18 Comments

1. 

   Steve (not Gothard) March 4, 2014 Reply

   "He assumed that his son was not the initiator but rather was a victim of circumstances"
   
   Um... yeah. That's what I would assume too. Seeing as how one of them is a married adult and the other is a teenager. Switch the genders of the participants in this written correspondence. What assumption would you make?

   • 

     MatthewS March 4, 2014 Reply

     For sure.
     
     And knowing what was happening in real life in the background of this booklet is just so sad, and makes this story of the letter seem a little odd. From Ruth's story:
     
     It was around the time of this scandal when Bill wrote and published his alumni supplement, “Rediscovering a Forgotten Truth,” which twists the instructions of Jesus in Matthew 18 on how to confront a brother in sin and reframes these important instructions with an emphasis on only giving a “good report” about others. At the same time, the staff were directed to sign a “Loyalty Oath” that they would never share anything negative about anyone.
     
     https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/ruths-story/

     • 

       Leann Russell March 4, 2014 Reply

       If that is Gothard's idea of how Matthew 18 is supposed to be carried out, then why did people go along with it for so long? I was completely confused by it. I mean, that was SOOOO far from what Matthew 18 actually says that I was confused as to what that pamphlet was actually trying to say. It was only after reading the comments that I figured out what the pamphlet was trying to teach.

2. 

   Nancy2 March 4, 2014 Reply

   So in my real life scenario posted in the Matt 18 thread was I not suppose to talk to the Youth Pastor, but instead tell the teenage girl she was defrauding him during prayer?
   
   It has been 21 years and to this day I have not figured out how they thought I was to blame.
   
   When are we allowed to hit the nail on the head?

3. 

   Allen March 4, 2014 Reply

   Honestly, the entire discussion is ridiculous. The original literature is typical of Gothard -- here is the one-two-three step solution to life's problems. Embarrassing and laughable if not tragic. But to spend all of this time talking about it? To take all that time to discuss the meaning of defrauding? Better beware that in picking apart these legalistic teachings that the discussion doesn't degenerate into something that is not much better. I wish people would get on with the real heresy in Gothardism -- his teaching on grace and on authority. The rest is just fringe.

   • 

     Nancy2 March 4, 2014 Reply

     The topic of Gothard's teaching on Grace is in the Case for Discernment Thread. If you look to the left of the articles first page you will see tabs. One is labeled Grace and Faith.

   • 

     Leann Russell March 4, 2014 Reply

     Allen, all the talk about defrauding isn't just a fringe issue. It is extremely important because Gothard used that "doctrine" to shame a lot of girls into silence about the sexual abuse. Authority and Grace are very important as well, but this defrauding issue is VERY central to the doctrinal and sexual issues with BG

4. 

   Brumby March 4, 2014 Reply

   It's nearly impossible to predict the future thoughts and reactions of other people anyways. The whole scenario was hypothetical: a "case study" normally refers to a documented historical series of events. One doesn't know precisely how so many players in a given scenario are going to act/react [er, "respond,"]. Is it too much to assume that maybe people can handle their own problems? Why did his followers need to be told exactly, per action and verbatim, what to do and say in any possible situation? [Frustration.] On the assumed premise that BG's idea of how to handle said situation is a legitimate course of action, why is it THE ONLY course of action? I feel it's so absurd that in most, if not all, of BG's teachings, his "insights" are presented as The Way... not "a way," or "my opinion," or "a possible process by which to address an issue."
   
   On a different yet related note, I can see how BG's subtle underlying threat behind his insights is what controlled and motivated my family to follow his teachings. The non-verbalized yet understood threat behind his presented points were that if we didn't abide by these God-inspired methods, steps, and prayers, then Satan would take hold of our hearts, minds, and lives, and in addition, we would be reduced to unsuccess and hardship in life, not to mention being labeled as a "carnal Christian."
   
   I don't know if "unsuccess" is a word or not... it is now, I guess! :)

5. 

   Mark March 4, 2014 Reply

   It seems obvious that this is an attempt to twist. For example, Gothard says, "Satan's program of defeat is to cut off lines of communication with those who are the key to the solution." Yet, shutting up and praying about it, cleaning all the required skeletons out of your closet and whatever other spiritual gymnastics are required are exactly that!
   
   It's also interesting that children have suddenly developed a right to privacy in Gothard's writings here. (I do think that the parent should apologize for violating the child's privacy, unless she was putting away socks or something and honestly came upon the letter)
   
   I will also make the point that at each step a person adds their own sin. So, while the whole thing gets pinned on the person who took the first step (the mother), the church split is caused because the issue snowballs out of control.
   
   The real cause of the church split is the church trying to hide the sin and keep the issue from seeing the light. My old church split a number of years ago. It was the same thing - a disagreement over patriarchy and how children could participate in church led to a lot of (private) pointed fingers, which led to an internal power struggle (again, hidden). When one side "won" the power struggle, the other side complained up the food chain. Those people came in and tried the same tact - meetings behind closed doors with the majority of the church left in the dark as to what was happening. So, the end result was that everyone was left to their own interpretation of what was wrong and what was right. There was no attempt to bring the disagreement to light, find common ground and grow from there. Each side wanted to force their will on the other.

   • 

     David March 4, 2014 Reply

     Gothard says, "Satan's program of defeat is to cut off lines of communication with those who are the key to the solution." Yep. That is why Gothard plays right into Satan's hands with his authority teaching. His teaching cuts off the line of communication between the believer and God -- who is the key to all solutions -- and interposes a so-called authority. Now if your authority says something other than what you think God is saying, you must obey your authority.

6. 

   Jen March 4, 2014 Reply

   Homeschooled families now live with the destructive results of Gothard's teachings. Many children are estranged from their parents and sadly unreconciled to Christ because of this man and his legalism and authoritarian ways. Many have escaped, although his disciples are unwilling to hear the truth. The fruit of legalism is spiritual deadness.

7. 

   mitchell chapman March 4, 2014 Reply

   from mitchell chapman
   
   The lady that would be good to be on the board is Dr. Wafa Sultan
   is a medical doctor and psychiatrist who is from Syria. She is a very
   nice lady that would provide the needed input. She would bring some
   inspiration to the Board and also would give the Board a new vision to reach the muslims here in the United States with the Gospel.
   
   If anyone else has any other ideas they should post them but the board should have some women on it.

8. 

   "Hannah" March 4, 2014 Reply

   I remember this being discussed in a church meeting when I was about 10 yrs old. This material was being used, and the pastor was explaining why Gothard's conclusion was the "right" answer. Ironically enough, the name of the church was, "Berean" something or other... :p

9. 

   Jim K. March 5, 2014 Reply

   What is interesting is that the substance of the letter wasn't addressed. What exactly do they mean about an "indecent letter?" Was it inappropriately friendly? Explicit? Sexually charged? Evidence of an affair or precursor to an affair? We have no idea, and this entire construct is built as a one-size-fits-all response to some nebulous letter that is described as "indecent" The response ought be based on the exact nature of the letter. If it is evidence of, say, an emotional bond which is unhealthy (sharing feelings or personal matters) you're going to approach it differently than if it contained graphic language or imagery which is crossing the line into something illegal (presuming the teen was a minor). When laws start getting broken it's a whole 'nother box of rocks. The pamphlet implies, by omission, that even if the letter was steamy evidence of child sexual abuse, the mother was wrong for involving her husband and church leadership.
   
   Jim K.

10. 

    TudorRose March 5, 2014 Reply

    Something I find fascinating and subtle is that nearly all of the drawings of women in this booklet have their mouths open. The only drawing of a woman with her mouth closed is the one praying & the ones at church.
    
    By itself, it's a teeny minor thing. As part of the bigger picture, it reinforces the whole "keep silent" thing, and is creepy.

11. 

    dreamer March 5, 2014 Reply

    There is just so much wrong here. Mainly, that the ACTUAL sin of an older woman sending an indecent letter to a minor is NEVER ADDRESSED! It's never even seen as a problem. The problem arises when the woman dares to talk about it!
    Also, all of the people in this example are portrayed as jealous, petty, or stubborn. If these are examples of Gothard's godly followers, what a terrible example it sets for the church as a whole!

12. 

    David Frederick March 5, 2014 Reply

    Do you think "RG’s tongue-in-cheek flowchart" is a little out of place considering the seriousness of the accusations to IBLP and Bill Gothard?

    • 

      dreamer March 5, 2014 Reply

      I don't think they are making fun of the situation. Rather, they are using the absurd to illustrate the absurd.