extremely young abuse victims are indirectly blamed for the abuse by their abuser.
“Mom did not push the modesty unless we were in public, and Dad only had the opportunity to mention it during weekends. Little people do not realize their nakedness right away. It takes several years before they grasp it. It needs to be taught to them. My mom is a nurse, and the human body was not a big deal to her. I guess she didn’t want it to be for her children either.”
This is the third time the parents are indirectly blamed for the abuse by the abuser.
“She and I have talked about it. She explained to me that she had no idea how visual male sexuality is, compared to women who are mainly by touch. I am so grateful my parents have changed so much of this area in our home.”
The narrator inserts observations on very normal male sexuality into a story about very abnormal sexual abuse of young children, suggesting a link. In this document, the young man’s specific sexual attractions and interests are not at all presented as abnormal; if anything, they are presented as part of an expected continuum of unchecked sexual interest.
“This was not a major reason for the offending, but it allowed my little sister to be open to what I made her do.”
Even with the mild concession that his parents’ lack of conformity to (how he interpreted) Levitical law was “not a major reason for the offending,” this is the third time he indirectly blames his abuse on his victim, and his speculation is not countered or qualified in the document. The author’s description of his sister as “open to what I made her do” is especially disturbing, as it implies complicity and guilt on her part, an implication never countered in the document.
“I don’t think so much teaching was necessary because everyone was so young. However, a different lifestyle, with more modesty, might have prevented what happened”
This is the fourth time the parents (and by implication the young victims) are respectively blamed for the abuse by the abuser, and though he offers some qualification to his conjecture, his speculation is not countered or qualified by any more authoritative voice in the document.
“Pornography has been a stumbling point for me for a long time. It started when I was working at a store near my home. They did not have porn there, but a customer would use the dumpster as a place to get rid of his. It was late January 1993. I had just been working there for two months or so when I went to take out the trash, and I looked in the dumpster and saw a pornographic magazine. It hit me hard, and temptation came over me like a flood. I could not believe the war that was going on in my head. Should I look or not was the question, but I had already given ground through other things of a sensual nature.
“I had not gained this ground back. I had seen movies when I went to friends’ and relatives’ houses where there was not the same standard as in our home. I had the desire to look for sensual things, and I did, but this was a boundary that I had created, like a line I promised never to cross. Funny thing was I had never had the chance to cross it before, so it was easy to keep. I thought that I could look at ‘just one.’ That was not the case. I became a living testimony of what it says in Proverbs. ‘The eyes of man are never satisfied.’ It didn’t satisfy me, and it seemed to just bring more temptation.”
The potential effect on adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit material is certainly relevant this story. What is interesting in the broader context of ATI-published anecdotes is how this story conforms to a certain expected pattern. Often ATI anecdotes will describe young people working jobs or interacting with friends and relatives outside of the influence of immediate family or IBLP, and almost always involve the ATI student being exposed to, falling victim to, or perpetrating some moral evil as a result. The only regular exception to these type of anecdotes is the category wherein the ATI student is intentionally ministering to outsiders and sharing biblical principles or Commands of Christ; all other interactions outside of ATI’s influence are almost invariably portrayed as catastrophically destructive. Here the student is not only exposed to sexually explicit material, but this sets in motion a chain of events that ends with child molestation and public humiliation of the family.
“One of the problems that came with this immorality was guilt and hiding my problem. I should have spoken to my parents and told them all that was going on in my life, but I didn’t. I felt I would be rejected by them and not understood. The arguing I was doing was pride. I was not going to humble myself before them.”
Here the young man takes responsibility for his own actions.
“Before the problem had gone this far, I wish that my parents had established a mutual trust so that there could have been open communication between me and them. I wanted to be able to tell them anything and feel like they would help me through the problem and not just give me a consequence for it. I believe that would have made a difference.”
The young man articulates a desire for a closer relationship with his parents, and his description is quite poignant. He also, however, begins a subtle shift of blame back to the parents, a shift that intensifies in the next line.
“I might be asking too much, but at the least it would have challenged my thought life—asking me what I thought about when I went to sleep, if I had any immoral thoughts, or were there any challenges that were a struggle for me.
“I think my dad asked me once how I was doing and hinted about that area, but it was not direct and to the point. I can remember thinking, ‘Does he really want to know about that?’ I went on to tell him, ‘I’m fine,’ while thinking, ‘If he would ask one more time, a little more directly, then I would know if he really wanted to know.’ I should have told then, but I didn’t. (My fault.) If the question was constantly before me and asked regularly of me, I would have begun to feel as if it really mattered. I think it would make me feel as if I was being held accountable. For me that would have brought guilt, forcing me to confess my faults.”
In a document explicitly designed to advise parents, the young man professes responsibility for withholding information he says he should have given to his father, while simultaneously asserting that regular rigorous interrogations would likely have prevented him from becoming a sexual molester. How is a parent meant to apply this insight? Should all parents of teenagers question their sons and daughters daily about sexual thoughts, or is this only applicable to parents of young men, or of troubled youth, or of troubled male youth? If the cited warning signs displayed by a potential young abuser are sloth, depression, or argumentativeness, should any young person displaying one or more of these characteristics be persistently questioned as a suspected sexual predator? The stakes for younger children in the family are very high, and the desired scenario the young man describes is extremely accusing and intense for older children, while the instructions are not clear.
“Sex was not and is not a major topic in our family, not that it should be, but I felt that the subject was not allowed as far as what I could bring into a conversation. Maybe if my parents had told me about sex around age twelve or so, I could have asked a lot of questions, and maybe I would have had something to go on. As it was, my sex education came from what I pieced together from movies, friends, and the jokes that I heard.
“If I had a twelve-year-old son, I don’t know how I would tell him about sex, but if I didn’t, someone else would, if they hadn’t already. I would guess he would already have some questions. I think that most problems in families start with poor communication between people. I see a need for ‘open, honest communication,’ the freedom to be listened to when needed, and to have questions answered in an understanding way. If started at a young age, it could be a foundation when they get older and problems get more difficult.”
This section is notable as a rare (perhaps unique) promotion of sexual education in ATI families, and the young man once again expresses a moving desire for better communication with his parents. He makes recommendations without explicit blame shifting. Nevertheless, it is once again implied that if the parents had just provided precisely the right kind of (unspecified) sexual instruction, the abuse would not have occurred.
“One of the things that I learned about in the two years of counseling was personal boundaries. There are some basic steps to keep the opportunities of offending away from young men. For example, not letting myself baby-sit, have little kids sit on my lap, or hang on me, or even be alone with a little person. There is also no roughhousing or wrestling that could encourage inappropriate touching.
“If I had applied these before I offended, it would not have been easy to offend. The simplicity of these boundaries is a small price to pay for such protection. I don’t want to say I forbid my younger sisters to touch me, but I do make sure that when we make physical contact with each other it is done properly.
“For example, if the little people want a hug, I get down on one knee and hug them on their level. I don’t pick them up or let them hang on me. My mom thought I should mention that one should ask when you want a hug or when you want to be in someone’s personal space (within twelve inches of their body), or touch them.”
Young men working alone with children is an area of great controversy in many circles, but remember, the narrator of this story sexually assaulted his own very young siblings. His advice forbids most normal childhood physical contact and affection between siblings on the grounds that any older brother may be easily tempted into sexual abuse. In this scenario, parents should treat every older brother as both an opportunistic predator and a potential victim of accidental sexual temptation by his siblings. No distinction is drawn between guidelines for the author, who has a documented history of molesting his younger siblings, and those recommended for all elder brothers. The narrator describes what effectively constitutes an accepted amount of ongoing physical contact between a former sexual abuser and his victims, with no differentiation between healthy, non-abusive sibling relationships and sexually abusive relationships.
The next section of the document is a letter from the mother of the young man, and to her great credit she writes of pursuing a child’s report of abuse, and seeking and accepting help:
“When my daughter had indicated something was going on, and the son denied it, I had no evidence. I thought if I put some fear into him, if it did happen, he would not do anything again. That is not true. The temptation can become an addiction and works like other addictions.
“As Christians in a secular world, we can become fearful of what could happen to our families if authorities or counselors get involved. We want to hide the problem. That may not be God’s best. It would take far too long to go through what happened when the authorities became involved in our problem, but I will say, God was faithful to us. We now have some people we would consider friends that have very difficult jobs in the juvenile system.”
Note that the mother describes having “no evidence” when her daughter told her something of the abuse, as if the daughter’s report did not itself constitute evidence. This may be merely a poor choice of words, but once again the implications are unsettling. The mother then describes more about her son’s case and echoes his thoughts on older brothers babysitting young siblings. The document closes with a broad list of recommendations drawn from this single account.
“Every precaution should be taken by families so that a similar tragedy will not happen among their children. Once it does happen, it can never be undone, and the scars last a lifetime. Therefore, the following factors should be carefully considered for application in every home.
-
Do not tolerate laziness by any child. Plan a full day’s schedule.
-
Do not argue with your children over surface problems. Probe for root problems.
-
Do not neglect moods of depression in your children. Plan a time to talk it out.
-
Do not allow boys to change diapers, especially of baby sisters.
-
Insist on modesty at all times.
-
Teach the children to recognize wrong behavior in moral areas.
-
Pray for protection from pornography. Prepare them to resist it by reading Prov. 1-7.
-
Establish open, honest accountability for daily victory in thoughts, words, and actions.
-
Provide warnings on immorality from Biblical accounts such as Samson, Tamar, etc.
-
Provide guidelines on all physical contacts between children.
-
Prohibit roughhousing, wrestling, and inappropriate touching of brothers with sisters.”
Four troubling, recurring themes in this document are: the subtle blame of child victims for inviting their own abuse; the lack of distinction between normal physical contact among siblings and the behavior of a sexual predator; the lack of distinction between normal adolescent interest in sexuality and abnormal sexual interest in children; and the lack of distinction between objectionable (legal) consensual sexual behavior and illegal sexual assault. This list presents a queasy hodgepodge of all of these categories. This is especially important in the case of “Insist on modesty at all times,” which sickeningly underscores the former abuser’s implication that the attire and conduct of young children can make them somehow complicit in their own sexual abuse, as well as “Provide warnings on immorality from Biblical accounts,” which appears to conflate child molestation with the voluntary sexual conduct of adults.
This is an extraordinary document that casts accusatory suspicion on most teenaged boys (all who have demonstrated any amount of laziness, argumentativeness, depression, enjoyment of physical play and roughhousing with siblings, aptitude and willingness for child care, or interest in sexuality of any degree or kind), while shifting part of the blame for the actions of an abuser onto young children’s perceived lack of propriety and parents’ lack of implementation of Levitical law and daily interrogation sessions.
Is it any wonder that so many ATI young people, especially young men, grew up with extreme loathing and suspicion of their own normal sexuality, if so many different common teenaged struggles, interests, and behaviors branded them as potential child molesters? Is it any wonder that, despite this document’s admirable paragraph on reporting sexual abuse and working with professionals, many ATI parents were reluctant to acknowledge, much less report sexual abuse when they learned of it, as they would themselves be strongly implicated as having facilitated the abuse? Is it any wonder that ATI sexual abuse victims were often reluctant to report their abuse not just because of the usual fears and trepidations of abuse victims, but also because they would be in strong danger of being implicated as having invited or inadequately resisted the abuse?
This piece is a strong disservice to parents, to current and former young abuse victims, and to non-abusive young men. And it is, unfortunately, the wrong kind of help to sexually-abusive young men, who can find within this document many ways to assign some blame for their actions to parents who failed to adequately interrogate and Levitically police them, or to young children who accidentally “seduced” them. The quoted young man and his mother were doubtless offering the best advice they knew how to, and this document was doubtless published with the best of intentions to prevent child molestation in families. But its potential to prevent harm is far outweighed by its potential to cause and excuse harm.
If this sexual abuse series brings up any emotions that you would like to process with a professional counselor, please e-mail us at:
[email protected]g. We would be happy to recommend some professional counselors who are associated with the Recovering Grace ministry and who are familiar with the fundamentalist background of ATI and IBLP.
July 31, 2024
"As Christians in a secular world, we can become fearful of what could happen to our families if authorities or counselors get involved. We want to hide the problem. That may not be God’s best."
That's a piece of advice that's definitely worth following, but wow, the rest of this document works against it. If the victim has been told they've majorly contributed to the crime, and the parents have been told that they've created the environment for the perpetrator to thrive, what incentive is there for telling the authorities about the problem? The fear of guilt by association will keep the secrets locked up tight.
Great analysis of a strange publication, y'all.
I can't read this whole thing at once. Very troubling. This post looks like an excellent analysis. Kudos to the author on their patience and insight.
It jumped out at me, as to the author of this post, that the emphasis of consequences was on the public embarrassment of being exposed. "ridicule to the cause of Christ, the shame of detailed publicity, and the scars to the life and reputation of the [perpetrator]..."
What a train-wreck of a diagnosis by the author(s) of the original document! This appears to be a how-to document for approaching this problem all wrong.
In scanning the original document, there is something missing entirely: ambivalence. Ambivalence is a consequence to the victims who did not ask to be abused and who feel conflicting emotions pulling in opposite directions. This book is one example of a resource that gives a helpful discussion: http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Desolate-Tammy-Schultz/dp/0884692795/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365684563&sr=8-1&keywords=beyond+desolate)
This document appears to have been strongly influenced by "Institute speak". It's interesting how the story is written to reinforce Institute teachings and ideas. Given Mr. Gothard's personal history of sexual harassment, I can't help wondering if the conclusions made in this article were a way for him to indirectly justify or explain his own struggles with sexual temptation.
I am so tired of the idea that the way a girl dresses makes her responsible for a man's thought life. A man with a lust problem will never be satisfied, even if the girl is covered from head to toe. This line of thinking objectifies women and makes the Institute's views appear disturbingly similar to radical Islamic views.
Shelly, it's refreshing to see that another woman views modesty this way. After years of feeling completely and solely responsible to protect men from my femininity, it was freeing to realize that the New Testament focuses on the attitude of the heart--not skirts, slits, cleavage, or any of the other things that we are led to believe the Bible regulates.
It's so powerful to realize that woman was not only created in perfection, but in innocence. Has anyone ever thought that maybe the Bible spends so much time on the subject as a warning to men to beware of their own sin nature, not because women are responsible?
A woman could be wearing a space suit and then be covered in 50 layers of bubble wrap and the man if he so intended, would still do what he was going to do.
I think there is a certain modesty we should all display however that doesn't change the intentions of others hearts.
I simply saw the original article as more IBLP/ATI propaganda. Brilliant article admin
Excellent dissection of an article that on the surface seems to be helpful but when looked at more closely puts unfair and inaccurate blame on young victims and makes some very fault assumptions.
This is a surprising phrase: "if we had only applied Levitical law".
This wish is offered in the document without commentary or qualification. Is it the teaching of Gothardism that the Torah is the answer to sexual abuse within the family? I'm sure it's not, but I'm struggling to come up with a fair explanation as to how that phrase could make sense and where this boy is coming up with it.
Interesting, too, that some form of the word "modest" appears 7 times, counting 1 header, while the word "violate" appears but once, in a wistful conjecture, "I do not think I would have violated my sister" [if he had not been allowed to babysit]. That's not much of a confession, really. Perhaps the ratio of blame is 7:1, you get 7 times the blame for being immodest if I violate you, though I also partly blame the fact that I was allowed to babysit for my part as well...
I have no intention of mocking or shaming this poor boy or anyone in his family. I get the impression he's trying to do the right thing here. Hopefully by now he's gotten real help, and the same hope goes for his victims as well. If this was a real family and not a hypothetical case study, my heart goes out to them.
I think if they had "applied Levitical law" this boy would have been stoned. That parenthetical addition about the law sounds like Gothard's editorial comment. Reminds me of the end of The Pineapple Story when the man laments about all the trouble he could have been spared if only he had obeyed Levitical law.
Some of this article was good, but the vast majority of it involved blaming the environment for his out of control sin problem.
sorry to comment so much. One more.
Do not handle!
Do not taste!
Do not touch!
These rules are based on merely human commands and teachings.
Such regulations can seem so wise, humble, and disciplined, but they are completely worthless for actually changing the heart (they "lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence".) (from Col 2:21-23)
Gothardism, sadly, is in many ways a big collection of impressive rules and guidelines and disciplines that are actually worthless for what they are intended to do. This is why there are almost no repeat customers. Almost everyone who leaves the program is destined to go through a period of disillusionment and detox as they collide with and emerge into reality.
Wow. "Queasy hodgepodge" is right. With teaching like this and the parallel idea that secular society (child protective agencies, local law enforcement, etc.) was "out to get" home educators, it's no wonder that sexual abuse went unreported in many families. This document is VERY disturbing.
I know of at least one family where a group full of homeschoolers (including my parents) KNEW of horrible abuses, but no-one called the police for that very reason. They thought the media would attack homeschooling itself, and drag it down. I guess the four poor children who were practically tortured on a regular basis, weren't good enough to save?
That does seem like a subtext here to me, whether this document meant it or not: If your kid gets reported, it's going to be embarrassing. As in, if something happens, better to cover it up than let it get reported. This document gives no positives of it being reported, only negatives. But if reporting it stopped the ongoing abuse, that would be a huge positive.
I don't care if a completely naked person walks in front of you (regardless of age or sex), you do NOT have the right to violate her/him. Lack of modesty is the worst excuse for rape/abuse you can give (rapists use it all the time - "she was asking for it"). Especially in this case where the victim was a child, who I am sure had no concept of what sex was. I always took issue with conservative Christianity placing the burden on the woman/victim to not "defraud" with her appearance, and not on men to control themselves (in thought and action). Disgusting.
Reminds me of the muslim man who raped and abused his FIVE year old daughter so bad, he broke her back. His excuse was that he was checking to see if she was still a virgin.. A FIVE YEAR OLD? And it seemed as if he was also indicating that if she wasn't a virgin, it would've been her fault. I don't even want to know what he did to her that broke her back. She died from her wounds, and he pretty much just got a slap on the wrist, had to pay a fine. Scary, that there's a similar mindset among IBLP teachings and Muslim thought. Men are rarely punished for rape, while the woman who is raped is typically stoned, or otherwise punished/executed for 'dishonoring God', or 'bringing it on herself' somehow, even though often, it's a male relative who is the perp. Sick and disturbing if you ask me.
I've been amazed at the similarities between the injustices we see in Muslim countries and what we see in ATI.
Lieata
If you compare the methods used by many cults to IBLP/ATI you will find the mind control, brain washing and especially 'let us think for you'; are not similar, they are identical. Look up Jeremiah films on youtube and search Mormonism. If you think Islam is similar look at the testimonies of ex Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses.
I agree but my wise mother always told me there are nut cases out there so do not give them any reason to act like idiots. So as much as I agree that men should not give in to temptation, on the other hand, women should not dress as so to entice men. It goes both ways.
And then there was Mae West, who fully clothed in very long dresses and little or no cleavage could give those "come hither" looks.
For some reason I wasn't able to open the whole document just the first page so I don't know for sure that nothing was mentioned about the problem of older brothers molesting little brothers. But it seems like that entire issue is ignored with a focus being on girls being the victims only. Pedophilia isn't just older males victimizing little girls. Contrary to general thinking that child molesters are male this isn't always the case though most offenders are male it is entirely possible for females to be molesters as well.
Hi, Gayle! if you click on the visual of the document you'll only see the first page, but if you click on the link you can download a pdf of all four pages.
The document does not specify the age, number, or sex of younger children in this story, but there seem to have been at least two younger sisters, at least one of whom was young enough to be in diapers in the early part of the story.
I don't know whether there's any released ATI/IBLP material on male sexual abuse victims, aside from a reference to Daniel in the Old Testament as a victim of a form of sexual abuse when he was forcibly made a eunuch. It would be certainly be notable whether Gothard would implicate sexually abused young boys as accidentally inviting abuse by being "immodest," or too physical in play and affection with sexual predators.
My criticism of the whole story is the style in which it was written. Both the testimony of the son and letter from the mother are written in the very same Gothardized style that all Gothard stuff is written in. It sounds like both parts were written by the same person. The article starts off with questions, gives the meat of the story that helps answer those questions and then ends with answers to those questions. So even if the mother and son did write about the incident, it was probably heavily edited to fit the Gothard look. That makes me suspect if the story is true, or what parts may or may not be true.... like in a previous article how a young lady's story was changed to fit the status quo.
I totally agree w/ you,,, as I read these "insights " by the boy, I thought that this doesn't sound like the way any boy that I know would try to communicate,,,too wordy and too much "insightful thinking and understanding" for a young man....I think this article from iblp was very much doctored and rewritten.
And then the section of the lads letter about "personal boundaries",,What?! This is exactly what we have been reading about bill having a problem with---i.e. defrauding the young , innocent girls that work at TCs---get your shoes back on bill and behave yourself!
Greg. I agree 100% with you although doctored isn't the word I would use 'scripted' would be more applicable.
esbee IBLP and ATI use a template or formula to produce their articles and teaching. Imagine Mills and Boons asking you to ghost write a story for their romance section. They provide you with a plot outline or formula on which to write the story you then just make up names dates and places to fill in the gaps
This comment deals with this entry, and the previous one. Sorry about that, but I was musing on both entries:
In the early 1980s, 33 years ago this year, the IBYC sex scandal took place. At that time Gothard admitted to what he called "moral failures" on his part. The testimonies presented on this site are in synch with Gothard's apparent penchant for hand holding, shoulder rubbing, gazing in the eyes, etc.. I grabbed my red book from way back when and read the "amplification" of certain word definitions:
"Lasciviousness" - "Preoccupation with bodily or sexual pleasure exhibited by excessive and unrestrained excitement of the physical senses for personal gratification."
"Concupiscence" - "A strong desire of any kind. Example: An abnormal sexual appetite."
"Defraud" - "Attempting to take advantage of another person in order to satisfy evil desires. Example: To arouse sexual desires in another which cannot be righteously satisfied."
We all sin in many ways, so reading these teachings and then the previous testimonies of Gothard's behavior should not boggle the mind, although it is very upsetting, to say the least.
One positive thing in the publication cited above is the young man, through counseling, learned to set boundaries for himself. Not everybody needs the boundaries he has, but the thing is, he was accountable to people at that point for his sin.
Looking back at the multiple complaints of Gothard's behavior, though you CAN'T blame lack of modesty. My guess is the young women at the institute were NOT dressed immodestly, so there can't be any blaming of the victim in that regard. The main problem with this sin problem going on and on and on like this, for years, is to take yourself out of a loop of accountability, while you place yourself above your own rules and teachings. You know what you're doing is wrong, but you keep doing it anyway, and teach against it, because you can get away with it.
I have a question that deals with an issue I encountered every time I read ATI material: how does the definition of the word "defraud" match the example that is then given? They don't seem related. The example given to the word "lasciviousness" DOES make sense. The example given for "defraud" does not. The definition of defraud is someone with evil desires who purposefully tries to take advantage of another to satisfy evil desires. Yet "to defraud" is often the accusation made of young women and children who HAVE NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of arousing desire in onlookers. And the example is vague as well - "to arouse sexual desires in someone"? Those sexual desires can be aroused in someone without any purposeful design on my part at all.
It is very frustrating to see something set up in what appears to be a logical arrangement -- word, definition, example -- and yet to defy reason when one actually considers what is being written.
I used to do this almost any time I read something by Gothard: I'd read a statement and read a "follow-up" statement and be confused because, really, the "supporting" statement didn't illustrate the original point at all.
Mercy, I agree. The definition of defraud means basically, to swindle. To take (often) money away from someone by deceptive means. How the term is applied in the red book isn't that accurate.
The reason I shared Gothard's "amplified" meanings is to show he does not live by his own teachings. All three of those words, if they characterize a person, puts him on the path toward reprobation, in Gothard's teaching. All three of those operational definitions are appropriate descriptions of Gothard's motives and behavior toward the three women who have come forth so far, on this website. They also apply to Gothard's confession during the sex scandal (when his brother had sex with several women from IBYC) when he admitted to lesser, but still inappropriate behavior. They apply to what Pastor Jones witnessed at, I *think* the Michigan TC.
And I want to repeat, these women I assume were above reproach with the dress code, so they cannot be accused of immodesty. No blaming of the victims in Gothard's case on that account.
My older sister was a guardian for female Ukranian/Russian orphans at the ITC. Once, she invited them to our home (we still lived with our parents) for an extended visit. The Institute denied the request for one reason: I was a male, and therefore, could possibly have sex with them. That's probably being too generous; they were probably concerned that we would even make eye contact or acknowledge each other's existence. To be fair, they may have had issues in the past with these types of situations, but the Institute has not proven themselves to be worthy of the benefit of the doubt.
I'm highly disturbed by the mother's quote in the full article---did anyone else catch this?
"We now have some people we would consider friends that have very difficult jobs in the juvenile system. I might add that because of time spent in Indianapolis, he spent no time in detention in this state. The judge that heard his case accepted the two weeks in Indianapolis as detention time. That was just one area where God was faithful to us."
First, I used to work at the Indy Training Center. It's clear that she's referring to the ITC when she says "time spent in Indianapolis," because calling the ITC "Indianapolis" for short is a common phrase within Institute-speak. And kids were sent to the ITC to serve time in place of detention centers. So this guy was sent to the ITC for TWO WEEKS and the judge deemed that appropriate time enough for rehabilitating this kid? We do know that he received 2 years of counseling at some point, so maybe that was still part of the agreement. But most kids we received at the ITC, spent way more than two weeks there. Two weeks might be the average time a normal ATI student might be there for a conference, but not as an "encouragement case" or as one sent there by the judge. So was this detention time spent at Indy before or after he was charged with molestation? It's definitely unclear from the way it's written.
Secondly, as others have stated, I'm highly suspicious as well of the advanced use of Institute-speak in this document. We don't know how old this young man was, but he is repeatedly called "the boy" in the IBLP-written intro. While that phrase might be used partly to build sympathy for his "youthful transgression" and encourage readers not to view his action as heinous as it was, it's also attributing extremely grown-up IBLP wording to a "boy."
Having worked at the ITC with troubled youth, this particular exercise seems to be the type of assignment he might have been given as part of his "proof" of rehabilitation. In other words, "Please write a paper, answering all these questions, telling us how we've changed your life by giving you lasting answers!" Since he only spent two weeks there, was this assignment given to him during those two weeks of rehab? I worked with plenty of troubled youth at the ITC who learned very quickly what to say to appear "fixed" so they could get sent back home. Perhaps he was asked to write this later, after his two years of "counseling" (I put that word in quotes, because due to his answers, I highly doubt he received any type of professional counseling).
The fact that the IBLP intro describes this as being written "now that time has passed," is more troubling than helpful. How much time, exactly, are we referring to? Hours? Days? Months? Possibly a year? How does a "boy" with an untreated sexual addiction have lasting answers for all of us? I am not disparaging the actual boy here, but rather Gothard's belief that sexual addiction is so minor, it can be treated in a matter of weeks (or "time passed," but still while he's considered a boy). And after this short period of time or treatment, the abuser is now able to be a teacher and mentor to us all, with no reference to a professional counselor's evaluation of the boy's state of healing or rehabilitation.
In light of Gothard's own troubling actions towards young ladies (actions which hold a very scary similarity to a sex addiction), I am horrified that he thinks so little of sexual addiction as to assume a molester is worthy of teaching status. While we know it is possible for God to change hearts, and for us to learn from someone who has sinned in the past, a MUCH greater amount of time is more appropriate to have passed before a person begins teaching, in order to prove genuine repentance and rehabilitation has truly taken place.
"I am horrified that he thinks so little of sexual addiction as to assume a molester is worthy of teaching status. While we know it is possible for God to change hearts, and for us to learn from someone who has sinned in the past, a MUCH greater amount of time is more appropriate to have passed before a person begins teaching, in order to prove genuine repentance and rehabilitation has truly taken place."
He's never "the molester" in this article. It's like he (and Gothard) never figured out what he's guilty of. The "boy" was old enough to have an outside job yet is not called a "young man." That seems like another way of making him not guilty of a serious crime.
Also, it actually shortchanges the offender to push away the blame rather than address it. Forgiveness requires something to be forgiven of; restoration requires moving from 'there' to 'here'. It would be a service to the offender to face the crime with clear eyes and to extend grace to him in helping him recover.
That's actually a good point for those who think that "extending grace" to Bill himself means ignoring his ongoing abuses of power, position, and trust. Grace and truth need each other. When the man finally quits attacking people for telling the truth and instead acknowledges the truth and repents, then he will be in a place to receive and appreciate the loads of grace that have been extended to him for a long time.
'Loads of grace that have been extended to him for a long time.'
YES! I think the fact that we aren't cursing Bill to the fiery gates of hell, is a huge indicator that we're striving to do this the right way, as right as we can...
I used to volunteer at a juvenile detention center where the chaplain advised that instead of asking people to go into detail about their cases in group prayer, we should ask whether they wanted to pray for justice or for mercy. Bill should pray for mercy, because justice would not be on his side.
I think this article places most blame for the molestation on the offender himself, but sadly still has some blame left over for the child victims. It's not that the offender gets off without blame so much as he is allowed to assign some measure of that blame to his parents and his victims, even if he didn't realize at the time of writing that was what he was doing. The only situation in which I could imagine it being appropriate to assign blame to someone else would be if the young offender had himself been sexually abused, and/or if an adult or another teen knew of the abuse and did nothing to prevent or report it.
I have worked with both perpetrators and victims of abuse. I was also a victim myself as a child. Most perpetrators will find excuses or reasons to minimize the seriousness of their behavior (sin). Regardless of what a victim may do it is not an invitation by someone else to be abused.
The use of lack of modesty as a reason is a weak excuse it also highlights the lack of repentance and also the humanist undertone of IBLP's teaching.
I would wonder if Bill Gothard himself has any real conviction on sin because as far as I can tell there is none emphasized in his teaching. If there is it is watered down to the level of moral code or behavior. Moral behavior wont save a single soul on the day of judgement. Self righteousness is the main barrier that keeps souls out of heaven. One of my first impressions of IBLP teaching was the emphasis put on appearance and behavior.
The young man in this article, unless he has been confronted with his sin and owns full responsibility for his actions will very likely re-offend. This article lacked any acknowledgment of the word sin and the biblical steps that should be taken. The reference to the Levitical law and its observance is the very thing Paul pointed out in Romans that could not save us, all it shows us is our inability to keep the law in our own strength. The law points us to Christ who fulfilled it.
Holy Cow!! I cannot get through this! I am livid at the idea that the babies were somehow to blame, or that babies running naked is cause for temptation! Only if the adults in your life make it seem shameful! And changing diapers is a temptation? Only if you want an excuse not to do the dirty work, and/or an adult makes it seem shameful to you! How was the person coaching him, allowing this stuff to stand? If you're going to coach, don't make him feel weird about sleeping in the same house as his sisters! Because it's obviously all guided, I've seen too many of these writeups to not know that it's scripted.
"It wasn't my fault; it was my environment."
Wrong. Let's relate this to any other sin of the flesh: If I invite an overweight friend over for dinner, and don't happen to know that he is on the South Beach diet, is it my fault that he ate the high carbohydrate dinner I prepared? No, it isn't. The temptations of my meal were something that he knew inside himself that he would struggle with. He made the choice to accept my invitation without explaining his predicament. Was he embarrassed to admit that he was on a diet? Was he afraid I would withdraw the invitation, because I might not feel like cooking South Beach? Did my actions force him to deviate from his chosen diet? Not at all.
A child who runs around the house after a bath is just being a child. My family was quite "modest" by ATI standards, yet we still accidentally bumped into each other in various states of undress. There were a lot of us, after all. To ask a child to excuse a sibling's inappropriate behavior as the fault of the normal functionings of a large family home is so wrong. This is my big problem with the ATI teachings on abuse. The victims are encouraged to make all the changes--in behavior, in dress, and finally in forgiveness of the perpetrator. The abuser is made to be a sympathetic character who was overcome by circumstance in spite of his best efforts.
The bottom line is that God gave every individual the freedom of choice. If you struggle in an area you believe to be a sin, choose to run from it. And do not assume that all humans struggle in the same way. We must teach our children that temptations are normal, and that choosing to turn from them is part of growing up. And we need to teach them consequences for their choices. I tell my kids now that their choice to lie or steal as a kid has the consequence of parental discipline. But when they grow up, the bad choices they are making now can grow into violations that result in loss of occupation, or jail time. My job is to teach them on a kid level how sin can affect their lives in big ways. We shouldn't be afraid of seeing sin in our children, or make them feel shame for wanting to do wrong. But when they do make a wrong choice, we must offer an appropriate consequence. It appears that in the area of sexual sin, Bill Gothard and the family involved were less concerned about appropriate consequences than about getting back to the business of appearing righteous.
I agree 100%. And to me (and I hope this doesn't hijack your thought too far, Kari), I think this is where you see the importance of "grace AND truth." Appropriate consequences where there is an atmosphere of grace allows a person to own their sin and failure as actions without having to accept the idea that they themselves, as persons, are garbage. A person who lives in a safe environment can show weakness and can own their actions without feeling that they are now forever a second-rate person and will be hearing about this the rest of their life. But in an unsafe environment, it is a matter of life and death not to be stuck with the blame and not to show weakness. But, Gothard came along in all his wisdom and tossed the orthodox and historical conception of grace in the trash (to be fair, that's nothing new, The Pharisees and legalists have been doing it for a long time). Cut off grace, and you cut off the path to true repentance. This is the whole dynamic that people miss when they assume grace is just a synonym for anything-goes. But in a safe and grace-filled environment, you can tell the truth, face the actions, face the consequences, and move on as a better person, never having been less loved or less valuable as a person.
Another list of rules. That don't work. My parents preemptively did most of those in our home. We were also more conservative in dress than many ATI families. It led to fear that we were always half a step away from doing something wrong, no line of communication (because we were afraid of doing something wrong or that it would be taken as wrong) and suppressed emotions. It also led to sense of false security by assuming what we wore and following the "rules" would keep us safe.
Yet I was molested by a sibling on several occasions. My folks never knew because I didn't know how to tell them. It was implied that anything sexual in nature was taboo and the one sided authoritarian structure repressed open lines of communication. And I had incredibly good at hiding emotions.
Parents need to be parents, not spiritual drill instructors or modesty police. Kids need to feel safe being vulnerable to their parents not that they have to perfect in front of them. Perhaps if ATI didn't make them both feel like spiritual failures whose lives were on the path to destruction every time they had a bad day, or dealt with negative emotions then they'd be free to work through issues and bring them to the light instead of trying to hide behind the facade of perfection. Because once you figure out that it's safest to hide emotions and struggles, anything is free to happen.
"the one sided authoritarian structure repressed open lines of communication."
This pretty much applied in general in my family. My parents always told us, 'you can come to us with anything!' While the words are good, and presumably the motive behind it was also good, the reality was that NONE of us felt safe going to our parents. Especially about the deeper things in life, the struggles you face as you grow up and try to figure out life, temptations, etc.. We would be shamed, misunderstood (whether out of ignorance, or willfulness I do not know, but probably ignorance), and quite possibly punished. I don't mean we were consciously punished, i.e. a spanking or other form of discipline, but we would be beaten down spiritually, made to feel like a hopeless wreck of humanity, a failure, worthless, and sometimes would lose some precious privilege in the process. All done, presumably, to protect our/their reputations of character, and most likely our eternal souls. Or something like.
I don't say that to shame/blame my parents. I believe this was done out of ignorance, most of the time. I say this as a warning, and really, this is probably the first time in my life that I've actually been able to put verbalize and explain this. Maybe someday, if the door opens, I can explain this to them, to help them understand why they were never able to, 'turn the hearts of their children to their father(mother).'
To follow up that thought, when I said 'We would be shamed, misunderstood, beaten down spiritually, made to feel like a hopeless wreck of humanity, a failure, worthless..." I do think that this is probably how my parents would beat themselves up for their own failures; failure to measure up to Bill's impossible laws, where there were no allowances for falling. (No grace). And perhaps since that was probably all they knew, this was their way of trying to protect us. so you see it was most likely good intentions, but it still caused tremendous damage.. damage that continues to this day, as they do not have anything like a healthy relationship with their kids. It's so sad.
There's a phrase, "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions." I think that most likely sums most ATI principles pretty well, honestly.
I'm not a ATI survivor but was raised in a very fundamentalist group.
If I understand the teaching of Gothard, it is based in the idea that you can "train up a child" using his methods and the outcome will result in his definition of godly.
What I see in the young man's struggle to diagnose how he abused his younger siblings is an attempt to use tools/mental framework he had been given (he was lazy, not properly disciplined, etc). His attempts to pass some of the blame onto his parents is not just self serving but based in an idea that Gothard's teachings were correct, but his parents must not have applied them correctly for him to not have the predicted outcome. (I don't mean this in any way to condone what he has done, or pretend he is not responsible for his actions but rather to highlight what I see as cognitive dissonance that seems natural to anyone in this circumstance) I fear that the belief in Gothard's teachings would prevent him from being able to accept responsibility.
The root cause of his problems are not the ones he gave, but the objectification of others. Not seeing them as real people with rights and feelings of their own and projecting his own ideas onto them. But in essence because Gothard is an outcome based teaching, it seems to deny the personhood of others in favor of a template that doesn't mirror reality. Thus getting to the root cause of this young man's issues can't really happen. Being so focused on purity and attaching shame to meet the standard is a recipe for failure. In this case an epic fail.
I may have it all wrong, so please feel free to disagree. Because of my own fundamentalist past, I'm always eager to learn from others experiences.
I think you have it pretty much right Michele
That article was so sickening. Blaming children!!! I am also disgusted that they are continuing to spread the lie that sexual abuse is motivated by sexual desire instead of power and control, and the lie that all young men are potential rapists just dying for a chance to offend. What a destructive message to send. I sympathize with all children growing up in this hellhole.
EXACTLY!!! In the past, rapists have been interviewed from prison, and they all said that rape isn't about sex, it's about dominance/control. Come to think of it, Billy boy's teachings in this matter sound an awful lot like dominance and control.
I would like to thank those who have worked hard to put together this website, and for having the courage to post articles like this one. It has been a relief to me to know that I had not been alone in fighting against the ATI mindset.
Many years ago I was involved with an ATI family who had just such a crime occur in their midst. I struggled mightily to get help for the victim, only to be rebuffed with the exact arguments that had been presented here - embarrassment over having the problem dealt with as it should have been (criminal charges would have been appropriate, to include prison sentence), denial of outside counseling, as well as the subtle blaming of the victim. As a result of my attempt to prevail in what was right, I was essentially, forcefully, "detached" from the family.
This was heartbreaking to me and took me many years to recover. To my knowledge the family has never had the problem properly dealt with, the veneer remains intact to public view. It adds to my sadness, so much, to know that this problem was not limited to this family but was part of an institutional ailment.
As part of my recovery I did step away from anything dealing with "gothardism" and have become more of a "Berean" in my pursuit of the study of the Word. Trust in God, no man.
Again, my sincerest thanks to those who run this website. My hope and prayer is that the victim I knew so well will someday perhaps find this place and be able to come to healing.
Godspeed.
I found the original document to be triggering, and was unable to read the whole thing. I am thankful to the author of this analysis for taking the time to go through it.
I know from personal experience that some abusers are very good at shifting the blame on to others. This is how they gain more victims, and avoid the consequences of their actions. I found the boy's testimony here to be evidence of just how utterly depraved he is. If he were truly sorry, he would simply say, "I'm sorry. I did a terrible thing. I hurt people. And it was my fault."
That's all that really needed to be said.
Somewhere in the archives of Recovering Grace, there is an article written by a young man whose father must have gotten this message from IBLP/ATI and run with it. I bet someone remembers it. It would be a good one to link to this article.
I found it. "A Different Kind of Sexual Abuse" published in September 2011 on this website, Recovering Grace
[...] fulfilled,” and a version of this definition is still used by IBLP. In the IBLP document, “Lessons From Moral Failures in a Family,” this concept of modesty and temptation is also applied to the sexual abuse of very young [...]
Another thing: Why do they use such an innocuous word as "offend" for such a damaging act as sexual abuse? When I think of being offended, I think of a violation of table manners, or social protocal, not a crime.
Analogy-- Sheep: shepard as _______:goatherd
[...] fulfilled,” and a version of this definition is still used by IBLP. In the IBLP document, “Lessons From Moral Failures in a Family,” this concept of modesty and temptation is also applied to the sexual abuse of very young [...]
[...] Gothard’s principles for dealing with sexual abuse within families only damaged my family further as it heaped shame and guilt on us girls who were abused and [...]
[…] sibling’s sexual abuse of younger children. Recovering Grace has previously published an examination of this piece, but it is worth revisiting the document’s introduction. Of the four listed consequences of […]
The “boy” who tells his story in “Lessons from Moral Failure in a Family” has a writing style that sounds a lot like somebody else we're familiar with. He uses awfully big words for a teen, and has remarkable long-range perspective and insight (albeit screwed up) into root causes.
BIG whoops, Bill. I don’t know of any “testimonials” that you’ve ever used that aren’t suspect, but this one’s a dead giveaway. If you wanted to get another one over on the masses, you should have tried writing from a more character-appropriate perspective.
The “boy”: “I think that the laziness I demonstrated toward my responsibilities around the house and towards other people who asked me for assistance, was probably the only symptom my parents saw that would have shown any problem in my life. One way I showed this laziness was by arguing with my parents when I was asked to help around the house.”
Then later, in the midst of his first-person retrospective: “If the parent addressed this outward sign by keeping him extremely busy, I think there would have been some change. Either the inside would start to apply this and he would become more disciplined, or he would react outwardly and display more signs of what the root problem was.” Boy or Bill??
And who refers to her own son as “the son” – a real Mom, or Bill?? “When my daughter had indicated something was going on, and the son denied it, I had no evidence.”
Pure hatred of females runs throughout this piece of work. For starters, there’s the glaring contrast of the boy’s damaged life and reputation with the total disregard for his victim/sister, as she’s never mentioned again (except to say that she was “open” to whatever he did to her), and her well-being doesn’t matter. Even as a nurse and mother of many, Mom’s dumber than dirt, since her own son had to explain to her that men are turned on visually. Endless guilt is piled on Mom, who is too busy, lazy, and selfish to clothe freshly-bathed young daughters. And she should know better than to not plan a full day’s schedule for all her many children so they’ll stay out of trouble (I could take off on an awfully long tangent right here.) And God forbid that she have anyone else change a diaper or watch the others so she can have a minute to herself to eat, bathe, pray, pee, or breathe. She should have nipped that arguing and roughhousing in the bud. Not only was it a contributing factor to sexual abuse, but it was also all her fault. And all that immodesty that stemmed from her nursing background made her young daughter “open” to what the brother made her do. If only Mom had kept them busy and kept an eye on them, then evil wouldn’t have visited their home … evil that got a foothold because there were diapers to change and too many dresses on too many *toddlers* showing too much stuff. (WHY were they even wearing dresses to begin with?) Seriously??
NO mother wrote that … not even an ATI mother. NO son wrote that, either. Just look at the root causes, the blame, and the corrective prescription … they’re ALL screwed up. It’s not even a composite … it refers specifically to a particular family (with a conveniently unspecified number of children), and says that “the boy wrote out the following answers.”
No – it was written ... wholly ... by a disgusting narcissistic sexual pervert wanting to get a point across, having to make up for limited credibility with fabricated validation. I’ve been on the receiving end too many times to not spot this one. That's not to take anything away from the excellent article here ... just saying that it's very generous to offer credibility where it's not earned.
Talk about ridicule to the cause of Christ.
I noticed that the boy's testimonial sounded like a typical ATI testimonial, but never really put two and two together like that. Wow. Not that it's too terribly surprising though.
[…] past and future survivors might gain the actual help they need and not be thrown under the bus by victim-blaming sexual abuse “counseling” materials the way that these most recently discovered […]
[…] Advanced Training Institute must be held accountable for contributing to a despicable culture of shame, victim blaming, and moral and intellectual control. In addition to recognizing the dangers in his […]