Series Overview: When reports of immorality became widespread among Bill Gothard’s IBYC staff in the 1970s, the stories were initially “unbelievable.” Not because they couldn’t be true, but because people had placed such hope in Gothard. Thus, amid the hurt and complexity, there was a real need for the teaching of Jesus Christ in Matthew 18.
Unfortunately, instead of reducing the hurt and complexity, Gothard actively worked to take advantage of the confusion. He had regularly required staff to sign loyalty oaths and to turn over their meeting notes to him as a method of controlling information. Now, over a period of numerous years, he carefully taught new concepts to his staff and employees—with the goal of blocking truthful reports—and extended his teachings nationwide through seminars and alumni booklets.
Over the past few weeks, we have exposed the fallacy of the following teachings:
- “Defilement of listening to an evil report,” as published in 1981 as part of the concerted effort to silence and discredit former IBYC staff.
- “Not taking up an offense,” as taught in the 1984 Basic Seminar video recording, a continuation of previous teachings and an effective means of keeping the IBYC and IBLP faithful unquestioning and uninvolved in sin or injustice they might have witnessed.
Today, we explore:
- “Giving only a good report," as taught in the 1976 publication Rediscovering a Forgotten Truth, which twisted the teaching of Matthew 18:15–19 to silence staff and volunteers in order to cover up the growing IBYC sex scandal.
“Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” Ephesians 5:11
“The sins of some men are quite evident going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after.” 1 Timothy 5:24–25
A Response to Rediscovering a Forgotten Truth
See no evil; speak no evil; hear no evil. IBLP has a publication that fits well with each monkey. Today’s article pairs well with “speak no evil.”
The day was Valentine’s Day 1976. Bill Gothard and his brother, Steve, had some surprising confessions to make to the staff of IBYC: they had “defrauded” staff secretaries. In the months prior to this, some of the young ladies had sought out the help of other staff members to make the sexual exploitation stop. Bill expressed frustration that these stories were not being brought to him first. His solution to this problem was to transfer Steve to Northwoods to work on Volume I of Character Sketches, meanwhile attempting to keep the scandal as quiet as possible.
As the year progressed, Bill would feel that several staff members needed to “get off [his] back” about ongoing concerns for the whole situation. Gary Smalley and another staff member were among those who approached Bill about the problems and were consequently pressured into resigning. Coincidentally, the subject of loyalty was a key theme of a supplementary booklet sent to seminar alumni that year: Rediscovering a Forgotten Truth.
Gothard personally saw this teaching as so profound that he wrote, “If God gave me the opportunity to exchange my life for the establishment of one truth among all Christians and I wanted to make my life count to the greatest possible extent, I would choose the truth of Matthew 18 in the spirit of Galatians 6:1.”
What does the booklet say?
Rediscovering a Forgotten Truth focuses on Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 18:15–19 regarding the steps to take in confronting sin. These verses are considered by most Christian churches to be the blueprint for addressing personal grievances. But in Gothard’s rendition, many additional qualifiers and stipulations are added. Before we can assess the booklet as a whole, let’s take a moment to summarize its contents. Then we will provide a critique.
First, every believer ought to make a lifelong commitment to only bear a “good report” of others unless the steps of Matthew 18 have been followed. (p. 21) What is a good report? A good report is more than words that are truthful or well-spoken. It is one that presents the “best construction“ of a person. Gothard encourages individuals to make this commitment not only to the Lord, but also to those with whom they live and work. The positive result of this will be a climate of a “special loyalty” to each other. (p. 5, see also pp. 17 and 21.)
Next, in what Gothard calls a “very painful preliminary step,” we must examine ourselves. It may be that our own failures are partly to blame for the offender’s behavior. Five ways in which we may be guilty of failure are presented:
a) if we have failed in similar areas as the offender,
b) if we have failed to pray enough,
c) if we have failed to be a good example,
d) if we have an offensive spirit of pride, or
e) if there is a lack of love.
Next, in yet another “very painful preliminary step,” we need to design a step-by-step plan for restoration, ready for the offender to implement. “The very idea of restoring a brother assumes that we have steps of action to suggest to him so that he can get from where is is to where he should be.” (p. 6)
Fourth, it is necessary that we have the maturity and exemplary life to teach others.
Bearing these four prerequisites in mind, we are almost ready initiate a meeting. Before we proceed to the next step, though, two “warnings” and a “caution” are given:
Warning 1: We may not proceed unless we are 100 percent clear of any blame for the offender’s actions: “We cannot follow the steps of Matthew 18 if there is even the slightest offense or attitude or neglect on our part which has contributed to a brother's offense.” (p. 6)
Warning 2: Do not talk to anyone else about the problem. “If we tell anyone else about an offending brother before talking to him, we create three problems”:
1. We prove to God and others that we don’t love our offender, and therefore don’t love the Lord.
2. We tempt the person hearing us to “take up an offense,” and may destroy strong friendships.
3. We prove that we do not sincerely want to restore; consequently, our chances of seeing the offender restored are damaged, and we are wrongly sitting as judge over the person.
Caution: It is important not to make assumptions about the offender. One of the most important reasons to go to the offender first is to allow the offender to clarify the facts in case we have misunderstood or are mistaken in some way. For example, if we make assumptions about what someone meant when we heard them say something that offended us, we fall prey to “Satan’s most effective method for dividing Christians in the church.” (p. 7)
Fifth, “Going to an offending brother to restore him has been and always will be God’s greatest test of genuine love.” (p. 5) The goal is not ultimately telling him he was wrong, but restoring him. It is normal to be nervous. What should we say? The best way to frame it is to humbly point to a similar area of failure in our own lives.
Sixth, if the offender chooses not to be reconciled, choose the correct people to go with you to the offender. As hard as it was not to tell anyone else previously, it may be even harder to find the right people to tell now. The best witnesses will be those who have previously conquered a similar problem in their own lives.
Hopefully, the process is resolved here. However, if the offender persists, the process begins to move toward bringing the issue to the whole church. But first, there are some prerequisites.
Seventh, clarify the church’s motives. The motivation is not to expose sin. The motivation is to enlist the church’s help in restoring the offender.
Eighth, the church needs to initiate a new program: a day of fasting and prayer. They are to use this time for self-examination. If they realize that they are partly to blame for the offender’s sin, they need to first approach him or her to ask forgiveness before they may continue.
Ninth, the church must verify that there is 100 percent unanimity on the issue. If they discover that there is any disagreement whatsoever, this is a full stop. This is “God’s call to the church leaders” (p. 9) to begin a program of teaching the church God’s standards, such that they will all be of one heart and mind. This is all part of God’s call to “cleanse the church before any attempt” is made to bring church discipline to the offender. (No guideline is offered for how much time this program of teaching will typically require.)
Tenth, publicly rebuke the person and separate them from the community. The point of all of this is a hope for repentance. The desire is that by now the offender will be repentant, to which the church should respond by welcoming the repentant offender back.
Taking A Closer Look at “The One Truth”
We must now ask the obvious question: How accurately do these steps represent what Jesus actually taught in Matthew 18? We believe that Gothard communicates some questionable messages that warrant a much closer look.
“If God gave me the opportunity to exchange my life for the establishment of one truth among all Christians and I wanted to make my life count to the greatest possible extent, I would choose the truth of Matthew 18 in the spirit of Galatians 6:1.” This seems a questionable place to place one’s doctrinal flag in the sand, especially considering the truths for which writers such as the Apostle Paul were willing to exchange their lives (see 1 Corinthians 2:2, 9:23, 15:30–31). And Gothard does not raise this “one truth” to the level of his seven “universal, non-optional principles,” nor does he seem beholden to it in his own responses to his critics. But what if his claim were sincere? As we critique the booklet, keep in mind how strongly Gothard desires this doctrine to be his legacy.
“Good report”
A key term in this booklet is the phrase “good report.” In fact, the first step every believer ought to take is to make a lifelong commitment to only bear a “good report” of others unless the steps of Matthew 18 have been followed. A good report is more than words that are truthful or well-spoken. To give a good report is to “find out all the good we can” about a person and to “put the best construction on everything we hear” (p. 12).
Sleight of Hand: As a side note, Gothard offers an example here of his regular practice of substituting one meaning for another. Page 17 contains an odd logical progression, titled “Physical Health Will Improve,” that involves the term “good report” and an ancient figure of speech involving bones.
Institute materials typically use the King James Version (KJV), but this explanation of improved health hinges on the set of words used in the Amplified Bible (used without attribution). Proverbs 15:30 contains a figure of speech which essentially says that good news brings good health. There is some sleight of hand in the explanation that follows. The Amplified Bible uses the expression “good report,” but follows that term with “nourishes the bones” as opposed to the KJV “maketh the bones fat.” Recall that the term “good report” as used in the booklet has a specific connotation, different from the intended meaning of the phrase as used in this verse. The explanation is given: a “good report” makes for healthy bones, and blood is made inside the bones, and healthy blood results in a healthy body. Therefore, giving a “good report” (as employed in this booklet) results in a healthier physical body.
Ironically, in light of what the booklet says about a “good report,” the next two verses in context in Proverbs stress the importance of listening to needed input, even when it is “negative”:
If you listen to constructive criticism, you will be at home among the wise.
If you reject discipline, you only harm yourself; but if you listen to correction, you grow in understanding.
What is love?
Love is a vital Christian concept. In this booklet, the love of the one who has been hurt, not the offender, is placed under close scrutiny. “God’s greatest test of genuine love” has been laid out for the victim. Also, “the world’s test of whether we are genuine disciples is if we have love for one another” (p. 5). And more, if the victim’s love is deficient, their “lack of love [will be] a far greater detriment to the spread of the gospel than whatever fault [they] try to expose or correct” (p. 12).
In another verbal sleight of hand, “loyalty” is swapped out for love. Loyalty is presented as the result of knowing that others will only say positive things about you—a “good report”; it is disloyal to give a negative report. The concept of “special loyalty” is then connected to verses that speak about the importance of loving and doing good for each other. Thus, the insinuation is that the believer is obligated not to speak about problems. But the concept of loyalty is being conflated into the text; “loyalty” and “disloyalty” do not appear in the scriptural texts being cited (including Matthew 18). This concept of “special loyalty” sounds more like the oath of silence for the Mafia or a secret society than it does Scripture.
This is a very unfortunate re-definition of both love and loyalty. What does this mean for a victim of abuse, if they were to try to follow this booklet as their road map in addressing the abuse and the abuser? We noted above that both God and the world are testing the love of the victim, but love has now been conflated with loyalty. For the victim in question, the occasion of their abuse has shifted into actually being a test of their loyalty.
Keeping Secrets
To illustrate, Gothard introduces his primary case study, a “true story” of a mother who is shocked to discover an indecent letter to her son from the youth leader’s wife. The mother proceeded to tell her husband about the letter and is painted as a negative example for doing so. We pause to note that women are in the hot seat in this case. The youth leader’s wife is the initiator of the indecency, the mother is in error for telling her husband, plus “(and women)” is added to Galatians 6:1 as emphasis for the ability of women to sin as well as men.
The mother is blamed for touching off a chain of events that resulted in a church split. In the illustration to the right, we condense the booklet’s teaching as shared in the case study. These steps are literally what Gothard claims will transpire. Click here to compare this chart with the actual illustration from the booklet.
What should the mother have done, according to the booklet? We are told she should have gone directly to her son (leaving open the question of whether he is considered the offender for having received the letter). The discussion considers only the interaction between her and her son—no discussion of any need to inform her husband or to alert the church that a person in a position of trust has violated that trust.
But why should we assume that speaking to the son would magically solve the youth leader’s wife’s problems? Or that this was an isolated incident which has never happened to any of the other students in the church in the past and will never happen again in the future? Being silent about a problem does not make it disappear any more than babies playing peek-a-boo cease to exist when they put their hands over their eyes.
The reverse is all too often the reality: silence and secrets provide an optimal environment for abuse to flourish. The consequences compound: the abuser digs a deeper hole for himself or herself, current victims continue to be abused, and new victims will be abused in the future. The many years of Jerry Sandusky’s ongoing abuse and the scandal within the Catholic church are two recent examples writ large.
This emphasis on silence is not healthy. It is about keeping secrets, not telling the truth. When the one who talks about the problem becomes the problem, we have a problem.
If a wife may not tell her husband about this upsetting discovery, what is the alternative? The implied message to victims and their family members is that they are obligated to keep secrets.
From "How to Get Under God's Protection"
There is a deep inconsistency here. It would be anathema in any typical Institute document for a wife to keep secrets from her husband. Throughout Institute teachings, Gothard says repeatedly that people under authority are to submit and yield rights. Anything less than whole-hearted submission is rebellion “which is as the sin of witchcraft” and leads to destruction. The good news, we are assured, is that submission to authority places one under an umbrella of protection. There is thus a trade-off of individual autonomy for protection and security. But in this booklet, the artwork and text both rebuke the wife for telling her husband about the problem and make her the catalyst of a church split.
Blaming the victim
The “Rediscovered” process lends itself to blaming the victim for the offense as well as for any failure to restore the offender. This is unfortunate because victims often already blame themselves for the decisions made by their abusers. The fact that offenders are quick to shift blame is even acknowledged in the Basic Seminar textbook.
Blame for the offense: In the ten steps summarized above, the victim was evaluated for their love. Here, the test cuts surprisingly close to the bone in evaluating the victim for blame. Announced in bold capital letters “A WARNING!”: Even “the slightest offense or attitude or neglect” which has “contributed” to the offense means “[you] cannot follow the steps of Matthew 18” (p. 6). And yet, “the people around us are often reflections of ourselves” (same page). If the wrong actions of the abuser were a reflection of the victim, then the victim is partly to blame. If the Basic Seminar textbook is correct on this point, then the abuser’s own “natural inclination” will be to blame the victim. And if any blame at all, however slight, can be assigned the victim, this entire process becomes off-limits to the victim.
Basic Seminar Textbook
Blame for failure to restore: The booklet speaks of restoring the offender approximately fifteen times, always in terms of the one offended doing the restoring, never in terms of the offender making the choice and taking needed action to be restored. When it comes to restoration, it is as if the offender is a passive party and the weight of success or failure is on the shoulders of the victim. We are told that a mark of our spirituality is our ability to restore a brother (a questionable use of Galatians 6:1, p. 13). For a victim of abuse, this is an unequal scale. Even if, by some miracle, the victim is able to pass the test sufficiently to press their case, but “restoration” does not happen (restoration is a concept that is not well defined in the booklet), one more failure is chalked up to the victim. The buck stops here: on the victim.
Foggy Conditions
The offender is effectively given final say in clarifying their words, actions, and intentions. This is surely a polite move if both parties are acting in good faith. However, what if you are a victim of abuse and your abuser lives in a haze of self-deceit or a “fog of confusion and evasion”? The booklet spares no exception, requiring you to approach your abuser “as a learner and as a servant” (p. 6). You have just been compelled to hand control of the narrative over to your abuser. If you are familiar with the term “gaslighting,” this is an ideal setup for it.
For any case of abuse, this is naïve at best. When an abuser is offering a distorted perspective in order to minimize, justify, or cover up his actions, it is the abuser’s story that ought to be rejected and the victim’s plea for help that must be heard. It does not help the healing to give the abuser the “last word,” and (like the rest of the booklet’s extra steps) it has no scriptural warrant.
God gave us our feelings and emotions for a reason. If a person’s treatment of you arouses anger, fear, or suspicion, your emotions could be serving as God-given warning lights alerting you to danger or damage. You do not need the permission of the offender to validate your senses if you are being treated badly.
Adding Requirements
Following the conclusion of this article, we show a visual representation Jesus’s version of the text of Matthew 18 compared to Gothard’s process in this booklet.
For Gothard, “Go to him” no longer means “go to him.” “Go to him” means examine yourself for any possible failing in five ways, and only if you pass 100 percent may you “go to him”—and this only after you have a detailed step-by-step plan worked out for his restoration and have initiated new programs in the church.
By adding these weighty prerequisites, doubt is cast on any victim’s right to invoke Matthew 18 at all. Have you prayed enough? Do you detect any pride in your heart? How would a victim know whether or not they have been a good enough example or have exemplified enough love? Recall that the hurdle to clear was “even the slightest offense or attitude or neglect” which has “contributed” to the offense, otherwise “we cannot follow the steps of Matthew 18” (p. 6). One must be a high achiever indeed to be allowed to pursue the steps of Matthew 18!
Beyond the individual, the church is also saddled with extra, apparently mandatory, steps when it becomes their turn to take action. It must initiate some new programs, which include 1) a day of fasting and self-examination, 2) apologizing to the abuser if the church finds any reason to blame themselves, and 3) 100 percent unanimity in agreement with the process. Remedial programs of teaching and cleansing are in order should a vote return any less than 100 percent unanimous.
But look again at Jesus’s words and note the emphasis on “hearing.” The responsibility to hear is on the offender. A truthful reconciliation requires that the offender stop controlling the narrative and, instead, listen—he must hear what has been the experience of the one who was wounded.
Conclusion
This booklet is a snapshot of a day in the life of spiritual abuse. Gothard wrote these words down the hall from where ongoing sexual abuse was occurring. It was part of the effort to keep the scandal quiet as people began to realize there was a problem and to talk about it. This teaching is an example of the “can’t-talk” rule in action. And it worked. Gothard’s twisting of Matthew 18 served as a tool to help stonewall and silence the victims, cover up the truth, and enforce loyalty. The results were as predictable as they were tragic.
People wonder why those young ladies who allegedly were sexually assaulted did not speak up. Why did they not talk? But if you put yourself in their shoes and believe that this process is God’s only path for you to follow in addressing the abuse, you will find that the dice are loaded against you. You cannot win at this process. Neither could they. When you wonder why or how their voice could be silenced so effectively, you are seeing evidence that this booklet did exactly what it was designed to do.
Rather than disappearing into the silence, the abuse escalated; New victims were added to the collection as one of the primary abusers was shuffled off to a remote physical location (Northwoods) that became, quite literally, a haven for abuse. In the words of one denominational statement regarding child sexual abuse, this was a “fundamental failure of servant leadership, rendering the [leadership] complicit and culpable before the Lord, driving people away from the safety, healing, and hope of Jesus Christ.”
Meanwhile, a significant amount of the material for Character Sketches 1 and 2, the Life Purpose Notebook, and Men’s Manual 1 was being produced in that environment of abuse. These materials appeared to offer higher standards and a way to spiritual excellence for those who desired to rise above the average. Such duplicity is exactly what Jesus called whitewashed tombs: purity on the outside, closets full of skeletons on the inside.
If this booklet is so bad, what can we offer instead? First, for cases of interpersonal offenses, let us return to the straightforward process offered by Jesus. He did not talk about “good reports,” “special loyalty,” and “very painful prerequisites.” The one who has been offended is invited to pursue a hearing with the offender, with increasing audience, until there is restoration.
Second, for cases of abuse, let us lay dishonesty aside and pursue the truth in love. Let us show love to the abusers by making it easier to stop than to continue. Let us show love to the victims by being patient with them, letting them take as long they need to heal. Let us show love by being kind to them, by hearing their story, by protecting them from further abuse, and by treating them as more important than our own convenience and public image.
Let us not fail them when our time comes to stand with them or to speak up on their behalf.
July 31, 2024
"Don't cause a church split! Don't tell your husband about indecent letters from your youth pastor's wife!"
What??! What was this guy on? If there is a church split over somebody sending indecent letters to a teen, it was the person who sent the indecent letters at fault. If the youth pastor sided with his wife when you have the letters as proof, then he shouldn't be a youth pastor.
This is nonsense. Victim blaming nonsense.
That said, I wouldn't TELL my husband - I'd go straight to the police. Ok, I'd probably tell my husband on the way.
You said exactly what I was thinking!
Also, if people sided with a member of the church who was engaging in possible criminal behavior with a minor, then I'd want them out of my church anyhow. Churches covering up sin to make themselves look good is one of the reasons non-Christians want nothing to do with the church; Jesus did not cover up or dismiss sin, and neither should we.
I had never seen this "supplement". My ears pricked up over the example of the youth pastor's wife. Why did he use that position and that person. Now it becomes more clear how Mr. Gothard felt that church youth groups were detrimental to young people's well-being and should be avoided at all costs. This becomes even clearer when he started encouraging home churches much like what the Duggar family is doing.
Explain this to me...didn't Bill get his ministry START as something of a youth pastor ?? Was he connected to a church, or was it parachurch work ??
Youth groups in churches that had pastors who were strong IBLP or ATI were just fine and safe. If those churches had "youth pastors" they were more than likely of the same like mind. Not every ATI family had such options for churches in their areas so they were encouraged to not be involved in their local church's youth ministry.
I was that "youth pastor" in my church along with other responsibilities of music and education. Almost 80% of the families in our church home-schooled and there were several families, other than the pastor and I, who were also ATI families. (Many years ago we all eventually got out! Best thing that could of happened to our church!)
My understanding is that Mr. Gothard was never a church youth minister but considered his works with the "gangs" of Chicago as qualifying for the title.
Something interesting about youth groups: When I look back at the controlling, isolated families I knew, very few of the kids from those families really went on for the Lord. But from other families where there was active youth group involvement, a much higher percentage went on for the Lord, both at home and abroad.
I think Gothardism cuts away one of the most helpful supports that exists when it cuts away the local youth group. Now that I am a parent, I go out of my way to encourage participation in church youth groups. I'm thankful for all the hard work that youth leaders put into serving the young people in their communities.
thanks; youth group, college, seminary, they all cut in his "herd", deplete the # of available sheep, and at youth group, they learn a different theology
One of the saddest parts about growing up in Gothardism was that it was so easy to look down upon people who weren't quite as "spiritually mature," and that included the youth group at the (non-ATI) church my family attended when I was a little kid. That being said, that particular group was rather iffy and had a youth pastor who was more like one of the kids than a leader, but it shaped my perception of youth groups for so long that it took a truly special group to undo all of that years down the road, for which I can't thank the Lord enough.
J.B. I can concur that there are some youth pastors who are truly not "qualified" to be leading youth mostly due to the fact they are just a few years older than the youth themselves. They try to be just like the those they were ministering to. This includes lingo, dressing, acting etc like Sid youth instead of being more of a mature person to look up to. Kind of like dressing like a clown to witness to the circus! Most younger youth pastors who do well in their ministry, do it with much accountability to a youth/sponsor committee, board, senior youth pastor, etc.
I sure wish there was a way to edit comments or preview them before committing them to the thread! Sid=said :-)
Exactly. Sadly, this guy didn't seem to have any of that, and it just "reinforced" Gothard's view for us for quite a while until we found a church that had a healthy, vibrant group.
KH you said "gangs". Why? It's one of the anecdotes I remember as validating his principles, but I'm suspicious of that story as well. I can't help picturing that blue suit and red tie showing up on the South side of Chicago. Maybe with the moniker The Notorious B.G.? "I love it when you call me big Papa."
Shane - even though I am pushing 60 and can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday, I vividly remember him saying this and my wife remembers him saying this as well. I also remember having the same thought as you, how in the world did he not get beat to pulp much less survive? So I did some searching and I found this: "For approximately 15 years, he worked with teenage gangs in the Chicago area." This is in the first paragraph of this website.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/gothard/general.htm
It could be worse than Mr Gothard's scenario.
Back in 1993 our church changed ministers and became big IBLP supporters. They insisted I go to the Seminar because I was a Sunday School teacher. My husband had to work so our son and I went. I had my husband read the materials every evening when we got home, and he just shook his head. After our son went to bed we had a long talk about where we would set our boundaries incase our church jumped any deeper into the teachings of IBLP.
Fast forward from July to Dec. I was editing a recent video recording of our children's Christmas program, and at the very edge of the frames the Youth Pastor was caught rubbing, stroking, and tickling a teenage girl during prayer. I mentioned to the Youth Pastor the importance of reverencing prayer. He complained to the Pastor that as a woman I was overstepping my position. My pastor called told me he didn't think God would use me, a woman, to correct a Youth Pastor. So I hopped in my car, drove to the church, set up the video, and told him "Take a look and figure it out." I knew our family was standing at our pre-discussed boundary. That evening our Pastor showed up with an Elder to discipline me. My husband told them he didn't allow witch hunts, and it was time for them to leave.
We quietly left our church, and found another that fit our family perfectly. The youth pastor and his wife were in their late 30's and couldn't have children. They were as much of a blessing to the teens of our church as the teens were a blessing to them. My son is in his early 30's now and still mentions how real and close that Youth Pastor made Jesus. Although our family never spoke to anyone about the conflict outside of those directly (teen's mother) involved within a months time several families showed up at our new church, and others left to join another.
The moral of the story is, "It doesn't matter if you share a sexual abuser's sin with your husband before addressing the individual or not. If church leaders are caught not honoring the Lord Jesus Christ their ministries should suffer."
Nancy2,
You were way nicer about it than some people would have been (including myself - I guarantee a copy of that video would have ended up several places, including to the parents of the girl and the church leadership). He's caught ON VIDEO acting inappropriately with a teenage girl (to say the least) DURING A CHURCH SERVICE and you, as a woman, are faulted for pointing out the behavior?
Talk about misplaced priorities and incompetent church leadership.
Jim K.
The girl's family changed churches.
The church leadership did decide I was to blame. I don't know what happened to the video. It never came back to me.
I thank God for a husband that respects his wife. They did use the whole umbrella of authority and included themselves as our authority. That is when they crossed my husbands boundary and he saw their actions as a witch hunt.
The GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) website has an excellent article titled “Child Abuse and Matthew 18: The Dangers of Distorting Scripture”. The following are some excerpts:
“GRACE is often encountering professing Christians who quote Matthew 18 as the biblical process by which child sexual abuse must be addressed within the Christian community. As a consequence, this passage is used as a justification for 1) not reporting abuse disclosures to the civil authorities and 2) convincing sexual abuse victims to privately confront their perpetrators. Needless to say, this misinterpretation of Matthew 18 is hugely destructive on a number of fronts. More importantly, this misinterpretation is simply not biblical…
“A fundamental point that must be understood early on in this discussion is that the crime of child sexual abuse is not merely a personal offense, but rather it is an urgent public concern. Child sexual abuse does not even fit into the paradigm of which Jesus was speaking in Matthew 18. Jesus never intended his statements in Matthew 18 to be twisted into the required method for handling murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, or genocide. Child sexual abuse is not a private matter but rather a public and civic one, rightly under the sword of the civil authority. All are endangered by this crime against a little one…
“In this, child sexual abuse is like murder or any other crime. Anyone who would demand that the family of a murder victim must first follow the Matthew 18 process before calling the police could be criminally charged themselves for being an accessory after the fact… What kind of twisted mind would reason that kidnapping or rape ought to be concealed from the civil authorities while a process of church discipline is pursued first?...
“It is imperative that we not misinterpret and misapply Matthew 18:15-20 to the sin of child sexual abuse. ‘Let the disclosing little child come forward privately and accuse me!’ the powerful one protests. That monstrous interpretation has not one leg to stand on before Jesus.” http://netgrace.org/child-abuse-and-matthew-18-the-dangers-of-distorting-scripture/
Thank you, Myron. People tend to forget that our duties as Christians to one another do not overlap 100% with our duties to civil society. An adult found guilty of abusing children owes a debt to society at large, just as any other convicted criminal. Restoring him in the the church is a separate matter. Justice and forgiveness are two separate matters.
The Matthew 18 that applies to child abusers is this:
:6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. :7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! :8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
Yes, and these verses are just a few verses prior to the other famous "Matthew 18" verses, separated only the parable of the lost sheep. Very strong words from Jesus. There is no way that the spirit of the context is to create a stonewall for those who would abuse while ignoring the abused.
“In this, child sexual abuse is like murder or any other crime. Anyone who would demand that the family of a murder victim must first follow the Matthew 18 process before calling the police could be criminally charged themselves for being an accessory after the fact… What kind of twisted mind would reason that kidnapping or rape ought to be concealed from the civil authorities while a process of church discipline is pursued first?..." ~ Myron Horst
"People tend to forget that our duties as Christians to one another do not overlap 100% with our duties to civil society." ~Edie
As a member of law enforcement, thank you BOTH a THOUSAND times for these statements. I wish I could bold them and highlight them. I have seen this "teaching" of BG's used to enable a child sex abuser to walk free to this day. This is not anecdotal, nor second hand information, but personal knowledge. (I say this because of certain people who are here that refuse to believe much of the posters here) It is high time people stopped using the "Gothard Formula" when dealing with criminals - which is EXACTLY what abusers are. The authorities have been placed here for a purpose. Read Romans 13 if you have forgotten.
Enough victims. This has GOT to stop.
IBLP board, are you listening? Wake up-
or you will ALL have millstones about your necks.
AMEN!
There is another important concept is often overlooked. Church or organizational leaders are not always qualified to address an "offense" in an impartial manner. There is an important lesson to learn from how Gothard improperly handled the allegations that were brought to him by victims.
Church leaders are not qualified to properly deal with sexual abuse within their organization, church or denomination because they have a conflict of interest. Their reputation and their church’s reputations are also at stake. The sexual predators are their friends. The fear of what others will think of them and their organization, church or denomination is a very strong motivator. In some cases they may fear they could lose their job. Church leaders are not in a position to judge impartially and to give the victims a fair trial and support. They need to turn the perpetrator over to the police and recuse themselves from the case, just like any judge with a conflict of interest should do. The sexual abuse victim reporting the crime can be viewed by the church leadership as the person who is the real problem at the moment because the victim is damaging their reputation by exposing the abuse. The exposure itself is an attack on their reputation and the church’s reputation. For this reason, and because it is such a heinous civil crime, sexual abuse needs to be reported to the police or someone outside the church or church denomination who will report it to the police or civil authority. Addressing criminal activity is not under the jurisdiction of church or organizational leaders. Reporting sexual abuse to church leadership often only results in cover up and the victim being attacked, slandered, or blamed.
The IBLP board is not qualified to investigate Bill Gothard because they have a conflict of interest. They need to turn the investigation over to a third party and call in civil authorities to investigate criminal activity - child labor laws, sexual abuse, improper use of charitable donations, etc.
"The IBLP board is not qualified to investigate Bill Gothard because they have a conflict of interest. They need to turn the investigation over to a third party and call in civil authorities to investigate criminal activity - child labor laws, sexual abuse, improper use of charitable donations, etc"
Totally agree. I've heard that they've engaged David Gibbs, which suggests they aren't actually interested in doing the right thing by victims.
I am so glad someone brought up Mr. Gibbs. "Circle the Wagons!" may be the cry. The victims need to be heard at the cost of any man or ministry.
Who is David Gibbs?
http://heresyintheheartland.blogspot.com/2014/03/david-gibbs-jr-investigating-gothard.html
At the end of that article there is a Gibbs quote. Did Gibbs really say "It's our job to make Jesus look good."?
My head hurts. I feel sick.
After reading the link Dave provided it is QUITE CLEAR that the FOX is investigating the henhouse! UNACCEPTABLE!
A shame I live so far away from there or I would show up in person at their offices demanding an independent outside investigator.
Gibbs is an insider. Period.
I agree completely. In fact, I wrote a note to the board with that exact message... here's the "non-answer" I received. Just the same statement that they seem to be giving to reporters:
===========
Cassidy,
The Board of Directors of the Institute in Basic Life Principles is doing a very prayerful, thorough, and Biblical review in regards to the assertions brought by various individuals and groups. After completion of the review the Board will respond at an appropriate time, and in a Biblical manner.
Mr. Gothard is on administrative leave while the Board completes its review. He will not be involved in the operations of the ministry. The Board of Directors will be prayerfully appointing interim leadership.
Dr. Billy Boring
Chairman of the Board
==============
To the Board of Directors of IBLP/ATI,
Please consider bringing in a third party to investigate these allegations!
It is the only way to find the unbiased truth. Speaking as a former ATI
student, I deserve to know. Please. I would suggest GRACE ministries
(www.netgrace.org).
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
In Christ,
Cassidy Harper
I love how the board always uses the "holy" card of prayerful... thorough review. If they were so "godly" they would've been on this a long time ago.
How a bout "We are appalled by the serious allegations which we have recently been made aware of dating back to the 1970's. We are going to focus all our attention and resources to find the truth. We take the allegations very seriously and will make every effort to see that if crimes were committed, justice will be served."
Honestly, they make a mockery of religion and "godliness".
They should've "prayerfully" considered Bills' leadership years ago.
Ryan
AMEN,
@ Ryan you make an important point as to how Christians (I'm one) use lingo as a force field against criticism and accountability. AND abusers, narcissists, BLPD, et al use mimicry to hide in the veil of lingo. They parrot back our cliched phrases as a strategy for hiding. It's why these things take great persistence and and the courage to call something BS when many Christians cannot see it. It takes a commitment to protect and defend the vulnerable.
I agree... but when people are deeply involved in a cult, it is so difficult for them to (event want to) see the truth. I think of Leon Festinger's (Social Psychology) Cognitive Dissonance theory, which is based on his studies of cults. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails). The more involved someone is, the more they must make up justifications to rectify the cognitive dissonance they experience when faced with reality. E.g., the cult belief here could be that Gothard is a blameless man and anointed leader, therefore, how can it be true that 34 women have harassment claims against him? To resolve this cognitive dissonance, the cult will believe that the woman are lying, and that BG is being reviled because the world is convicted by his holiness. The cult members can then go on believing.
Read Festinger's study. In the Doomsday cult he observed, the cult members (in response to a prophesy) expected a visitor from outer space. When the visitor failed to appear, they eventually concluded that it was because their goodness had thwarted the necessity of the visitor.
Essentially, it really is the mercy of God when people are set free from cult beliefs.
This quote from Wikipedia helps shed some insight on why it may be more difficult for some to give up IBLP/ATI than for others:
"Festinger stated that five conditions must be present if someone is to become a more fervent believer [in a cult belief system] after a failure or disconfirmation:
A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he or she behaves.
The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief.
The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.
The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct."
Thank you for how well you articulated this Myron! I agreed so much I went ahead and emailed the board to tell them my thoughts and why they should call in someone else and not just investigate themselves!! I would hope everyone else would do the same and maybe we can overwhelm them with letters and emails about our concerns and hope they will listen. I feel that if I just sit by and do nothing I am powerless. I know it is not much and they will not care but I feel like I have at least done something as well as sharing about this on all my online forums.
Keep up the good work RG you are all in my prayers!
I emailed them too, Carol. They need to get the message loud and clear, from as many people as possible, that for the organization to investigate itself (including appointing someone associated with IBLP) is COMPLETELY unacceptable. There MUST be an independent investigation if it is to have any credibility whatsoever. G.R.A.C.E. would be an ideal choice.
In the 80s I was a missionary raising support between several different churches, all from the same denomination. It was also common knowledge that Pastor X from one of the churches was a known, serial adulterer. He was also the pastor of my sending church. They let him go to prevent a split, and he kept on offending (this time with underage girls) until he was finally found out and kicked out again. When I approached a pastor of one of my supporting churches with my concerns (this guy kept coming up every time I visited a supporting church), he waved me away and covered his ears, saying that I hadn't followed through on Matthew 18 with the pastor. Another one of my friends went to the district superintendent, and he had the same response.
The entire episode was a joke, and this "pastor" has continued to pastor ever since. When there are a dozen churches talking about the sexual conquests of Pastor X in three different states, we are obviously way past an individual, Matthew 18, kind of confrontation. It's what happens when there is a conspiracy of silence wrapped around a misinterpretation of Scripture.
Everyone I tried to talk to was following Gothard's rules about Matt. 18.
Sadly, my sending church was the focus of a child sexual abuse scandal with another staff member just a few years later. Again, it was the conspiracy of secrets. He was never prosecuted, but allowed to leave. All of this was before mandatory reporting was as strong as it is now (although it is only strong as the people who are brave enough to report it).
I choose to attend a church with multiple leadership, checks and balances and zero tolerance for sexual behavior outside of biblical norms for leadership. We also have windows in all office doors, and strong guidelines for ratios for childcare, ridesharing, etc. I know that nothing is perfect, but there has at least been an attempt to make the church a safe place for all.
Linn,
I am not generally like this but I am going to say this: I am itching to call out the denomination and I do not even know you or the church.(although I could be wrong)
Something has got to be done and this has a lot to do with this entire ATI IBLP problem because these are the churches most closely related to ATI IBLP. They agree with the legalism, hiding of sins 'for ministry sake", and elevating "The Preacher". These are the churches that so easily change into ATI churches. I hope the day comes when the grace of our Lord Jesus can be known in these churches either through their doors closing and people being set free or a huge awakening and true revival of love for Him rather than the supposed " man of God".
For those of you wanting to improve protection for children in your congregation may I recommend Ministry Safe? We will not allow ANYONE (including me the pastor) chaperone, teach, work nursery who has not gone through the training and background check. We have got to take seriously our calling to protect the vulnerable among us!
Sorry: https://www.ministrysafe.com
Wow, this looks like a great program. Thanks, Shane.
Our church installed windows and removed locks on all classroom doors. We require that a person must be a member of the church in good standing for a minimum of a year before they have any access to those 18 years of age and younger. Also, it is required that those people have a background check before being allowed access. Preschool children are given a bracelet with a number that only the parent with the matching tab is then allowed to pick up that child. There are many other measures we have done which are to numerous to list here.
We did this many years ago after we learned that pedofiles were being taught that the easiest access to children was through the church. Many churches are always needing extra people for Sunday School, youth groups etc. A pedofile joins a church, attends faithfully for a month or so, hears there is a need for a boys Sunday School teacher. He volunteers and nine times out of ten, a teachers quarterly is slapped in his hand and he starts the next week. Bingo! Access!
Makes you sick to your stomach doesn't it!
KH- Background checks can only be one component of the weeding out process. The overwhelming number of pedophiles abuse multiple children before getting caught; they don't show up on background checks. The other things are good but I'd say insufficient.
We had a two adult rule at our homeschooling co-op, and I think churches should have the same rule.
The two-adult rule is great.
Worst Valentine's Day EVER!!!
Lol.
Pretty sure all his were bad
Gothard has slyly hidden real sin by masking it in the sin of spreading gossip. In getting people to not spread gossip, he has also taught people not to report the real bad things that happen.
For church members to be 100% clean of any sin or offense before dealing with sin in the camp means that sin will never be dealt with in the camp! And to add an accusation of not loving God if you tell others is a slap in the face. BG added many extra steps to the scripture that even Mother Teresa could not pass.
It is sad that so many churches do run on idle gossip and useless chatter involving judging something that is not sin as if it were sin. Meanwhile real sin, as mentioned in the Bible, (pre-marital sex, adultery, child abuse, AND GOSSIP!) run rampant in churches.
When we were under Gothard's standards (the authority umbrella was a big thing in our church, as was not spreading bad reports).
My husband was called in to face one of the pastors who said he did not fit the image of what a music minister should be and was told why he was replaced. My husband did not even accept pay for doing what he loved. The pastor was also grooming his son to take his place in the ministry and was starting him in the music section. So I our outward problems were used as an excuse---the fact we had money struggles as a young couple (sin of not being accountable with what God gave us) my housekeeping and pets (clearly not approved by Gothard) and my husband watching Star Trek (whoa- big time not godly!) were all reasons why my husband was asked to step down.
When the fancy new church building was complete, my husband was not given a set of keys, even though he had keys to the old building (and the keys to sensitive places in 9 counties for his job!) He was also not allowed to touch the new computer, even though he did computer work for the state!!! Gothard’s teaching and principles were the underlying rules that ran the church and by those standards, my husband and I fell far short.
Meanwhile, the real issues of jealousy and a power struggle among the 3 pastors and who was really the boss were a seething undercurrent about which no one was allowed to discuss lest it be considered a bad report. The pastors made an announcement they were taking time for prayer and fasting over a situation (the imminent power struggle and split) and that NOBODY was to go over to their houses to visit them. I was considered disobedient because I went to one of the pastor’s home because my horse was in his pasture behind the pastor’s home and NOBODY was going to keep me from taking care of her!!!!!!!!!!! And I was helping homeschool that pastor’s kids.
This seems like a lot of water under the bridge and why bring up stuff that happened 30 years ago but it shows the far-reaching extent which legalism and other false teachings harm the church body. And to this day my husband does not want to go to church.
"And to this day my husband does not want to go to church."
How sad. I could feel your story as I was reading it.
I agree with your assessment. This teaching becomes a stonewall, not a road forward.
And here's to your husband finding a church someday yet that will be a home for him.
@esbee: I know of a pastor that has had a very similar experience as your husband, and the outcome was nearly the same - he does not attend church anywhere because of the way his co-leadership and congregation stabbed him in the back as they got rid of him. I went to college (after I left ATI) with his daughter and befriended her and her mother. Her dad just "stayed busy", working, and avoiding church and church people. Very unfair and while I know there is not really anything to take away or fix the pain, I want you to know that I'm really sorry about what happened to your husband.
I have asked him about church and he says he would like to go but he does not want to get back into that emotional stuff that comes with clicks and groups and personal agendas.
Having been part of a cult, I can identify with having an aversion to cliques and coercions. Put me in the same room with people all dressed the same nodding their heads in sync, and I'll high-tail it right out the front door before one can say in a monotone,"One of us."
This is an awesome article and to counter the weight and gravity of the heretofore unquestioned assumption of authority in Gothardism,this article hits hard.Guys,Gals, whoever wrote this article,thanks.It has to hit hard to counter the degree of abuse and tyranny it fostered so effectively.The question is how these teachings influenced a Gothard adherent's concept of God.How about it?Distant?Stern and firm,step out of line and He's going to crack you one.The unmoved mover.How close do you want to get to a God like that[?]while Gothard gives a green light to the sheepbeaters,the abusers who bore Gothard's image rather than God's?Nothing can be more cruel than natural man attaining outward perfection with natural religion.Please keep up the good work whoever you are.Solzenitsyn would praise you.
This will be great information for my kids and I to use for Bible study this morning. We intend to not create anymore victims. Thank you!
*Like* :)
I remember being told in a Bible Study at HQ that I shouldn't discard a rebuke just because it didn't go through the proper channels. The point of the chapter we were reviewing (I don't remember the book) was that truth should be considered regardless of its avenue of arrival.
This is my first time commenting after a couple of weeks following the articles on this website. I wanted to say that although I (thankfully) have never been involved with Gothard, I do have personal experience with how wrong things can go when Christians try to use personal confrontation and repentance as a means to deal with sexual abuse.
I grew up as a missionary kid. We were in a large country where there were many missionaries from our particular denomination. Most of them were fantastic people and it was a wonderful experience, but when I was a teenager we found out that one of the most senior and respected missionaries had been fired for being a pedophile. What came out was that back in the seventies, shortly before my parents arrived, a child within the mission who had molested by him reported it to his parents. They evidently sought the help of some of the other men, and they went to confront him. He admitted it, but swore that it was the only time it had ever happened, and wept tears begging for forgiveness. These men (wonderful, godly, well-intentioned men) believed him, and believed that his repentance was genuine, and they decided amongst themselves that one sin, no matter how repugnant, should not destroy a man's entire ministry. They agreed not to report him to their authorities in the mission organization and he agreed to apologize to the family and stay away from children other than his own. (The first was followed, the second wasn't.)
Fast forward twenty years, and it came out that it wasn't one child he molested, it was dozens--and that just from the sixties and seventies! He swore that there had been no more since then, and none had at that time been discovered, but who can really believe that? I remember being at a mission-wide meeting where all these things were discussed. We weren't told who any of the children or families had been who were involved, but the toll of emotional damage it took even on those not directly involved was huge. There were parents, like mine, who had never heard a rumor or a whisper, and who were furious that no one had ever warned them about this potential threat to their children. There were others who had heard rumors and whispers and yet who felt powerless to do anything about it because he was a senior missionary, he was widely admired, and it seemed that he had been protected.
I remember one of the original men who had been part of that decision--a dear servant of God--standing up before everyone in tears, begging for forgiveness. They meant to do right, they did, but in deciding that an issue of child molestation could be settled by the apparent private repentance of the offender, they enabled evil and left countless children unprotected and undefended. Some sins go beyond personal offense.
Oh, wow. Is there ever a child molester that molests "just one"? How naive can you be? One sin should not destroy a man's ministry... Unless it's an abuse of this magnitude! How about one murder? That shouldn't destroy a man's entire ministry! I mean, there are minor sins, and there are major sins. I'm sorry, but all sin is not on the same level. The men who let him stay on the field are accomplices.
There are 'sins' and then there are 'CRIMES'.
Right. Crimes against another.
Yes, but some sins would still be major sins, even if the government made them legal.
So what you're saying is that a man can show signs of genuine remorse, look you in the eye swearing that he's never touched or seen and woman's private parts, and all the while be lying? Interesting.
APPARENT! That is the way Saul repented of trying to kill David, tears and confessions, yet he was right back at it again not long after his "apparent repentance". How can you believe an abuser?
Given Bill's teaching on listening to and giving an evil report, I have to wonder how he justified all of the things he allegedly said about "Charlotte" to her friends.
When I was in Russia, I learned that Bill had given an evil report about me behind my back and without first talking to me about it.
At headquarters, when he confronted anybody with sin, I don't recall any steps of restoration being taken. Certainly none were taken in my case. I also never got the feeling that there was any love or compassion of any kind involved.
Is it possible that he even *believed* his own teachings on this subject? I, for one, am utterly astonished that the Bible doesn't leap out of his hands in protest for being used in such a fashion.
Riddle me this. I hear countless stories of students and staff being sent home for alleged misbehavior, without so much as an opportunity to explain their actions. Why wasn't Gothard's Matthew 18 blueprint followed when a boy talked to a 'Gothard girl' or got into a snowball fight? Apply these gymnastics to Marcus' story, for instance:
1) Make a commitment to only spread a good report about Marcus.
2) Bill, examine yourself first. Have you failed in a similar area (fraternizing with the opposite sex)? Have you prayed enough for Marcus? Have you failed to be a good example to him? Do you see any pride in your heart on this issue? Do you have sufficient love and care for Marcus?
3) Think through a plan that might allow for Marcus' restoration.
4) Are you in a position to teach Marcus on this issue?
5) STOP. You may not proceed to address Marcus' 'sin' unless you are 100% free of blame.
If you do proceed, it should be for the purpose of 'restoring' him. But if he disagrees with you, you're going to have to:
1) Proclaim a day of prayer and fasting at IBLP.
2) Ask the organization to consider how they may have contributed to the issue, and if any sin is revealed, go and ask Marcus for forgiveness.
3) If the vote on #2 isn't unanimous, it's time to drag everyone into a series of seminars teaching God's standards in the area of conversation with the opposite sex (or, 'A Theology of Snowball Fights' would also be an interesting class...). After the class, let's take it to a vote. If not unanimous, repeat steps 2 and 3.
Now—with the hope of future restoration—you may send Marcus home.
Oh my goodness, that's hysterical! [Here's the link for Marcus's story, for those who haven't read it yet: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/marcus-story-touching-the-invisible-electric-fence/] Bill NEVER followed all these steps in firing students and sending them home in shame. Methinks he was more interested in making people jump through these hoops for HIS benefit, but not in him doing it for the benefit of other people.
wow
Exactly.
YOu hit the nail on the head!
Wow....just wow,,,,,Christ simplified the entire process in 4 steps---(an example of His grace and mercy). And bill drags it out to 13 confusing, twisted, convoluted steps. Legalism at it's finest (or worst),,There is no way a church could get any manner of discipline handled will all this confusion. And again to blame the victim in the example of the youth pastors wife,,, 'course, who knows what the note said either---may have been something so wicked as "I appreciate your helping my husband in youth meeting"---which in gothard speak means "see ya at midnite behind the barn for a roll in the hay" LOL.. anyway, forgive my sense of humor. The board of directors for the iblp cult better get their act together scripturally or if something isn't done, this whole thing may go as involved as to the FBI stepping in or something of the like.
#5: "The best way to frame it is to humbly point to a similar area of failure in our own lives."
What?!!
"Hi, Bill, I don't want you to feel too bad about this, because I've also molested underage girls. No wait, I haven't. You know what, I have a few celebrity crushes on a few 'hunks'. That's honestly the closest I can come to this. Totally the same thing, though."
^ Just trying to figure out how that would work out, where I to really follow these steps. Unbelievable!!
I think this is basically saying, "Don't accuse someone without giving them some leverage with which to manipulate you."
Quote from "Hannah" - "I think this is basically saying, 'Don't accuse someone without giving them some leverage with which to manipulate you.'"
Hannah - Yes! That was my first thought when reading #5! ("The best way to frame it is to humbly point to a similar area of failure in our own lives.")
This is despicable. Can't think of any other word for it.
#6: "The best witnesses will be those who have previously conquered a similar problem in their own lives."
What? Take other child molesters with you as witnesses? What?
I'm having a very hard time getting through this. This is my second try to read this article. I've only gotten to #6 in the grey box!
lol...if I didn't know better, I'd swear Bill cooked this stuff up while smoking something ....fragrant...while listening to Bob Marley... the closer you look at his teaching, the stranger it gets.
@Alfred: yes, it IS unique and special.. he absolutely DID stumble onto things that other teachers just didn't
Before you're too dismissive of the youth leader wife example you should know the rest of the story. The church split resulted in long term bitterness between the church factions. The children of these factions became angry and violent. Car bombings and arson turned to outright war that consumed a region and then the world. "Don't start a world war!"
Has anyone written on the fact that SO much of his teachings are this kind of anecdotal tripe? I think it could be instructive as to how his false teaching gained "credibility". I remember listening to his cabbage patch doll stories, and demonic music, and blah blah blah and buying in! It's a sign of grace that I now find that stuff so laughable!
It's becoming more and more apparent that there were more than just a few teachers who wanted to call Bill on his careless handling of the word. Why these voices failed to gain traction would be an interesting , and sad, lesson to all of us. Absolutely ANYTHING can be proven by anecdote.
Someone said: "That which proves everything , proves nothing.." The same can be said of testamonial: valuable ONLY when backed up by a careful examination of the related WORD, and only then.
All the Gotharding I've been doing lately has been bringing up some weird memories. Here are a couple from a counselling conference I attended at Indianapolis Training Centre re: music and trying to build principles from anecdote.
1. I was talking with a fellow 'apprenticeship student' about music. He only listened to 'Godly' music. I listened to evil CCM. I said to him that I had looked at everything the bible had to say about music and I couldn't find anything to back up Bill's view. He replied: Well, shouldn't what Mr Gothard says carry some weight. I said, No, not if the bible doesn't back it up. Awkward silence. We both shuffle away.
2. This may be apocryphal; it was told to me by a fellow student with close connections to HQ. He said that Bill had a bunch of evil CCM purchased so that a visiting African church leader could listen to it and say that it had the same evil beat that witch doctors used to conjure up demons. (Latent racism much?) Unfortunately, the African leader quite liked the music and asked if he could keep it.
Unrelated: I spent a lot of time at ITC and in Russia hanging out with girls, but I never got in trouble. Theory 1: They were a bit more chilled out about that sort of thing because courtship hadn't long been introduced. Theory 2: They thought I was gay.
I've long thought the whole "evil beat the witch doctors used" argument seemed racist. The origins of this music are from Africa; so it is obviously much worse than the classical music that came out of Europe. Does God like Europeans more than Africans? NO! Just... no.
Once having joined ATI reluctantly at 10 years old, I developed an inappropriate fear of tribal music types, such as native American themes or African themes. When hearing these music genres, I was afraid the demons were being summoned and I was scared! I recall being fearful watching a promotional video clip IN CHURCH that was about mission work in Africa: the background music featured authentic music of a particular tribe. I couldn't believe that the pastor "allowed" it to be shown/played in service, and I was scared watching it.
@Jeff Gill: #2 is hilarious.... damn that Russ TAff and the Imperials..... so wickedly good....
I'm pretty sure that story about the African music being used to conjure up demons also appeared in a Chick tract, years ago. But that's a whole 'nother brand of crazy right there...
I was raised that all beats called demons. It instilled fear of demonic and evil. I also was not allowed to attend movies, bowling allies or go roller skating because of the demonic music. I grew up in terror of calling demons all because of that stupid witch doctor story. What I have since learned is the actual drum beats that is used to conjure up spirits by witch doctors is 4 1/2 beats per second. Witch craft is real, however fear of evil is contrary to scripture.
"We pause to note that women are in the hot seat in this case. The youth leader’s wife is the initiator of the indecency, the mother is in error for telling her husband, plus “(and women)” is added to Galatians 6:1 as emphasis for the ability of women to sin as well as men."
I wonder why BG would have women giving a bad report that blows up unnecessarily splitting the ministry. Huh?
True story my...
While reading your article and the diagram I couldn't help but think of a modern day equivalent.
When you have cable and can't find good things to watch you get depressed
When you get depressed you attend seminars
When you attend seminars you feel like a winner
When your feel like a winner you go to Vegas
When you go to Vegas you lose everything
When you lose everything you sell your hair to a wig shop
Don't sell your hair to a wig shop, get rid of cable.
Sadly, this is ironically identical to Bills interpretation of scripture.
Thank you Ryan Sapp! I needed a laugh.
Haha, I knew before I clicked on it, that the illustration in the article HAD to be a DirectTV commercial!
"Sadly, this is ironically identical to Bills interpretation of scripture." Sadly, this statement is not an exaggeration.
Thanks for the comic relief, Ryan - and the incisive analogy. :)
I'm waiting for the pinocchio version: "When I look out into this auditorium...I am NOT looking at eye candy..all I care about is characte.....OH my.....
LOL! I saw that commercial for the first time yesterday! By now, Bill's would have replaced....well, I better leave it at that!
I'm interested to know what will become of the Staff if/when IBLP closes its doors. This is going to be a major blow to fundraising efforts. The organization was already way overcommited to maintaining vast tracts of aging real estate. Once the money turns off, the real estate will necessarily be broken up or rented out.
While a fair amount of Staff has marketable skills, there are a bunch of folks that don't have said money gathering skills. I think we all knew a couple of folks/ families that probably would really struggle in the real world. If they sell that 81 million dollars worth of property (book value). Who knows how much it would be worth at market value? The Hinsdale property could be worth 30-50 million on its own.Nothwoods could be worth 20 million. Where does that money go?
My guess: some re-invented form of ministry, based on where the largest # of faithful still can be found. Probably home schoolers, but who knows. Bill could still have an active role , without being the spokesperson.
I cannot fathom Bill doing something other than leading/teaching: he is the answer man when it comes to living for GOD.
His ego and penchant for control won't allow for anything less.
Exactly, that's why everything I've read here at RG that related to narcissism seemed to go "ZING..." I think long before BIll got freaky, the narcissism bone was just humming..
How 'bout a class action suit??? Oak Brook grads, here's your lucky break! :)
Just kidding...
The Huffpo article said that BG's empire has $80 million + in assets. What kind of assets? and are they held by BG as an individual or a corporation?
If you look at their 990 form, it's mostly real estate. At one time, I'd estimate that they have well over $100 million in real estate.
2011 990 has 114 million in book value, 40 million in depreciation, so the net is around 74 million. I see a 13 million accounts receivable entry, which I assume is the Indianapolis Training Center that was taken by Ivy Tech through immenent domain proceedings. That's probably how they financed the losses of recent years.
Ownership was always murky. Anyone want to help with this list?
Headquarters- well over 200 acres of prime real estate. $30 M?
Northwoods- over 2000 acres, 3 lakes, lodges, landing strip 20M?
Big Sandy- Still quasi owned? 10M-30M?
Australia- 3M?
Australia Cabins- 2M?
Eagle Mountain- 2-3M?
Tulsa Cabins- 2M?
Dallas- 6M?
OKC Training Center- 5M?
Flint- - Gone
ITC-- Gone
Nashville- - Yikes, worth more destroyed than standing.
Little Rock- - Same as above
Fellowship Hill?- Is that owned?
Moscow- - Gone
If I recalled Bill collected Norman Rockwell paintings and stored them in the Institute's vault. (I assume they were original but could not verify that)
Going to an offending brother to restore him is God's greatest test of genuine love? Um, how about, "There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"? This guy just makes it up as he goes along! Authoritatively make false claims, the "sheep" will blindly follow!
I finally made it all the way through, and I am over here giving a one-person "standing ovation" to RG. As difficult as it was to read, I believe this is one of your finest exposes, yet. Good explanation of yet another teaching that was formulated for the sole purpose of silencing the victims and allowing lies and abuse to flourish.
Many more thoughts, but my head is swimming. Just can't sort them all out. Feeling sad all over again, as I am once again reminded of the extent to which I was deceived and manipulated for the agenda of another. Your statement about exchanging autonomy for protection, is right on. That should never even be a consideration.
It doesn't take a genius to dream up laws and principles. But according to the Bible -- read especially Galatians, for starters -- one of the greatest sins of all is a self-righteousness established by works. It is the SIN of unbelief -- actually a denial that Christ had to die. (Gal. 2:21) That is how bad this is. In addition, self-righteousness is deception. There is no such thing -- it is all a mirage created by our unbelief through works. Thus, legalism is not merely Christianity with a little too much law. It is actually ANOTHER GOSPEL. Paul the apostle gave the solution to this sin: That Christ might be formed in us. (Gal. 4:19) Christianity is not a belief system based on laws and principles. It is resurrection union with the living Christ -- it is HIS LIFE in us.
That is quite well said. Thank you.
Thank you, David! Please don't ever stop proclaiming this.
great summary of the faith; this is why there really is no baby with this bath water
Grace is NOT the desire and power to do God's will. If that were so, then grace puts us right back under the law -- because it is then the power to keep that law. What if I fail? Have I fallen from grace? No. Grace and Truth have come IN Christ Jesus. God doesn't give us a thing or a power called grace. He gives us His Son. In Christ we do not obey God to achieve or establish righteousness. We obey because of love and Truth.
This site has the sight to cite the right! Thank God for all RG is doing!
Salvation becomes slavation when someone follows a man's rules that they claim are God's rules.
Asking for an independent investigation is the only way that IBLP can be held accountable. I would never trust the Board of Directors of IBLP to investigate Bill Gothard. I am baffled that Bill Gothard could hear, year after year, Jenny and Paul Speed share their hearts about Paul's struggle with pornography and yet not confide in them about his own struggles with lust. If I was Paul and Jenny Speed, I would be furious!
How about other devoted followers of Bill Gothard? If you are out there, are you sick to your heart about sending your precious children to Journey or Headquarters to be counseled by a man who fondles young women?
Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? Where is the call for justice? Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.
Dr. Billy Boring keeps stating that the Board will be doing an investigation in a "biblical manner." How can the Board be trusted to do things biblically when they have all been reared on Gothardism? I think this situation requires the strong arm of the law and Bill Gothard needs to spend time in jail for molesting young women.
Sovereign Grace Ministries did their own investigation of C.J. Mahaney and basically white washed Mahaney's sin and hypocrisy. If Gothard runs his group with an iron fist like Mahaney is reported to, those in the group fear their respective leader.
Lee, you make a good point.
I believe that the Board's weakness snowballed Bill's issues.
The Board bears as much blame as Bill. It's not like they have did not these concerns over the years. It just that now there is enough of a stink that they are forced to do something! They let this situation happen. Now they think they are impartial enough to address the situation? They have a dog in this hunt. If they find improprieties in Bill, then who looks bad? They might be willing to take down Bill for things that didn't happen on their watch. Any wonder that they are investigating charges from the 70's and 80's?
This is a huge problem.
Great comment.
Interesting that Bill picks a youth leader's WIFE, a woman, to be indecent in this example. . . when he has just been accused of indecency.
And then taking Matthew 18 and making it so impossibly complicated no one can do it.
After giving some thought to the third party investigation:
I went to the web site about David Gibbs, are they kidding??? Really??? You can't have someone do the investigation that is an Alumni and speaks at your conferences.
Read the Board's paragraph below:
The Board of Directors of the Institute in Basic Life Principles is doing a very prayerful, thorough, and Biblical review in regards to the assertions brought by various individuals and groups. After completion of the review the Board will respond at an appropriate time, and in a Biblical manner.
A "Biblical" review should be no different than a secular review at this point. They are not reviewing doctrine or teachings or methods of religious expression. In theory they should be able to hire any firm that would investigate a fortune 500 company. If by Biblical you mean that you are holding yourself to a higher standard (we all know that's what that means) then hold yourself to a higher standard. You can't be afraid of the truth. Doesn't the truth set you free? The review doesn't even need to be the GRACE company. Any "secular" company would recuse themselves in a second from that kind of conflict. So if by biblical, prayerful and thorough they mean a man who is an Alumni once again the "heathens" are more christian like than the "christians"
As much as I really appreciate Alfred's vigor (I really do) why isn't the Gothard camp on the side of living above reproach and finding truth? I will give this to my parents, they were more about the spirit of the law than letter of the law. When we were in the program my Mom made me a leather necklace with the principles of Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
The supporters of Bill as well as us who think there is some sort of wrong doing should live by the same principles. How inconceivably hypocritical of the supporters and the board to not live by this biblical example. It's basic; Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly.
I haven't been to church in years but at the end of the day I live by principles they only talk about. Thank you Mom, xoxo
"...the Board will respond at an appropriate time, and in a Biblical manner."
Okay, that's not true. The "appropriate time" was a long time ago.
From mitchell chapman
David Gibbs is a good guy and doing a lot for the cause of Christ.
Whether he is a good guy, he is deeply associated with IBLP and should not even be considered as a third party who would investigate the matter. Such an investigation by an individual who has his association and a vested interest in their success would not meet any litmus test of being an objective 3rd party. I hope that this rumor is not true.
@RyanS: I had a very dry 'wilderness" experience with church that lasted yrs. I hope you are able to find a very Jesus like fellowship to help with your sojourn. Blessings. With all you've been thru, it's amazing you still love Jesus.
[…] […]
[…] […]
This is just insanity. A day of fasting and prayer is not a part of the Matthew 18 protocal.
and unanimity is not demontrated by the early churches. Nowhere is that a requirement. Bill obviously knew he could manipulate at least one member and keep his standing by having a hung jury.
Does anyone know how reliable the information is that the board is hiring David Gibbs to conduct the investigation?
[…] their authority. However, the rest of the evangelical world would see a meeting at this venue as an appropriate “Matthew 18” handling of the situation. Bypassing any actual investigation, Bill would get these men to publicly declare him clean of all […]
#7 is disturbing to say the least. We are to expose sin, not cover it up! HMM
[…] is the reason our emailer was upset. This stuff cannot be swept under the carpet of "don't give bad reports" any […]
[…] Twisting Matthew 18 […]
This article also shows the danger of patriarchy so stressed by Gothard. That just by being a woman disqualified her from exposing an abuser. The abuser being male was more important than her being a female witness. I have read many stories of how women are abused by husbands and males in these churches that expouse patriarchy. Cbeinternational.org
I am not sure where to post this comment because it could probably be under any of the, sadly, fantastic posts on this site. But here goes.
I have spent the past few weeks reviewing things on this site and while I knew my family danced closely to the strange fire of Gothard, even some members getting very burnt by it, it wasn't until yesterday I truly understood that my family was involved (to varying degrees) in a cult. That thought is so overwhelming and sobering to me that I am just...there are no words. I have also come to clearly see that Bill Gothard operates in a spirit of witchcraft / spirit of Jezebel / spirit of rebellion. An excerpt, "30 Amazingly Consistent Traits of a Jezebel Spirit" (from "Confronting Jezebel: Discerning and Defeating the Spirit of Control" by Steve Sampson, pages 62-68) explained a lot, and explains to me how Bill could take Scripture or conversations or information and twist them and wage battles with them (as many have mentioned on this site).
As the third of 12 kids in a strong Christian family, I was on the upper end that narrowly escaped the heavier involvement in Gothardism. I unwillingly attended one full conference, rejecting everything I heard and saw because the control irritated me. However, my older brother swallowed it all and since my father had died, he "arose" in the family as the authority, which my mother sickly allowed. She and he functioned as a "team" in all family decisions and things were greatly judged and submitted to every Gothard teaching. I was not living at home by then, but saw my younger brothers and sisters get taken straight back into severe legalism and weirdness.
I have come to see that legalism always follows a perverse spirit; hence, wherever you see legalism in action, there is a perverse, impure spirit behind it. Don't know why but I've found it to be true over and over and over again. And this certainly was true in my family. What was also true was that the spirit of witchcraft (or Jezebel or control and manipulation) gained such a foothold in my family through the BG teachings, that some are still not free. And looking over some of the materials which I haven't seen for years, I realize there are still some lies that I bit into and need the Holy Spirit to deliver me from. I am so very grateful for His constant liberty and healing and know that He will continue to do the work He began in all of us, as we yield to Him.
Thank you, Recovering Grace team, for your sacrifices to do this work, though those words seem so small in comparison to the huge work you are doing. Praying God's strength, wisdom and comfort for you all.
Just as the debauchery of the 60's has led to academia and politics being filled with hippies with haircuts, 40 years of IBYC has led to church leadership being filled with heretical Gothardites.
My wife and I have been through 2 church splits in the past 10 years. In both cases, we joined with others, in sincere, careful application of Matt. 18, in exposing serious errors in the local congregations (the first, financial mismanagement, the second, at least 5 years of blatant sermon plagiarism on a scale that would be prosecutable on any given Sunday). Having just read the Matt. 18 expose', we now see that Gothard's twisting of those plain instructions were used against us to suppress the truth. In each case, we, the truth-tellers, the ‘victims‘, were characterized as the guilty party. Then the denominational higher-ups stepped in to tell us that our interpretation and application of Matt. 18 was all wrong. They then set up ground rules that made it impossible for us to achieve our goal of bringing the offenders to repentance and restoration.
We adopted our children in the 80's. Early in their lives, we read BG’s unbiblical teachings on adoption. From then on, we never had any use for BG or any of his teachings, so we were unfamiliar with his Matt. 18 heresies. It is plain to us now that, in the second church split, the Moody-trained 'big gun' pulled his IBYC Matt 18 material off the shelf and used it point-by-point to protect the pastor and freeze us out. Before we read this article, we wondered "Where in the world did he ever come up with this crazy misapplication of Matt. 18? We thought he knew his Bible!"
So now two broken churches in our small town have BG to thank (blame) for enabling what BG considers the worst of all situations, a church split, when reconciliation was within reach through the proper application of Matt 18. Recovering Grace needs to keep exposing BG's heretical teachings, because they are hurting churches all over the world every day.
[…] Twisting Matthew 18 […]
[…] Twisting Matthew 18 […]
[…] Twisting Matthew 18 […]
Love this post; it's a real service to see this all laid out.
I wrote this about a similar issue: Doug Wilson's response to Doug Phillips. It lacks the detailed diagrams, but it's in the same vein:
http://melangewords.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/open-fields-and-stones-doug-wilson-on-doug-phillips/
My question about the whole deal is simple; what kind of man stands up for his wife when he's shown a letter she wrote trying to seduce a boy in the youth group? The supposed patriarch of his family (and the youth group) is apparently willing to defend her at the very moment he learns he was about to be cuckolded? Huh?
OK, a second question: does it say something about the allegations against Gothard that he renders the story this way, and not in the more likely way of the problem being the youth leader trying to seduce a young lady in the youth group? He seems to be going back to the succubus, really.