Dear Recovering Grace Reader,
Many of you are aware that we have run a number of articles in which young ladies have chronicled an unusual form of emotional and sexual harassment experienced while working for Bill Gothard at the IBLP [Institute in Basic Life Principles] Headquarters [HQ] in Oak Brook, IL. In addition to these published accounts, we have continued to receive emails and personal contact from other young women stating that this also happened to them or that they personally witnessed it taking place. Overall, we have received accounts of it happening as far back as the mid- to late-1970’s and as recently as this year.
For those who may not be aware of this ongoing problem, the pattern of behavior is more or less similar in each circumstance:
- Bill Gothard notices an attractive young girl (as young as 14 on up into her 20’s) at a conference or event. Often the girl has a specific personal or family need, or she has a difficult living situation at home.
- Bill invites the young lady to work at HQ, usually without any details concerning the job assignment. He typically promises counseling or “lasting solutions” to spiritual, physical, or emotional problems — which in many cases is how he secures parental permission for her move to HQ.
- While working at HQ (often in menial tasks, because many of the younger girls have no practical job skills), the young lady is subjected to awkward emotional advances from Bill, including extremely personal questions about a wide variety of subjects. They’re often complimented on their beauty and personal appearances. In numerous cases, Bill has been known to engage in physical contact, including holding hands in an intimate way, stroking hair, gazing into their eyes, prolonged frontal hugs, whispers in the ear, and playing “footsie.” This usually takes place when the young woman is alone with Bill (which in and of itself is a highly inappropriate circumstance for any ministry leader to put himself in).
- Bill may eventually lose interest in the young lady and move on to his next “favorite,” leaving the young woman either extremely relieved, or bewildered and confused.
- The young lady often doesn’t know how to process what happened or put her experience into words, especially if she comes from an extremely conservative and sheltered upbringing. In most cases, it takes years before she realizes that what happened to her was highly inappropriate and is classified as sexual harassment or abuse. In the cases in which a young lady has spoken out (usually anonymously) about her emotional and sexual harassment, it is denied by Bill, who then goes to great lengths to discover who the person is and to manipulate them into silence, either by guilt trips, shame, or by reminding them of financial expenses paid (money personally given to them or their family). We at Recovering Grace have verified this through first-hand reports (and copied emails) from these young women and their families.
One of our hopes in bringing this behavior to light is to help put a stop to the sexual harassment and protect the many young girls who are still exposed to Bill Gothard’s wrong behavior. With increased public awareness and pressure, we have hoped that he would self-correct and make necessary changes to his hiring and workplace behavioral policies. However, we have heard that Bill has denied any specifics of wrongdoing, although he committed to avoid any behavior in public (such as hugging women) that could give the wrong impression. However, public behavior was never the issue. It’s his private behavior that is greatly concerning.
Within the last month, we have continued to receive emails that lead us to believe that this pattern of behavior is still taking place. One email mentioned a 20-something blond attractive girl whom Bill Gothard met while traveling, and he immediately offered her a job at HQ that was undefined as to scope and responsibilities. He never asked about her skills or previous work experience, but just told her repeatedly how beautiful she was, and that God had not made her that beautiful for nothing. She accepted the job he offered, having no idea what she would actually be doing.
Another email was from a friend concerned about a sweet but vulnerable, very beautiful high-school-aged girl whom Gothard had offered a full expenses-paid scholarship to attend one of his programs and then the opportunity to come work with him at Headquarters. The neighbor described the family situation and the girl in ways that fit the exact pattern Gothard appears to use to recruit his favorite young ladies, especially seeking out those who might be emotionally vulnerable.
There are more details that we are unable to reveal, but they are all nearly identical circumstances to many of the other stories that we have heard and/or published where he has brought a young lady up to Headquarters, and then taken advantage of her emotionally. While we cannot be positive of Bill’s intentions in these specific cases, at best his behavior has been shown to be exceptionally thoughtless and foolhardy towards young women, and at worst, it appears similar to predatory “grooming.”
Which begs the question: Why is this type of questionable behavior still taking place? There is no logical explanation why the 78-year-old male leader of a large Christian organization should be handpicking beautiful, young, female employees with no known marketable skills, for jobs that don’t exist. Additionally, to imply to these women that beauty is a quality needed for ministry/service is also highly superficial and completely inappropriate in any conversation, let alone a conversation which involves a job offer.
To our knowledge, the Board of IBLP has not taken any public action regarding this continued pattern of deviant behavior. We understand their personal loyalties to Gothard, but as fellow Christians, they must recognize that this type of behavior (or even just the appearance of such behavior) is highly inappropriate for any believer, let alone the leader of a Christian organization dedicated to following biblical principles. What Bill Gothard continues to do to these young women is not harmless, grandfatherly behavior. It is sinful behavior that negatively impacts these women for the rest of their lives.
We call on Bill Gothard to cease denial and suppression of the truth, and to publicly repent and turn from this behavior which is unbecoming to a minister of Jesus Christ. We plead with him to be willing to humble himself in this matter, and make a public confession and apology to the countless women whose lives he has affected.
We believe that no one is beyond the reach of God’s grace, and we will be the first to welcome his sincere, heartfelt repentance demonstrated in both word and action.
Please pray with us for Bill Gothard to acknowledge and confess the truth, and for the physical, spiritual, and emotional safety of these many young women.
The RG leadership team
July 31, 2024
Well said! I heartily agree. I have personally heard similar accounts first hand from these women. The negative effects are long lasting.
AMEN!! I was one of the "blonde young ladies" with no real marketable skills, who was invited to come work at HQ.
BG is a man who needs to be stopped. Whatever the reasons for his behavior, be they a suppressed or emotionally abusive childhood, nothing excuses his behavior. He will be held accountable for his behavior and as a leader, he has even more to account for. I agree that no one is beyond the reach of God's grace. I pray the BG repents and demonstrates his change of heart through words and actions.
Very well said. I sincerely hope Mr. Gothard admits his wrongdoing and repents to God, and apologizes to the girls and their families.
The 1982 LA Times article from the hyperlink in this doc (https://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/LATimesArticle.pdf) is incredibly disturbing:
"Bill Gothard was seen by staff employees patting and fondling women employees. Later, he admitted in staff meetings that these actions were "moral failures" on his part."
And then after his acknowledged moral failures, he started a homeschool organization where he invited the most beautiful and sheltered girls to come work for him personally. What's wrong with this picture?!!
It's interesting Bill has emphasized the need to be a "one-man-woman" or a "one-woman-man" with purity teachings so stringent that even a crush on the opposite sex potentially damages the future marriage relationship.
And yet he is a multiple woman man. . . . . obviously.
Maybe that is why he hasn't married. He knows that from his own teaching he wouldn't be able to have the string of favourites around with a wife.
he is another version of Hugh Hefner. He is a sick individual
I met Bill Gothard once, at a conference in Big Sandy about 13 years ago. He told me how beautiful I was and that my eyes were the brightest he had ever seen. He asked my name and if I would like to come work at Headquarters. I smiled and said I would pray about it. Flattery goes along way with vulnerable young ladies. BTW, I never went to Headquarters. I pray Bill Gothard will take the steps he has taught us all - in admiting failure, seeking forgiveness and making restitution.
I applaud RG's humility in this article. If I had a daughter that was a victim , I doubt I could be so Christlike ...
For the record . . . I have been trying to verify details of this "1982 LA Times Article" for a decade. I started with Don Veinot, (author of the "A Matter of Basic Principles" book) who indicated:
1) The details were in documentation which was stored away, not accessible.
2) He would not disclose the details except in a large tribunal of inquiry of Christian leaders, complete with stenographer and videographer.
3) He did not wish to disclose the details because he did not want to "damage the ministry". (I have the email) Quite a statement if you are sitting on details of overt sexual misconduct.
He sent me to several people, one of whom is indicated to have all of the facts. In repeated - and friendly - interactions over many years (last year) he has also steadfastly refused to disclose the information, choosing to defer me to other topics. I told him I would personally go and confront Mr. G with the details . . . and go to all of ATI/IBLP eventually if necessary. I found this individual to be intelligent and noble . . . but, again, no information was provided, not even to NAME the offense in general terms we are familiar with.
One person who was involved intimately in the early years, leading up to 1982, in fact being, as I understand it, the primary one with first hand information (as indicated by the other contact) was Gary Smalley. Gary resigned from the ministry in the wake of the scandal involving Mr. Gothard's brother. Yet . . . he has been more than happy to be associated with IBLP in the recent decades, speaking at conferences, expressing his appreciation for Mr. G. publicly. You can take from that what you want - I doubt that Gary Smalley would allow his name and ministry to be associated with Mr. Gothard if he knew that the reality was along the lines of the LA Times article.
As to "moral failures", boy has that been tossed around. What Bill Gothard acknowledged to the board in those days was "defrauding" a woman, whose first name I have. All I have been able to gather - and I have been pleading for information for years - is that he got close to her with the implied understanding that they were moving towards marriage, then backed off. If you have been to any Gothard seminars, you understand this to be the exact definition of the term "defrauding". The scandal being things normal among honorable Christian couples the world over but inconsistent with the high standards set out for ATI students and in the seminars. Whatever it was, she and her later husband refused to discuss it with others. She is now with the Lord. She stated to others, "Bill never abused me".
When I met with Mr. Gothard to ask about these matters, he looked me in the eye and said to me - on two different occasions (once was on the phone) - "I have never seen nor touched the private parts of a woman". Everything I have found, from statements to overt dodging from others would support that.
So . . . take liberal reporters at the LA Times in the 1980s for what they are worth.
I appreciate we are discussing culturally inappropriate interaction with young ladies here. I know this was a specific topic of discussion at a session in Big Sandy a year ago, where he acknowledged lapses and addressed some of the standards and rules he was implementing to stay out of all such appearances. As to recent events, I have no details.
There are crimes and there are manners - I doubt very much he really understands what some of this looks like, as he trusts his overt motives and purposes. I have wondered often if he would have done well to focus his ministry on young men exclusively. Either that or get married.
But . . . If, after 50 years of ministry, the items mentioned in testimonies on this website are the whole story, after all of those opportunities for mischief, I would find that amazing if he is a "sexual predator" as some imply.
Alfred, not all sexual predators take things all the way to "mischief" as you put it. For some - especially those who can't perform - the thrill is in the chase. I find it poor logic to seemingly dismiss the claims that he is a sexual predator just because you don't believe he went all the way at any point. From the personal testimonies of numerous young women, he went far enough. Sexual harassment on a repeated basis is a form of sexually preying on someone which would very easily define him as a sexual predator according to the reports by numerous victims.
I don't find it amazing at all Alfred. The article did not say that Bill is a sexual predator, but that "at worst it appears similar to predatory 'grooming'".
You could take it as "at best his behavior has been shown to be exceptionally thoughtless and foolhardy towards young women"
Alfred, I am going to come out and share something with you. My daughter was sexually abused by her father at a very young age. I found out and fought for protection of her in the court system. It was very hard. He did not rape her. He was grooming. Unfortunately the judge did not understand grooming behavior and wanted to know "why his genitals were not involved." My heart sank as I realized the judge had no comprehension of grooming behavior and out of the four lawyers in the courtroom none had the background or expertise to educate the judge. She did not call an expert in and the question remained unanswered. As I type this I am expecting a knock on the door from a social worker at any time because the teacher is making another report. We did not get all the protection we needed. But that is another story.
My point is I don't find it amazing at all if this IS the whole story, (we don't know that for sure do we?). Sexual predators, especially predators of young children are often sexually dysfunctional. (this is from a college text book). Rather than function in normal ways a sexual outlet is formed that is abnormal. This was definitely the case with my ex husband who abused our daughter. I am not going to get into details as it would be highly inappropriate. Bill Gothard shows signs of similar dysfunction as he continues to pursue relationships with young ladies, teens to early twenties.
All the people who say this is predatory behavior, are correct. And Alfred, I agree with you that Bill should have gotten married, probably a very long time ago. But read the secretary's account from the article. When someone is that controlling of a secretary, even if only half of that is true, how could anyone stand to be his wife?
And lastly, dear Alfred, please please censor yourself to be kind. I appreciated your very empathetic comment on my article. (not this one) But I notice that is a rare occurrence with you. It takes a good deal of courage for these girls to come forward and say, this revered Christian leader was inappropriate with me. Let's honor that courage.
Really? Once again I challenge you, if my hubby were holding your wife's hand, playing footsie with her, stroking her thigh, lingering with her alone in her BEDROOM, whispering in her ear and telling her she were beautiful, would it be ok? We both would freak out if that were happening and rightfully so. Why? Because it's sexual!!!! 'Nough said.
Alfred, seriously, when you defend these actions, you prove to many people that you are duped by a cult leader. The only other explanation is that you know what he's doing is wrong and are covering it.
Yes! Well said.
Alfred, I encourage you to read Ileata's reply to you several times. Then ask if it would be ok for her husband to be doing the same with one of your daughters. It appears as though you don't think any of this is a big deal.
Alfred, I have been to Gothard's seminars many times. I was "trained" for 20 yrs in his program. You said "If you have been to any Gothard seminars, you understand this to be the exact definition of the term "defrauding". " However, that is not true. The definition of "defrauding" in ATI/IBLP teachings encompasses much more than "breaking an engagement" as you implied. Also I might add that it seems your comments stem from what is taught at the Basic (and other) seminars. Most of what is being addressed in Recovering Grace is what follows having taking on Gothard's teaching and using his program of education.
Dude, this isn't the Warren commission and some conspiracy, apparently he's got an issue and needs to bring it to light, confess, repent, and seek healing.
Alfred, I don't understand why you don't understand Don Veinot keeping confidences confidential. You are a third party demanding information you were not privy to, and wanting to use it in ways those involved did not intend. How can you imply someone's reluctance to share with a complete stranger is proof the information either doesn't exist, or is flawed? What am I missing here?
Alfred, again, I agree with Tiffany. You and I have discussed this before on the Gothard board, when Pastor Jones reported the impropriety of a young girl bringing Gothard his dinner, alone, to Gothard, also alone, in what amounts to a hotel room in Flint, MI, MULTIPLE times. This is between the witnesses who wanted to divulge the information to the Veinots and Ron Henzel. Go seek out Pastor Jones and ask him about what he witnessed. He was willing to give his name.
Alfred, if you have a hard time believing liberal reporters, you might want to look through the archives of Christianity Today, to see what they wrote about the Gothard scandals of the 80's. Here's one article about his financial mismanagement and firing of employees who disagreed with him: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/marchweb-only/3-3-33.0.html?paging=off. There are a lot of newspapers and magazines that covered the scandal, but you have to dig through archives to find them. Needless to say, if the scandal had happened in today's world of social media and instant news access, IBLP probably would not have made it.
Alfred,
I don't think you would be convinced unless you witnessed it with your own eyes. And even then you would find a way to explain it away, just like you narrowly define the concept of defrauding to exonerate Bill. Doesn't matter. The fact remains that at a minimum, Bill Gothard is guilty of not practicing what he preaches. This is a pattern with him, from resolving conflict, obeying authority, godly appeals, etc. He does not "eat his own cooking". Not surprisingly, he does not follow his own "standards" in the area of moral purity either.
It's remarkable that the exact same pattern and story gets told year after year after decade after decade, by people who don't know each other. There is no grand conspiracy to spread lies about him. If anything, there's a grand conspiracy to help Gothard avoid accountability.
To excuse his behavior as a "manners issue" indicates you don't fully understand IBLP/ATI teachings and culture. You don't do things like that, or you get sent home and your parents told you are "in rebellion". By Gothard himself.
I would caution you to be careful about bringing Smalley into this discussion. The day may come where this comment of yours comes back to haunt you. But I will say that to imply Smalley is running around promoting and associating with Bill Gothard is wistful or misleading at best. That's just not true.
BTW, a strawman is where you ask someone a question and they answer a question you didn't ask. Looks like Bill did that to you. The accusations here are not that he "touched the private parts of a woman". And by the physical definition maybe he's telling the truth. Only God and himself know that for sure. But he did touch them in ways he defines in his seminars and teachings as inappropriate.
He touched that most private of parts, their hearts.
It must be hard on you to have to keep coming out here and defend indefensible behavior. I do have sympathy for you on that. I hope Bill is rewarding your loyalty.
He needs to man up and admit his shortcomings. "He who covers his sin will not prosper". He quotes that verse a lot. Maybe he should start acting like he believes it.
Alfred said, "I doubt very much he really understands what some of this looks like, as he trusts his overt motives and purposes." Please remember that students were harshly punished and asked to leave headquarters for things much much more minor, under Mr. Gothard's rules and leadership. How can you say that he doesn't understand? His entire ministry focuses on being aware of every little detail, and it had been brought to his attention. Anyone remember "Listen to your critics- they clarify your ministry." Sorry, but your response shows a lack of understanding.
"I have never seen nor touched the private parts of a woman".
That in itself may be a true statement but there are other parts of women that can be touched, i.e. feet, hair, elbows, etc) And touching those parts without permission can be considered an invasion of personal space.
Seriously... this statement of Bill Gothard's reminds me of a different Bill's comment: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And later he clarified, "I said I have not had sex with her, as I define it. That was true." The fact that Bill Gothard tries so hard to specify what, exactly, he *hasn't* done with women is a far cry from saying he's innocent of ANY wrong touching or inappropriate relationship. He's just saying he hasn't gone all the way. That's not exactly the most reassuring statement, coming from a Christian leader of an organization that stresses character and following biblical principles. Lovely thought.
Mr. Corduan,
What I can gather from your June 6th post I am that “Later Husband” of the woman you mention in your post and so there is no confusion we were married after we both left the Institute in 1980. She was Bill’s personal secretary and I was one of his pilots. Bill had two corporate aircraft, a Lear 35 and Mitsubishi MU-2J, Your statement regarding my late wife being defrauded by Bill is correct she was along with several other women.
You then state: " Whatever it was, she and her later husband refused to discuss it with others. She is now with the Lord. She stated to others, "Bill never abused me".""
I’m need to set the record straight both my late wife and I have been very open regarding what happened at the Institute leading up to the 1980 scandal. Seldom do I reply to Institute related internet posts, especially someone like yourself who is connect to the Institute. We have found that Bill’s followers or Gothardites refuse to listen to the truth. They lean on every word Bill speaks as if it was from God instead of letting God speak to them through His Word or the Holy Spirit. From what you posted you obviously have been searching for the truth and I hope it is for the protection of your beautiful family and not at Bill prompting.
My late wife is indeed with the Lord and has been for the past 19 years. The abuse she endured under Bill leadership is probably the reason she died at 41. Her doctors told us that the stress of her ten years of abuse at the Institute was the probable cause early age (37) stage four breast cancer. She had nightmares about her abuse till she died and left two beautiful young children. Those nightmares are now gone along with her pain and suffering and she is in the loving arms of our Savior. But those two wonderful children had to grow up with out their mom.
I would also like to further correct another of your statements; at no time, that I am aware of, did she ever state that “Bill never abused me”. Abused can encompass many things. To define abuse there is emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse. She was emotional and spiritual abused and defrauded by Bill. The other abuses were at the hands of someone else. In the last 33 years Bill has never acknowledged his failures, accepted responsibility, repent or ask for forgiveness. He makes comments that he is so sorry for what happened, but he has never repented. Not just with my family but the families of others. You see Bill was made aware of failures of a certain Institute leader but chose to disregard the accusations and asked for the resignation of those who reported it to him. He then developed material about giving a negative report and forced the staff to sign a statement that they would not give a negative report about someone. That complete disregard for the well being of those who’s care he had been entrust with lead to the 1980 scandal. The impact that this has had on the live of those affected is immeasurable, spiritually, physically and emotionally.
Over the past 33 years we have had multiple contacts with Bill and he has had many chances to repent, but that has never happened. In 2006 I felt prompted by the Holy Spirit to write Bill one last time. A twenty plus page letter was sent that included my thoughts, scripture and some of my late wife’s writing. His reply was a rambling letter that failed to accept responsibility and shifted blame. To me nothing had changed.
I could go on with specifics but now is not the time or place. I commend you for your search of the truth but I ask that you make sure your heart is in the right place and you have an open mind. Most of us who were there have encountered many well meaning people who wanted information, but we have seen some used for good and some twisted. I am careful with what I say and who I share it with. Many of the ex-staff are very fragile and each of us has a different family situation. Protecting each other and our friendships is one of the coping mechanisms that has allowed us to survive. Bill is a formidable foe who will stop at almost nothing to damage the credibility and lives of those against him.
Mr. Corduan, there is an old saying I often use and even have quoted to Bill; “When one person calls you a jackass you can shrug your shoulders but when nine people call you a jackass its time to buy a saddle!”. I think there might be more then nine people on this forum and definitely more then nine people on a Bill Gothard Google search that have been hurt by the Institute or its teaching they can’t be all wrong. Remember where there is smoke there is usually fire. Christ wants us to follow Him and Him alone, He is the one we put our faith and trust in to be called a Christian. Christ never intended for us following a man. I will pray for your family and that God will give you a clear vision of how He wants you to protect that most precious of gifts.
“Later Husband”
Thank you for this, LH.
I am so sorry for your loss, "Later Husband." I'm sorry for your daughters' loss, as well. I'm also extremely sorry for the emotional suffering that your late wife endured, as well as the physical suffering from cancer - which is an AWFUL way to die. :(
Thank you for speaking up. I really appreciate your telling the TRUTH as one with a very inside perspective.
Laura,
Thanks, Sometimes I want to ask why but then I remember God has a plan. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Romans 8:27-29 I won’t know God purpose till eternity but now it has made my children stronger, so hopefully they will never have to endure what their mother went through. BTW 1 daughter 1 son and now 1 more adopted daughter.
Later Husband
I am so sorry for the things that you and your family have suffered on account of Bill. I am especially sorry for the loss of your wife.
Thank you for sharing some of you and your wife's story. I know if could not have been easy thinking about all of this again. I pray God will use it to open up the eyes of those who are still blinded to the truth.
May God bless you and continue to bring healing into your life, L.H.
Hey Alfred - did he look you in the eye and tell you that, just like he looked thousands of ATI families in the eye and told them that "Sonic Bloom" worked when he had very clear evidence to the contrary?
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/03/sonic-bloom-untruth-with-an-agenda/
"Clear evidence" being a single proof of concept of which, a few weeks before the first conference and with lots of preparation underway, he was told really it didn't support the claims. All of that against the allegedly researched claims of the organization that developed it. I guarantee you he didn't believe it didn't work. The offering at a single conference was the only time it was put forward to ATI families . . . minimal cost . . . I, in fact, never got my chance. That is hardly irresponsible.
Don't be a troll Alfred. Sometimes you have to be willing to open your eyes to see the truth. When you walk through life with your eyes sealed shut eventually you are going to hurt yourself or someone else....
>>>
Alfred said:
"That is hardly irresponsible"
<<<
It is very irresponsible Alfred. I don't think 20-25 dollars is minimal cost to a lot of the people that sacrifice to line Bill's pockets. Shame on you for defending a modern day snake oil salesman.
Amen to today's writing! How often we see news stories about politicians who are in trouble for just this type of behavior. I hope that somehow this will all be dealt with and stopped before more innocent young women are taken advantage of.
These articles are describing the characteristics of a Narcissist. From what I've read about narcissists, there is no way for anyone to bring them to admit they are wrong, as they will always project it onto some other person. I weep for all of us who have been hurt by narcissists.
It's not harrassment if the girls enjoy it. If they don't enjoy it, they should tell him to stop. He can't read their minds. If they only let him do it so they can keep their jobs, then they're like waitresses who flirt for money. Or, if it's so terribly sexual to flirt, then maybe they're more like prostitutes. After all, it's agreed that they have no job skills. If "sexual abuse" means "he made me uncomfortable" then we're all guilty based on how easily someone else gets uncomfortable. And if a repressed 78-year-old virgin is socially awkward around today's girls in shorts & outfits that would have been considered porn in his youth, then maybe they should apologize for constantly tempting him to flirt. Or maybe other Christians should apologize for participating in the sick culture of brainwashing and self-hatred that produces 78-year-old virgins who feel guilty for enjoying the company of pretty girls, which every man in the world does.
Dude, you clearly have no idea what you're even addressing here. Your comments make almost zero sense in the context of this article or even the topic in general. Suffice to say, none of the instances in question here involve the girls 'flirting' with Mr. G. Also, if you knew anything about the attire these young ladies wore around Mr. G, you would laugh at yourself for suggesting they were dressed like the girls you see walking around the mall.
He clearly didn't read the other articles either, where these girls said they were extremely uncomfortable pretty much from day one, but weren't in a position to make their discomfort known. I for one am calling troll and moving on.
Adam recently a whole bunch of articles were posted on sexual abuse. From IBLP/ATI point of view from their own documents, it is clear they minimize and dismiss the seriousness of the perpetrators actions and redirect towards the victims. In some cases those victims were infants however according to IBLP they were somehow to blame.
You should read what you wrote in the light of the series put up here in April as you appear to concur with IBLP"s views
Oh for crying out loud. Institute girls aren't allowed to wear shorts or any outfit that bears any remote resemblance to porn.
And we're not supposed to enjoy the company of the opposite sex in the Institute world. Numerous young people were rebuked and sent home for appearing to enjoy the company of the the opposite sex.
Wow, Adam! You must be one of those guys who say a rape victim brings that upon themselves.
Girls brought up in ATI have absolutely no idea about sex for the most part. These girls have expressed that the experience made them uncomfortable, and many said that it was only later that they even realized that what they had experienced was sexual harassment. A girl who is extremely sheltered, and who has been taught to essential idolize Mr. Gothard, and who strives to be the "perfect" ATI student/employee, etc. would have very little ability to express what was wrong in that situation. Not to mention that she would be blamed, sent home, and disgraced in the eyes of her family. And we pretty much dressed like nuns in ATI, so there definitely were no "porn" outfits! And there was never any flirting. That could get you sent home, too. I was never pretty enough and I never bought into the whole thing enough to experience any of this, but I don't doubt it took place (and still takes place) for a moment. For someone who has not grown up in or experience this type of environment (cult), it is very hard to explain just how twisted things can get.
These are sheltered girls as young as fourteen you are talking about! They do not know what flirting is, or how to recognise sexual harassment.
Its harder than just asking him to stop if theyre uncomfortable. ATI girls are taught that Gothard is a godly man who is the ultimate authority in life, so they probably think they are just being silly finding his actions wrong, as he is apparently a Godly man who would never do anything sexual outside of marriage.
Theyre not prostitutes, theyre frightened teenagers/very sheltered young adults who dont know what to do. They are not capable of standing up for themselves, as they have not been taught how-ATI girls are taught that they have to unquestioningly obey authority and be submissive. Theyre afraid of what would happen if they stand up for themselves, and also the consequences of telling people about it, because of the victim blaming culture that says that women who get raped/molested ask for it because they shouldnt have been alone with a man, or shouldnt have been wearing that skirt. They think other people would think they were a slut, that they started it, that no man would ever want to let his son court her because of it.
Do you apply the same things to rape? Just because the victim didnt tell the rapist to stop means she wanted it? No, cause thats wrong.
Theres a line between accidentally making someone uncomfortable and what Gothard was doing. Everyone knows it is wrong to put your hand on an underage girl's thigh, hug her a lot and try playing with her bare feet. If he was a teacher, he would be fired.
This is a Fundamentalist Christian organisation, exactly what do you think the girls were wearing??? I cant see anyone being allowed in the IPLB HQ wearing a miniskirt or shorts. Theyd probably view a woman in pants as something indecent that shouldnt be allowed. Even if a girl was wearing just her underwear, she does not deserve to be molested by a man old enough to be her grandfather. These girls dont have to apologise to anyone, it is Gothard who needs to apologise for being a dirty old pedo.
78 year old men should NEVER enjoy the company of 14 year old girls in the way Gothard does. He had better feel guilty!
It is attitudes like this which cause these girls to be too afraid to tell other people about it.
Adam, it is absolutely atrocious to suggest that those girls are just like waitresses who flirt for money. Do you have absolutely any idea of the pressure those girls are under to do everything "perfectly" and to make sure they please BG and their parents??? If they don't do everything they are told to do and then on top of that they don't do it right, then they are sent home and told they are in rebellion. And everyone knows how someone gets treated if they are "in rebellion." Sure, everyone is responsible for what they do, but sometimes I think it isn't entirely their fault because of the pressure and manipulation and brainwashing a person endures.
Wow Adam, you must have cut your first teeth on an IBLP book or something. No bigot here>
These women were brought to work for BG at his invitation. With all of his teaching on authority, the strict dress code do you really think the girls were wearing shorts or other revealing clothing.
You have a BIG problem and its no fault of the women around you. You need a transformed mind.
This is terribly disturbing coming from a so called christian community. This is all nothing short of gossip which is specifically condemned in scripture right up there with murder and stealing. Though I do not totally agree with all of Mr. Gothard's application of scripture I believe this to be an attack of his character by some who are reacting to others who are in authority positions and using Gothard's principles and abusing their authority wrongfully. If any of these accusations were true these folks should have handled this biblically and went to him alone and if he didn't repent then take a brother and if he still wouldn't repent then take it to the church. Since these folks are just as wrong (or more so in my opinion) as to what they are accusing Mr. Gothard of then I believe it should be rejected and dismissed as nonsense. These folks should confess their sin of gossip and slander and seek repentance. Their mouths should be stopped by all true believers.
That's an original response Mark Eddy. Never heard that before...
Curious Mark Eddy... Are you more concerned by possible slandering, or by the fact that these things are actually true? Is it slander if this really happened?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Proverbs 28:13
He who covers his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy
Hello Mark,
In the article (assuming you read it) there's a statement;'However, we have heard that Bill has denied any specifics of wrongdoing'
And in another place it says, "We call on Bill Gothard to cease denial and suppression of the truth."
Both of these statements indicate that there has been a considerable amount of 'private dealing' if you will. The fact that we're calling for Bill to CEASE or stop denying his actions, is a huge indicator that people have gone to him about this, and other issues, and is also an indication that he is refusing to be held accountable at best.
What is a believer to do when confronted with a brother or sister who will NOT confess, repent, turn away from sin etc.. or even acknowledge that they are sinning? Do we turn our heads the other way and let them continue whatever sin they are committing, which is essentially ignoring the cries of the oppressed?
Accusing us indirectly of not being 'true believers'... interesting. I was under the impression that true believers are to stand up for those who are oppressed. Just because someone's in leadership doesn't mean they're gold.
I assume by your name that you are male. You have presumably never experienced the kind of harassment females endure from men, both in sacred and secular places. Even in the secular world women are not always taken seriously, OR they are in such a position that if they report harassment, they will probably lose their job, or the person they should report to IS the one doing the harassing. (hint hint, read some of the other articles please).
It is abominable to not take these girls seriously, and at least try to determine the truth, instead of jumping to conclusions simply because you do not like what you hear.
I see that you do not believe these accusations are true. May I ask, if it is determined that they ARE true, what would be your opinion on the matter? What should we then do? As a true believer, you should be seeking to help, not just throw stones.
Mark,
So what would you have RG do with 1 Timothy 5:19-21 then?
19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. 21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. (NASB)
RG has published at least 3 testimonies outlining such conduct and if you read the comments to those articles, you'll see that those are not isolated and you will see that Bill Gothard has continued this behavior as a pattern for a number of years. Since Bill Gothard purports to serve the church at large, I think a public forum such as this is indeed an appropriate venue for the rebuke.
And note, the last verse as well. The number of lives Bill Gothard ostensibly has helped, or the oft used veneration that he is some sort of modern day Apostle Paul should not shield from the impact of this Scripture. Quite the opposite, really.
And while I suppose there is the risk of fabrication, that risk would have been inherent in Paul's (I.e., the REAL Apostle Paul) day as well - hence the reason for multiple witnesses. If Paul were comfortable with 2-3 witnesses as a sufficient safeguard to write such an instruction, i think we can be as well.
Mark,
How is Recovering Grace sharing these stories an issue of gossiping? How is sharing how someone committed sexual harassment and has protected sexual abusers from the proper authorities attacking his character? Why is this sort of thing wrong?
You claim that RG is slandering Bill Gothard. If there is any falsehoods in the testimonies presented on sexual harassment, why have you not provided Recovering Grace with any of it?
You say that it should have been dealt with privately. The problem is, it HAS been. And as Ryan asked, how do you fit in the passage in 1 Timothy?
I would urge you to examine yourself for any sin you might be displaying here. I feel like you have a spirit of bitterness towards those who speak out about Mr. Gothard, and I would urge you to consider the possibility that you might be guilty of slandering Recovering Grace and those who have shared their stories here. If you are, my prayer is that you would repent of it, and that God would give you a spirit of compassion for those who have been sexually harassed/abused.
In the paragraph, "You claim that RG is slandering Bill Gothard. If there is any falsehoods in the testimonies presented on sexual harassment, why have you not provided Recovering Grace with any of it?," I meant to say at the end, "Why have you not provided Recovering Grace with any evidence of falsehoods if you believe it to not be true?"
This is what happens when I try to type late at night. :)
Mark..gossip? Slander? Bill Gothard himself did admit to 'defrauding' these young girls.
The problem Bill Gothard has is he refuses to hold himself accountable to anyone.Too many reports from colleage who have gone to Mr. Gothard to correct his many twisted bible teachings and rather than humbly listen to them, he turns on them viciously and then it is he that slanders and acuses them of immorality.What does that say to you? I know what God says..'you shall know them by their fruits'.
Mark Eddy, you speak as though the individuals involved haven't repeatedly tried to follow the steps you suggested. They have... repeatedly and to no effect. What other recourse is available to them sir? Also, where is it stated that because you haven't followed steps 1, 2, 3 that means x,y,z never happened? These accounts are not gossip and they are not slander. They are true and Mr. G has repeatedly (there's that helpful word again) refused to acknowledge his sin, repent, and change his behavior.
And here comes the usual victim-blaming from Bill's fans. "It never happened!" "That's not abuse!" "It was her fault!" Sickening.
Sexual harrasment is not some idea that some angry people made up to try and drag Bill Gothard down. It is a concept recognised throughout the world. For the uneducated, I include a link to an Australian government website which defines exactly what sexual harassment is.
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/guides/sexual-harassment
Hey Alfred,
I know your family and kids. Have you talked with them lately?
One of your daughters has been completely ignored by him despite wanting to serve and being asked to work at IBLP headquarters by highly qualified individuals including your son who were involved in the photo/video department.
Bill Gothard repeatedly refused suggestions for her to work at headquarters despite need and qualifications. When she speaks to him he ignores her. It was really quite sad to observe her desire to contribute be so callously ignored.
On the other hand, you have a daughter who has the "look" that he has been shown to favor. Bill would repeatedly go out of his way to only talk with her, under very personal circumstances about personal topics although she did not seek his attentions and had other interests than working for him at headquarters.
Are you unaware of these events in your own family or have you found some way to justify this unhealthy attraction and painful rejection to yourself?
I remember so clearly the first time someone suggested to me that there was "the look" that Gothard favored among the females, and that their future opportunities with the Institute were directly correlated to that look. I was certain this jerk was lying and I wanted to punch him so badly. It was *years* before I could finally admit to myself he had been telling the truth. One of the things that stood out even at the time was that this guy wasn't against Gothard, he actually liked the Institute. But he didn't have stars in his eyes and he was telling the truth, but not in a vindictive way, more of a sad way.
Something to remember: when kids are used or abused in some way by a trusted person, the first victims are really the parents. The parents trusted and are hurt and disappointed, too. Sometimes it's hard for the parent to really admit their own hurt and disappointment because it feels like a failure to them, but it's not that they were bad actors, it's that they are themselves victims.
There is not only a "look" that he looks for. He also hires emotionally damaged women.
Except for a couple girls, HQ is comprised of girls who have been sexually, verbally, or physically abused by their fathers. They tell him their secrets of home life and then have no one to turn to when they get uncomfortable with his actions.
Well said, Matthew. The parents truly are the victims, too.
Hi, Fly :-) I talk to them all of the time. Based on the information you indicated I would expect you were someone who served with daughter #1 during the several conferences she was invited to serve at. Not being able to serve full-time was a grief to her . . . but . . . both she and we felt the Lord in it. The cons of serving at HQ are well documented.
Daughter #2 is indeed "the type" and has gotten positive attention on several occasions. In fact, Mr. Gothard indicated that he would be contacting us about having her serve, but the request never happened. For the record, she was looking forward to serving there, with my son. And . . . she is currently completing her first year teaching English in Taiwan, with the Institute, set to return next year.
I asked my wife around that time what she thought about the allegations. She said, “Oh, I see how he looks around the room at meals, asking about this one and that one, clearly focusing on the beautiful girls.” Of course, I hadn’t noticed. Reminds me of the guys hanging around the back of the church, checking out the new chicks. [Adam without the "B": I laughed when I read your post. Because I have had similar thoughts. As smart and savvy as Mr. G is, I really don't think he understands that he is doing it . . . or why. This being before the "Mea Culpa" at Big Sandy a year ago. I hope he has really heard the comments and unease of others. Maybe this article will provide some further motivation.]
Yet . . . she had no qualms about giving approval for my daughter to go to HQ when we were expecting a phone call. Why? Because we both have absolute confidence that nothing evil would happen. "Inappropriate" is another thing . . . I would be all over that if a daughter felt uncomfortable.
I am going to distance myself from one aspect of Adam's post that I referenced, the thought of young ladies enjoying it. Young ladies probably enjoy appropriate positive attention from a revered man of God . . . I doubt any of them would enjoy Bill crossing over social norms in inappropriate, uncomfortable ways.
>>>
"Young ladies probably enjoy appropriate positive attention from a revered man of God"
<<<
What is "appropriate positive attention" from a "revered man of God"?
Surely not a man old enough to be their father, grandfather or great-grandfather (depending on what period of time Gothard was up to his tricks) "hanging around checking out the new chicks". Your defense of Gothard's actions amazes me.
Next time you talk to Bill, bring up his "checking out the new chicks" and give him these scriptures:
Matthew 18:9
Mark 9:47
Aww come on Alfred, really? REALLY? You're gonna tell me that as a straight male, you know that another straight male is ogling beautiful girls, and ISN'T AWARE that he is looking at them? Tell me you don't actually believe that!
Furthermore, if on the .00001% chance that he doesn't know what he's doing (excuse me while I go laugh my head off), WHY is he fit to continue leadership if he's that ignorant of basic propriety? (Not to mention not following his own rules for guarding your eyes.)
David Koresh the Branch Davidian leader had multiple wives and took advantage of mothers and daughters alike. Al and his wife's blindness to the inappropriate actions of Gothard fall with-in the same category. It is such an honor for these ATI parents to have their children selected - they fail to see the position in which they are placing their children. Based on all of his responses, Al has obviously chosen to turn a blind eye toward the actions attitudes and evil that are Bill Gothard. I pray for the safety of his children as well as their spiritual understanding of true grace. In-spite of their fathers choose blindness.
Today, Alfred, your daughter may not feel uncomfortable with the attentions of a revered man. But as a grown woman with children of her own, and wisdom due to age, she will look back on these years and *know* with the wisdom of *knowing* that the attentions were inappropriate for a man in his position. And then she will look around the web out of curiosity just to see if it happened to anyone else. And when she finds that it did, and that the special little things he whispered to her were whispered in other girls' ears over the years, she will feel sick. She will look at her husband differently. She will look at her pastor differently, and the man on the street will be suspect. Trust will take such a blow that without counseling she may never recover. And all this from just a little bit of inappropriate attention from a man she trusts and looks up to? Oh, yes. This is how innocence is exploited and crushed. And when innocence is gone, there is anger, disillusionment, and psychological distress. It is not harmless, Alfred. It isn't.
I second that. As a now married woman, I realized that very thing, not from Bill, as I have the blessed fortune of never meeting the man, but with a coworker. I didn't realize til years later that he was making sexual advances to me (I was too innocent to understand), and I RESPONDED to them! Not knowing I was responding, or what I was responding to. Yeck!
Alfred,
How would you expect your daughter to feel if, months or years down the road, she realizes that the way BG treated her (or how she saw someone else treated) was inappropriate?
I've had years at HQ under my belt. My family used to live and work at HQ. I saw BG's behavior.
As a daughter, if I found out years later that my dad had an opportunity to protect me from inappropriate contact with someone, but chose NOT to take preventative actions... "Because nothing evil" would happen.... I would be beyond hurt. It would destroy EVERY bit of trust I had ever built with my father. I would never really be able to trust him again.
Please, please, for your daughters' sakes, protect them. Even if it means making life difficult for yourself. Even if it means that your mentor and father-figure is labeled untrustworthy. Your children, not BG, require your full heart. Your full protection and all the fighting instincts you possess.
I would like to second what is being said here. As someone who has suffered sexual abuse, it has taken quite a bit of work for me to forgive my parents... and their only sin was oblivion. They didn't realize the obvious dangers and risks they were taking by putting me in harm's way. You, however, are continuing on this path at great risk to your daughter. And when she is old enough to realize the risk, that you realized that she was Gothard's "type" and yet allowed him access to her, how great will her loathing be for you? Will you be included in her life at all? Will you know your grandchildren? Or will she so strongly associate your name with the unwanted sexual attention she received? Please consider carefully, and do not let your daughter merely be a pawn in a game you have already lost.
concerned: If I may ask . . . DID your father protect you? Was it hard to do? I am asking from your first-hand experience whether you ever felt violated. Would your father tell me to never, ever let my daughter serve at HQ?
Heather: Yes, I really believe that. Every fellow has dealt with the challenge of parallel yet dueling motives. I had many years of Basic Seminars under my belt, knew all of the things to look for to remain "pure" in body and emotions . . . yet, these strange, wonderful creatures evoked things in me I hardly knew how to react to. Lots of "hanging around" . . . and helpful "study sessions" . . . and volunteering to perform tasks, like any nice person would do for another. Would I do that for the males equal time? Looking back I would have to say . . . "No". But I would have told you that I was being kind, spiritual, attentive . . . a counselor, even. Amazingly it was only young ladies that I seemed to keep contact with during the summers for various innocent reasons.
NOT to suggest that was necessarily bad. But I almost laugh back at you. :-) "The way of a man with a maid" was one of the 4 things Solomon - with endless wisdom - found incomprehensible. I think it got Bill Gothard stumped too.
Alfred,
I had a different relationship with BG. I stood up to him one too many times, he "sent me home" (my family still lived there!)... and that made my dad realize that BG was a hypocrite. He did not believe in a father and daughter working together. My dad and I worked very well together, I took on many jobs so we could cut expenses for ATI while traveling to conferences, etc. BG didn't care about that: he wanted to be right. To have his way. My dad realized that, and within a month, my family was moving back to our home state from HQ. Dad talked to BG and during the discussion about BG sending me home, BG and my dad came to the conclusion that it would be best for all involved if my dad resigned. So he did. It was very difficult for my dad to accept that his daughter was a pawn, but I don't think it was difficult for him to accept that he needed to protect the family and leave.
Now, my parents are actually still in ATI. My dad is not as unable to accept BGs faults as my mom is. She's the one who does the majority of the homeschooling, and they did a very good job just using ATI as a "small tool" in their great toolbox used to school us. Despite the leadership position my dad had, ATI was *never* a "lifestyle" for my family. My dad is the first to admit BG's (and his own) errors.
Would he tell you to never ever let your daughter work at HQ? No, probably not. My dad, however, doesn't believe it's his job to tell anyone what to do or not to do. He would say follow God. Seek His will. He also would say, that if you had even the slightest hint of wondering if your daughter would be approached inappropriately, to never put her in that position. I think my dad would be much more reticent about ever allowing another child to work at HQ, from the discussions he and I have had. He would never take it upon himself to tell another parent how to counsel their adult or near adult children.
And how will the parents that knew be remembered? " Because we both have absolute confidence that nothing evil would happen. "Inappropriate" is another thing . . . I would be all over that if a daughter felt uncomfortable. "
To even know that my daughter might face anything inappropriate, based on so many other testimonies, means I would not allow her to go.
I check the comments and opinions on flipping Amazon before buying any-thing. How much more important are all these comments, telling us that something rotten is going on. Use common sense!
Yes! I didn't realize at the time that what he was doing was not right.
The "conservative" circles speak of not doing anything with a person of the opposite sex that you wouldn't feel comfortable with someone doing that same thing with your own spouse someday. I have known people who have not even given each other a hug until they were married.
But somehow, these same people have no problem with their girls hanging out with a 70 something year old man who has had much more than the "two or three witnesses" needed to accuse someone.
Will someone PLEASE believe us girls for a change? Just because we are pretty doesn't mean that it's our fault!
KariU, yes. This. What you said. I had a good friend in high school who had an affair at the age of 16 with one of the married 30 something pastors in her church. Once brought to light and exposed, she was very repentant and took responsibility. We had discussions in my teenaged bedroom where she expressed her own guilt in the matter. She didn't blame the pastor nor felt like a victim.
Now we are in our thirties. Now we can see the immense power a 30-year-old authority figure has over an emotionally damaged teenager. Now we can totally see the manipulation. Now we can see the abuse. Now looking back she sees that she was an innocent.
It is like there is a second assault. When you reach the age to cognitively understand what happened and you realize how you were truly treated. When you find out it happened to other girls and you weren't special...you were groomed.
What a sad story. "Now we can see the immense power a 30-year-old authority figure has over an emotionally damaged teenager. Now we can totally see the manipulation. Now we can see the abuse. Now looking back she sees that she was an innocent."
Here is how the American Association of Christian Counselors' code of ethics addresses that issue:
Alfred, I think that reference in Proverbs of "the way of a man with a maid" is referring to something slightly different to what we have been discussing in this conversation. At least, that was my understanding of that verse.
Blargh. What a ridiculous answer. I get the whole, 'way of a man with a maid,' but beyond that, what? So it's ok for Bill to be creeping on beautiful girls, many of whom are VERY young, barely even women yet?
Speaking as a woman, I know what it's like to be ogled. It.Is.Not.Pleasant. Doesn't matter what I wear, I have gone to the store looking like crap, and was ogled so much I was afraid to walk out of the store by myself. But you're acting as if such behavior is the normal 'noticing of an attractive person'. There's a HUGE difference in noticing and admiring, and looking and lusting.
You were oblivious to where Bill was looking. (Cause you're a man, and he can do no wrong in your eyes anyway.) Your wife was not oblivious, and her comment, “Oh, I see how he looks around the room at meals, asking about this one and that one, clearly focusing on the beautiful girls.” didn't make you feel weird? Sit up and take notice?That's awfully specific. In layman's terms, most people would regard that behavior as stalkerish.
Asking about this one and that one, clearly focusing on the beautiful ones. That is so creepy. Maybe if you were a woman (and in the real world) you'd realize how creepy that is. Especially since he's so old now.
so you really do believe he's this harmless old grandfatherly type who just loves young ladies (who happen to be blonde, slim, and beautiful) so much, that he has a whole posse of them around the place, and often 'plays' with them in ways that my own dad and grandpa would never do. At this point, I think even if your daughter did express discomfort (or worse), you'd probably dismiss it or find some way around it. Gross.
But at this point, I ask myself why I even bother. You've made up your mind, despite all your protesting that if such n such evidence were found, you'd do something about it, or whatever. No evidence will ever be enough for you , even if you witnessed something dreadful with your own eyes.
Heather, you are spot on. Guys know the difference when we are truly acknowledging beauty (and even a "true" Godly countenance) and just plain ol' lusting. of course we do, its every man's battle.
Thank you, grateful. Just fyi, girls know when guys are merely admiring, and when there are sinful thoughts in it. (Once you get some experience in the real world, you learn how to differentiate between the two.)
KariU: ”But as a grown woman with children of her own, and wisdom due to age, she will look back on these years and *know* with the wisdom of *knowing* that the attentions were inappropriate for a man in his position. And then she will look around the web out of curiosity just to see if it happened to anyone else.:
But . . . if her father is aware of the problem and has sat down with her and explained what strained situations have occurred in the past, what is appropriate and what is not and why, do you think it will play out in the same way? I don’t think so. That daughter is one, BTW, that will say things that need saying . . . at the expense of the opportunity to serve, if necessary.
concerned: Thanks for being open and honest. As I think of a father in leadership with very godly, capable daughters, I might even guess who he is . . . maybe not. I have no problem with what you or your father did.
I have come to the conclusion that ministry at HQ is a transitory thing. I absolutely believe you should follow Jesus above all, and if that direction is not meshing with a directive at HQ, move on. If I know who your father is, it seems to have worked out well.
There was a time when HQ was "The Holyland" to me, the dream, the goal of a lifetime. I have learned enough to know that "Holyland" doesn't exist. Which does not mean my young people don't deeply appreciate the opportunity to be part of the ministry. But I encourage them to live day by day, not get too attached - things can change rapidly.
Heather: “So it's ok for Bill to be creeping on beautiful girls, many of whom are VERY young, barely even women yet?”
Now that I know that you have never actually even met the man, I glare at you, and then I can put some of your responses in context. Obviously I would not put my daughter with a creep . . . and I would not be a member of an organization headed by a creep. You can be absolutely sure my wife - whose first contact with IBLP was years after we married and who is no "Gothardite" - would not.
What you visualize and what I and my family see are two completely different things. I see a man dealing with an interest in young ladies that mirrors my own experience prior to being married (I was a good boy). One he doesn’t handle well at times. Frankly I don’t know how this whole celibacy thing works . . . maybe not that well. I know it is Scriptural, because Jesus mentioned it . . . but even Paul said it ain’t normal, just for very special circumstances. I don’t know how I would interact with young women if I weren’t married. I am sure I would find a way, but, again, I am afraid that interest buried deep would keep showing itself, one way or another.
Again . . . I have wondered for a long time why Mr. Gothard does not restrict himself to mentoring young men. It may be the right thing for him to do. He is good at it. He is not very good at understanding his interactions with young ladies . . . he continues to seem genuinely surprised at the brouhaha . . .
I've met him and yes, he is creepy. I was his type ie. young, tall, thin, and dark blond. He held my hand for what seemed like forever, stroking it the whole time, looking into my eyes while he talked to me. I don't even remember what he said. All I remember was being uncomfortable. And before anyone says that this is my fault for whatever reason, I was 13. I don't think I'd ever even heard what sex as at this point in life.
I get it . . . not cool, inappropriate. But . . . did he ever try to move into other territory with you?
My point is that he has (had) a list of behaviors that he had somehow come to the conclusion were acceptable and appropriate in a counseling, mentoring situation. But the lines were clear, and stayed there, because that is the kind of man he is.
What he needs (or needed, on the assumption that he "got it" a year ago) to hear was: "I know you have principles and examples that swirl in the back of your mind to indicate that this is proper . . . but it isn't. Trust other people. Girls hate this. Cut it out."
The lines were clear and he stayed there. Thanks for admitting he's a groomer. That's what groomers do. Gothard, whatever else he is or isn't, IS a smart man, and knows how far he can go before faithful people like yourself will stand up and say no.
Well Alfred, I have a list of behaviors in my head that are not inappropriate to me, therefore how could they possibly offend anyone else? I am genuinely surprised that another woman would be offended by me enjoying certain attention from her husband (or her son), and I'm not even talking about having sex with said man, or anything close to having sex. I just enjoy certain kinds of attention. All these silly people who think I'm being inappropriate. I only go for the tall, dark, handsome ones, the ugly ones I ignore. What's the problem folks?
It's so funny that you are indirectly admitting that he should not be doing what he's doing, you even have a safe alternative for him, but you can't acknowledge that he's not trustworthy. You're trusting him with your daughter, because you 'know evil won't happen'. Putting your trust in man instead of God, eh?
But again, I think I'm wasting my breath, and frankly don't know that I have the energy to decipher more of your confusing comments.
(just as a side note, I don't think you understand what a narcissist is. They cannot admit they've done wrong. But they're good at manipulating. Gothard has a track record of not acknowledging he did wrong, even his 'moral failure' comment is a dismissal, because he wouldn't come right out and say, I have sinned, I did xyz, I was wrong.. calling sin a moral failure is a cover up at best, an attempt to make a wrongdoing seem less wrong. I never use the phrase myself. Point being, he knows how to make himself look good, while seeming humble, in order to get what he wants. I have a close relative who is EXACTLY like this, I can spot the type a mile away. So even IF he is truly genuinely surprised, (if that surprise isn't an act) that doesn't make it any less wrong. The fact the he WON'T STOP collecting these beautiful girls is an indicator. If he's that serious about not sinning, or appearing inappropriate, he'd only hire the less attractive ones from now on, or, like you said, work only with men. Clearly he's not that concerned with avoiding the appearance, or actual evil.) Wow, that was a long side note..
'on the assumption that he "got it" a year ago)'
Well, since there's been reports all the way from 30 years back, it's a safe bet he didn't get it last year, and never will. Obviously if he was so concerned about not sinning, and not taking the risk of offending someone, even accidentally, he'd only be working with men, so removing himself from temptation. But he still collects beautiful girls. Not only is he not fleeing or fighting temptation, he's enabling it.
Alfred, you said, "Frankly I don’t know how this whole celibacy thing works . . . maybe not that well."
Let me tell you how celibacy works, as someone who has lived as a celibate person for more than 13 years. Celibacy works just fine if your celibacy is undertaken with God's direction and God's strength to maintain it.
Celibacy means that sexual behaviours and feelings are something that you do not indulge. It means that if you find yourself in a tempting situation, you get away --- even if it means loss. If you know that something is likely to trigger temptation, you avoid it.
If you are attracted by a person with whom you must interact, you hold your thoughts firmly in check, you do not make physical contact, and you keep it on a strictly business level. You do not ask personal questions, or hold hands, or indulge in informalities or private meetings.
In other words, living a celibate life is a lot more than "I don't have sex." It's an attitude of "I'm not indulging that desire, and I'm avoiding that which might tempt me." When temptation comes, a Christian celibate turns to God for strength to resist the temptation and "flee from it."
Mr. Gothard's behaviour makes it clear that he isn't "fleeing temptation." He's walking right up to the line and indulging whatever he can without putting a toe across the line. The ongoing reports of hand-holding and stroking, playing footsie, and being catered to and escorted by these lovely, innocent girls indicate to me that Mr. Gothard likes to play with fire.
Not to mention I've heard from a source that he's actually put his hand up a girl's skirt before and massaged her leg. So how far up would still be appropriate? I think we need to measure a girl's leg, and figure out how far up is appropriate, to make sure he hasn't crossed any lines yet.
Everyone must remember here to take into consideration that, for Alfred, clear sexual immorality has taken place on when one individual's noun has clearly verbed another individual's noun. For someone's consonant to adjective another's noun, or for a noun to adverb another noun cannot be sexual immorality according to this narrow view. Please bear that in mind when you feel rather astounded that the clear sexual impropriety and immorality is not grasped by all.
Alfred, you say that BG "has (had) a list of behaviors that he had somehow come to the conclusion were acceptable and appropriate in a counseling, mentoring situation. But the lines were clear, and stayed there, because that is the kind of man he is." Alfred, this is absolutely incorrect. And the proof is in the myriad of young men and women who were sent home for exhibiting the exact same behavior. If he believed, for instance, that prolonged hand-holding or hair-stroking was appropriate, why was no one else allowed to do so, even siblings?
He never crossed any lines because we were either at the conference in Knoxville or the lobby of the Indianapolis Training Center.
You said "Now that I know that you have never actually even met the man, I glare at you, and then I can put some of your responses in context. Obviously I would not put my daughter with a creep . . . and I would not be a member of an organization headed by a creep."
I was just clarifying that yes, Mr Gothard is in fact a creep. And go ahead, glare at me all you want. Doesn't change the facts.
Alfred: "Obviously I would not put my daughter with a creep . . . and I would not be a member of an organization headed by a creep."
Alfred, you need to be aware that most sexual deviants on the street are NOT creeps. There's definitely a few who are, and you might be able to tell at first glance. But the majority of those who molest and rape are genuinely the nicest people you'd ever meet. I speak from experience here: We have a personal friend who is now spending life in prison without possibility of parole for being a child sexual predator. He attended our wedding just a couple months before being arrested. NO ONE knew his private inner life, or the fact that he was stalking children. All that to say... PLEASE remember that most pervs are NOT creeps from looking at their outward demeanor. Their actions are what eventually prove them to be creeps. And eventually, the truth usually does come out.
FAith, I think he was actually glaring at me.
Lol Yes, Heather I think you're right. I was just taking it as him glaring at anyone who dares to call Mr Gothard a creep.
Alfred, don't you realize that someone can be a sexual predator and still not go all the way with a girl?? What BG is doing is what I would call grooming to some extent. Correct me if I am wrong. These girls were young, were scared, and some of them didn't even know what was going on. But, of course, BG can do no wrong, so he just right on ahead completely ignoring the awful hurt and pain he was causing in other people's lives!
Alfred,
I haven't met you but you don't strike me as a bad guy. It just astounds and truly saddens me that you are so loyal to Bill Gothard that you aren't bothered by him cutting off one of your daughters because of her looks and then hounding another one of your daughters because he had a twisted version of the hots for her.
Trust me, it was obvious, especially to the girls there. Seems like your wife picked up on it pretty fast. As others have pointed out, he doesn't have to be having sex with these girls for it to be unhealthy and abusive.
I urge you to consider where your loyalties lie. They should be first to your family, your real family - your wife and kids, not to some creepy snake oil doctor. I know from personal experience how deep betrayal can cut, but you need to face the truth: the man you thought of as as a father figure broke that trust and disrespected you and your family.
Just ask yourself - would you be ok with your daughters working for a businessman who acted the way Bill did? If anything Bill should be held to a higher standard since that's what he's always yapping about.
I have a daughter that spent a month up at Oakbrook and Northwoods and spent some time with Gothard. When I became aware of these allegations, I asked her the following: "Do these charges seem believable based on what you saw at IBLC?" This kid is a straight shooter and a national caliber speech competitor and she didn't pull any punches saying: "Are you kidding? Mr. Gothard is the most godly man I have ever met. I didn't see anything like this."
Some thoughts related to this subject here:
"Have you ever noticed that when some person, institution, value, or position you love and cherish is being attacked, you come to its defense?" http://wisecounsel.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/system-justification-motivated-avoidance-of-vulnerability/
Wow! I can't believe what I'm reading. Sorry that I got on here at all. Would hate to see what it would be like to be on you brothers and sisters bad sides. I am not a Gothardite. Nor am I defending Mr. Gothard. All I'm saying is this public bashing of any brother is no better (worse in my sickening opinion, as was stated) than what your accusing him of. Just because something is true (in your mind) does not justify gossip. Why should I believe your accusations anyway? Do you have any creditability with me? You sound offended that I do not believe you or readily jump on your band wagon just because you say these things are true. Pretty typical of the religious community. There were eye witnesses against the Master and the apostles. They nailed Him to a cross and killed most of the apostles. What do you think you're accomplishing? Maybe you think you are protecting these poor victims and the rest of us from the monster Mr. Gothard truly is. Now you can bash me some more I guess and throw accusations my way. Anyone on here who tries to reason with you just gets attacked as well. Who am I that you have to spout these things to me or this community? Take it as a group to the person or ministry responsible. Heather, what does the scripture tell you to do when a brother or sister will NOT confess, repent, turn away from sin etc.. or even acknowledge that they are sinning? Pretty clear if you take the time to check it out. Or you can just join the crowd and continue this spewing of garbage.
Mark, you are new here. There are literally thousands of comments, many of which are in fact people making a real effort to reason with those who have a different opinion. Interestingly, if you try to reason on the Institute's Facebook page or the comment sections on their web site, you are blocked outright if you offer any opposing viewpoints. From my perspective, RG has actually done a much better job of engaging reasonable discussion than the Institute on this one. I would invite you to take a little time and read around a little bit. There may be more here than you would realize at first.
Mark, I would echo Matthew's comments; the conversation you've entered into has been ongoing for some time now, and public calls to repentance have biblical support (1 Timothy 5:19-21 a good example, also 1 Cor. 5:1-5, Galatians 1:6-9, and elsewhere). An article was written last year regarding Matthew 18 (which you alluded to) and explains RG's understanding of the application of that verse to this issue. You can find the article here: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/05/gracenotes-thoughts-on-matthew-18/ I hope it helps contextualize this conversation a bit for you.
Ah, well Mark I wasn't asking you the question necessarily because I don't know the answer for myself, simply trying to put things in another perspective for you. Speaking of perspectives, it seems that we have perhaps hurt your feelings? You speak of being accused. Could you take a moment perhaps, and see how your initial comment sounded to us? You came right out and accused us of a few rather unpleasant things, without taking careful deliberation to make sure that you were speaking THE truth about us, to us.
You see, if we are 'true believers', you could give us the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, we aren't saying any of these things because we're being careless, ugly, mean spirited, brother-bashing, etc... Maybe we're saying them because it's painfully true, and, well, 'be sure your sin will find you out.' There's many different ways of being found out.
If I had a beautiful blonde daughter, I'd want to know that Bill has partiality to her type, and I'd want to know EXACTLY what kind of um, privileges he takes with those girls. Should I risk, my daughter/sister/cousin/sister-in-Christ's emotional health and well being, to protect the tarnishing image of a 'Christian leader', simply because he's a 'Christian leader?'
Again, just trying to put it in a different perspective.
Mark,
I'm sorry if the other comments offended you. I don't know how much into IBLP you are or how well you know Mr G, but I can tell you that this article is completely true. I wouldn't have dared to say that not long ago... I don't hate Mr Gothard... I just have experienced him as one of those abused little girls who came to HQ thinking that someone finally cared.
This is just a site where we can let down our hair and tell our stories and experiences and then realize that we are not alone.
You may not need this site, but please don't judge us! I really have started to heal emotionally after getting on here and hearing some of the answers to all the "why's" I had about what happened to me.
Oh, I am so over the admonition to "take it to the one who has offended you." Mark, it has been done, done, and done again. Believe me, that horse is DEAD. Now I'm ready to take it to the press; to publicize his wrongdoings, both as a warning and a rescue to others. The time for allowing Gothard to voluntarily repent, was decades ago, and he refused to take the opportunity.
go Hannah!!!!!
Ah, by "the press", I was actually intending a reference to RG, the public availability of this information on the internet, but yeah... I'm done being told to sit down and shut up ;)
I was in ATI for many years. I wanted only to make my dad proud and he always talked about seeing me up on stage someday giving a testimony or traveling. He was so excited about the opening of opportunities in Russia but that was back when everything was by invitation. I wasn't invited. When I finally made it to Indy for a counseling seminar I made it a point to talk to Bill to get into his sights. I thought I might get invited to stay and work on staff since I was older. Nope. I went to the first EXCEL but don't remember him even visiting. My younger, and attractive brother was INVITED to attend the first EQUIP and I think my parents made arrangements for me to go to the 2nd. We had a whole week with him and he literally looked past me but was all over a couple other girls on my team. One of them was barely 15. I had several friends, attractive friends, who could have cared less about him or the work we were doing and some even outright rebelling and they were assigned to headquarters. Did I have specific marketable skills? No but I did everything right except maintain my ideal weight. Perhaps I was too confident. I don't know but I do remember crying to my mother because I just wanted to be needed and appreciated and used by God. Hind sight is 20/20 but when you're trying to please your authorities and the person they are looking to for guidance and inspiration for their child is blinded by his own immaturity the hurt is deep. The rejection stings. I was defrauded by the vision Bill Gothard painted for us over and over again only to hand pick those who fit into his ideal picture.
You said that you did everything right except maintaining an ideal weight:
You are fortunate that you didn't get hired! In the past few years he has put several girls on diets or even let them go because of their weight. It really ruins a girls self image when they have this guy in their life that used to adore them, but now all he talks about around you is to question you about sticking to the diet he has you on.
Not that he's thin himself :)
I am so grateful for the Lord's protection. I just know there are many of us who were on the other side of this issue and we saw it. The women see it.
My heart goes out to you Erin. It is so wrong.
May the truth set you free and life be good to you in the future.
I predict that this organization's days are numbered. People never learn that it's not the crime, it's the coverup. I learned the hard way that once even your closest friends couldn't defend your behavior anymore, it was over. You might as well resign and let your loser Vice President take over.
#atleastIgotapardon
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
LOL Nice one, Nixon!! :)
I noticed the standard accusation of slander above, and I wondered, doesn't a story have to be untrue to be considered slander? I also noticed several mentions of what a terrible sin gossip is. But in a situation where two or more witnesses are present and speak out, wouldn't that meet the Biblical qualifications for legal testimony rather than for gossip? I know we aren't in court, but I am certain that at least 2 of these young ladies would be willing to testify in front of God himself against Bill Gothard if that were possible.
It's only slander if it's not true. If Gothard is concerned about such claims, he can take the matter to court and prove they are untrue.
Of course, he is unlikely to do so if the accusations are, in fact, true.
Exactly my point.
I just want to say to all those hurt by this organization, by similar religious legalism, by controlling fathers...the Spirit is the answer. He is the greatest gift to us by our always loving Father, and if we "open the books of our hearts" to the Spirit, ask Him to heal us, He will. I know, because I have finally started to listen to the Spirit rather than that nagging voice from the enemy of constant condemnation, fear, anxiety, depression...the Spirit has peeled back the layers of hurt and pain and healed me, slowly, through each memory and past experience and lie I have believed. I am so full of joy and gratitude for the FREEDOM that comes from following the Spirit - where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom - and just the sweet knowledge that the Lord is good, He is crazy about me, and about all of us, His precious children! He impressed upon my heart recently how His feelings towards us are so much more profound than even my own overflowing heart towards my newborn precious daughter. He is tender, He is kind, and those of us that grew up listening to man-made rules and controlling authority figures can just relax and melt into the love the Spirit can make real to us! Believers, rest...you have the Spirit. Ask the Lord to teach you to listen to HIS voice. He has transformed me from the devastated girl sitting on the curb having just been kicked out of the house with nothing by the father who I strove to obey with all my heart to a woman who knows that her creator SINGS over her - a tender love-song because who I REALLY am is beloved, beautiful, radiant to the King of Kings. The church NEEDS the SPIRIT!!!! Condemnation, abuse, control...all tools of the enemy to keep us all from experiencing the true sweetness, freedom, and power of being a child of God, loved because we are His. I have gone from panic and extreme anxiety and depression to peace and strength as I listen to and obey what the Spirit shows me - this is within the reach of every believer. THis is why man-made formulas, rules, regulations, codes of conduct, modes of operation etc can NEVER work as a substitute for pure reliance on the Spirit of God who 1) knows every man's heart and 2) is the FATHER's spirit, pure love, grace, holiness 3) understands what is best for every unique situation and person (because we are all different)!! He can, if you listen, reveal to you whatever the answer is to the oppression, fear, guilt, condemnation, etc that you feel and help you heal from it. In my case, it had to do with deep healing from bitterness, anger, resentment, self-hatred, eating disorders and more (products of authoritarian environments)...and the enemy LOVES to work in those dark places to keep us all in bondage. Forgiveness has everything to do with the fact that our loving father did not design us to be able to carry bitterness - it has everything to do with us walking in freedom - and not allowing the enemy any place! This is a battle, friends, and without the Spirit we will all be ineffective...pleading in prayer for each of us to be strong in Him and become a church that is in step with the glorious, powerful, strong and resurrection - giving spirit that is inside us!!! I really want to refer everyone to this article - regardless of your theological stance on the gifts, etc - just read and listen to what he is saying about the areas of healing in the "three fissures" and apply it to your own personal situation. It has described my journey very well. http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word.html?ID=12185
Let the Spirit heal you, bind you up, bring you to wholeness, and then charge forward, full of the spirit of grace and truth, filled with the sweetness of the Lord that does draw this needy world to the Father (whose sole desire is to free us, never to put us in bondage). The spirit penetrates the hearts and pierces every lie the enemy is seeking to bind us with. May the powerful spirit of Christ who exposes the true thoughts of the hearts bring refining fire....
Thank you Emerald!
I don't know if you have heard of "The Fathers love" by Sherri Shepherd, but those were always an amazing comfort to me.
To those questioning the appropriateness of this article:
(Alfred aside -I absolutely believe in his sincerity)
I'm afraid that most Christians who have been positively impacted by Gothard's ministry would deny the truth and make excuses even if he were caught in sexual congress with an underage teen, with photo evidence. =(
The pattern is there in the Christian community. If a 'Man of God' is influential enough, no amount of evidence is sufficient to bring the majority of evangelical American Christianity together in publicly denouncing him.
The most recent case in point: Jack Schaap. "He was a good man", "He's human, too...", etc. are things still being said in defense of a man who abused his authority to satisfy his own sexual obsessions.
This is not an isolated reaction, but more of a standard response. This kind of behaviour is excused, hushed, ignored, and denied until there is no denying it any longer. Then it is still "ah, what a great Man of God, and how much Good he has done!"
There is an established pattern of Christian pastors and public figures abusing their position and 'spiritual authority' in America.
Why can we not openly condemn them, or better yet, challenge them and call them to repentence before they crash and burn?
The Bible does NOT teach us to ignore such things in spiritual leaders.
(for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_American_evangelical_Christians)
Will,
I have to partially agree and partially disagree with you. I do think that many scandals in Christianity involve denials by the followers, yes. But also, many scandals (in fact, most, perhaps) involve a decrease in numbers of followers and donations to the ministry. For instance, I grew up near the headquarters of '80s televangelist Jim Baker. As the long drawn-out scandal began to break, the donations dried up, the number of followers fell off, but a core group of true believers tenaciously stood by Jim until he went to prison.
I see that pattern repeated again and again. SGM is imploding, but a core group is sticking by CJ. You mentioned Jack Schaap. And our good friend Mr. Gothard. There are many more examples as well. ATI is not what it once was. The would-be scandals have been minimized, but not completely silenced. One wonders, without the Duggars proselytizing for him, would his ministry be in a complete shambles? No one I grew up with is still devoted to ATI/IBLP, but there are still some who would defend Gothard. And there is the problem. His ministry has fallen off, but has not quite imploded, and the group left includes more than just a few true believers. I believe that the more people hear the truth, the more people will be freed. Some will remain with him to his demise, but we can't worry about them. There are many left who are ready to hear the truth.
Why is it that David Koresh and other "big" religious leaders are condemned by religious and secular circles for using their people to satisfy their own sexual or otherwise obsessions and yet we can't band together and show him up for what he is????
At 13 my dad drove me up to HQ to meet with Bill because of my "rebellious" attitude. When asked why I was acting the way I was I confided in Bill that I was being sexually abused by my brother(you can read my whole story A Difficult Journey in the sexual abuse series RG ran last April) and it had been going on since I was about 3. Bills response? I needed to see how I could bring glory to God through my suffering and not allow bitterness to take root. He then advices my parents that taking legal action against my brother wouldn't "fix" the "root" problem & he needed prayer, fasting & scripture to "fix" him. He suggested I be sent to Eagle Spring (an extension of the log cabin program in Indianapolis IN) because of my rebellious attitude (dressing gothic, listening to "evil" music ect which were all outward signs/crys for help) and hard heart. Did his "solution" fix anything?? NO!!! Sending my brother to jail wouldn't have "fixed" him hes right. However, it would have kept him away from other innocent children who have been hurt by him in the years to follow. Now, is me sharing that gossip/slander? No. It's not done out of malice, ill-will or to "defame" him. It's to (hopefully) help others who have been too afraid to come forward and share their stories because they have been shamed/scared into silence by the exact people who should defend them! Should Bill have notified the authorities? Absolutely!!! Am I the only child he knew about being abused and failed to report? Sadly, no!! Bill Gothard is not infallible!!! And the fact that sooo many people believe whatever comes out of his mouth as absolute truth not capable of error (even though it clearly isn't scriptural whether its taken out of context or just personal preference) is what makes ATI/IBLP teachings cultish. We are to mindlessly follow all these "principals" and formulas and its a "one size fits all" program which is utterly ridiculous to try and think thousand of families are all the same and that his program is right for every family. I realize I'm probably wasting my time trying to get my point across and will probably be told how bitter I am, how it's not Bills fault (because it never is right? Lol) and if the abuse ever really happened at all probably wasn't to the extent I'm saying ect ect and that's ok I've heard it all before. But let me say, everyone time a victim comes forward about thier abuse( no matter if they were touched once by a stranger or raped nightly by their father) and they are doubted, blamed or punished for coming foward.... it keeps 5 more victims in silenced!!!
Danyel,
I am so sorry to read your story. Unfortunately I have heard many, many stories of Bill being told about abuse within families and giving others the same 'advice' he gave you. He protects his own system and power with utter disregard for how it affects the lives of his followers. Truly a wolf in sheep's clothing.
My heart goes out to you, and I hope that you have been able to find counseling, healing and community as you rebuild and process through what was taken from your childhood.
Thank you for your boldness in sharing your story.
Just to mention... Mr G. made a "vow" last year not to initiate a handshake with a girl. Does anyone know if he has kept that?
Aaaand, ironically enough, a handshake is a public gesture... which he's never struggled with. He struggles with taking advantage of girls privately, and last I checked, handshakes were never the issue. ;-) Love that PR attempt, though.
Yes, totally. This is a typical tactic. The rule that "I never initiate a handshake with a girl" effectively makes you look like a victim ("poor man, he can't even shake hands with a girl without someone twisting it against him") and also dedicated ("wow, such devotion to his commitments! I could never be so dedicated"). But it does *nothing* to address those who have been wounded in the past, and it does *nothing* to protect against vulnerable young ladies being defrauded by him yet again. The problem had nothing to do with shaking hands.
People who misuse their positions often do something that is misdirection to make you think they have addressed the problem. It's like a magician waving his hand, "look over here!" But until they let the victims speak with their own voice, and then acknowledge and address those problems, it's most often the case that nothing has changed.
A HANDSHAKE!! That's just common etiquette you could find in Emily Post's book of manners. Men are not to initiate a handshake with a woman. That ploy of Mr. Gothard to make himself appear so godly and disciplined just falls flat on its face.
Hmm... I was taught that in good etiquette, a man never should initiate a handshake with a girl! This is very old, and usually forgotten, but you see it even in the Jane Austin movies. A man can offer his hand to assist a girl, but a girl initiates the handshake. In my mind, Bill is vowing to do something on the same basic level as saying please when he asks for something!
I love Bill Gothard...
...because he is my brother in Christ and I want him to represent our Father well. That I why I hope that he will humble himself and publicly repent. He has a following, and I would love nothing more than to see him be able to truly impact these people for the Kingdom of God. Maybe someone will share this thread with him so he can read the sincere, non-hateful, Christ-centered comments from those he hurt and see that it is ONLY because of God's grace that each one remains free from the trauma of the past.
My heart and respect go out to the people who were damaged but have allowed God's grace to heal them and set them free. You are an incredible testimony to me.
Maybe you can do that Stephen.
Later Husband: I am deeply grateful for the contact, more than you know. Yes, these inquiries are my own . . . Bill has only been able to put my name to my face in the last 4-5 years, and that only because my son is in the video department (going on 10 years). I was deeply impacted by the Seminar back in the early ‘70s when I found the Lord and the ministry has colored all aspects of my life. As an awkward fatherless child Bill has filled a role as father and mentor, and I have heard my Savior’s voice through the teaching . . . which is why I have a much higher tolerance for pain than some.
A decade ago a trusted friend sent me the Don Veinot book, and I went about the difficult task of processing its contents. I lived the scandal in the early ‘80s while in University, albeit at a distance and without a lot of details. Other information in the book was known to me as a member of ATI for a number of years.
Three times in the book the authors indicated that Bill Gothard was guilty of “sexual immorality”. That is one thing I cannot live with, and if this were the case, it has never been addressed. There were a couple of other issues that made my “can’t ignore or explain” list, including charges of physical abuse at training Institutes, and of breaking the law. With a heavy heart I set about to “come to ground” on these issues, purposing to take it as far as I needed to do the right thing as Jesus would want.
I made contact with Don Veinot, who was gracious in responding. The comment about not speaking to others came from him, who indicated that more recent attempts (this was maybe 5-6 years ago) to gather more information from you had been refused with a request to be left alone. Again, I can only imagine what y’all have been subjected to over the years, so I would completely understand. He is the one who sent me off to the prominent Yahoo! Anti-Gothard forum to ask questions and get the answers I needed. I have been roaming around these venues ever since. My greatest frustration is allegations that continue to be made and repeated – and hence making my life miserable – but which I cannot objectively resolve.
I am deeply sorry to understand more of the story – of which I actually know very little – specifically that your wife was subjected to abuse from someone else in the scandal. That that may have contributed to the death of your wife seems quite possible to me – I am so very sorry. But while highlighting other troubling issues, your comments would appear to offer me the relief on a first hand basis that whatever abuses and failures Bill was guilty of, they were not sexual in nature . . . which I have never gotten elsewhere.
Bill told me that your wife told others something along the lines that, despite all that grieved her, “Bill never abused me”, which they then related to him. That is the source of that statement. I appreciate that “abuse” has many forms, but given the context in which he gave it to me, the implication was “no sexual abuse”.
I assure you that I am overtly interested in understanding things that have gone wrong, especially information that is of the nature of, say, requiring excommunication from a church . . . AND things for which I may realistically pursue a resolution. If you follow comments on the forum you know I do fact check and have gotten Mr. Gothard to provide documentation pertinent to accusations on several occasions. As loyal as I am, I am not perhaps a typical “Gothardite”. If you read down the stream you will see a reference from others who know my family that would give you a clue that we are far from a “5-Star” family at the center of the IBLP universe.
My name in the post header is “live”, linking to my website. I appreciate that you may have gone as far as you wish to . . . but if you want to make further contact privately, my email is there. My poor wife (who is less of a Gothardite than I am and prefers to live as quiet and peaceful life as she can) is leery about the depths to which I go at times to pursue things . . . but . . . with her permission I would be open to any involvement that you would deem helpful to properly address this and get the closure you need.
God bless you, sir. Again, my heart breaks when I think of all that was, all that happened, all that could have been, and the people who have unjustly suffered. Your wife would be perhaps the greatest example of that . . . and . . . again . . . in the name of the Lord . . . I am so very sorry.
That's kind of the problem here isn't it? You say "I'm sorry", but that really doesn't do anything to help the situation, because you weren't the one who made the offense.
In Bill Gothard's seminars I've heard him many, many times say that the correct way to apologize is the following:
1) admit your sin
2) admit your character failure
3) ask for forgiveness
Fill in the blanks:
"I was wrong when I did X. This was shown by my lack in the character quality of X. Will you forgive me?"
I'd imagine if Bill came out and made a public statement that said something like that, people would react a bit differently. But as it stands he doesn't even follow his own guidelines for apologies.
You have apologized many times in this post for hurts that IBLP people have experienced, but you're not the one at fault (I assume), therefore, in essence you're taking up someone else's offense, and as we know from Bill's teachings, neither your apology or concern matter or have any affect on the situation.
That's how I see it, at least through the eyes of Bill's teachings.
Alfred,
"Bill told me that your wife told others something along the lines that, despite all that grieved her, “Bill never abused me”, which they then related to him...."
Bill has a documented tract record of both twisting the truth to fit his "positive to him" version of the facts, which he has gotten away with for decades as "He's just an exhorter". This rings hollow in light of Bills own teaching about "gaining future credibility by accurately representing past facts". Whatever. Just another example of Bill's not believing or practicing his own teachings.
His campaigns of character assassinations are also well documented. Both anecdotal and "scholarly". You need to consider this as a possible reason when you go around trumpeting how "So and So won't confirm this or that fact or story". or "They still publicly associate with Bill, they wouldn't if this story was true would they?"
Well Alfred, perhaps it's because Bill Gothard acts like a "Mafia Don", and wrecks vengeance on those who try to hold him accountable. (You don't hold God accountable, right?) One individual couldn't find work again in his field for 10 years after BG wrote letters to a mailing list of ministry leaders "blacklisting" this individual. And all he did was what the Board directed him to do. Again, another example of him acting in direct opposition to his own teachings on "turning the other cheek" "the Lord takes revenge" "forgiveness". Etc.
Your Emperor is wearing no clothes Alfred. And only the (willfully?) blind cannot see it. I pray that one day, like Balaam, your eyes will be opened, and you will see the danger in front of you.
After months of wondering what your motivation is, I think I finally get it, Alfred. Feel free to set me straight if I am wrong, but what it appears you are doing is NOT specifically defending IBLP, the offshoots of its ministry, those who have violated trust within the ministry, or any other abuses therein. Rather, you are primarily and above all else concerned about the truth of allegations against Bill Gothard himself, primarily within the book A Matter of Basic Principles. You have in other comments validated the need for "a site like this" which caused several readers' eyebrows to raise. But if my theory is correct, those surprising words from you do not contradict your agenda whatsoever. There may or may not be cracks in the surface of this ministry. That isn't your focus.
You want to know if the man you have viewed as a father figure for 40 years is worthy, don't you? You want to know if this man, who looks you in the eye and sincerely denies it all--if THIS MAN has ever done anything illegal. Because in your heart, you can forgive many things, but not a true violation of the law. Fraud, sexual assault, fornication, abuse--those are things you would not tolerate in your own father, however much you may have loved him. And in your opinion, nothing such has been proved yet, is that so?
This website is not really meant for you. Respectfully, sir, there is likely very little that will ever be proved legally against Bill Gothard as a person. There are some niggly negligence issues that may be fleshed out eventually, and there is the knowledge of abuse the he ignored or helped cover up. But it is highly likely that this man has never engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman. It is probable that allegations of financial fraud can be blamed on a team of leadership rather than the man alone. For your purposes, Alfred, Bill is "clean" enough.
For RG's purposes, Bill has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that by itself seems out of character from his teachings, but stacked together unveils a scandalous self-serving man, who utilizes the resources of his own ministry to tickle his oddly juvenile prurient interests. This man has easily spent hundreds of thousands of dollars bringing young women with no marketable skills into his ministry and keeping them there for as long as he is able. He has used these same resources to send money and resources to the families of these young women, which along with his convincing rhetoric convinces many families to overlook his idiosyncratic behavior and accept the good he has done for them.
This website is for those who have gone before--to let them know it wasn't just them. This website is for those who are to come--to let them know that this man's "wisdom" is harmful. And this website is for those who are still deeply entrenched--because so were we, once. We get it; we really get it. And we are planting a seed of doubt that must be planted, and creating a place to come once the seed sprouts and grows.
Nail.On.The.Head
and I think this is where I'm coming from on behalf of my family who trusted and invested and vouched for etc. I feel betrayed by this man.
Very good points, Kari.
One must remember that sexual immorality as defined by Alfred consists only of the express and specific verbing of one's noun into another's noun. Any fondling or grooming in a sexually suggestive nature is something he can very well abide because the explicit verbing of nouns he narrowly applies do not imperitively present themselves.
For those who are not familiar with Kiser's references, Kiser is saying that based on Alfred's past statements, unless there is proof of actual intercourse (or express nudity involved even with no intercourse, and the deliberate touching of private parts), nothing less than that is really all that inappropriate (for Bill, that is). So presumably, as long as Bill doesn't go *this* far, he's not doing anything wrong. (even though many of these girls were minors too... shameful.)
Alfred, so you'll stand by Gothard because he's never slept with a girl (supposedly) but if he lies, cheat and steals (or has a pattern of not dealing with men in his staff who are sleeping with single women), that's ok because he's not being sexually immoral? Or did I misunderstand you?
Seems with this kind of evidence that legal action would be appropriate. A website that gathers discontent individuals to pool complaints creates oddity as to real intent of your site. I have 3 daughters and 2 sons who spent time at the Ati offices. I'll ask them this weekend if they felt compromised.
Hi Steve,
Have you taken a good look around this website? There's stories on here that would probably curdle your blood and make you sick. It's a far cry from 'discontented individuals' merely 'pooling complaints', as if we are simply griping about bad manners or some petty offense. As for legal action... I'm sure you can imagine how long it can take to build a case properly. Especially when some of the girls are scared to come forward?
I hope for your children's sake that they stayed under the radar while serving at the institute. If they did, perhaps you could try to find out if they observed any of the behavior listed here, Bill having favorites, and they all had a similar look, etc..
Anyway, God bless, and have a great day.
Steve is exactly correct. If these accusations are true (and I am not denying their validity) then there should be more correct action taken then just getting a website together where people can share there victim horror stories with each other and pat one another on the back and say, "O you're not alone, he did it to me also". What are you accomplishing? All I'm saying is that if these things are true then take steps to correct the problem. It sounds to me that even if some are scared to come forward there are enough posting on here that aren't scared and should do so or put a lid on it. I personally am not (as someone previously accused me) a Gothard lover. No one has hurt my feelings by talking about Mr. Gothard. What you have done though is hurt my feelings by saying that you are representing Christ while getting a website together where you can all air out your stories in the name of healing. Where I come from they call that "hog bologna". If it is for real, then do something about it. If you aren't going to do anything about it then put your fingers to more productive use.
What plan of action do you suggest, specifically, that has not been tried?
I wonder how many times I will have to repeat myself before people understand. Do you know how long it takes to build certain kinds of cases? In light of that statement, how do you know that something of that nature isn't already going on?
And since there is NO-WHERE else for frightened, young women (who are probably sheltered, naive, and have no-one to turn to) to even acknowledge this is a problem, much less find out what can be done about it, what do you suggest we do? Some of these ladies can't even depend on their own families regarding this situation.
'If it is for real, do something about it.'
Sigh. Why do you think this website exists then? I know you think all we're doing is having a grand old time bashing Christian leaders left and right, (which is NOT what we are doing), but if you (as a true believer) care to help us carry the burden, you might take a look around and see some horrible heartbreak, from people who don't know what else to do. This Christian life isn't always squeaky clean, filled with people who always follow all the rules all the time...
I'm not trying to be ugly to anyone. But I really don't think you understand the enormous gravity of the terrible stories that are coming from this one religious organization. We're talking hundreds upon hundreds of people finding out the hard way, that they were sold a bundle of goods that ultimately didn't work. (In layman's terms, most people call that deceitful salesmanship, or, in religious terms, wolf in sheep's clothing.)
Mark, Bill's favorite thing to do is to tell anecdotes that prove his principles work. The best thing our generation of ATI (former) children can do to combat his teaching style is to offer our anecdotes proving they don't. And what gives us the edge (why RG is so enormously popular) is the vast pool of testimonies we can draw from. An infamous person once said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it as truth. What we are doing is counteracting the lie, with not one voice, but with thousands of voices saying the same things. We offer preponderance of evidence. It is not a whine-fest, but rather (one might say) an anecdote war. Our combined ANECDOTE is bigger than Bill's. Checked and cross-checked and verified. And that doesn't even touch on the value RG gains from the many seminary graduates who have lent their scriptural expertise to BG's principles. There is an intellectual honesty here that comes along side the anecdotes and prevails against Gothard's "exhorterisms".
I guess unless you have been sexually abused, Mark, you will never know what a comfort it is to know that there are others out there who have been abused like you, and then you can help each other recognize what was done to you and deal with it. If you haven't been abused, would you mind shutting up until you have something better to say? Do you realize how much your comments can hurt those who have been sexually abused??
The difficulty with going for "legal action" is that it's very hard to prove things like this to the level of a court case, especially when those who would testify are having family and church leadership put VERY strong pressure on them to NOT testify.
That said, this HAS been brought up to the Board a few times. The Board has had some discussion with BG, who almost always gets them to compromise (not shaking hands, never driving with an unmarried girl in his van, etc.) and then he changes the Board members! So the ones who DID pressure him to change are gone, and new, yes-men members take their place.
Not everyone who worked at HQ was compromised.
Some of us had parents who would have had the ability to raise hell (pardon my French) had he gone too far over the line with their children. So he played a much more conservative game with those.
It's the ones who have dysfunctional family, who are already being overlooked at home who he REALLY preys upon.
Legal action requires a few things that many of us who were in ATI don't have: money, and to come forward within a certain amount of time. The finer points of legal action aren't worth going into here, but it's not something that is easily done, by any means... nor is it something where there is much benefit to the people damaged.
Or you are being taught that it is unbiblical to take another Christian before a secular court!!
Hi Steve,
VERY interested in what good things Stephen Jr. might have to say about how Gothard positively impacted his life.
(an old roomate)
Steve not all of us fall into the category of discontent or even ex ATI/IBLP adherents. I for one am neither, that being said I am alarmed by the damage I have seen done personally to families and individuals through the teachings of Bill Gothard.
Looking at Bill's doctrine is enough of itself to cause concern, misinterpretation of scripture, people treating him as an oracle, worst of all his attitude towards accountability is well documented.
As much as I hate to say this many who follow his teachings lack the ability to discern scripture for themselves or test him to scripture. This isn't just about his apparent fascination with young girls and women or his inappropriate behavior, there is so much more wrong about the man that it begs the question of his legitimacy and integrity as a teacher and or leader of a Christian organization.
It seems to me that Bill Gothard would be better off just getting married!!!! Would save him some embarrassment!!
That is a naïve myth; usually sold by the church. A second one said to married women is very like it and even more insidious; "he wouldn't need to do this if he was satisfied at home."
If he were married, he would do the same behaviors! He could be married to the most beautiful woman in the world and he would revert to this grooming action. It is ingrained in him, is his own private ego boosting or soothing repertoire and probably started at an early age.
Any man (or woman) who does grooming for sexual gratification has a whole ritual in place. (Sexual gratification does not necessarily mean sexual intercourse.)
For this kind of person there is a cycle, which usually ends with feeling guilt and promising to do better (aloud or to God) and starts over doing the same thing to relieve the pain of the guilt.
Marriage does not "fix" people with this kind of character problem.
I agree, Eileen. All the counseling experts classify this type of behavior as a sex addiction, which isn't stopped apart from intervention and counseling. Bill has been told that his behavior has been making girls uncomfortable for OVER 30 YEARS, and he still compulsively does it. He is well informed about how uncomfortable they are, and yet still chooses to push himself upon them. If these were young boys and he was exhibiting the same behavior, his supporters would call a spade a spade. Or would they?? It's time for Bill to confess his sin before God and the world, and seek rehabilitation and treatment for his sex addictions.
I am just glad the Catholic church never has never had any sex scandals attached to it.
LOL!!! Um, yep, right.......
I just love the hypocrisy of people on here. I think if they ever realized this stuff happens outside of the group they hate so much they would implode.
The true hypocrisy would be to know that these things are being done to people, and keeping our mouths shut.
Paul, your comment is almost funny. Most of us on this site have spent considerable time both in the real world and in iblp world. It has only been through time in the real world that we have found the courage to stand up against what goes on in iblp world. I wasted years of my life in an organization that ultimately left me devastated. As I see it the hypocrisy is on Bill Gothard's part. He holds everyone else to a standard that he himself is unwilling to meet. I watched many people have their reputation destroyed over far less than what he does in public. In fact, I was one of them.
There comes a time when silence is betrayal.
- Martin Luther King Jr.-
??? Where has anyone here said that things like this don't happen in other groups? And what do those other groups have to do with what is being discussed right now? Are you saying that, because sexual abuse happens in other religions, it's OK?
Paul, your several comments give me the impression that perhaps you were burned by a similar situation yet in a different organization or context. If so, please know that you are among friends, and I hope you are finding healing.
Paul, you have absolutely GOT to be kidding me!! The Catholic Church has never had any sexual scandals attached to it?? You quite obviously have not studied Catholic history very well. In Australia, my home country the papers have had their fair share of priests and even cardinals who have been expelled from the priesthood, or if not that, they received a lot of publicity and were taken to court and charged for what they did to little girls AND boys!!!.
Legal action isn't always slow, it can be but it is the process that's correct for abuse. My wife is a lawyer and so is my brother in law and they have been very effective both in individual suits and class action suits. I've read that prayer is effective too.
Steve,
I agree that prevailing prayer is truly effective. Whether you believe this or not, it does not matter: I have receved a witness that God has heard my prayers on this matter. The work is done. This is the reason I am dead sure that the days of IBLP are over. Yes, it's still continuing to operate as a monument, but the other Ms of ministry are gone. That is of no matter because I understand in faith that it is finished. The organization is operating in man's strength and will collapse--most likely quite quickly. The timing is not my business. I believe I have the mind of God in this. I believe that the coming financial collapse will close the organization if it lasts even that long. Yet, the theological effects will be with the church for generations to come. This my main concern at this point in time.
I have spoken long concerning the wrong theology of this movement. This theology is not some 'new revelation.' It has always been a thorn in the side of those who would follow Christ embracing His cross.
The Judiazers have always persecuted those who followed the Messiah, Jesus Christ, whose cross they reject in favor of the words of Moses. They trouble entire households. They favor Moses because they have already rejected Jesus as the cornerstone of God's new temple. For that matter, people favor Barabbas over Jesus if only for to purpose of rejecting the Truth. It truly is painfully humbling to cast ourselves on God's mercy accepting Jesus as our only provision needful for salvation--much more so than to work hard attempting to effect our own way to God.
Jesus is not the great rephraser of OT law. He is "the accepted sacrifice" standing before God the Father advocating for us--the provision of God come to us and given by Himself for us. He is, indeed, also coming to judge the world. Nothing will escape His wrath. I remain convinced that we do not lack knowledge--we lack repentence. If BG suffers from a hard or proud heart, God is not mocked, nor inhibited one bit in dealing with him. This also doesn't mean that we should not persue justice. We must--by all standards of judeo-Christian values.
As far as BG, my father and I have confronted Bill on the issues where his appearrances were not in line with his teaching and where they made absolutely no sense at all regarding issues of his own personal accountability. I received a response from staff that our concerns had been received and would be dealt with. Neither I nor my father received any response beyond the recognition of receipt either from Bill or otherwise concerning our letters. I take it that our concerns were not well appreciated. No matter, Bill cannot stonewall forever and never in the court of Heaven. I am no longer under any misconception that BG holds keys to success of spiritual nature. Bill will only find forgiveness and justification through the mercies of Christ upon which he needs to throw himself--just like anyone else.
On a bit of a different thread, so much for a "man's morality dictating his theology." That little 'ism isn't worth much when you examine history or usage. It does have a very significant emotional effect on a pattern of thought, however. It is an extremely subjective statement which can be used to emotionally justify or demean almost anything in question of theological or moral nature based on your currently rooted loyalty (including negative loyalty of distrust). In addition, the statement fails to objectively establish the correctness of a man's morality or his theology based on any moral or theological definitive plumbline. It is a statement of emotional judgement based solely on your current frame of mind. Interestingly enough, it's used all the time by BG and friends to undermine either the perception of one's theology or especially the their morality and all the while not seen as a usage of slander!
In the end, "You can fool some people all the time. You can fool everyone some of the time, but it is unlikely that you can fool all the people all of the time." I assert that this may be the legacy of BG.
If his legacy is, "Deceiving and being deceived", God knows, then maybe God is testing us to see if we will follow the man or the Truth.
I hope you are right about the collapse of ATI BUT there are other religions started by some wacked out people who thought they had special inside track on who Jesus was/is resulting in a whole litany of beliefs much more out of synch with the gospel than ATI, that are still going strong i.e. Mormons, 7th day adventists, Jehovah Witness, Christian Science and they have their own websites- just like this to help those coming to the realization that something was wrong with what they were taught was truth.
I think that ATI will continue on in the guise of quiverful, since that group's beliefs tie in very closely with what Mr. Bill espouses is the only way to please God.
I would like to add that according to my knowledge, whenever the administrators receive a story, (particularly one that incriminates Bill), EVERY step is taken to ensure that this story is indeed true. I've read that phone calls and e-mails are made, names are asked for (even if they aren't published for privacy's sake), to confirm the validity of the story. This isn't a gossip fest. (I realize that some may treat it that way, I do not and cannot answer for what others do, we are all at different places in our recovery and search for the truth.) A little patience would be appreciated.
Just as another note, we are accused all the time of gossiping, slandering, speaking against the Lord's anointed, etc...
MOST of the people who do this are people who have proven that they: Do NOT care about us, do NOT want to help us, do NOT want to share our burden, all they want to do is throw stones and walk away feeling good about themselves. We've seen it over and over and over again, and though we try to be patient, I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to hear that constantly when those well meaning folks didn't even try to find out if we were speaking the truth.
I think it's wise to be cautious when you hear someone 'giving a bad report' and not just believe everything you hear; at the same time, if hundreds of people are saying the same thing, maybe there really is truth to this.
"There is no logical explanation why the 78-year-old male leader of a large Christian organization should be handpicking beautiful, young, female employees with no known marketable skills, for jobs that don’t exist. "
VERY strong point. Enough for any leader of a National organization to at least speak on the issue.
Me thinks this problem will not disappear anytime soon. Talk, discuss, argue, dismiss, Etc, Etc.. Once Pandoras Box has been opened by thousands of hurt and harmed "ati" students, that box will NEVER be closed.
Parents and current supporters may be loyal but as a first year family and past salwart and longtime supporter family recently emailed me, "my foundations have crumbled", surely it is only a matter of time for supporters such as Alfred to say the same. I say "Alfred, when that time comes for you, please know we are here for you!"
me thinks thou dost protest too much...allegations are as true as the actions taken to solve the discrepancies. if there are 100s of abuses, and these are all sheltered & vulnerable individuals then what and who will band together and make a legal stand to keep Him or them from future abuse possibilities. I've never been a strong supporter of Bill Gothard although I was a 1st year pilot family which hung in for 26 years,. and 8 kids and 18 grandkids later I don't have a beef. I have been to 60 plus seminars and still pay for there web site. I've called Bill numerous times in the past, written him and voiced any disagreement or complaint I had. It's not a program nor a man or ministry to depend on. He's just a man and if there are violations and you have proof then deal appropriately.
Not a strong supporter but spent 26 years in the program and attended 60 seminars. That really seems to be a non sequiter.
Anyway, I'm glad you've never had issue with the institute. I was also a member of a pilot family and my experience was far different than yours.
I was a child when my family started and most of the of the education I received was from ATI. Which BG said would pretty much guarantee success. It didn't and it has taken me a long time to sort out what the truth really is.
I confronted him about 26 years ago and he demanded an apology from me for approaching him about it.
I gave up
Steve "me thinks thou dost protest too much...allegations are as true as the actions taken to solve the discrepancies. if there are 100s of abuses, and these are all sheltered & vulnerable individuals then what and who will band together and make a legal stand to keep Him or them from future abuse possibilities. I've never been a strong supporter of Bill Gothard although I was a 1st year pilot family which hung in for 26 years,. and 8 kids and 18 grandkids later I don't have a beef. I have been to 60 plus seminars and still pay for there web site. I've called Bill numerous times in the past, written him and voiced any disagreement or complaint I had. It's not a program nor a man or ministry to depend on. He's just a man and if there are violations and you have proof then deal appropriately."
I find it curious you say you're not a strong supporter yet you were the head of a pilot family, have been involved 26 years, been to 60 or more seminars, and still subscribe to the IBLP website.
When you've contacted BG in the past and voiced your disagreements/complaints were there any changes on BG or the organizations part?
Oh and by the way... If you're going to pay for a website service Netflix is cheaper and has way more content I hear.
Also a Pilot family. My parents would swear ol' Bill could do no wrong. Funny thing is NONE of us kids feel the same way.I love my parents dearly but the fact that they have chosen to turn a blind eye to the truth of Gothards delusion and the falasies of his teaching are undeniable. 26 years is a long time to be in a cult. I pray you can find the truth and the truth will set you free.
I'm sorry but I don't understand parents who would knowingly put their daughter in a position like that. I haven't even met my daughter yet (due in 3 weeks) and if I heard stories like this about anyone hell would freeze over before she got near him! I don't care who he is!
And then there's those parents who's daughters told them what was going on and weren't believed. My husband and I would be having a race with loser having to bail the winner out of jail!
Dont beg him to confess or hope he changes his behavior! Report him. Then report him again! Report him for everytime you have evidence for! Make a ruckus. You are right, his behavior is not ok. And I'd you have facts and evidence, hopping and praying isnt acceptable either. After all this time, take action.
So Alfred has once again made me insane with his pointless ramblings. Especially since I am guessing that no big spiritual leader ever held his hand, looked deep in his eyes, and made him uncomfortable as a young teenager.
And now we have Steve who obviously doesn't check out that Gothard twists Scripture to get others to do what he wants. He will probably go down in history as the best salesman/stretcher of the truth ever. But people just sit there in their seminar seats buying every story and formula as if Christ didn't die on the cross and we need this little man to give us answers that the Bible failed to give us.
I don't buy twists, Bill Gothards, or yours, although I see my own twists daily, which makes me grateful that Jesus is faithful and just to forgive me when I agree with Him.
Dude I never twisted that you are aware of. And twisting the Scripture is meant to not be detected. So you go and follow whatever formulas that Gothard dishes out (none of which are found in the Bible) and pretend you don't follow his twisted Scripture and call us rebels because we actually looked them up and found them missing and false. May he forgive you for that too.
Oh. So now we have two ATI fathers in on the fray? Okay, then...
I could ask my 73 year old father to get involved here. He attended one of the very first seminars, countless more since that first one, enrolled us in ATI and has very little respect for Mr. G because of the way he twists scriptures.
I like him already. :)
This is going to be interesting!! Seeing Alfred and Steve get a going over by you guys!! lol Don't go too overboard!!
2 and counting... Is that a new TV series?
Lol
As one whose family was basically destroy from his advice, (he told one dreams weren't valid and the other was a "piece of trash") I'm praying that soon someone NOW will come forward and place a complaint. Another narcissist realizing he's not God. Thanks for all you've done, RG! I'm watching with bated breath.
At least this is the religious organization which is happened or could you imagine a secular college having a cover up like this.
That totally puts it in context. If this came to light in a secular organization - they would be all over it and it would be in the media... I wonder what would happen if the media got a hold of these stories - and if the RG claims are true that there are 100 if not 1000 of cases like this - they could easily make it a story on some prime time show - and that kind of story I'm sure they would be all over it.... and it would give you all the publicity (may not be the best publicity) but at least get more people aware of the problem and moving things forward faster.
They would be all over it?
You mean how Penn State was covering up for Jerry Sandusky for years and his molestations.
How the military covered up rapes of women especially when high ranking military officers were involved.
How the state of Maryland covered up physical abuse of teenage boys at one of their youth camps.
Maybe I'm speaking naively - but to me it just seems like it takes christian organizations longer to go public with these things (not just to the christian community - but to the general public)..... maybe because we feel like God will be shamed by having another ministry scandal? You are probably right... this is probably similar to many other similar secular cases
Although the article mentions girls as young as 14, I recall at least one blonde 13 yr old who was brought to HQ and became an overnight sensation, so to speak. Gothard could not stop talking about her at seminars and such, she was quickly put on stage to share her "testimony", was said to have had a night and day change of heart, as a result of counseling by Gothard. I cannot know whether she was ever a sexual harrassment victim, but the prototype certainly seemed to fit.
Oh, Hannah, I remember a 13 year old blond beauty too, who was quickly added to his personal entourage from the ITC. Of course she went to headquarters. Maybe we remember the same person?
Could be.
Thanks for RG's courage, graciousness and dedication to helping the victim's of BG's distorted ministry. I was a victim of a different ministry-personality cult many years ago. It took my wife and I years to recover from the spiritual abuse. Our four children suffered greatly as we worked our way to restoration from what I can describe as nothing less than spiritual "rape". A site like this would have helped us immeasurably and spared our family from 10 years of emotional wasteland.
Obviously, Alfred & Steve et al cannot begin to understand how the testimony of others who have experienced similar abuse helps people to regain their own conscience, confidence and dignity in the long road back to spiritual/emotional health. They just do not get it: ministers of the gospel exist for the good of the saints, not for themselves - any other perspective is simply invalid (Mat 24:45-51; Phi 2:20-21; 2Co 1:24; 3Jo 1:9-12).
15 years ago, I was an overhead operator for a year, and before that was a staff member at the DTC and OKTC for three years. I only saw Mr. Gothard a few times personally so I never witnessed the sexual harassment mentioned here. In the years afterwards, during which I finally became involved with church and also went to Bible School, I came to strongly differ with IBLP's legalism, scriptural misinterpretations, and thinly-veiled disparaging attitude toward the local church.
However, through reading this site, these allegations bothered me. So I sent the following email to ATI's informational email address:
---------
I am a former ATI student and seminar overhead operator.
I want to lend my voice to support a full, impartial investigation
into the claims being made against Bill Gothard by a number of his
former female assistants.
I am appreciative of the aspects of the seminar and ATI which conveyed
Biblical truth. It is in the support of that truth that misbehavior
should not be tolerated. The goal, whether in a church or Christian
organization, should not be to maintain the image of a leader, but
rather to glorify God and promote His Word. IBLP and ATI must remain
faithful to that goal if they are to have relevance in this situation
and in the the future.
---------
I also looked up the information on the IBLP Board of Directors and emailed those I could find information for. I asked them to address this issue.
I got a reply back from one of the board members, stating that he believed this issue had already been dealt with.
More surprisingly, I also got a call from Mr. Gothard himself. Perhaps it's because I used to work as an overhead operator. We talked for 5 or 6 minutes.
Among other things, he said that he was surprised by all the accusations he has been getting, and said that people have not been willing to approach him directly. I mentioned to him that in cases of potential sexual harassment, it is often difficult for a woman to directly talk to the person who has wronged her. I suggested that perhaps he could contact a Christian mediation service to act as a go-between for some of these accusers. (I'm no legal expert but that is just what I thought to suggest to him.)
At the end of the conversation, I mentioned to him was that as an overhead operator, I remember him quoting in the seminar how "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" and how he stated in the seminar that this applies to even things like casual touch. (I didn't discuss with him how that is actually a euphemistic expression in Scripture and thus an inaccurate interpretation--but my point was that he had taken a very literal view of this scripture in the seminar.) I said that it seemed to me that it would apply to such things as putting a hand on a girl's back. (That being one of the things that has been alleged against him on this site.) He didn't really have anything to say in response to that and we got off the phone soon after.
It has been almost a year since I had that conversation with him. I hadn't posted about it on here, nor have I told many of my friends about it. The reason I say it is that I know this site has had several women write in with various accounts of Mr. Gothard's inappropriate behavior, and many more expressing concern and support for these women. I suspect, however, that only a small percentage of those people have taken their concerns beyond this site, to raise it with the leaders of IBLP, ATI, or seminar promoters.
I couldn't make any direct accusation against Mr. Gothard because I hadn't witnessed anything personally, but I felt like I could at least express a concern that these things be looked into. Some of you on this forum may have had direct experiences with Mr. Gothard which could be put into a well thought-out letter and directed toward the leadership of IBLP, or put into the hands of a Christian mediator or attorney. I don't know what the best course of action is for you, but I believe that if IBLP/ATI/Local Seminar groups/etc get enough people calling or writing them, they will be forced to respond in a more public and intentional manner than they have up to this point.
Hey Jesse check out this article on RG.
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/01/dear-mr-gothard-one-students-letter/
From personal experience, IBLP simply fails to respond if they do not desire to be forthcoming in the face of questions. They have brought these issues on themselves.
You can ask questions all day long, but unless an organization desires transparency from the top down, you are wasting your breath.
I believe that IBLP's focus on temporal success in finances will be another pillar that will come down as the global economic situation continues to darken.
SonicBloom, Financial Freedom, 100% guarantee that your kids will never rebel, "Favor with God and Man", and what's next? Pretty soon you begin seeing that the formulae are not working. Then, you feel the guilt of what you did wrong, etc. after which you realize that your entire theological basis is gone because you lost focus--it NEVER WAS about all of these things--it is about Jesus and walking with Him! It's not about OT law, or principles, or my justifications, or anything but the glory of God in His merciful provision for us!
Forget the "power of 'true' success", when "God with us!" is the message we need to be proclaiming. This alone is worth publishing!
Theology is important. While I'm not much into nutshell statements, I am starting to like the following little quip in regard to these systems of regulations, old wives fables, principles, etc.:
"Be like the Apostle Paul---Focus on Christ and discard the rest!" (in order to gain Him)
It's basically an exercise in futility, but yes, Gothard has been contacted numerous times by different individuals, and I'm quite sure this website documents that RG has directly contacted him. So it's pure bs for him to say that people are not contacting him. And when contact is made, it typically seems to go something like this: He will start out amicably, but then BG ultimately shuts down the conversation, rather than take actual responsibility for some of these actions.
But his clear and repeated demonstrations of refusal to listen, doesn't mean that we have to be silent. We may publish our stories both as a source of healing to ourselves and others, and as a warning to those who might at any time become entangled with IBLP/ATI.
The "no-talk" rule and the shame of our background, is broken by talking about that which was forbidden to mention. Once we bypass these artificial safeguards created by mere man, then, and only then, can real healing begin for the cult survivors.
Hi Jesse, thank you for your concern, support, and advice. I appreciate that you want this seriously looked into. That is more than most supporters of Gothard seem to wish. :)
Furthermore, Jesse, did you know that the IBLP board of directors has had an almost complete turnover, since the allegations of sexual harrassment first came out on RG? So yeah... Good luck in getting anyone to even last long enough to look into it. Gothard surrounds himself with "yes" men, and thinks himself above the board. Start sniffing around and asking too many questions, and he will find a way to get rid of you. It's a puppet board, and has been for years.
How do you know they weren't lying to protect the institution?
I would like to add that Mr G selected certain students as potential "ambassadors" for his foreign ministries. He always said that the students were his most powerful testimony.
We were in ATI for over 20 years and my sons and daughters served at headquarters and numerous other centers. Following are comments from one of my older daughters for you dads to reflect on.
"The website places a lot of blame on IBLP & Mr. G. There is very little about the failure of being good Bereans. There is very little about holding fathers' accountable for abdicating their role as authority/protector of their children. Too many parents "checked their brains at the door" when it came to IBLP/ATI. To many fathers did it when it came to being the protector of their son or daughter even when they were at a training center.
Mr. G is human. He is not an arch-angel or even an angel. He is going to fail. He is going to make mistakes. He is going to let us down. When we don't remember that and act accordingly on the front end, we will end up hurt at best and disillusioned at worse on the back end.
There is a lot on the website about students being confused. Not understanding when they should tell their parents something and when they shouldn't. Saying they were often told not to tell their parents something. It sounds quite sensational, but frankly, when I heard it said I interpreted it to mean we were being encouraged to figure things out like we would in the real work place (i.e. don't go to the boss every time your coworker upsets you). From most of the accounts I read and from my personal experience, lack of discernment was the biggest issue, on the part of the student and parent. People didn't know the difference from being encouraged not to be just a disgruntled employee versus being a whistle-blower.
Sure I have issues with things I saw, things I experienced and things we were taught. Lots of things that were personal preferences were taught to be scriptural principals. The positive highlight of this site is people sharing how and where they've figured out the difference. It’s sad to me that so many went through life for so long without finding that out. It’s even more sad to me that many of them spend more time blaming Mr. G for this over celebrating they learned to be Bereans.
The website (including the post at the above link) makes serious accusations (in a legal sense) based on things that are personal preference. Girls tell of Mr. G showing them unwanted attention and touching them (reaching for their hand, brushing their arm, etc.). That is an invasion of personal space. They say it is sexual harassment because he was in a position of authority and was using that to his advantage. Sadly, these girls felt trapped because they and their parents had placed Mr. G on such a pedestal. In their mind, he could do no wrong and when he did something they didn't agree with they were truly devastated. The saddest thing is those who say they felt most trapped felt that way because they said their parents wouldn't believe them. Again, going back to the "checking brains at the door" issue.
That said, I do think that Mr. G has a measure of culpability. He is a leader. He is held to a higher standard. He didn't do a good job of surrounding himself with a good accountability partner. No, he didn't have all the answers and there were instances where he was in way over his head when it came to counseling.
He did have a penchant for bringing very young, impressionable girls to different training centers. Yes, he had "a type." He liked pretty girls with soft curls and calm, friendly demeanor. But that is not a crime nor evidence of wrong motives or sexual motives (which is what website suggests). The fact is most people prefer that. It's human nature.
Sexual harassment is incredibly subjective. And because of that I have an issue with it being thrown around. What some might call being "touchy feely" others might call sexual harassment. I can't help but recall an instance at home that I think is an illustration of what I'm trying to say here. I remember my young brother telling mom that we had pornography in our home....and showed her the “A” book of the encyclopedia that he had been reading that had reproductions of some of the master’s art works with nude women. That's not pornography, but his mind was too young to know the difference.
Part of the issue here is that these were very young, impressionable girls. They didn't know what to do. They interpreted something a specific way. People are jumping to a conclusion that Mr. G meant it that way. And that is the problem. We have no way of knowing. Yes, our legal system defines sexual harassment as receiving unwanted attention from someone who has power over you in a way that you feel unable to do anything about it. I have a bit of an issue with that because it places blame in one direction which is an exception, not a rule. But, that aside, why did Mr. G have that much power? Because they gave it to him. The student. The father. The mother. The guardian.
I've experienced some of the attention that those girls mention in their different writings. Not at IBLP. From people I've encountered or worked with. Unwanted attention? Yes. Sexual harassment? No.
Of course Mr G should realize that he is held to a higher standard and should adjust his behavior accordingly. Of course he should know better than bringing such young, impressionable kids to work. But then again, if he hadn't been willing to take a chance on us, think of the countless experiences, friendships, and ministry opportunities lost.
The claim of "no marketable skills" makes them lose a significant amount of credibility in my book. NONE OF US DID! That was the point. The point was we had the character needed and could learn the skills. As someone who manages a team of 8, I will say that I look for character qualities first. I can teach someone how to write, answer the phone, process paperwork, send an email, etc. I'd prefer not to, but I can. But, I cannot teach someone discernment. I can't teach them initiative. I can't teach them loyalty. I look for that first in an prospective employee.
They say that Mr. G should apologize to these women. I don't disagree. Again, based on the principal that to whom much is given, much is required. But their use of words like "sexual harassment" and "deviant behavior" place a significant amount of emotional and legal tension on the issue. Someone could take his apology as concession of guilt which could result in legal action - largely because of the words they have used and the manner in which they have used them.
I try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to this website. But, I would say that for them to throw out such a straw-man allegation is evidence that it is largely driven by emotions. Honestly, I think they are guilty of the same things they are accusing Mr. G of doing, interpreting personal preferences as scriptural principals/Biblical truths and using the "power of the pulpit" to convince others to ascribe to their personal beliefs.
I know several people who are a part of this website. I know several people who feel they have ought against IBLP/Mr. G. People I love and consider friends. I don't agree with them. I've said as much to some of them (including what I outlined in this email) when I've had the opportunity to do so."
3 Comments and 1 Observation ATI Dad...
First, I find it humorous that you're using the "testimony" of your daughter.
Second, I find it humorous that your daughter says BG should apologize but in the same paragraph says that this could lead to legal action.
Third, I find it humorous that she used the term "throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Observation: It is okay to agree to disagree. God has called us to unity not conformity.
That is all. God bless you and your family!
On a side note ATI Dad... Your (or your daughters) definition of sexual harrasment is out of touch with reality.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when
1. submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
2. submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])
Your comment addresses something that is important about this page. Recovering Grace is not just about criticizing and confronting a man, rather, it is criticizing a system that set this man up for what he is, and the false teaching that he has gotten away with. You mention repeatedly that we shouldn't be too harsh because Bill is just a man. True enough, and if anyone of us had the kind of position he has, along with the unfettered "moral authority," and God-like admiration that he has within his circles, (complicated by the fact he is single and surrounded by young pretty girls as a single man), we would probably handle it much poorer then he has. I have met him personally and can vouch that he has a very humble and gracious demeanor, and a commanding presence of respect. However, what we are all taking to task is not just a man, who is bound to fail under such circumstances, but an unbiblical system, combined with unbiblical teaching that has allowed it to be so. Jesus confronted this self-righteous, extra biblical, moral-centered rather than Christ centered religion whenever He saw it. Many of us are doing the same. However, it is probably good to remind ourselves that this is not about a man, it is about a gospel-ignoring and grace-starved system, something that all of us can fall into in our own lives and ministries.
It is an abusive system, which demands unfettered loyalty and absolute control for some, yet allows others to break the same rules or disregard the same demands, with only a wink and a nod. The daughter, above, is talking about what appears to be a completely different system... The wink and nod side of the same oppressive system we grew up with. We did not just give Gothard this type of authority in our lives... He demanded it!! And members of my own family were punished severely for this "thinking for themselves" that you advocate. https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/12/ptsd-for-christmas/
To those who experienced only the "wink and a nod" side of Bill Gothard/ATI/IBLP, I suggest you talk to some of your old friends who feel they were abused by the program... really listen to their stories, and see if you can't find some empathy for what they went through, before you try to explain it all away. That was when I realized the program was intrinsically abusive, when I saw a repeating pattern of "use you, then lose you," not only in my own family, but with numerous friends, as well.
ATI Dad,
Thanks for commenting and sharing your perspective. You did make some good points in regard to Mr. G, and I am glad to see that you seem to be trying to be balanced.
However, I believe that your perspective is misguided, and therefore, I do have some questions for you. You discuss first how RG "places a lot of blame on IBLP and Mr. G." Your basic sentiment seems to read "It's not Mr. Gothard's fault some students (like us) were hurt, it's the parent's fault; some of them just went to the extreme with what Mr. G taught." However sir, if that were true, then why has Mr. Gothard never repudiated the extremes that many families took his teachings to? Why has he never rebuked his followers who did such things? Secondly, I do believe Mr. G went to extremes. Why does he focus on standards as the test of spirituality so frequently in his teachings?
It is true that no human being is perfect, and this applies to Mr. G as much as anyone else. However, at what point does a Christian teacher like Mr. G cross the line from "someone you should have grace for" to "you should avoid them?" While taking an occasional Scripture verse out of context is not something to brand someone a false teacher over, hasn't that person crossed the line into "avoid them" if they do it on a frequent basis, and then become resistant to anyone confronting them over it? As Mr. G is a very unconfrontable person (as even an older pro-ATI sibling of mine admits too), shouldn't this be enough to brand him as an untrustworthy Christian teacher?
As for the sexual harassment issues, think about this sir. If you saw a man at church playing footsie with your daughter, or sitting so close as to be physically touchy-feely all the time, would you not consider that inappropriate or harassment?
Secondly, the behavior that Mr. Gothard exhibited (being alone with young ladies (including nights in his office), playing footsie, and the other forms of inappropriate physical contact he engaged in, are things that he would have sent a young man home for. Ironically, he would send people home over less things than this. That would be hypocritical on his part.
Thirdly, in the legal sense, what Mr. G did could definitely be defined as sexual harassment. One of the base definitions of sexual harassment is (from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment)
"unwelcome sexual advances...and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment."
In this article, it also says "The courts have generally concluded that a victim need not say or do a particular thing to indicate unwelcomeness. Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome. The courts have recognized that victims may be afraid to express their discomfort if the harasser is their boss or is physically intimidating. Victims may be coerced into going along with sexual talk or activities because they believe they will be punished or fired if they protest." According to this, what BG did does constitute sexual harassment.
You claim that ATI isn't responsible if students didn't have marketable skills. But if so, then how do you explain their generally hostile attitude towards going to college? BG and ATI claimed many times (esp in the old newsletters) that one doesn't need a college degree to succeed in the workforce. Honestly, that is simply not true. Many jobs require a college degree these days, even for entry level. I am currently finishing up a bachelor's in IT, and I can tell you with confidence, that from my job searching, ATI's advice on college is out of touch with reality, as entry level software development jobs require a four year degree.
I do appreciate the fact you are willing to discuss matters. However, I find RG to generally be on the side of civil, philosophical discussion and they make a serious effort to embody that in their articles.
An important aspect of RG that this comment does not seem to address is the helping hand for those who need help healing.
They say part of the problem with an earthquake is not just that you have experienced solid ground shaking, but that you now are suspicious of *all* solid ground. How do you know which ground is safe? Many students trusted this man to be the one man they could trust while believing that "outsiders" could not be trusted. Many Institute materials reinforce this notion. For some, the betrayal causes them to wonder if perhaps everything that used to seem solid, including God and his Word, is just a mirage.
It doesn't help much to to criticize the victim and walk away. It's not easy to see the wounds and get involved. The Good Samaritan didn't kick the victim while he was down: "I've never been mugged like that" or "Why did you go down that street in the first place?" Rather, he took time and effort to lend a helping hand. Who is my neighbor? The person who has been manipulated and mistreated by one who was supposed to be a trusted servant of God; the person who is just now beginning the journey we all had take and is as bewildered as we were - that person is my neighbor.
I'm not trying to be unkind to the comment to which I'm responding, just trying to fill in something that seemed to be not addressed by it.
Beautiful comment Matthew!
"Yes, he had "a type." He liked pretty girls with soft curls and calm, friendly demeanor. But that is not a crime nor evidence of wrong motives or sexual motives (which is what website suggests). The fact is most people prefer that. It's human nature."
Are you saying that most people prefer women who have soft curls, are calm and friendly? Do you have some sort of data to back this up? That seems rather a broad statement to make without some supporting evidence.
You refer to Mr. Gothards's "type", saying that is not a sin to have a type. I would agree with you one that. HOWEVER, I have only heard that phrase used in reference to someone's dating or sexual preference, never otherwise. Are you using it in a way otherwise that I am not familiar with? Again, the only thing I have EVER heard that being used in reference to is sexual/dating preference. If I recall, looking at the opposite sex with that sort of objective was considered a sin by Mr. Gothard. To me, this seems to be a double standard and does not make sense.
Honestly, the fact that anyone can say they know Gothard's "type" is mind-blowing, in and of itself. This is absolutely NOT normal, to know without a doubt a Christian leader's favorite "type" of girl. Does anyone know Billy Graham's "type"? Or Chuck Swindoll, Andy Stanley, or even Joel Osteen? Anyone?? If you could readily name their favorite type of teenaged girl, wouldn't that be WEIRD??! Once again, there seems to be a cognitive disconnect among Gothard's supporters. Maybe it would be wrong for Billy Graham to have a favorite "type" of girl, but it's not wrong for Gothard?? These guys are not that far apart in age, and both are single/widowed. Yet you NEVER hear of Billy Graham collecting cute young things to hang around him, who have certain looks and a certain demeanor. It's actually an incredibly repulsive thought for ANY leader, Christian or not, to have a favorite "type" of teenaged girl.
Excellent point, and on the flip side, who or what type of individual(s) have "types" ...?
Exactly, grateful. I was going to add, that if Gothard means this favoritism in non-sexual and completely unbiased ways, why did he not have a favorite "type" of boys and young men---with specific, striking physical features and characteristics he looked for and promoted? The boys completely got the shaft in this favoritism.
Exactly, BeverlyB. That was my point. You know who knew my "type"? My roommate, a few of my close friends, my sisters. I like nerdy boys with glasses; nothing at all wrong with that. I met one who is nerdy, wears glasses, we fell in love for many reasons and got married. That is a healthy relationship. I didn't hop from one boy to the next, messing with their minds or bodies. It astounds me that an ATI dad defends such superficial behavior that CLEARLY is not normal for a man in his 70's, and it is very, very odd for everyone to know exactly what his "type" is and act like all is well. That is not okay!
I second that.
Further, it only makes Bill human if there are certain preferences in appearances. Hopefully he has people in his life he can talk about that with. And as long as he keeps it in appropriate bounds, it's nobody else's business. In fact, perhaps it's part of God's design to help guide him to the woman who would love him in return and enrich his life.
But when there are young ladies praying, hoping, and trying hard to make the cut to be invited to HQ and other opportunities, and yet most of them don't stand a chance *based on their God-given appearance*, and those same girls that don't stand a chance are also denied any opportunity at higher learning (college being off-limits) and at jobs outside the home, but instead are told to stay at home and wait on their family in deep submission until such time as they are invited to HQ or they get married --- those young ladies are being mistreated, to put it mildly. Some of them will sit at home wondering where they went wrong, what they could have improved, how they messed it up. To borrow a movie phrase, "Coffee is for closers." The game was rigged. At some point, they will have to strike out in a new direction. If they hit age 35 before realizing all this, it's pretty natural for them to feel that someone has robbed something from them, and chase the thread back, it happens to be the same man who told them to accept their God-given unchangeables and yet he himself ignored them because of those very traits...
When you are taught the "Art" work in the "A" encyclopedia is pornography then how would you expect a young child not to think that. IN our house the Sears catalog was pornography. When you ave that stringent of definition on what is pornography then the "worlds" definition is irrelevant as to what "sexual harassment" might be.Bill made his own definitions of right vs wrong - How dare we hold him to the same standard????
Doesn't it strike you as weird that all "the type" girls and boys have wonderful testimonies overnight??? Seems a little weird to me!
Excellent thoughts, Matthew. Thanks for sharing!
You know, christians are the only ones who shoot their wounded. Don't you people know that people all over the world that don't know Christ are LOOKING for this type of thing as to justify their reason to avoid christianity all together. If you're spouse cheats on you, do you broadcast it on Facebook or the Internet? Or how about if BG was your father, would you appreciate it? Those of you that have posted this article on Facebook, would you put out a letter to your 400 closest friends about this if there wasn't a facebook? I doubt it. You have to remember to that so many students who come through the ministry are so sheltered that you could look at them cross eyed and they would scream DEFRAUDING!!! I'm not saying nothing needs to be done, I mean, take what steps are necessary but dragging this in the mud is by no means scriptural. The bible tells us to wash our hands of a man if he doesn't repent, not put it on the internet. While you guys want to use the scripture in Timothy to back this up with, he was dealing with the church when he was saying to take it public. Like, I said, handle what you need to but shame on those who are broadcasting this as if it was the world series. We need to be on our knees in prayer for the situation NOT publicizing it in the media. All I know is that I don't want to give an account for spreading information that is gonna hinder our Lord's name.
On the contrary, I believe that it is Christians who defend and cover over the sin among us who give the church a bad name.
Paul clearly commanded in 1 Timothy: As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. I don't know how you mentally wiggle out of that command, but it is there and it is clear. Bill Gothard has been confronted with this issue for over 30 years, and has persistently ignored the rebuke of the brethren.
It's time the church exposes those among us who do not represent us, so that our leaders might walk worthy of their calling and that the name of Christ is not marred by the consequences of our sin.
You're absolutely right. 'Christians' do shoot their wounded. Bill has shot his wounded over and over and over. The young girl who told him that her father was sexually abusing her, Bill said she needed to submit to her authority, and find a way to honor God through the situation. And if that's not horrible enough, he sent her BACK HOME to the situation, without ever calling her father and telling him to stop, OR reporting her father to the police, which is the first thing he should have done.
Bill has told his wounded over and over again that they are to blame for their problems through ATI, many of those problems being ones that he created, either directly or indirectly (through his teachings to the masses, and his personal ministrations). He still refuses to accept responsibility for the harm he has caused, and offers nothing more than the merest hint of apology, just enough to divert attention away from his actions and convince people that he didn't do anything wrong.
Since no-one will expose him to our well meaning brothers and sisters who are desperate to raise their children well, many are continuing to fall into his brilliantly subtle trap. Why do we tell people about hell? To warn them away from it. (not that I'm necessarily comparing Bill with hell here, just making a point.) We should ALWAYS warn others when there are wolves among the sheep.
All that being said, I appreciate your concern about people looking for reasons to stay away from Christ. Do you know how many have turned from Christ because of what they suffered from Bill and the like, assuming that that's all Christianity has to offer?
Also, perhaps you haven't spent much time on this site, there has been a tremendous amount of outreach and healing from those who are the wounded. I can personally assure you of the help that it's been in my life. This site gives a voice to the voiceless, to know they aren't alone, to know they are cared for and loved, AND, if Bill were ever to truly repent and at least try to make right his wrongs, he would be welcome with open arms as a truly repentant believer. (although I imagine it would be very awkward at first, and would require massive testing to be assured that he is being genuine this time...)
Anyway, saddened, again, I appreciate your comments, though I disagree with some of them, and I appreciate the caution you are suggesting. Please don't take my comments as attacking, that's not how I intend them, I see this as having a serious discussion about serious matters.
Peace and blessings.
Heather people use people lime Bill as excuses ti either turn from Christ or reject the gospel. the Root problem is that we are sinners and prefer darkness rather than light.
That being said our job here is to expose his false teachings so that other believers are tied to a yoke of works.
hmmm that went well!!
Heather people use people like Bill as excuses to either turn from Christ or reject the gospel. the Root problem is that we are sinners and prefer darkness rather than light.
That being said our job here is to expose his false teachings so that other believers are tied to a yoke of works.
I know, but that doesn't mean we cover it up and pretend it doesn't happen. The Scripture says be sure your sin will find you out. So really, maybe we're just the ones who are finding Bill out, and since we're Christians, his supporters can use our own faith against us, to shut us up.
Kinda rambling here, sorry.
People all over the world who don't know Christ don't need reasons to run from him. They're not sitting around looking for reasons to avoid him. Most would be surprised if they found a reason to want him in the first place. That argument has been used time and time again to silence victims, and it's just plain unethical.
All people sin. That's the basis for the gospel. People sin. When they repent, there is grace. Christians should never be afraid to expose terrible sins (and crimes) among their leaders because they are well aware that their leaders are sinners, and it should not come as a shock to them.
When a christian organisation finds there has been terrible abuse, criminal behaviour, or harassment, and they deal with it openly and honestly, I believe that God gets the glory. When they cover it up and try and silence victims (like you're doing), I honestly believe it will come out eventually anyway. And when it does, it's not one person's terrible crime that comes out, it's the whole massive cover-up. And sadly, God gets blamed for the cover-up.
Wait, Gothard is "the wounded" in this situation? Not the naive young girls he sexually harrassed?
I'm afraid there is no arguing with that kind of logic. Don't hurt the perpetrators!! Let's protect the perpetrator! Silence the victims; how dare they speak of what has been done to them?
I've been praying since the first post about sexual abuse that someone would be willing to step forward and press charges instead of mindlessly following BG and trusting his "wisdom"- excuse me, insanely twisted Scriptures.
Thanks for continuing to expose and enlighten. It's a pleasure to come here just to read the comments of people who feel similarly disgusted, frustrated, and annoyed. I never was in IBLP or ATI, but I've known far too many people who are and were (and therefore have baggage to work through, which seems worse).
KariU ”After months of wondering what your motivation is, I think I finally get it, Alfred. Feel free to set me straight if I am wrong, but what it appears you are doing is NOT specifically defending IBLP, the offshoots of its ministry, those who have violated trust within the ministry, or any other abuses therein.”
First of all . . . Thank you, Kari . . . thank you for thinking about me as a rational human being, something I don’t always enjoy. Your post was deeply appreciated. Side interactions relating to this thread continue to demand a lot of time . . . but I noted your post early on, and wanted to respond to you before any others.
If you follow the segregation of spiritual gifts from Romans 12 the way Bill does, I am one of those “prophet” types. Black and white . . . hard time with grey. Truth above all. So, to the extent Bill or the ministry has done things that believers should not do, I cannot and will not defend that. I love Bill and the ministry and want to see it be effective . . . because, unlike some, I believe in the basic message. But baloney is baloney, Gothard or otherwise.
A website like this is a continuous “truth challenge” for me. So when allegations are made, I have to engage to see where the truth is. You can expect me to give every crumb of benefit of the doubt to Bill as I proceed with that . . . but . . . I will take my positions and explanations publically. So y’all can laugh at me as necessary. Then, as necessary I try to fix things I have broken. I have learned – not as much as I should – to take the feelings and experiences of others who have suffered a lot more seriously than I may have in the past. That is what grappling with reality is supposed to do. I hope that I am learning a lot more balance.
If other ATI families “went down”, so can mine. That is part of why I am here.
”Rather, you are primarily and above all else concerned about the truth of allegations against Bill Gothard himself, primarily within the book A Matter of Basic Principles.”
There are things that can be explained, and others that simply cannot, even with a bit of “English” (on a billiard ball?). BTW . . . in speaking with my son, 10 years at headquarters, about this specific thread, he indicated that Bill has openly declared that he is on a recruitment program when it comes to beautiful, talented young ladies. Sort of a “Dress for Success” for IBLP. He has a proportion of young ladies to young men on ministry trips, for example, that favors the young ladies. This probably speaks to the – to most (of us) fairly onerous – notion of weight and beauty standards. But . . . I get it too. They landscape the property and make improvements to give a certain image and feel . . . and publications and presentations are part of that process as well. Nobody can deny that a group of beautiful, smiling, wonderful young ladies (with a few fellows mixed in as supporting cast) makes a far more powerful impression than . . . well . . . the rest of us.
So . . . see? I have come to a reasonable explanation of why Mr. G is constantly scanning for “the type”, promoting such while perhaps ignoring others . . . my daughter # 2 over daughter #1 mentioned elsewhere. Now you get to laugh at me . . . and I get to see if my explanation, at least for the active recruitment program, still holds.
But some things, Kari, can’t be explained away. Ever. Sex is one. Lying is another. Financial matters get into that realm. So . . . that is why I focus on those things first and foremost. IF Bill Gothard had sex – or even “sexually fondled” – women under his care, everything else stops. I can’t go on. So . . . when the “book” said “sexual immorality by Bill”, that became job #1. After 8 years of banging on every door imaginable, I have my answers in the last two weeks thanks to this thread, at least within a “reasonable doubt”.
“You have in other comments validated the need for "a site like this" which caused several readers' eyebrows to raise. But if my theory is correct, those surprising words from you do not contradict your agenda whatsoever.
I like this site . . . and I like most of the people on it. I am Facebook “friends” with a number I have grown to respect. I do not think the people running this are evil . . . I understand where they are coming from. Things need to be brought out into the open. The worst situation is to have unresolved major issues bouncing around, causing doubt and problems for everyone. Jesus demands all complaints be checked out and corrected.
”You want to know if the man you have viewed as a father figure for 40 years is worthy, don't you? You want to know if this man, who looks you in the eye and sincerely denies it all--if THIS MAN has ever done anything illegal. Because in your heart, you can forgive many things, but not a true violation of the law. Fraud, sexual assault, fornication, abuse--those are things you would not tolerate in your own father, however much you may have loved him. And in your opinion, nothing such has been proved yet, is that so?”
You are a wise woman :-) Except . . . I do believe some things are proven. Things that need to be addressed. Including these allegations of things that Bill should not have been doing, things that cause his supporters a lot of problems trying to explain, even if nothing sexually actually happened. I differ from most in that I can see glimmers of how Mr. Gothard can act as he has and still believe in his heart of hearts that he is acting honorably. He is (or hopefully past tense “was”) wrong, and it needs to be eliminated.
And, while I am at it, I wanted to commend Jesse Plymale for actually going and confronting the board . . . and Mr. G. Frankly that is very effective. While allegations swirl here of Board tampering, a quick look at the present participants would reveal honorable people with integrity, some, like Gil Bates, with a bunch of ATI daughters, who would take this extremely seriously.
So . . . thank you . . . and thank you for your part in maintaining an important and worthwhile website.
It doesn't matter of Bill thinks he is acting honorably Alfred.
Alfred,
You state:
“ I can’t go on. So . . . when the “book” said “sexual immorality by Bill”, that became job #1. After 8 years of banging on every door imaginable, I have my answers in the last two weeks thanks to this thread, at least within a “reasonable doubt”.
I’m confused, what exactly are you saying; do you have a reasonable doubt of Bill’s innocent or guilty? What is your proof?
Inquiring Mind
Alfred- I have to take issue with your idea that looking for the more attractive females in order to best represent the ministry as being understandable. How does that line up with the gospel? It in no way does! You even seem to understand and condone your daughters being viewed differently. That really surprises me-
First of all, it is not my idea. Secondly I called it onerous . . . To me. Thirdly I said I might understand why he might do that, me the guy who who is the opposite of caring about appearance and being periodically rebuked by others.
BTW, did you know that God banned the disabled from serving in the temple? Think that one through . . .
Leviticus 21:16-21
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach:a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire:he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
Any organization having such a policy today pulled be considered evil. But God discriminated on outward appearance and obviously is not evil. Why? I don't know why . . . God who elsewhere assumes responsibility for such disabilities . . . I just have never heard an explanation.
So based on the OT the disabled and informed are still excluded from ministry? I ask many people this especially those who adhere to Gothard's teachings.
What do the temple represent? what were many of the OT laws and (TRADITIONS) a shadow of? I will give you a little clue...
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
Gal 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
And this:
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
I added the context so this can't be misquoted
I meant in firmed not informed.... I hate the auto spell check!!!!!!!
Yes, and He was talking about men. Pretty sure women weren't allowed to serve in the temple at all, so if we're truly under the OT law like that, Gothard has no business having any ladies there at all.
That latter point I have often pondered and I am not sure I disagree.
Well, of all people Alfred should know that in his church the women do not have any public ministry. I am "one of those plymouth brethren". So no, that is not something that he should think is a good thing. He should have been helping the young men to be leaders. Not the women/girls.
Also, I would like to point out that the thing that turned me off on the whole Bill Gothard thing was this: Someone said online that Bill Gothard had said something like this in the Advanced seminar, "A woman's menstrual period should remind her husband of Christ's blood shed on the cross." I said to myself, "NO, I can't believe he said that. I would have surely heard it." And the article gave a page number so I got out my Advanced seminar book and checked that page number. There to my amazement was that very statement (I'm not sure I quoted it exactly right above as I threw all my IBYC/IBLP books away) written in MY OWN handwriting. I was flabbergasted. It showed me that he gave out stuff and we were writing furiously in our books and we didn't even really hear what he said. That statement is so false as to be ludicrous. What is an unmarried male supposed to have to remind him of the blood of Christ? What about a woman who has no husband? Or .....on and on. No we have the Lord's Supper/Remembrance meeting (you know what that is, don't you, Alfred?) to remind us of what Christ did on the cross. And also to remind of that He is coming again. The only close mention of menstruation is in Isaiah where it says that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (or menstrual cloths)". So where did Bill Gothard get such an idea? It certainly isn't Biblical. That was all I needed to know that this man is/was a false teacher. In my opinion this is blasphemy.
Hi Eva :-) Yes, the Breaking of Bread . . . every week. A stunning number of IBLPers and ex-IBLPers are - or were - PB . . . Tony Guhr, Ron Henzel . . .
I recall him saying that the cycle was a monthly reminder to the husband to be gentle . . . beyond that, I have no (NO) recollection of anything of that nature. So . . . of course . . . I shall have to check it out. Will report back.
OK, Eva . . . the material on the "cycle" is actually copied out by DaveM in the "Twisted Scriptures" section. https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/12/the-sexual-rules-of-mr-gothard/ and https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/12/mr-gothards-sexual-rules-part-2/
Please look it over . . . I see no reference to that being a reminder of Christ's blood (I have the book open before me). So . . . I am going to cautiously deny the charge. Perhaps others will know what you are referring to, if not this part of the "Advanced Seminar"
It had nothing to do with being gentle. But unfortunately I think I pitched all my old IBLP books so I can't look it up to see. But I had it written down exactly as the comment was made on another site. And it had everything to do with the blood of Christ. I'm sorry now that I didn't keep it. I'm in the process of downsizing on my books so if I should happen to find it I will let you know.
Alfred, priestly duties in the OT involved a lot of physical activity and was restricted to men. Possibly one reason for exclusion of disabled men was the requirements of the position.
But further have you heard of of Joni Eareckson Tada?
http://www.joniandfriends.org/
Funny that you should mention her . . . you do recall that she credits Bill with providing a major life altering insight as she attended a Basic Seminar as an unknown, struggling quadriplegic. She spoke at an ATI conference in the last decade I had the privilege of attending.
Yes, love, love her ministry. My family had the opportunity of visiting her at her ministry HQ in Thousand Oaks, CA.
AND . . . for the record, I distinctly remember a "dwarf" (I am not sure if there is a more sensitive term) that used to run the camera at Basic Seminars in Portland, Oregon back in the 1970s. So . . . obviously disabilities are not a problem for Bill.
The prohibition includes a great many things that have nothing to do with performance . . . like having extra body parts, or even I presume a tumor. Scabs . . . blemishes. Which is why I did not take a practical interpretation of it.
My guess was that there was to be a presentation of "perfection", despite nobody and nothing being actually "perfect". An appearance of perfection. Perfect lamb, perfect priests.
Alfred- you're all over the map. First you say it's onerous, then you say it's understandable. It is NOT understandable. Then you launch into a diatribe about the disabled, which has nothing to do with the discussion of choosing attractive females to represent the ministry. Let's all agree that we need to stand up for the marginalized in our society. There is no rationale for preferring the outwardly attractive or "successful," Look at James 2:1-4. I'm starting to understand others' comments about your "rambling."
My point was that I was stunned to realize that in th OT God excluded people from "spiritual" service based on physical defects. And I asked "why", because I don't know. It gets even worse to try to take this "shadow" and apply it to us. The OT laws, we read, are there as examples to teach us about how God thinks, so we can learn from them. Like not muzzling an ox so he can eat the wheat he is "trampling out" being an instruction to Christians to support Christian workers (1Cor. 9:9) Has anyone come up with an explanation for what this is supposed to teach us? I bet Bill Gothard reads this and concludes that the outward appearance on a staff working on spiritual things matters to God, just like other Scriptures about cleanliness motivate him to keep the premises clean and orderly. The latter I have heard him talk about . . . I have never heard anyone discuss the Scripture just quoted, but it comes to mind when I see him striving for a premium appearance among the staff. Weight and beauty standards. So . . . I figured someone here has given this some thought. It is a real Scripture, so don't kill me.
The OT temple and priests were representative of the coming Son of God, who was a lamb without spot or blemish. They couldn't use the disabled because Christ, our mediator, our sacrifice, was perfect and without defect. What is in the OT law and temple practices points to the coming sacrifice of Christ. It does not mean that God hates the disabled.
Thank you- it's all pointing to Christ, it's not a license to think that God wants us to push the attractive ones in any particular culture, to be representatives. To even think that negates the need for Christ- it's ant-gospel. Christ mainly went to the marginalized, so how can we think it's fine to show preference? I tried to say that in a post below, but you said it better. Amen.
And now that Christ has come, the "shadow" is done away, in favor of the real thing. It wasn't a precedent for all time, of only using attractive people in ministry. Far from it!
also you might add that the OT is based on LAW whereas NT= grace. LAW is based on appearances, thus many laws dealt with perfect vs. imperfect, besides the double meaning of pointing to the coming savior, which the people of God did not recognize nor want after He finally came to save them. Bible verses even describe Jesus physical appearance as rather plain. And after all those years of LAW upon precept and the ones that man added, they invariably did not recognize Him, except a few fishermen, tax-gathers and prostitutes.
Alfred seldom has a point.
You are joking, right?
You think that God saying that an impotent man couldn't be a priest makes it ok for Gothard to say that someone who is overweight can't work for him....and that only pretty girls can?
The OT is "types and shadows." Do you know what that means? Types. Like....what would impotence be a type of? Pretty girls? No, that doesn't make sense. How about "fruitful life"? Oh, that makes more sense. Maybe God was making a very visible type to help us understand that a man who is a spiritual leader needs to be fruitful.
Crooked nose....hmmm....is God saying that people who aren't beautiful shouldn't serve in the temple? That wouldn't make sense since we are specifically told, when someone thought a handsome man should be picked for the job, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." That really couldn't be the right 'type and shadow,' could it? Oh, I know....noses smell...they discern things. Maybe God is giving us a picture of how a spiritual leader should be discerning?
But to even try to say that God thinks people should be beautiful to serve and to excuse Gothard's behavior by that is really abusing Scripture. And, it very nicely points out why many of us reject Gothard's entire ministry. He is entirely focused on the outside while God looks on the heart.
Since I am on a roll:
Hebrews 11:23
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
"proper" is a word meaning handsome, beautiful . . . Sounds like The fact that Moses was a good looking baby was taken as a sign from God that he was destined for great Spiritual service. Is there any other way to read this? How did faith motivate them based on how he looked? Again, before savaging me with insinuations, speak to my questions, which are sincere.
EVERY parent thinks their child is proper and beautiful! So why would Moses' folks be any different? (insert smiley face here)
I know, I know :-)
However . . . WHAT exactly was the role of faith? Apparently they were moved to act differently from the average Israelite parent trying to protect their "illegal" infant . . . Because of something they understood God to be doing based on how unusually good looking he was.
So . . . Does God have a reason for making some naturally beautiful, and some of us not? Can that give faith toward a life purpose? Obviously God often picks the least and the last to do His work . . . . I just don't understand this verse.
You are really off on a tangent, Alfred with this beauty thing. I have two grandchildren with Down syndrome. One born to our son and one adopted by them from India. Don't forget that God said he made the deaf and the blind. So I'm sure he made these two little ones with Down syndrome.
If Moses had been ugly do you think Pharaoh's daughter would have taken him. All babies are cute so this just pointed out the fact that other beautiful and proper babies had been killed. You always have to insert something about "purpose', principle, or other Gothardism". We love our two Down babies just as much as the others. And God has a "purpose" for them too.
This is a total hijack Eva, but my son has Down syndrome, too! He's 11 months old and absolutely the cutest baby you'd ever meet. :-)
God bless you both. And your precious babies.
Thank you, Alfred. :-) Children with DS are truly a great treasure. And we have been extraordinarily blessed by our little one. Even though the road has been difficult (surgery at birth, a month in NICU,and heart surgery that still lies ahead) God has been so good to us! I have never felt more loved and cherished by the Lord since being entrusted with a special needs child. The Lord reminds me daily that I am His, and this child is His, and He is taking care of our whole family.
You know, the internet is a strange thing. I have never met you, Beverly, but almost feel like I know you. (and others here)I will earnestly be praying for you and your family.
Thank you, grateful!
Christ came and stood in that gap, in that need for the unblemished. He alone is beautiful.
"in speaking with my son, 10 years at headquarters, about this specific thread, he indicated that Bill has openly declared that he is on a recruitment program when it comes to beautiful, talented young ladies. Sort of a “Dress for Success” for IBLP. He has a proportion of young ladies to young men on ministry trips, for example, that favors the young ladies. This probably speaks to the – to most (of us) fairly onerous – notion of weight and beauty standards."
But, Alfred, why is Bill surrounding himself to such a noticeable extent with thin blondes with wavy hair? If the point is to physically attract other people to the organization, shouldn't he have a wide variety of blondes, brunettes, and redheads, some with a little more "meat on their bones," as it is well-known that people have differing tastes in what they find attractive? Why is he catering to his own tastes?
I believe another term for using pretty girls to sell a program or idea is "Booth Babes." How is what Gothard doing any different than what the world does??
I'm a young female actress. Booth Babes is EXACTLY what that is. Or to be more blunt, 'Sex Sells'. While I understand the business purpose for businesses to do this, (present someone with a sex appeal, doesn't necessarily mean they are immodest) why should a ministry do this? There should be a good mix of people, not to mention the whole 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' besides, since Gothard is all about having bright and shining eyes, glowing countenances etc.. shouldn't THAT be the selling point of his ministry? (Are ministries supposed to have 'selling points'?) Furthermore, typically the 'sex sells' has a mix of ethnicity, and other variety, but all beautiful.
(btw, I can't even tell you how many roles I've turned down because I DON'T want to be that.)
Why am I having sudden flash backs to Nazi Germany and the master race of blue eyes blondes?
"Why am I having sudden flash backs to Nazi Germany and the master race of blue eyes blondes?"
You are not the only one Chris. Some creepy stuff I am reading here. If BG really wanted his staff to be a recruiting tool, he would have a cross sampling of humanity. (a Sunday School song from my childhood comes to mind - "red, yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight....")
And here we have the leader of a Christian Ministry sticking to an certain body type, that sounds kind of aryan to me.
Frightening.
That comment really grabbed my attention, too. First, in fairness to you, Alfred, I appreciate your courage and honesty in saying so. Props to you for putting the truth out there.
Some concerns that this raises, though (sorry, long comment ahead):
a) When you say "openly", how openly? I suspect rather that this is one more piece of privileged information shared with insiders and not revealed to the normal customers. If I'm assuming wrongly on that and he has truly said it openly, is it commonly understood among females and their parents that some of the "unchangeables" might be the reason the daughters are left uninvited? When I was in the program, I would have thought that bright eyes and godly countenances and the 49 character qualities, etc. ought to be the things that make the program and people attractive. I can imagine young ladies at home, waiting, praying, wondering what they have done wrong. If there is no chance of them being invited based on their appearance, is it defrauding to them not to inform them that it's not their fault?
b) How is IBLP being significantly different from Hooters Restaurant or from using Booth Babes if they are using attractive young females to sell a product? (see, for example: http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/8-places-that-have-fired-women-for-being-too-fat and http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/are-booth-babes-an-effective-marketing-tool.html).
c) To whom does this make the program more attractive? One wonders if the practice of having a bevy of young attractive ladies might be attracting the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
d) It could seem to be defrauding to lead a girl to think she is at HQ in order to use existing talents and gain new skills if the real purpose is to use her as window dressing, so to speak. This is objectifying to her, and it is misleading, not telling her (or her parents) the truth.
e) Is this move consistent with the principles and teachings that Gothard sells and publicly holds to? It seems very inconsistent to me - I don't think the word "hypocritical" would be too strong.
f) Jesus describes his kingdom as being the opposite of kingdoms of this world. Doesn't this seem more like a move from the kingdoms of this world than the kingdom of heaven (the two links above apply once again)?
Sorry to write more of a blog post than a comment. The more I think about the reality behind that statement, the more issues of concern kept rattling around in my head.
Why is it deemed OK for Bill to actively be a "mentor" or "father figure" to young women of a certain physical type, many of whom may be dealing with emotional problems and family issues? If some other mature man in the organization started becoming known for mentoring curvy teen redheads with daddy issues, encouraging these young women to leave their families to come be near him, would that be looked on with favor? If the answer is yes, than the organization has major problems; if the answer is no, than it would seem there is some hypocrisy going on.
Hi Alfred, I just wanted to let you know; as frustrated as we both get when going back and forth with each other, I don't actually dislike you. I'm realizing I'm forgetting to season my words with grace, or salt, or whatever, and I'm sorry for that.
I would also like to apologize, Alfred. I haven't extended the grace to you that we are all jumping up and down about. Everybody is allowed to have their own opinions, and it takes time for everyone sometimes!! Please, don't let my example put you off, or upset you. I truly am very sorry.
I am humbled by more grace than I deserve. Thank you.
I have 11 kids . . . at least two were rejected by Bill for various reasons that I felt to be irrelevant . . . and "the type" daughter too, I suppose, because we never got "the call". I love them all equally. Please accept that I am trying to understand some of the things that Mr. G does in the light of a man who really believes he is doing the right thing. So I have put out some of my ponderings.
As to "openly", yes, to staff, the "family times" in the evenings when he will talk more freely than elsewhere. He is extremely concerned with appearance and makes no excuses. As others have pointed out, he will photoshop pictures to get "the look", work really hard on interior design . . . he colors his hair, for goodness sake. It is all part of the "Dress for Success" perspective that he has had since the early days . . . yes, a devotee of that very book and the research behind it.
AND . . . he has found that a group of attractive young ladies with "the look" gets a much warmer, deeper response than more representative cross-section. He has a proportion and balance that he picks his traveling groups around to maximize impact. He told the staff this.
I have read "D for S" and do find the arguments compelling. People really do think differently about you, make judgements concerning you, based on things that seem insignificant. The research takes test groups and shows pictures to them with various things added, omitted, models switched so only the thing being studied is a variant. Then they ask the subjects: Who is the better father, who would make the better leader, who would you trust with your money? What they have learned is impressive. For example, I learned that I, being a short man, will never be taken seriously if I carry an umbrella. No kidding, it is in there. Research proved it quite dramatically.
So . . . if you are in the job of promoting a cause or a message, you would do well to think about "Dress for Success". More people will take you seriously if you do. Of course . . . some of us ponder that John the Baptist was the opposite of "Dress for Success", and yet God entrusted a vital message to him. Prophets routinely "dressed down" in Scripture so as to focus on the message alone. Balance, balance.
I say all of this to say that I am not ignorant of the problems. I am just trying to understand where he comes from. I can actually see why did does some of the more "onerous" things . . . because . . . frankly . . . they work.
I'm done with this thread. What difference does it make "where he comes from"- look at the actions. Dress for Success works?- For whom? Why? Yes, how we present ourselves matters, but that's far different from a facade. I thought his whole ministry focused on NOT doing things the world's way- a new approach to life.
That pragmatism reminds me of this recent article: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/05/the-gospel-of-pragmatism/
just on your point about height Alfred many of the worlds greatest leaders( as well as some of the worst dictators)were shorter than average height so it ironic that studies show people will look to and trust a certain type of look body shape height etc.
There is hope for us munchkins yet!
On a more serious note Bill's reliance on a certain look and image could be an indication of a lack of something else.The fact that he colours his hair may seem insignificant however to me it points to a shallowness of character and a lack of self assurance.
If I took Bill's lead I would be wearing a rug on my head to cover my baldness and colouring it to hide the fact that I have my mothers genes of premature graying.... in my case going white!
I know this seems a minor point but to me it is pure salesmanship. I don't buy his reasons though!
"For example, I learned that I, being a short man, will never be taken seriously if I carry an umbrella."
Confucius say "Short man with umbrella taken very seriously in downpour!"
I am just trying to understand where he comes from. I can actually see why did does some of the more “onerous” things . . . because . . . frankly . . . they work.
It's very intriguing to me, this embracing of pragmatism. One would have thought that Gothard would stick by the principles through thick and thin because they are supposedly God's way, not mans' way. This could seem like a tacit admission that the product itself doesn't work, so other means of salesmanship are employed to sell the product. Obviously you disagree with me on this, Alfred, and I understand that, but the belief that I have come to is that Mr. Gothard is not so much a godly man as he is a salesman, and very good at managing appearances and showing people what they want to see.
There are so many problems with this Dress for Success rationalization, but I will state one concern here. You are assuming that Gothard's goal in this is to Dress for Success (raising the question of what we mean by "dress" and "success"). Hence, your reasoning goes, many attractive young females of a certain type. But consider for a minute the aspect of the "appearance of evil", something that is usually of very high importance to Gothardites. (An example of "avoiding the appearance of evil: brothers and sisters at some events have been forbidden to even speak to each other because it might look like a boy and a girl flirting.) How does one escape that this use of young attractive females could have the appearance that Mr. Gothard himself gets some pleasure out of being close to these females? The age range is what? Roughly 14-18? What if he's getting something out of this? What if it's not just a questionable piece of salesmanship but rather a form of exploitation for his own personal sensual pleasure? What evidence could I go to, apart from Gothard's own word, that would allay such concerns?
Plus, if he is using this idea of "Dress for Success" to make the ministry look attractive, then shouldn't all the adults who work there also be attractive and well-dressed? And shouldn't there be attractive people of different types, not just all blonde-haired blue-eyed teenaged girls?
And how does he justify this in light of the verses in James which tell us not be a respecter of persons? We are not supposed to judge peoples' worthiness based on their outward appearance. There are just so many things wrong with this line of thinking. I understand the idea of dress for success to mean that you wear nice clothing to a job interview or something along those lines. But we're not talking about clothes- we're talking about physical characteristics that people are born with.
right on. Good question. That's a great connection to make to James.
Alfred,
You said, "he has found that a group of attractive young ladies with "the look" gets a much warmer, deeper response than more representative cross-section."
If you're suggesting that using attractive young ladies to reach as many people as you can, how is that any different (in principle) than Hooters? I mean I get there is some divergence there as to what constitutes "attractive" but the principle seems the same: pretty sells.
I would hope that Mr. Gothard has higher standards than Hooters, but maybe that isn't the case based on what you're saying?
Hi Alfred
As a man, I would challenge you to evaluate that BG colors his hair as an indication of a struggle with vanity, and having nothing to do with "dress for success". Personally, I can not stand men who do the epic combover, wear hairpieces, or color their hair to hide their age, as it is a sign (to me) that they do not accept the way God has made them nor accepting the aging process. If BG truly adheres to his Proverbs & Psalms daily readings, then he is flat out ignoring Proverbs 16:31.
Just some food for thought Alfred. I challenge you to continue to evaluate the man and the system he has built.
Peace to you brother.
So, it's all right for Billy G to dye his hair, but he teaches against it in the BS under the principle of Design.
It's actually OK for him to pick women to work for him based on their beauty and that's not sexism, disgusting, or hypocrisy?
It's ok for him to do things that are morally questionable and in the face of anything Christ like because they bring success? (Because, really, Jesus picked his disciples based on their looks and how much success they would bring Him, right? And IBLP claims to be a Christian ministry not a fortune 500 business, so running it according to Biblical principles would make sense, right?)
Alfred, maybe you should quit trying to see Gothard's point and just look at the facts in light of right and wrong.
[this post is mostly tongue in cheek]
Supposedly from a 1959 booklet about American Airlines stwardesses:
Here are the qualifications for an American Stewardess: unmarried; age 20-26 years; height 5 feet 3 inches to 5 feet 8 inches; weight 135 pounds maximum; good physical condition; 20/50 vision not requiring glasses. Nurses or college graduates are preferred, but consideration is given to business school and high school graduates who have extensive experience dealing with the public. If you know of a girl whose eyes are on the skies, and who meets AA's requirements, tell her to see us about a Stewardess position. (http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/13/01213/9017/travel/In+1959,+Stewardesses+Weren't+Allowed+to+Weigh+Over+135+Pounds)
This is similar to Gothard's requirements, except he added rules for hairstyles and chopped about 6 years off... It's a genuine question: how is this "higher standards"?
Alfred, if you owned your own consulting company and you hired good-looking 18-year-olds with little or no business experience to the extent that it's obvious you prefer a certain look, do you think that your wife would attribute it to the "dress for success" principle? Do you think the general public looking at your business would think this hiring practice was simply to draw in potential clients, or do you think people would likely be disgusted or amused by this? Would people wonder why you didn't hire more people with experience and credentials?
I used to work as a table busser, and the male owner of one cafe was known for only ever employing pretty young girls. His marriage didn't last long.
It had nothing to do with selling the business.
Lynn: “ Pastor Jones reported the impropriety of a young girl bringing Gothard his dinner, alone, to Gothard, also alone, in what amounts to a hotel room in Flint, MI, MULTIPLE times. “
Hi, Lynn :-)
It amounts to a hotel room . . . because it is. It is (was) a converted hotel. Are you saying he should have gone and eaten with the staff? Maybe – personally I don’t see a problem with getting a lunch made and brought to the head of a worldwide organization . . . do you? Maybe girls make better sandwiches than fellows. Sandwich, because his preferred meal is an egg salad sandwich. And, again, we have been at this for . . . 50 years. Bill has never done anything to a young lady that is sexual, despite endless opportunities to do so. Please accept my common definition of “sexual” to not include footsie and hand holding, which he also committed to not do any more.
What do you think went on as he received the sandwich prepared for him by the young lady? By now at least one sandwich girl would have spoken up. My guess: He told her what a good sandwich preparer she was, and what wonderful opportunities continue to await her around the corner . . . and ate the sandwich.
So while I do not blame him for his concern, the reality is that it was never a prelude . . . to anything.
“Alfred, I encourage you to read Ileata's reply to you several times. Then ask if it would be ok for her husband to be doing the same with one of your daughters. It appears as though you don't think any of this is a big deal. “
I would be appalled if her husband – whom I do not know - tried that with my wife or daughter. But I would have no problem if 78 year old Bill Gothard – whom we consider a bit of a “father” and allowed to occupy that role - held her hand and spoke kindly and wisely and properly to her. Footsie, that is another story that I am still trying to process. But I weary at this . . . He played footsie in a crowded van with people facing each other . . . on a long road trip. I start to realize that touch to a young lady means boatloads more than to a man, for I have never, once, found footsie stimulating. I used to play footsie with a family friend, a woman 30 years my senior. All I can tell you is that a lifetime of godly contact tells me – in retrospect – that she was having a fun time with a 9-10 year old kid that she was trying to get to laugh. That . . . was it.
”Groomer”:” When folks speak of “grooming”, I know what they mean. But . . . if so, WHAT exactly is Bill grooming for? We have had 50 years to figure it out. In the early days it was ostensibly “for marriage”, except he never married - and maybe never intended to marry - the young lady that got some pretty focused, personal attention, consistent with being “my sweetheart”. Which he later confessed to the board as a sin of “defrauding”. It was hypocrisy, inconsistent with his high standards, and he was right to call it “a sin” . . . but it was less than I did with my wife while we were courting/dating [and we didn’t do anything I would be ashamed to tell my church about or anyone else.]
Sad: ”As a man, I would challenge you to evaluate that BG colors his hair as an indication of a struggle with vanity, and having nothing to do with "dress for success".”
Bill says it is for "video purposes" he does this [so videos of him in his 30s can be spliced seamlessly together with videos of him in his 60s :-)]
He does it for the same reason non-vain Christian ladies wear lipstick or the occasional garment designed to shape what is there to look like what used to be there. Moving on . . .
”Hooters Booth Girls”: To the theme from “The Adams Family”:
“The parents are the tutors,
We build our own computers;
We never go to Hooters,
A homeschool family (TadadaDa . . . )” [Tim Hawkins]
The image of Hooters Booth Babes and IBLP staff young ladies is almost more than I can handle. Tank tops vs. ankle length skirts, skin vs. turtlenecks, sex vs. “ministry smile”, oysters and beer vs. the Gospel.
Here are the “Booth Babes” . . . in Romania . . . my son – not a booth babe – is first row, second from left: 2011 IBLP Romania Team THIS is the “Gothard Type” – please look at it before responding.
YES. They are selling . . . but I know what they are selling, and I like it. If “the look” gets people to take Jesus more seriously, make them pay attention a bit more, I am all for it.
Matthew: There are so many excellent posts. I like your stewardesses post . . . that was normal in the day, a very non-sexual, non-perverted way to serve the tastes of the clientele . . . and make them buy more. Bill does believe he is selling, and he wants to do a good job. He has led a lot more people to Christ than I will ever even think about. One reason is that I can’t get people to get in large coliseums to listen to me, or even get people to give me the money necessary to do that. Bill has found a way to create excitement within Christians to get them to work together to reach the world. Criticism of doers should be much less than of sitters (me).
I remember one of our better preachers in the Plymouth Brethren, one whose fiery preaching moved many to abandon all hope of getting to heaven on their own and come to Jesus for salvation. Friends said he had a volume that he read and followed but was most embarrassed about . . . something like “The Psychic Power of Preaching”, this in a day where “Psychic” meant “Psychological”. It contained techniques for getting and holding an audience’s attention, and for pressing home the vital need for salvation that people are inclined to ignore. He was genuine . . . he wanted to be more effective as a preacher. From all indications he was, producing fruit that lasted. I say, go for it.
I think of him when I think of Bill.
You may fire at will . . .
Once again I can't figure out these embedded links . . . I give up. Hawkins is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM6uqj0_jQc . . . Romania team is http://iblp.org/sites/iblp.org/files/images/romaniateam2011.jpg
In the early days it was ostensibly “for marriage”, except he never married – and maybe never intended to marry – the young lady that got some pretty focused, personal attention, consistent with being “my sweetheart”. Which he later confessed to the board as a sin of “defrauding”. It was hypocrisy, inconsistent with his high standards, and he was right to call it “a sin” . . . but it was less than I did with my wife while we were courting/dating [and we didn’t do anything I would be ashamed to tell my church about or anyone else.]
So just to clarify, you are saying that Bill did confess the "sin" of "defrauding" but the actual content of that sin was that he gave some focused attention to a female as if she were his sweetheart? This attention would have been no worse than, say, holding hands? And finally, this was in the early days, meaning maybe 40 years ago? I'm just wanting to make sure I understand what you are saying there.
So, Alfred, if you knew my husband, you'd be ok with him taking your wife into our bedroom alone and holding her hand in there while gazing deeply into her eyes just to welcome her to our place? Or sitting really close to her on a couch and putting his hand on her leg above the knee? Your only problem with my husband doing those things with your wife would be that you don't know him? Really? Because I'd freak out if my husband did those things with his sister.
What if he did it to you while you were seriously dating, planning to get married, or even engaged? I am just trying to understand where we are going with the standards here.
He did hold my hand and look into my eyes before we married. He even kissed me. We were "romantically involved." Those things are more intimate that most people would be comfortable with in a strictly platonic relationship. And are WAY out of line in a teacher/student or counselor/counselee situation. I honestly cannot believe that an adult man who has 11 children can't see that. EVERYONE knows that it's not ok. Gothard would be rallying against other church leaders if they did those things. And he sent home many young men for far less touch than that. You can't say he doesn't know better since he was breaking his own rules.
Pretty alarming question, Alfred, old buddy. I take it that you think anything a Christian couple would do while seriously dating is in bounds for Gothard to do to 15 year old girls in his employment? By very definition, a couple who is seriously dating is being romantic. Intimate. Close. Beginning a relationship that will ultimately be committed and sexual. If Gothard were to be having that sort of effect on young girls, then he would be both defrauding and exploiting them. Can you at least see clearly enough through your fog to agree to that or are you too far gone?
Or have I completely misunderstood your question?
OK . . . how about if the player is your grandfather . . . with your daughter? I am talking about a normal grandpa, whom you know loves your daughter and would never harm her. Holding her hands, looking in her eyes, patting her knee . . . did I miss anything?
In a bedroom, alone...no, that wouldn't be ok. My grandfathers would have maybe held my hand when I was very little...not when I was in my teens.
What you are describing is NOT normal grandfatherly behavior. And, even if it was, regardless of what he says, Gothard is NOT that close to all the girls at HQTS. He did these things with girls when they first arrived. He did these things with lots of girls. I have friends who have the same stories, but haven't written their testimonies here. I've never once heard someone say, "Mr. Gothard and I are so close, he's like a grandpa to me. He even holds my hand like my grandpa does."
And, really, no one plays footsie with an adolescent of the opposite sex and expects the world to consider it just a game. A child, sure, but not a teen or adult of the opposite sex.
And for the record, some things are just wrong, regardless of their motive. If BG has perfectly innocent motives, his actions are still completely uncalled for. And, the normal response of someone who is crossing boundaries unknowingly is to apologize and cease and desist when someone points it out. He has not apologized and he continues the behavior. That is not normal for someone who has pure motives.
I was on at Big Sandy a year ago, by I understand that he did apologize. I have said over and over that for any number of reasons, those behaviors need to stop. No argument.
But . . . "Bill Gothard with the dirty mind" is not a man I know. Would you characterize him that way, based on your experience with him? What is your testimony?
My personal experience with him is very limited. He never touched me. But my personal experience with him doesn't lead me to have a glowing report. Nothing sexual, but I do have issues with his character based on my personal interaction with him.
And, can you please tell me how much good it does for Gothard to apologize to his followers at Big Sandy when the girls who have been so violated by him were not there? Again, he's not practicing what he preaches.
I need to hasten to say I do not know what he said. But he definitely addressed it.
I do not believe Bill Gothard to have a dirty mind or evil sexual intentions. I am guessing you to agree with that generality. But if that is true, he would not have understood the way the young ladies were interpreting his actions. That is a vastly different problem than a "groomer" or a "sexual predator".
I will have to disagree with your generality, Alfred. I do believe Bill knows EXACTLY what he's doing. Why else will he not obey the Board's direction over the years and keep his hands off the girls? Why else is he committed to this foolishness? Is he deaf? Has he not heard the girls say, "You're making me uncomfortable," or seen them try to move their feet away from him, or shrink back from his touch on their back or hair?? If he truly is being innocent in all this, he is the biggest fool out there, because he obviously can't pick up on body language or understand the meaning of the words "no touch." If he was being grandfatherly, why isn't he out there stroking the boys' hair, rubbing their legs, or playing footsie with them?
Alfred, it is becoming greatly concerning to me that you cannot recognize boundary lines in boy/girl, men/women relationships, and that you think that this type of behavior is normal and acceptable. I say this as kindly as possible---I don't want to believe that you're that dense, but I truly am at a loss now as to how you can justify this behavior. I'm beginning to think that if someone came right out and gave you the proof that you claim to be seeking, saying, "I was molested and/or raped by Bill," you would find a way to justify his behavior and STILL explain away their story as something they "read into wrong." I'm not sure that you're really looking for answers. I hope that you are, and I want to think the best of you. I really do. I'm just at a loss as to how you can be that unfeeling and uncaring for how women are treated by men---especially when that man is their superior, their boss, and a godly leader.
If the people at RG believed him to be a good man with only the best intentions who was just a little dense in his treatment of females, then they would be unkind indeed to be posting all these stories and comments about his behaviors. These stories all reveal that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/04/exploited-innocence/
No, I actually believe that Gothard does have a problem. His teachings on sex are too warped for his mind to be normal, imo.
Funnily enough, the only grandparent who ever tried to do any of these things to me was a step grandparent, who I found out after he died, was a child molester. My only other grandpa that I've ever known, has never done anything of the kind. Hugs in greeting and goodbye (cause we're Southerners ya'll) were it. This grandpa never made me uncomfortable. The step grandpa did.
And on another note, if Bill were truly a humble man, (i.e. Christlike), he would've eaten with the staff on a regular basis at least, if not actually helping serve the food himself, cleaning afterwards, etc.. Why would he be exempt? Servant leader and all that.
Just because a game of footsie isn't sexual to you, Alfred, doesn't mean that it isn't sexual to others. I think maybe you are trying to justify certain behaviors by using your own experiences and frame of reference. If it's harmless to you, it must be harmless to everyone else. Surely you must realize that not everyone thinks or acts exactly the same way as you, right?
If I could find footsie innocuous, is it possible that Mr. Gothard did too? A game?
Not with someone who is in their teens or early 20's.
Assuming footsie isn't sexual to him. And I doubt you could know that, even if you asked him, I'm sure he'd deny it, either directly or indirectly. I doubt he's the kind to think poorly of himself.
I wish I'd known it was okay to play "footsie" with girls while I was at a TC.
I have friends who do work with prisoners in the state prison. Women who go there are not allowed to wear shoes that expose their toes. Many of the prisoners have "foot fetishes". Is it sexual? You bet. Otherwise it wouldn't matter if they did expose their feet and toes.
And another thing. If Bill Gothard isn't smarter than to not know footsie isn't a game then why are you defending him. He is supposed to be the "paragon of virtue". And have some smarts. After all, he got new "insights" from something somewhere. That should indicate some intelligence.
For the record, all the TCs I ever worked in, had rules about "no open-toed" shoes. This was explained that it caused some men to stumble. If Bill (or you) doesn't think playing footsie is wrong, why in the world did they have these rules at Training Centers?
That's the thing. It isn't that these activities were innocent to Bill, because he would send any boy home in a heartbeat for doing less. These things were outlawed for everyone but Bill. There is a deep hypocrisy to this. Part of Alfred's issue is that he always goes back to what Bill says as though that explanation will be the final truth. But someone who is living a double standard will not admit, "OK, you've got me, I am being a hypocrite." Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, and Bill will always have a rationalization, a reason, an explanation. You have to be able to step back and actually test Bill's word, not accept it as if it were intrinsically the oracle of God. But Bill's rules in this case a out and out a double standard: the rules for everyone else and then what BG himself is entitled to.
I think that maybe Alfred has too much invested, or too much to lose, to take an honest look at the comments on here. All I've read are going down rabbit holes and not addressing the real points. For example, the fact that BG acted one way himself and punished others for doing far less. I don't see a response to that comment that was made several times, just side issues and questions that really seem designed to provoke. (I hope I'm wrong on that point). At any rate it's wearying. I don't want or need a response, I'm moving on from this particular blog.
The truth is that many many people who went through the program, either as parents or students, came to the conclusion that this ministry is works based. For me, it was going through a couple of life changing events that opened my eyes to how desperate I was/ we all are for a Savior, and realizing that I can not follow enough rules to get what I needed. I do regret, while in the program as a parent, falling for the idea that I can gain God's approval if I just follow a list, and that if something goes wrong it's because I missed a step. I now seek to realize the depth of what Christ did, and to live a life devoted to Him out of gratefulness for that, not because I will gain His approval.
Thankfully we were on the fringes.
Firing...
I remember reading the Character Sketches chapter on Tamar and the breakdown of the things she did wrong. Going into Ammon's room to feed him and being there alone with him were on the list. I don't agree that Tamar was at fault, as it was Ammon's manipulation which put her in that situation. But the irony is strong. It is at least ill advised for a public figure to be alone with a person of the opposite sex who is unrelated to him, and even more so in his private room. Other religious figures, such as Billy Graham, have had stated policies of not being alone with a woman who was not a relation, even in travel. A wise legal protection policy, if nothing else.
On the ideal of selecting attractive girls as a marketing ploy - I Samuel 16:7 "But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord sees not as man sees; for man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart." There is no precedent for selection by personal appearance in the priestly law, as being free from physical blemish did not mean one had to be handsome to be a priest. I have thought that Christ was probably very average in appearance - "He has no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him." (Isaiah 53:2). Then there is Paul's wry comments on his detractors, whom he clearly thought were being worldly: '"For his letters," say they, "are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible"' (II Corinthians 10:10). It would be better to spend time in prayer on the selection of an assistant than to think how they would look in a photograph.
And Tamar WAS related to Amnon. At least somewhat.
From Alfred
"Bill says it is for "video purposes" he does this [so videos of him in his 30s can be spliced seamlessly together with videos of him in his 60s :-)]
He does it for the same reason non-vain Christian ladies wear lipstick or the occasional garment designed to shape what is there to look like what used to be there. Moving on . . ."
Sorry brother I do not buy your argument. In my career field I am in front of cameras on a fairly regular basis. I could care less if I do not match how I look 20 + years ago. For the record, that means I am now heavier, graying, and my hair is starting to retreat from the front of my head. It does not bother me that I look different from back then. It is to be expected of a normal human to age. Also, are they really trying to splice together videos from the beginning of VHS era into stuff made recently with the arrival of HD technology? I find that quite odd. I also find it odd that this is the argument used to explain why a man colors his hair, and stand by my statement that it is vain to do so.
Just for comparison, do an internet image search on Billy Graham and Charles Swindol. The comparison is self evident.
I guess I should state that I have no problem with women using makeup should they so choose. Of course, there are parameters that one could consider reasonable but I do not consider it vanity if a woman desires to use some cosmetics for her appearance. Perhaps that violates some rule from ATI/IBLP, but oh well. I have had some hard lessons in trying to follow the "rules" as imagined by BG. I have learned we are under grace and not under rules of man.
So, that's all I am gonna say on that issue since it is a side trail on the original intent of this article. Appreciate you being tough enough to stand up and argue here. Still hope we can help change your mind.
Godspeed.
You missed my smiley. I find it a tad funny too. They really do splice him together spanning 3-4 decades, for the record. But . . . boy . . . I don't have a problem figuring out which decade.
Is that because he got new "insights" that counteracted the old ones? Why didn't God give him the whole insight all at once? Just a bunch of hooey in my opinion. Or maybe false teaching is a better word. There is more to splicing smoothly than just the hair. What do they do about wrinkles? And weight gain or may hair loss. I can tell you he doesn't look anything like he did in the 70's when we first went to a seminar. Wish I had my money back.
I also wish I had back all the hours we spent in those seminars. I suppose maybe as many as 10 or even more of them. That is time gone and hours wasted that I could have spent with my children reading to them in the evenings or doing things with them on the Saturdays. Sad now to think about all that I missed by not being with them.
Alfred, I've been thinking about this latest exchange about the call to repentance and some of the things you've said here. I'd like to point out some equivalencies that really trouble me, where you are saying that A = B:
Footsie:
A) Alfred: "I used to play footsie with a family friend, a woman 30 years my senior. All I can tell you is that a lifetime of godly contact tells me – in retrospect – that she was having a fun time with a 9-10 year old kid that she was trying to get to laugh. That . . . was it."
B) Lizzie: Without asking or announcing, he stroked my hair. If he was sitting opposite me in the van I would often look up to find him gazing at me, and then he would nudge my foot with his. I would smile nervously, pull my foot back, and look back down at my papers.... He took his shoes off and suggested that the group in the back of the van do the same. I thought he was just being casual until he started playing “footsy” with me in front of the others. Thereafter I kept my shoes on with toes curled to secure them and unsuccessfully tried to angle my legs away from him, but the man has a talent for cornering a girl’s foot in a small space. I could not figure out how to avoid it without making a scene.
Alfred, according to you, A=B and you can't see an essential difference between an older lady playing footsie with a young boy and Gothard doing so, in his socks, with a young woman who was made uncomfortable by it.
A quick personal note: at a group activity, the young lady who would one day be my wife and I sat next to each other and played footsie. It was the first noticeable flirting we had engaged in and the first indication to everyone else, and in some ways to ourselves, that we were becoming a couple. There was definitely meaning in that game of footsie :-)
Purity laws in the OT:
A) Alfred, quoting the KJV: Leviticus 21:16-21 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach:a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire:he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
B) Alfred, in a later comment about that verse: I bet Bill Gothard reads this and concludes that the outward appearance on a staff working on spiritual things matters to God, just like other Scriptures about cleanliness motivate him to keep the premises clean and orderly. ... when I see him striving for a premium appearance among the staff. Weight and beauty standards.
Alfred, according to you, A=B and you can't see an essential difference between the purity laws of the OT and Gothard accepting or rejecting girls for work at HQ based on weight and beauty standards.
Moses' Parents:
A) Heb 11:23: By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
B) Alfred: Bill has openly declared that he is on a recruitment program when it comes to beautiful, talented young ladies. Sort of a “Dress for Success” for IBLP. He has a proportion of young ladies to young men on ministry trips, for example, that favors the young ladies. This probably speaks to the – to most (of us) fairly onerous – notion of weight and beauty standards.
Alfred: Apparently [Moses' parents] were moved to act differently from the average Israelite parent trying to protect their “illegal” infant . . . Because of something they understood God to be doing based on how unusually good looking he was.
Alfred, according to you, A=B and you can't see an essential difference between Moses' parents saving the child's life in faith and Gothard accepting or rejecting girls for work at HQ based on weight and beauty standards.
Dress for Success:
A) Alfred (repeated from above): Bill has openly declared that he is on a recruitment program when it comes to beautiful, talented young ladies. Sort of a “Dress for Success” for IBLP. He has a proportion of young ladies to young men on ministry trips, for example, that favors the young ladies. This probably speaks to the – to most (of us) fairly onerous – notion of weight and beauty standards.
B) Alfred: I remember one of our better preachers in the Plymouth Brethren, one whose fiery preaching moved many to abandon all hope of getting to heaven on their own and come to Jesus for salvation. Friends said he had a volume that he read and followed but was most embarrassed about . . . something like “The Psychic Power of Preaching”, this in a day where “Psychic” meant “Psychological”. It contained techniques for getting and holding an audience’s attention, and for pressing home the vital need for salvation that people are inclined to ignore. He was genuine . . . he wanted to be more effective as a preacher. From all indications he was, producing fruit that lasted. I say, go for it.
Alfred, according to you, A=B and you can't see an essential difference between a book on better preaching methods and accepting or rejecting girls for work at HQ based on their perceived physical attractiveness according to a certain look that Gothard prefers.
And finally,
A) The book "Dress for Success", a preacher's book about effective communication, landscaping, clothing, interior decorating, Booth Babes
B) Gothard's "weight and beauty standards"
This is the very definition of objectification. You are objectifying the female students in question. But this is wrong: they are not things, they are people.
To be extremely frank, this is not normal reasoning. It's the kind of thing you see addicts do when they are rationalizing away their behaviors. I'm not accusing you of that, Alfred, I'm just telling you straight up that I'm worried. There's something wrong here.
Paul: And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. (1 Cor 2:1-5)
Paul: [We] have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.
But Alfred says: I have read [Dress for Success] and do find the arguments compelling. People really do think differently about you, make judgements concerning you, based on things that seem insignificant. The research takes test groups and shows pictures to them with various things added, omitted, models switched so only the thing being studied is a variant. Then they ask the subjects: Who is the better father, who would make the better leader, who would you trust with your money?
Alfred: Bill has openly declared that he is on a recruitment program when it comes to beautiful, talented young ladies. Sort of a “Dress for Success” for IBLP. He has a proportion of young ladies to young men on ministry trips, for example, that favors the young ladies. This probably speaks to the – to most (of us) fairly onerous – notion of weight and beauty standards.
Alfred: YES. They are selling . . . but I know what they are selling, and I like it. If “the look” gets people to take Jesus more seriously, make them pay attention a bit more, I am all for it.
Alfred: I can actually see why did does some of the more “onerous” things . . . because . . . frankly . . . they work.
So... what is the point of the Institute again?
"I like your stewardesses post . . . that was normal in the day, a very non-sexual, non-perverted way to serve the tastes of the clientele"
Am I the only one who thinks that serving the "tastes of the clientele" sounds like a pimp?
No, Matthew, you are not the only one. I've been trying to get words together for several days now to express what my feelings about comments like these:
* "serving the tastes of the clientele"
* "YES. They are selling ... but I know what they are selling, and I like it. If 'the look' gets people to take Jesus more seriously, make them pay attention a bit more, I am all for it."
* "a group of attractive young ladies with 'the look' gets a much warmer, deeper response than more representative cross-section."
* "Nobody can deny that a group of beautiful, smiling, wonderful young ladies ... makes a far more powerful impression than ... the rest of us."
Alfred, can't you see what you are saying?! You're saying that the end justifies the means. And that it's okay to objectify and exploit attractive girls if your goal is to lead people to Christ. You're saying that you don't mind pimping out the chicks to serve "holy" purposes.
My God, man, do you REALLY think that's what Christians are supposed to do? Pimp out the pretty girls so people will come to Jesus? Crush the plain girls because they are not "worthy" to represent the God who made them? Lure men to Christ by appealing to their basest inclinations ... in fact, to incite them to lust?
Women are not objects! Pretty girls are not trophies! They are people, with feelings and emotions. God does NOT approve of exploiting them, especially not if you are doing so in order to draw people to salvation. The end does NOT justify the means!
In those days, the only people who flew regularly were businessmen. Airlines used attractive stewardesses to get more men to fly with them. It's as simple as that: sex sells.
And no, Alfred, I'm not saying that the stewardesses were actually having sex with the airline passengers. But using attractive people to sell things does fall under the umbrella of "sex sells," even if they don't engage in actual sex.
In the 50's sexual harassment laws didn't exist yet, so saying those rules aren't sexist is hardly an accurate reflection, considering the day and age they lived in. Women had no-where to turn for help from a boss or coworker who KNEW WHERE TO DRAW THE LINES before someone accused them of something 'truly' perverted.
What is normal for such n such day and age doesn't automatically equal righteousness.
This is becoming the Twilight Zone or something, bblleehh. What a wake up call, wow. Nice summary Matthew.
Some of this is, well, "over the top". Stop for a moment, please, and LOOK at this picture at girls getting pimped out for Jesus: http://iblp.org/sites/iblp.org/files/images/romaniateam2011.jpg If this is not representative of Mr. Gothard's "Booth Babes", please say so. Honestly, at some point this gets offensive.
Some of you know Mr. Gothard . . . quite well. Every accusation and insinuation we get to give an account of . . . before Jesus. Me too. I have no problem with the truth, I love the truth . . . but "In Jesus Name" please make sure that the filthy minded Bill Gothard being held up for reviling here is the same one you know.
Sorry . . . I will regroup.
It's not ok for girls (little ones) to be offended over and over, but Gothard gets a free pass and the benefit of the doubt all the time. Why, because he's a man, and in a position of leadership? So? God is not a respecter of persons/positions. He isn't going to judge Gothard on whatever good he has done, God will judge him for his sins.
Furthermore, per my particular comment, I think you missed the point. Men who knew where to draw the line before the law intervened, and before such behavior was legally classified as sexual assault. Doesn't mean the ladies were any less uncomfortable, or that they were any less wrong in their motives, or not objectifying of the female person.
Seeing how Gothard grew up in and reveres that generation (presumably since it was before the 60's era of BLATANT immorality, as opposed to subtle immorality), it would make sense that he sees this behavior almost as his right, in a way, since people got away with it when he was a young man. Or at the very least, that's why he can't or won't comprehend it as wrong and keep his hands to himself. Doesn't make it any less wrong, it merely shows his unwillingness to 'submit to authority' (the laws of the land, and in many ways, the law of God.) I don't think he's a truly humble man.
I would be interested to know if any of the team pictured has a "footsie" story
I did not look at the picture but I certainly know the look. It's precisely the point- because these girls are taught to dress very modestly and watch every step, every bow and every pair of shoes, that it confused the ones that are saying they were treated in a manner differently than what they were taught was appropriate. I don't think it was a "filthy Mr. Gothard" (your words) any more than we are all filthy- but if the girls' stories are accurate it was inappropriate on his part and he should have known better in the first place, and when it was brought to his attention he should have responded differently. End of story.
I believe one of the young ladies is a Bates . . . right? Her Dad (Gil Bates) is now on the board.
I haven't read all the comments that follow but if I'm not mistaken, one of the young men in this photo is Alfred's son. Of course you know who everyone in the photo is. So don't try to sound uncertain by saying, "if I'm not mistaken...." So if I AM mistaken about that then let me know.
I assure you I am not taking any aspect of this lightly. Definitely not the feelings and experiences of the young ladies that have posted.
I really do appreciate your comments previously, of wanting to be fair and kind . . . to me. Meant the world to me. And it is my turn to listen to you and really hear you - and others - as well. I will keep at it. And I remain committed to doing the right thing to keep my conscience clear.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Alfred I think what Heather and others are trying to say here is that Bill has a double standard, the guidelines he applies to others, he doesn't apply to himself nor is he held to the same level of accountability as others.
One of my former team leaders had the same attitude when I was on mission. He always seemed to be able to excuse or justify his actions while dismissing others attempts to keep him accountable. If he was confronted by someone he didn't consider as spiritual as himself (speaking of yours truly) he disregarded anything that was said.
Dealing with people who have that attitude can be incredibly difficult.
Alfred,
It's a fair point to say that some of the invective about "filthy" Bill Gothard is a bit over the top.
However, I think it's fair to say that at a minimum, he communicates a lack of humility and sincerity in his attitude of "one standard for all my followers, something different for me".
Good leadership is leadership by example. What if we all followed Bill Gothard's example in interactions with the opposite sex?
And you have to wonder if he's a bit clueless as well as arrogant. Surely he is aware of all of the "sex scandals" of the past few decades involving Religious and/or "cult" leaders, especially those involving minors, or at least huge age gaps. David Koresh, the entire Catholic Church, various independent fundamentalist groups, etc. Does he have no idea how his behavior appears in the eyes of the World, to say nothing of Christendom, in light of all these scandals?
Does he not understand his own teaching on "avoiding the appearance of evil?" What about his own "Brand" of "Giving the World a 'New' Approach to Life"? "Successful Christian Living through Higher Standards".
Bill Gothard is condemned by his own behavior and hypocrisy. The "filthy Bill Gothard" invective is doubtless a reaction to comparing his own behavior against the standard he holds others to. In that sense his behavior is abhorrent.
I call on him to repent and start practicing what he preaches, or shut the doors of IBLP/ATI forever. He's doing great damage not only to the cause of Christ, but to his own ministry and legacy as well.
P.S. He should start by reviewing his own teaching on listening to your critics (and clearing your conscience.
The term "booth babes" is somewhat tongue in cheek, in the sense that booth babes at trade shows are not dressed like the girls in that picture. But the underlying concern is the objectification of women: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification
That's the underlying concern being addressed at this (entirely secular) article: http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/are-booth-babes-an-effective-marketing-tool.html
Some quotes:
and
So the author of that piece acknowledges that "frankly, it works" (Alfred's words), and that some "booth babes" are more scantily clad than others, but thinking in terms of method and of the morals behind that method, the secular author posits that it is distasteful to appeal so directly to the "secondary brain." The question for Gothard's use of girls of a certain appearance while neglecting / ignoring those who aren't of a certain appearance is if he is really living by "higher standards" at all. He is objectifying girls, many between the ages of 14-18, in order to attract the attention, and dollars, of men. It is with less skin, yes, but that is the coat of paint on the house, not the foundation. At the foundation, it's the same-old-same-old objectification that even the world asks itself in uneasy terms once in a while if we shouldn't do better.
On the dark side of that, here are Eight places that have fired women for gaining weight: http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/8-places-that-have-fired-women-for-being-too-fat
The list includes modeling agencies, Hooters, Weight Watchers, a ballet company, and NFL cheerleaders.
Gothard belongs on this list. He's done the same thing. For some girls, he has told them to stay in back rooms, out of sight, and other girls he has quietly shuffled them back home.
If someone were to tell me, aghast, that a ballet company or a modeling agency or NFL cheerleaders had done this, I would wonder why they are shocked. Of course those places do this. It's not a question of right and wrong, or of the consequences to the women it affects. It's an issue of sales, marketing, and appearance, without regard for whatever eating disorders or internal wounds the girls might receive from these methods. This is the pragmatic, "frankly, it works" side. And it makes a lot of money for those on top.
The question is not, can Bill possibly rationalize and spin this with some excuse or another? The question is, Is this how the kingdom of God works? Is that what we do in the kingdom of Heaven?
Well, I did look at that picture. Since we're analyzing everything, I'll tell you what I saw about that picture.
1. Placement. Gothard is in the center, surrounded by everyone. This indicates that he is the head of the organization. Nothing wrong with that, of course. It's a 'king of the hill' stance, you might say. (possible stroke of vanity too, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt here.)
2. There is exactly ONE older individual, a gentleman. Who, coincidentally, makes Bill look younger by comparison. (That and Bill's hair dye. If Bill is desiring to send a message of his authority, he may want to stop dying his hair, firstly because of the Scripture that says, 'the hoary head is honored', secondly, silver hairs indicate maturity, wisdom, and experience, which he would need as the leader of the organization. The hair dye may or may not be indicative of some character flaw, but for now, we'll pass over that.)
3. All of the other individuals in the photo appear to be 30 or younger. There's not exactly anything wrong with that, but just because of the topic at hand, I have to ask why there isn't one or two matronly, respectable looking women in their 40's? Or even one or two gentlemen around Bill's ageish? Why is everyone else young and pretty (besides the token elderly man)? Which leads me to my next point:
4. All of these said individuals are attractive to a certain degree, some more than others, particularly the ladies. Again, why not a less attractive, but certainly respectable individual, of any adult age? That one brunette looks 13, which for business purposes in this world, IS weird for this kind of corporation. She isn't a child actress modeling for American Girl or something. (Just to be fair, she might actually be a 20 something who looks like a child, but all things considered, odds are she is actually quite young.)
5. Plenty of gorgeous blonds, but we'll pass over that one for the moment, it's been hashed enough at this time.
I'm pretty sure there was something else I noticed about it (besides the fact that it's actually a creepy looking pic, because everyone seems so stiff and formal, it's not very inviting. Most likely it's because no-one wants to come into actual contact with anyone else in the pic, to avoid appearance of evil, or somesuch, when in fact it actually looks very unnatural.) But that could be my own personal taste (as an actress/model, I despise unnatural looking poses.)
I still feel like there was one other thing that I can't remember right now.. If I think of it, I'll post it.
So, I'm actually NOT trying to bash anyone at all. This review is simply for the conversation at hand, and they are things you notice (if you take the time to notice.) Girls do not have to be clothed in a 'sexy babe' way to be objectified and used as selling points. (particularly since so many men find suits a complete turn-on, the whole 'sexy librarian fantasy' thing...)
Go into Best Buy, you'll probably see posters of employees (actors and models), all of them are young and good looking. Maybe now and then you'll find a more mature, but still good looking individual. It's a business thing. Should ministries do the same as a business? Really not sure how I feel about it. This may be more of a case of it being wrong for such and such individual because of their history or whatever.
On second thought, pro-life agencies use real people for their stories. Not all of them are pretty. A ministry shouldn't discriminate.
That one thing you may have forgotten is---- where are the people of color? black? brown? yellow? red? perhaps an Italian or two?
having all white representatives of your organization is certainly not PC these days. The 1950's was over a half century ago. It would be like someone in the 1950's wanting to promote a holy lifestyle by how people dressed, acted and lived in the 1890's. Oh wait, the Amish already do that.
Yes, good point. And the church has struggled with racial diversity ever since Pentecost.
Gothard makes a big deal out of "bright countenances" and I have heard it said by some students with Hispanic heritage that he judged their countenances to be "dark countenances" due to the fact they had somewhat darker skin and eyes. If that were me, I would certainly be tempted to be cynical the next time I heard Gothard preaching on about the "principle of Design" and accepting my God-given unchangeables.
Or how about that one of the young men may be Alfred's son?
I think that was one of the things I forgot. I've never really noticed a large following from non-Caucasians. And since this particular pic is from a foreign country, it would have been advisable to have someone(s) represent.. (not sure what the dominant ethnicity in Romania is.. I presume Eastern European, which is caucasian-ish, but you get the point.)
I've never heard of minorities being in the group of his girls.. which, considering how staggeringly beautiful exotic looking girls usually are, it's a bit more telling to me about how specific his type is and why. After all, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight, no?
Heather, in Australia we Gothard has a very large following among the Asians. We have a huge Asian population, but he probably doesn't notice them very much because they all have black hair. I have dark blonde hair and I still wouldn't be his type!! LOL
In a strictly secular workplace at a hospital: an older male was flagged by staff as a sexual predator, and staff were only to go in the room in pairs. This man was married, and nursing staff knew from his chart he was both impotent and had hypogonadism. Yet he leered and commented at pretty nurses and if anyone leaned in too close he would grab them in a hug. His advances amounted to patting hair, stroking arms and hugging. Adult women who see naked bodies every day as part of their jobs were uncomfortable with his behavior, and all staff, male and female were made aware that this person was a threat and was to be treated with caution. My point is that in the "real world" this type of behavior is taken seriously and not excused.
Maybe he set up ATI just to find "recruits." Do we have any lawyers on here to let us know how to lead a prosecution or is that in the works. Folks, we can debate this to death while the abuse continues. We must act.
I think Lynn may be right on this. Before ATI how did he have any contact with young females? At the seminars there were always plenty of good looking young men dressed in suits but I don't remember any women. Except maybe at the book tables. Usually older volunteers if I remember correctly. So as BG passed the reasonable age to marry, he had to find another way. ATI did it for him. And to think I actually encouraged my daughter to enroll in ATI. Fortunately they got out quickly and we were happy about that too after they decided to get out. It's hard to break away from all the things we learned in the original seminars let alone the ATI stuff which we didn't get into, thankfully.
Back to the picture. Maybe I'm wrong, but all the guys look pretty naive. I have three sons, and one is naive. They have the same kind of demeaner.I've known alot of ATI guys, and they don't all look like this.
[...] Although our Sexual Abuse series concluded in April, we are still receiving accounts of what went on behind the scenes at IBLP headquarters. Annette sent us her story this week and gave us permission to publish it. This account was her response to Lizzie’s story which we published on April 20, 2012. After publishing this article we’ve continued to receive reports of Gothard’s improper sexual conduct towards young ladies. Click here to read Grace’s story, as well as “A Call to Repentance.” [...]
[...] Editor’s note: This is the third article in a series of stories relating Bill Gothard’s sexual harassment of young girls at Headquarters. Click on these links to read the previous stories: Lizzie’s story Part 1 and Part 2, and Annette’s story, as well as a follow-up article, “A Call to Repentance.” [...]
In Miami, our family was distanced from the majority of people in ATI with the exception of Wisdom Searchers. I loved that email list before we were "official." I think I should not have persued that path just because one of the other moms wanting to be the leader ousted me from my own email list.
Anyway, I think motive here is key in understanding why Mr. Gothard specifically chose blonde blued people to be at HQ. In case you haven't noticed, this ministry started out on a good foot and ended up in pride and exulation of one man. The need for money became near obsessive. I think Bill Gothard has a natural ability to set the stage and put a good outward appearance to the public. I am not very good at manipulation and being so full of guile and so I didn't really see this until later. This is why these young people were chosen. The whole mahagony, red carpets, navy blue suits, pencil skirts and blazers, and eagles are another means to give an impression to those who might give generously. These young people were groomed to be in the forefront so that when delegations and others checking out the ministry were presented to ATI/IBLP, they were shown people that gave an appearance of being successful. But truly, outward looks are no indication of what is going on inside a person's heart. We are called to lay aside those judgments and judge righteously. I personally believe that all the attention given to these people was to keep them on board because they are such an asset to the whole fascade. Were there any black people, Hispanics, or unattractive people in these positions? Look at the pics from all these situations, it is somewhat the same look. Mr. Gothard did not like me. I never fit the profile. That's because I look a whole lot like my Jewish dad. LOL
After our one bad experience with sending our son to Eagle Mountain, we never felt led of God's Spirit to send a child to one of these TCs. It is one thing to homeschool. It is a whole nother thing to see our hard work go down the drain because our child was not favored.
Someone above suggested childhood reasons for Mr. Gothard's behaviors. This is that same faulty reasoning and is irrelevant. Like I said before, Jesus never explored the why question. I have tried on numerous occasions to explain these things to Bill Gothard but he is too self important to listen and accuses me of writing too much. :-) So according to Matthew 18, I am not going public. But I want to at the same time name thing good things that were a part of this homeschool program.
Bill Gothard's definition of grace was very close to the mark as the power and the desire to do God's will but it is much more than that. It is what turns us from being flesh driven to Spirit led. It literally sets us free from sin. Paul said that it was deception to believe that sinners were getting into heaven. 1 Cor. 6:9-11. God knows each person's heart and so those who are fornicators are not getting into heaven. However, I have seen that particular behavior from this man personally. He has a lot of pride but then he also has a lot of money tied up in this ministry. This is why these types of leaders will not recant and he is not the only one like this.
I learned something through this ministry. I learned that standards and laws cannot make man righteous. Every person who has ever lived must come to understand that they have sinned against a holy God by their own freewill to chose it and look to Him for redemption and grace. Once you understand hell and that this is not a game, you want to help as many people as possible avoid it. This isn't about one singular ministry and I think we need to refocus on that objective and forget Bill Gothard entirely. He is nobody. Jesus is who is important and getting to know HIm.
I meant to say that I have never seen Mr. Gothard do what he is being accused of here. And I am now using Matthew 18 to bring to light what I have been trying to say to him. I am not in full agreement with the people here but I do believe there is a wrong that needs to be righted in terms of the gospel message.
[…] There are rumors that the sexually repressed Gothard, himself, likes ‘em young, nubile, and unable to get away from his ‘authority’. He sends emails out to 90,000 ministers – world wide – each week. The influence the man welds is staggering and frightening. He also has some very strange ideas. I guess it’s manly, in a girlie man sort of way. […]
[…] up, forced me to reflect on many things that happened then, on the behavior, on my responses. To ask whether this had been a healthy relationship. The secrets — my secrets — were being shouted from the rooftops, and it wasn’t me doing […]
[…] sexual harassment were true (we have lawyers on our team reviewing the data), we issued a public Call to Repentance to Bill Gothard on June 6, 2013. In this article we identified the pattern of behavior and issued a call […]
[…] A Call to Repentance […]
Is anyone reporting these allegations? I know everyone is trying to be merciful and give him time to repent. according to the stories on this web site Bill is a sexual predator. These types of guys do not change on their own...it becomes an addictive behavior pattern and the secrets, lies, denial, and cover-up are all a part of the profile. they become professional liers, con artists. For the sake of other girls that are being exploited every day by this man, charges need to be pressed against him to stop him. Someone must report it. Ask me how i know about this...I have walked through this before with a brother and am now walking again through it with another relative.
[…] by Gothard: Another Witness: Sexual Harassment at HQ; Third Witness: Sexual Harassment at HQ. In June 2013, Recovering Grace issued Gothard a formal call to repentance. I know the story I recently shared may bring many questions to mind, chief among them, “Don’t […]
[…] survivors of Gothard’s harassment say his inappropriate advances tend to follow a pattern: He takes interest in a teenage girl and invites her to work at the IBLP headquarters in Illinois. […]
[…] https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/06/a-call-to-repentance/ […]
[…] year ago, I would have thought the same thing. Then, ATI, Vision Forum, JPUSA, Voice of The Martyrs, Pensacola Christian College, Bob Jones University, and […]
[…] The manipulative and cultish ways of Gothard are illustrated by Revealing Grace, who explained the pattern of corrupt influence and sexual molestation in the following: […]