Bill Gothard Issues Public Statement

You are here:

Home
"New" from IBLP
Bill Gothard Issues Public Statement

Bill Gothard Issues Public Statement

17 April 2014, 22:59

Bill Gothard has released a public statement via his personal web site. The statement is quoted in full below.

A Statement from Bill Gothard

I have withheld this statement in order to honor the request of the Board of Directors to wait until an initial review has taken place. As the review continues, I now want to make this statement.

God has brought me to a place of greater brokenness than at any other time in my life. It is a grief to realize how my pride and insensitivity have affected so many people. I have asked the Lord to reveal the underlying causes and He is doing this.

For many years I have been building the Institute but losing my first love for the Lord. God warns “I know thy works, and thy labour . . . Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent. . . ” (Revelation 2:2, 4, 5). I was finding value and affirmation from the accomplishments of the ministry and those involved in it instead of filling this void in my life with God and His love. I have repented in deep sorrow. However, over the years many people have been offended in different ways because of my lack of genuine love.

I put the Institute and its goals ahead of people and their needs. Standards became more important than relationships. People who didn’t “measure up” were cut off and those who were not seen as adding value to the ministry were treated as though they were expendable. The more I have listened to people describe their experiences the more grieved and sorrowful I have become.

My wrong focus produced a further consequence. Families were made to feel that they must “measure up.” This resulted in some parents putting undue pressure on their sons and daughters in order for the family to be accepted. When there was a lack of love or consistency, sons and daughters saw this as hypocrisy and rejected it. Also, many felt that the expectations where so high that they could never measure up to them. This resulted in a feeling of deep defeat.

This emphasis on outward appearance was also manifested by bringing selected young people to serve at the Headquarters and causing others to feel rejected and offended by my favoritism. My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.

I have failed to live out some of the very things that I have taught. I am committed to learning from my failures by God’s grace and mercy, and do what I can to help bring about Biblical reconciliation as Jesus commands: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matthew 5:23-24).

More than anything I want to make right what I have done wrong and deepen my relationship with the Lord. I trust in God’s undeserved mercy and pray that those whom I have offended would find grace to forgive me. I know that I do not deserve this. I would certainly appreciate your prayers during this time that God would bring healing to those who have been so deeply affected by my actions. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had thus far to be reconciled with individuals and it is my goal to contact as many others as I can, fully hear them, and do whatever I can to bring about Biblical reconciliation.

My greatest offense has been against God. I have earnestly sought His mercy and forgiveness and have asked Him to allow me to experience more of Him and the power of His resurrection.

Sincerely,
Bill Gothard

All articles on this site reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Recovering Grace contributors or the leadership of the site. Students who have survived Gothardism tend to end up at a wide variety of places on the spiritual and theological spectrum, thus the diversity of opinions expressed on this website reflects that. For our official statement of beliefs, click here.

Bill Gothard Gothard

About the author

341 Comments

Lisa April 17, 2014 Reply

Are we surprised, really? Buried in the sixth of nine paragraphs, BG's denial of many claims made on this website.

"Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent."

I heard that they recently sent home all the minors from HQ. That's a good start 40 years too late. I'm afraid that now that he's elderly, his mind has simply glossed over and forgotten any legitimate evidence to the claims, whereas to these women it was a turning point in their young lives.
- tharl April 24, 2014 Reply
  
  Seriously? He admits to touching the feet or hair of young ladies as being "crossing the boundaries of discretion"? After reading what he did to Rachel in the car ("I love your hair"), my heart broke for the child who was so manipulatively violated. It was far worse than just a "boundary of discretion." She was sexually harassed. I've been there, in the work place. It's a place of deep shock, shame (even though you've done NOTHING wrong yourself), and confusion over why you've been targeted.
  
  Bill Gothard indoctrinated, violated, and greatly manipulated those who trusted him. He is not beyond the grace and forgiveness of our Lord and Savior, but he is also not beyond the consequences of his actions. Praying for all whom he violated, and all who continue to want the best for their families, that they would not be party to denying what Bill Gothard has done. After all, are his actions what they would want their own children subjected to? Again, seriously?
David Moore April 17, 2014 Reply

He continues to sin and work iniquity. Even with his first sentence he says one thing and does the opposite. I'm sorry but its full of lies. Please Jesus help us.
- LynnCD April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  "Since he denies some of the physical allegations and all "sexual intent" while omitting mention of other claims, including a variety of additional physical and emotional pursuits, we are largely left wondering whom to believe."
  
  I'm not. I believe the witnesses to his inappropriate behavior, starting with Gary Smalley, then Gothard at that time confessing himself to his "moral failures" vis a vis inappropriate physical affection with staff women. Perhaps you are forgetting that LA Times article from years ago?
  
  Next, I believe the two who witnessed to "Charlotte" being alone for hours with Gothard, and I believe the young man and his wife who came upon him in a practically empty building in close proximity to another young woman.
  
  These women are not needing to defend themselves. Gothard has already admitted he had a problem with being immoral in his behavior toward women in the work environment. That piece above, presumably by Gothard, is a deft attempt at plausible deniability, but after having admitted to so much in the way of his sexual proclivities years ago, does not leave me and many others, at this time, "wondering whom to believe."
  
  "Track records speak volumes."
  - Anonymous April 22, 2014 Reply
    
    LynnCD, in my attempt to be concise, my wording was not as thorough as it could have been. Please allow me to explain. I was one of the females with whom Bill Gothard spent time alone, something that made me highly uncomfortable and which I avoided when possible. Also, I know several women both among those who have published their testimonies on this site and among those who have kept quiet about how they were inappropriately touched by Gothard. I have every reason to believe their claims to be true, since I trust the women who have testified and saw for myself the surrounding events they reference.
    
    Since Gothard admitted to only a few of the allegations and denied others either directly or by suggestion of omission, then we are still suspended in a case - legally speaking - of what he says versus what his victims say. Gothard put himself at risk by denying that he ever "touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent" since the sheer number of testimonies describing the opposite call his honesty into question on that point, thereby compromising the integrity of his entire letter. Many are saying, and I agree, that the activities he confessed in the prior sentence already constituted immoral touching within the contexts that they occurred.
    
    When I wrote, "wondering whom to believe," it was in view of wishing for all of the allegations to be officially laid to rest through Gothard's simple admission to the truth. As long as he denies the majority of the sexual harrassment claims, public confusion will continue.
  - LynnCD April 22, 2014 Reply
    
    THANK YOU for this clarification. That whole piece was written for the purpose of plausible deniability - and you are probably aware of that. What you wrote originally came across to me like this - now that the presumption is with Gothard - he can now resume being back on the board. And that made me upset. Thank you so much for clarifying.
'Megan' April 17, 2014 Reply

Sounds like the sort of apology my mom likes to make. Admit to and apologize for the relatively minor stuff, while puffing herself up with sanctimonious sounding language, 'The Lord told me...', and then flat out deny the big, bad stuff, regardless of how many witnesses say otherwise.

In other words, I do NOT trust this apology. I've been on the receiving end of this sort of thing too many times to trust it.
- Gracie April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  My thoughts exactly! "Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown of being the special one God gives a high calling to and apparently has selected as being better than the rest of us"...we just don't understand how HARD it is to be a spiritual icon.
  - greg r April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    This is a serious and sad affair...but your post still made me laugh, yes, what a heavy burden..
  - kevin April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    Well put Gracie. We are clearly dealing with text book narcissism.
Luanne April 17, 2014 Reply

Yes, Bill, but have you sinned? Lots of 'I' statements here… but not the right ones.

Sin blinds us to sin. Sin blinds us to our own blindness. These are the words of a blind man who finds himself in a corner. He is groping for a way out of the corner, but is still blind.
- greg r April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  that's a very observant post; I get the same vibe, he WANTS to repent, but does not know how.
  IF a corner is ever turned in all this , it will not happen because Bill spent 40, or 1040, days fasting in the woods alone, it will happen when and if Bill gets real with someone who knows him well...Gary Smalley ???...someone to help walk him thru this repentance. He is totally in unfamiliar territory.
  This happens to all of us, I think, from time to time.
  
  A blessed Easter weekend to all of the RG staff, and ATI alum everywhere...and the lurkers like me.
- Dave April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  Luanne,
  Interesting comment. Bill is fast becoming a footnote to history, no different than the Oneida cult in NY State. With every passing day where he is not the decision maker, his influence wanes exponetially. The only "value" if there is any, in this statement is that it indicates to his die-hard followers that there is some fire behind the smoke.
  
  While I'd like to comment on his intention in this, it almost doesn't matter. His ministry has been a sham, and his dramatic language with references to how far he's fallen, and how God is revealing the root causes is still self-focused.
  
  It only reinforces my belief that his so-called ministry consisted of brilliantly re-directing Christians' desire for holiness, and non-Christians' guilt over their sin, towards his idols of character and committments.
  
  If Bill is reading this, here is the root cause - You are an arrogant self-focused sinner, who, while acting out of guilt over the secret sin you've hidden your entire life, seeks to validate your beliefs by getting as many people as possible to adopt them.
  
  You would sacrifice your follower's conscience on your alter of legalism, while maintaining the right to act as you seem fit regardless of how your desired actions fit into Biblical "standards" of conduct.
  
  You claim to seek forgiveness, but how many folks who's stories have NOT made it to RG's website have you sought out for forgiveness? How much time have you spent scouring your history, on your own, for those you may have harmed who have kept silent?
  
  You would use the scriptures as Satan did when he tempted Jesus, to convince others of your position, and as the Pharisees, you pay tithes of mint and cumin and ignore the weightier call to forgiveness through Christ's love.
  
  The day you stop seeking other's forgiveness, and start accepting God's by confessing what you do not want to confess, is the day you will begin to find true freedom. If you want to know my prayer, is that you would find the courage to face that which you have ignored for too long.
  - Jerry Wood April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    " You are an arrogant self-focused sinner, who, while acting out of guilt over the secret sin you've hidden your entire life, seeks to validate your beliefs by getting as many people as possible to adopt them." More of that recovering grace huh? There is none righteous no not one and each of us will answer to a Holy and Just God. I do not know the man or if he is guilty or not of the allegations but it seems the recovering grace folk might not change their name to "Acting for God" Can we pray for mercy for this Bill Gothard fellow as he has certainly sinned whether he is guilty of the allegations or not as we all have sinned. My soul what is happening to and thru all of us must make the real enemy very pleased. Have mercy on us all.
    - greg r April 24, 2014
      
      Yes we are all sinners, equally in need of grace and mercy, but your post fails to take into account Bill's particular problem with narcissism, and the results of that (which are epically bad, and reverberate out to toxically effect thousands , if not millions).
      Mercy, yes, but read today's post, that testimony has been repeated MANY times over. It's time for those voices to be heard and acknowledged. That's part of the healing for her (the author) and all involved. And the church at large.
    - Dave May 5, 2014
      
      Jerry - this is not an instance of a person who "slipped" and fell into sin.
      
      This is an instance of a person with a clear and consisent pattern of evil behavior.
      
      What if you loved your brother very much, but he was systematically raping your daughters and wife? Yes, he is in need of forgiveness and repentance, and yes, his sins are just his instance of the sin nature we all share, but do you invite him back into your house because he's your brother?
  - Karen April 29, 2014 Reply
    
    Dave, where you say:
    
    "It only reinforces my belief that his so-called ministry consisted of brilliantly re-directing Christians' desire for holiness, and non-Christians' guilt over their sin, towards his idols of character and committments."
    
    That seems to me a very apt and succinct summary of the problems with Gothard and his "ministry." I have not personally been impacted by Gothard, but I have loved ones who have, and to this day some of them still swallow many of his destructive false teachings as biblical.
    
    I have done a little research on narcissism, and I would have to say where you address Gothard in your comment here, based on what I've learned, you're pretty much wasting your breath. You're writing as if this is a fully willful and consciously chosen sin. Rather, the roots of true narcissism are established extremely early in childhood by one or both parents/caregivers who routinely ignore the child's most basic emotional needs at a very vulnerable stage in his development, and instead demands some kind of performance before the child's needs (especially emotional needs) are met. Sounds familiar, eh? The child's capacity for empathy is systematically crushed and extinguished by this process and the child (and later adult) becomes deeply insecure. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is the result of a very deep wound to the psyche, and it is notoriously difficult (not completely impossible, but nearly so) for such a person to gain insight and heal from the narcissism. Mr. Gothard truly does need our prayers (as well as seriously firm boundaries and consequences). I'm so glad this is a place where his victims can find a hearing and recover. As with all abuse, it is typically the result of a vicious cycle, and I think we can fairly assume Gothard was spiritually abused as well such that his capacity for genuine emotional and spiritual sensitivity and insight was seriously crippled fairly early on in life.
- MrsWebfoot April 23, 2014 Reply
  
  Well said. He never called what he did "sin." He seemed to "repent" of violating Life Purpose Journal Vol. II.
Donna April 17, 2014 Reply

"...I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent." I do not have any idea what this statement means. How can "holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies", actions which "crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong" have any possible meaning except "sexual intent"?

Furthermore, this statement is not an apology. I suppose it is some sort of twisted effort at confession. Even if the confession were forthright, confession does not equal repentance.

I find this statement totally disgusting, and I hope that the Board of Directors are finding it embarrassing and unacceptable.
- P.L. April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  "Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl..."
  
  Strange, Bill, to my knowledge noone has claimed that you kissed them.
  
  Obfuscation. "If I didn't do THAT, then have can I possibly have done what I am accused of?" Never mind what that is.
  - Beverly April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    Actually, the claim he's specifically refuting is Charlotte's story: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/charlottes-stori/
  - Chris Jones April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    And what exactly does he mean by "girl"? Does "girl" also include a "woman," or "young [teen] women"? Gothard taught that at around age 13 children stopped being children and became "young adults" because this was the Jewish tradition.
    
    So is he saying he's never kissed someone under age 13 or 14, or is he alleging that he's never kissed someone of the female gender of any age? It's not exactly clear.
    - caroline April 23, 2014
      
      That is exactly what I was thinking. Because it's obvious if he was touching those girls like he admitted in this statement, that is a sexual motive. He's basically saying, "okay, I'll admit I was just to ministry focused instead of Christ focused. I'm not bad just misdirected and definitely not a pervert." He's just making narcissistic excuses for himself with the faulty reasoning of his own paradigm.
    - Katie September 22, 2015
      
      My thoughts exactly! He writes about his "actions of holding of hands ... with young ladies" and then states he's never kissed a "girl" ..... soooo I'm wondering if he's being cleverly deceptive.
- greg r April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  How can "holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies", actions which "crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong" have any possible meaning except "sexual intent"?
  
  OK... I know this LOOKS like a rhino walking thru the room, but in the right light.... if you squint and scrunch your eyes... and tap your shoes together five times....
  - Nancy2 April 21, 2014 Reply
    
    He thought he was petting puppies.
    - esbee April 21, 2014
      
      unh! unh! unh! One must remember that under BG rules, pets are pretty much verboten less they take up too much time that could be used serving GOtharD or even become an idol! (in my house, they may not pay the bills, but they run the joint!)
    - Nancy2 April 21, 2014
      
      Either he was touching them in a condescending way as the 'greater' bestowing affection on the lower, or it was sexual.
      
      If all sins carry the same penalty, death, then does it matter his sin? Pride verses sexual immorality? One he is in competition with God. The other he is competing against the young men working at the various training centers. Neither are leadership qualities.
      
      He should have gotten a pet and left the young women alone. Greg r are you suggesting a rhino?
      
      Likewise Esbee, my cat condescends to me all the time.
    - tharl April 24, 2014
      
      Wait...ATI folk can't have pets???
- Guy Cooksey April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  As a pastor in the Church of the Nazarene for over 25 years, I have learned over the years that whenever you put a single man with a huge amount of authority with attractive young ladies (or vice verse--if it is a single woman--in a class room setting of attractive men for instance) you risk what is now happening with BG. Although I have gleaned a lot from IBLP, I always took this teaching with much scrutiny. It did border on legalism and I have known many people who have been negatively affected by it. What is most sad to me is BG's denial of his physical groping as "innocent" and NOT sexual. It destroy's his entire statement and sickens me to think of so many young girls who have had to endure his groping. I was going to have a basic and advanced IBLP seminar in my church this summer. After learning all of this yesterday, I will cancel it.
  - greg r April 22, 2014 Reply
    
    Any kind of admission to 'groping' , or something similar , would be the kiss of death to future leadership appointment. At least that's how I make sense of this glaring absence. And very possible that Bill's positioning on this is not even at the concious level: if you've been around the evangelical block a few decades, you know which landmines are bigger than others.
    Probably, he'd still like some kind of leadership/teaching position.
  - Jess April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    Thank you for that decision. You will never regret it.
  - tharl April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    I am so glad you are willing to take a stand against this, even though it does appear that there are good lessons to be gleaned from some of the taught principles. And I agree; groping is groping. Rubbing one's "older, single man" feet up the calves of young women is nothing BUT sexual in nature. Who doesn't have the common sense to see through that one, right? What a pathetic denial on BG's part.
    - kevin April 25, 2014
      
      "groping is groping. Rubbing one's "older, single man" feet up the calves of young women is nothing BUT sexual in nature"
      
      It is 100% sensual. It is beyond belief that some followers try to explain it as bad manners or non-sexual. In what universe is an old man rubbing his foot up a pretty young girl's leg not sexual. Meg's account was very clear about this point in the section which she titled "This is no Game" There was no doubt that he was turned on when he was doing that to her.
      
      Non-sexual, yeah right. If you believe that one, I've got 7 steps I'd like to sell you that will show you how to get more of God's Grace, guaranteed success and make you "more special" to God.....oh, never mind.
Shane April 18, 2014 Reply

"I have withheld this statement in order to honor the request of the Board of Directors to wait until an initial review has taken place. As the review continues, I now want to make this statement."
I think he's saying I started to adhere to the request but screw it I'm not waiting any longer to speak.

"Standards became more important than relationships. People who didn’t “measure up” were cut off and those who were not seen as adding value to the ministry were treated as though they were expendable."
This folks is what you call legalism/moralism.

There is certainly a disconnect between this statement and the stories that have been told here at RG and the ones yet to be told. The one upside (not to belittle what remains to be said and done) is that he admits to more than his acolytes.
- Ryan Sapp April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  @Shane,
  I think what he is saying in the first paragraph is the Board told me to not release a statement yet.... Why? Because they were not sure there was "improper" touching. At this point of the investigation I am sure everyone on the Board knows there was at least that so he isn't admitting to anything that everyone involved doesn't already know.
  
  There are about 5 other sneaky comments in the first paragraph alone. You could write a whole thesis on this letter and all the subtle meanings he has slipped in.
- Ryan Sapp April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  I think most of you missed it but the board decided in an effort to be more transparent to webcast live from the directors office. I just happened to glance at the feed this morning as Mr. Levendusky walked in and was greeted by Mr. Stephens.
  
  http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5bHPjx7hfb4
  - kevin April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    Based on how the meeting started off, I would have to predict that this was most likely one of the most meaningful meetings in the organization's history.
kevin April 18, 2014 Reply

The non-apology apology, part II.

"For many years I have put the ministry ahead of my family and staff and especially my brother"

Bill Gothard, June 22, 1980

"For many years I have been building the Institute but losing my first love for the Lord. ....I put the Institute and its goals ahead of people and their needs"

Bill Gothard, April 17, 2014.

Just some misplaced priorities, that's all. But, hey, I did it all because I cared so much for the institute.
- greg r April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  Yes...@Kevin. Just me, or does anyone else hear Jesus saying: Love ME ??... Love my lambs...
- Ryan Sapp April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  @Kevin,
  
  I think he is saying I actually cared for you who I was ministering to through the institute above all else and look what it got me.
Chris April 18, 2014 Reply

"Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent."
This comment reminds me of of another Bill- "It depends on what the meaning of is- is." "I did not have sex with that woman."
Defensiveness is not a part of true contrition. You truly need help (if you ever arrive at wanting it), and you need to never be in a place of leadership again- EVER.
- Guy Cooksey April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  BG may be countering just what may happen to him legally if he really confesses what happened. I am not excusing his behavior in any way,just noting a obvious thing that often happens.
- Jen April 28, 2014 Reply
  
  Chris, I thought the same thing, that he sounded like our former president! Both narcissists...
Backpacker April 18, 2014 Reply

Did Bill come out with this semi-apology just in time to make a surprise appearance at the upcoming family conference? So much is missing from his statement.
David April 18, 2014 Reply

I have said this from the start: If Bill Gothard were actually innocent of every charge of immorality and sexual harassment -- if not a word of those charges were true -- he is still a teacher of a false Christianity, of, "another gospel," and of, "another Jesus." Unless he recants his teaching, seminars, and organization as heresy, this letter means nothing -- indeed, I don't think it means anything regardless, because it will simply serve to "prove" to his followers that he is "truly humble." In fact, I would submit that if it took the RG website to point out these sins to him after 50 years, then how much of a conviction of the Holy Spirit did he ever have in his life. For me, this is all nothing but the first step to Gothard painting his victims as the bad guys, and of his return to his ministry. You can take that one to the bank. It is going to happen. This is the inevitable outcome of making the core issue the terrible sexual harassment rather than the heresy and false teaching that created this cult to begin with.
- Karen April 30, 2014 Reply
  
  David, as one who has encountered spiritual abuse and false teaching in several forms (at least vicariously through loved ones and friends), I find your comments about this to be spot on. Well said! I hope the wider Christian community gets your message loud and clear.
Jeff Gill April 18, 2014 Reply

This reads to me like the first public phase of a Get Back Into Power plan. My guess is he'll go for some kind of non-executive director or 'spiritual father' title – still with lots of power but that maybe isn't so obvious to the casual observer.
- kevin April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  That's how I see it too Jeff.
  "still with lots of power". Yes, but I think he will really have all the power. I doubt he really ever gave it up. He is likely in control of every aspect of the current process and situation, if not directly controlling the Board, then via David Gibbs controlling the board.
- greg r April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  It's good to wait for the next public statement(s) before forming a strong take on where Bill is going with this but it stands out to me that nothing in his 'confession' would be the 'kill bill' shot reg. church leadership in MOST camps: he could roll with this confession and still get reinstatede into some role, some teaching/leading role.
  he does not touch or approach a calculated wrongful use of power, just a generic 'pride' problem.... and of course , we ALL have a pride problem , so there is an out with that. I don't want to make more of this until more is known, but hmmmm...
chris April 18, 2014 Reply

Bill, are you running for office? I think things are going to get much worse for you. How much could you confess to that we don't know about? Why don't you confess to dinner out the secret stuff, then you might be taken seriously. This non apology looks like it was prepared by a lawyer. "Sexual intent" is not the only kind of intent that could get you there. I'm sure you can spiritualize that too.
Alfred Corduan April 18, 2014 Reply

[""...I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent." I do not have any idea what this statement means. "]

It means that he is emphatically denying "Charlotte"'s story. Which he had done - emphatically - in private multiple times. As well as stating that the events in 1980 did not include "fondling" or worse . . . As alleged by the LA Times article . . . And indicating that the charge of "sexual immorality" laid out in the Veinot book is simply wrong. I have spent the last 10 years verifying that.

Some suggest - even as some of the players in 1980 did in documents published on this website - that the relative weak case for even "sexual harassment" is justified to take him down . . . .because his doctrine is so bad. End justifies the means? That is a really bad motive for trying to be objective. Eternity will tell. I just know that Jesus loves Bill Gothard every bit as much as He loves his accusers. I think He really likes what Bill has been trying to do. Oh yes He cares, I know He cares how 79 year old Mr. Gothard has been feeling as he has walked this agony, just as He cares about each person who has suffered harm by things Bill or IBLP has done.
- Paul VA April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  Alfred, this may seem off topic but bear with me. I only found this web site a month ago and am slowly catching up on older posts. Yesterday I read a post from a year ago about the Sonic Bloom tomatoes that were supposed to be grown with superior Biblical principals and was very intrigued. https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/03/sonic-bloom-untruth-with-an-agenda/
  
  This incident stands out because it highlights and proves so many things about the dishonest and agenda driven nature of BG. Its a microcosm of the Institute as a whole in my opinion. I was also interested to see that you made no comment on this incident.
  
  Here we have a witness that true data was ignored and manipulated in a way that is not only absurd but abused the conscience of young people who were not given space to be intellectually honest. It produced its desired result of creating hype and generating funds. Its sick in and of itself and its just one little provable microcosm of BG and the Institutes ways.
  - Alfred Corduan April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    I in fact made a great many comments on that . . . either they were deleted . . . or they were in another thread. I will see if I can find them.
  - Alfred Corduan April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    I made comments here https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/06/a-call-to-repentance/
    
    and especially here
    
    https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/05/the-gospel-of-pragmatism/
    - Paul VA April 22, 2014
      
      Alfred, do you trust this man?
- Mosessister April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  @Alfred,
  "My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent."
  
  These two sentences taken together indicate pathology. Ok, he's never kissed a girl. I believe him, I think. But the fact that he either doesn't recognize, or is denying sexual self-gratification as a motive in the other touching proves that he is either delusional or a pathological liar. Either scenario is extremely problematic. I find it hard to believe that you are still defending him, that you show relatively less concern for his victims, especially in view of the fact that he confesses legalism in this sentence: "Standards became more important than relationships."
  
  I realize it's difficult to reject something/someone in which you've invested so much. I am empathetic to that. But trumpeting what he is denying while dismissing what he is confessing does a huge disservice to the "little ones" in the Kingdom. Bill Gothard is a seriously fallen human in great need of redemption and God's love. I believe redemption is possible, but saying his sin really isn't all that terrible is not the place to start.
  - 'Megan' April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    Many many moons ago, I saw an episode of Hawaii 5-0. There was a family that went around killing other people and then stealing whatever they wanted from the dead person. It took the entire episode to chase down the family and take them to jail. The family was surprisingly unassuming, gentle, and didn't seem to be dangerous.
    Once in jail, Detective McGarrett asked the husband and wife, 'why did you do this to so many people?' The wife responded, 'they're not family, so it doesn't matter if they die.' The husband quickly followed up with, 'And once they're dead, they can't use their stuff anymore, so it's ours now.'
    
    Neither individual seemed to realize WHY what they were doing was wrong, or even wrong at all. They had their reasons, and those reasons seemed justifiable to them, even though it was absolutely wrong by (hopefully) everyone's standards.
    
    In the case of Bill Gothard, I cannot assume that he never realized that his actions were wrong. At all. Perhaps his lack of empathy for anyone besides himself made him think of all these people as objects rather than people, either way, does that make his actions any less wrong, even if it was done 'unconsciously'? Let me say again, I do not believe the he didn't know what he was doing. AT. All. I suppose he just figured he'd always get away with it.
    
    I only tell that story because it's possible now that some of his memories may be dim, and also because a narcissist will convince themselves of whatever they like. I know, I have all too familiar dealings with one. The person I know like this, could do something, and then literally turn around and convince themself that they did no such thing, regardless of how many witnesses say otherwise. (and if this person was cornered about it, they would brilliantly manage to make everyone else the bad guy.. sound familiar?)
    
    All of that to say, whatever Gothard is or is not, he IS dangerous. I've seen too much of this behavior to believe otherwise, and my blinders are OFF. My blinders were forced off by hard life experience, not by my own choosing. But now they stay off, very much by my own choosing. With God's mercy, I will never be blind to at least this vice again.
- Alfred Corduan April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  mosessister: I dunno. As I have always said, it feels like the way adolescent boys deal with girls. Awkward, embarrassed, lots of powerful hormones and not always sure what to do with them - yeah, I was there. How many single men do you know who are interested in women but that decline to get married for conviction? Not a lot? Mostly priests? That would be about it. Priests sadly have a horrible track record in that area, a pattern that confirms the Scriptural admonition "to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor. 7:2)
  
  Personally . . . I have no idea how I would have fared with my purity had I been convinced I needed to not marry. On that level I wonder that he did as well as he did. And, from every source I know - again discounting "Charlotte's" testimony - he stayed pure.
  - horse April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    You still don't understand grooming.
  - Mosessister April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    No one who admits to behavior that normal people find abhorrent is pure.
    - Ryan Sapp April 18, 2014
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJwveNAc1lo
  - Mosessister April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    I should also add that sexual harassment laws in the state of Illinois prohibit exactly the touching that he admits to. Ignorance is not a defense.
  - Alfred Corduan April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    "Grooming for what", he asks? Unless "grooming" is an end in itself? You will have to admit that this makes this most unusual.
    
    "Normal" . . . there is a term I find interesting.
    
    Someone recently pointed out that, in the "Anne of Greem Gables" account we have an unmarried man living with his sister . . . hugging and kissing a girl that is not a relative. Did that strike anyone as weird? It didn't me either. Why?
    - greg r April 18, 2014
      
      Alfred, it does not matter (in a sense) 'for what'...grooming is evil; PERIOD no matter what BG intended or what he was aiming for, it is calculated , intentional, evil. time to deal with this, Alfred.
    - horse April 18, 2014
      
      If you have to ask grooming for what, then you still don't understand grooming. If you compare Matthew in A of G G to Bill's conduct, then you still don't understand grooming.
    - P.L. April 18, 2014
      
      Because Anne is living in Matthew's household as the equivalent of a foster child, and therefore a recipient of appropriate affection within that household.
      
      Matthew didn't go around hugging and kissing fifty other girls toward whom he just 'felt' fatherly but who were not part of his household. And he sure didn't take off his socks and rub his feet on them (or Anne). You're reeeally reaching here.
    - Sally April 19, 2014
      
      Anne of Green Gables is a story! Not to be confused with real life people. I don't get what this has anything to do with the topic. Lets keep it real.
    - Sally April 19, 2014
      
      Anne of Green Gables is a story! Not to be confused with real life people. I don't get what this has anything to do with the topic. Lets keep it real.
    - Timothy April 21, 2014
      
      Alfred,
      
      I don't know about Ann of Green Gables, I personally hated those movies. I have seen in real life brothers and sisters hugging and kissing one another. Yes, I found it very very fundamentally disturbing because it left me and everyone else there with the impression that it was of a sexual intent in some weird, creepy sort of way.
      
      They played it off like it was just a bother/sister thing, anyone one I have meet that knows them agrees its creepy and disturbing even though both parties involved spin it off like it isn't.
      
      Here we have a older dude (like 20-50 years older if not more.) Saying that his actions where fatherly and affectionate not sexual and creepy.
      
      The perpetrator can try and state his or her intentions but the way they come across to the victim is left to the victim to define. If I slap a girl on the rear and she says it was sexual, I can claim I did it with a sportsmanlike camaraderie, but what defines if it was acceptable is how she takes it regardless of my intentions.
      
      I know of at least one girl that worked around gothard and a couple of guys and all said that he was creepy, and backed up the footsie/being with girls along. This was years ago before any of this came out for me or them. There are a bunch of these stories and all of them share almost identical things that happened to every one.
      
      At the very least there is a pattern of doing things that other people are taking as sexual and trying to tell people its not over the course of 40+ years. This would be like me tell the girl I slapped on the rear that I was just fine with slapping her on the rear so she should be too, and continuing to do it.
  - greg r April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    Alfred, after the 10th , or 15th, or 20th girl ...at what stage or state does this move from the 'awkward and adolescent" to something else ??
    you are talking about a man with a pattern of behaviors that spans dozens of women, over 30yrs... your explanations are ....um...thin.
    Don't make Bill out to be something he is not...help him and yourself, your family, and face what 'is'.
  - Anonymous April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    Alfred, you just stated "Personally . . . I have no idea how I would have fared with my purity had I been convinced I needed to not marry. On that level I wonder that he did as well as he did. And, from every source I know - again discounting "Charlotte's" testimony - he stayed pure."
    
    This may be the most profoundly absurd comment I have read on the entire RG website! At this point your credibility is zero. Until the scales fall from your eyes (by the grace of God, not your still defended works) you will be blind.
    
    With endless evidence of spiritual, emotional, sexual damage to so many, you continue to defend the leader of a cult, a scam of non biblical, non optional steps to success and being a 'better" Christian than those who are not in the cult. May the Lord have mercy this Good Friday...
    - Anonymous from Somewhere April 18, 2014
      
      To avoid confusion, the "Anonymous" comment I just posted is not from the first Anonymous poster above. I'll go by "Anonymous from Somewhere".
  - Ryan Sapp April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    @Alfred
    
    Let's be clear. He didn't decline to get married for conviction. He declined to get married because it would've hampered his ministry. I heard it first had, " none of us would be here if I had chosen to get married" (Direct quote).
    - Sally April 19, 2014
      
      Ryan, if he had gotten married, in retrospect that would have solved what is at hand now.
  - Alfred Corduan April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    He declined to get married because of a spiritual conviction based on 1 Cor. 7. No, I did not misspeak. He read that so say, If you can hang in there and have control of your passions, don't get married . . . so you can get more done for Jesus.
    
    Grooming . . . what to say. I shall be shouted down, no matter what I say. Child molesters groom for sexual gratification . . . there IS no grooming if there is no sex, somewhere. Bosses groom underlings for sexual access . . . if the grooming does not involve sex, somewhere, or does not involve clear "harassment" issues, like porn, dirty stories, comments, there is no crime.
    
    And as to living in the house as a foster child . . . the relationship of Bill to ATI young people that he is discipling has NEVER been a typical work or even counseling situation. They . . . LIVE there. They share life, 24x7, work, eat, go to church together, take trips, go on vacations together. Bill counsels and works with each young person individually, some situations involving hundreds of hours of close contact. That is part of the expectation - parents deputize Bill to care for and train their young people in their absence. So . . . it is not out of norm to have some expressions of familial affection. You typically don't hug your sons as much as your daughters, at least I don't . . . because the girls are geared for that.
    
    Which is why "Normal" is such an interesting concept. We just declared "Normal" to be an unmarried elderly man hugging and kissing a young girl who is not related to him (Anne of Green Gables). Jesus had women washing His feet with their hair, putting perfume on Him . . . normal. David kissed Jonathan . . . normal. Aged David in bed all day long with a young girl he was not married to, keeping him warm . . . normal.
    - fireflight April 21, 2014
      
      Alfred, my dear brother, your comments make me terrified for the well-being of your children. I shudder to think what could happen to your children if you feel that you or Gothard are entitled to define terms such as molestation, grooming, harassment, abuse, purity and "normal".
      
      Dear God, please let me be wrong.
    - eva April 21, 2014
      
      I see that Bill Gothard didn't start with verse 1 of I Cor. 7 where it says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" Oh Wait!! these were GIRLS. That makes it ok I guess.
    - Alfred Corduan April 21, 2014
      
      Either thay, firefight, or things have been blown way out of proportion. No chance of that, eh? Remember, I have a son on staff and a daughter in Taiwan, with another getting ready to go. So this is all up close and personal.
      
      "'We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented' . . . They say, 'Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.' But wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:17,19)
    - MatthewS April 21, 2014
      
      By analogy then, Bill Gothard has a lot in common with the rejected Messiah?
    - John Patterson April 22, 2014
      
      Alfred, I believe BG wanted to get married, and based on the written testimony of several young ladies this was the case. I would guess the Board shut down these requests based on age difference and overall inappropriateness. All the time I was in ATI, at Oak Brook, Russia, and several training centers we (young men) were constantly required to attend meetings on keeping our commitments to courtship, on avoiding all appearance of evil etc. Young men were sent home all the time for real and perceived moral failures. BG was a walking, breathing, and hypocritical example of a double standard. He never should have allowed any young girls or single women to work directly with or for him, this in my mind was a huge failing for the Board to have not corrected this habitual behavior. BG never should have "counseled" anyone alone, let alone a young girl. I can remember one time while being "encouraged" in a private meeting with BG and RL (apparently I did not have enough light emanating from my optic orifice) I was told by Mr. Gothard that if he had a daughter he would not let her near me! Anyway his tone changed when later in the meeting I smiled and I guess a little light escaped from my eyes, obviously a result of the "encouragement". As a Father Would you allow your 15 year old daughter to be his personal secretary in the early 90's? I know what my answer would be.
      
      Alfred,
      
      you clearly are a great family man, and have sought what you think is God's best for your family. Anyone with objectivity and open eyes can see that there is a pattern here not only with BG but with the institute as a whole. God works in miraculous ways using both the believer as well as the non believer to fulfill his will. I used to defend ATI, but as I read account after account of damaged families and lives, who, years later still have not found peace I have to wonder if the good has outweighed the bad. I really believe the only reason ATI has lasted as long as it has is directly due to the strong well rooted families who have volunteered, worked for, and supported the institute over the years.
      
      BG is just a man, and prone to the same moral failings as anyone, but the board of directors allowed these practices to continue. It took a website like this to wake them up and take action, but I bet we see Mr. G take up the helm again, albeit with a new title.
  - Dan W April 19, 2014 Reply
    
    Only a legalist can claim BG 'stayed pure'.
    
    Matthew 5:28
    "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
    
    And to claim that he was just acting like an adolescent, as if because he never married he never grew out of adolescence? If his hormones were still raging like a 15 year old when he was 50, then he should have removed himself from any association with young people about 30 years earlier.
    
    Fortunately, you blow your own weak case out of the water with your reference to celibacy for the sake of ministry and the heartaches many RC priests have caused. They and their employer are being taken to court daily around the world. Thanks for putting BG in the same category.
    - Dan W April 19, 2014
      
      Also, Alfred, I'm glad you post your name and picture (assuming of course you are an honest person). That way, if you are involved in any church or ministry, the leadership will know to beware of you (assuming of course that they are not all rationalizing, sin-justifying legalists who have been infected at IBYC).
    - Alfred Corduan April 20, 2014
      
      I will take what I have to, and, yes, I will keep posting my real name, real picture, and real link to my website and email . . . but, really, isn't this crossing a line . . . Moderators?
    - greg r April 21, 2014
      
      @DanW: I think I understand your points , but some of your warnings about Alfred are, IMO, a step too far. this is the internet, not a face to face conversation. Show him a little more respect or tact, please.
    - kevin April 21, 2014
      
      Dan, you make some good points, but I feel you are crossing the line in your personal comments about Alfred. That really isn't necessary.
    - Dan W April 25, 2014
      
      @greg r
      I appreciate your comment "I think I understand your points , but some of your warnings about Alfred are, IMO, a step too far. this is the internet, not a face to face conversation. Show him a little more respect or tact, please."
      
      Because it is the internet, we rarely know the people behind the statements, so it is best to just respond to the statements and not get personal.
      
      It would have been better for me to say that I am very disturbed about the overwhelming amount of testimony against BG, considering the unique, powerful position he has held in evangelical circles these past 4 decades, his evasive responses, and the extent to which some are willing to go in his defense. While this case is more public than most, many of us unfortunately know of too many other cases where elders, pastors, or their children have molested/abused young people in their churches, sometimes their own relatives, cases of pastors/elders committing adultery, etc. Too often, the church leadership has covered for the perpetrator instead of dealing with the sin in a biblical manner, because church 'unity' or personal friendships are deemed more important than honoring God's Word or protecting the victims. As a result, sin was perpetuated, psychological and spiritual damage was done, and onlookers who knew the facts learned that they too could probably get away with such sins, which lead to more damage yet.
      
      I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and have often defended people when others have turned away. So to some extent, I understand the eagerness of some to defend BG. But these testimonies are too numerous, too detailed, and too painful to be disregarded or belittled.
      
      I pray that one good thing that comes from this is a realization in all churches and parachurch organizations that these things can be happening among us, which should result in a willingness to seek the truth no matter where it leads. Even better, I hope these revelations and the discussions regarding them will result in the establishment of defenses that can help protect the vulnerable ones among us, and, when sins are discovered, that we would all work together to make sure they are not ignored or covered up.
  - WendyA April 22, 2014 Reply
    
    NO, Alfred, he did NOT "stay pure." Not according to the tenets of his own teachings. "Purity" included not touching people we weren't married to, but it also involved not seeking, developing, or encouraging emotional attachments of ANY kind.
    
    I was very harshly treated over a friendship with a person of another gender. It was only my father's intervention that kept me and the guy from getting sent home— and we were never alone together, nor did we even so much as touch hands. We sure as heck weren't playing footsie, stroking hair, or giving each other gifts.
    
    I was also, you may recall, told to stop walking and talking alone with my brother because it "looked bad" and "gave the wrong impression."
    
    I saw MANY young people get sent home for talking too much to people of the other gender or for being too friendly with the other gender. And yes, I saw a few get sent home for more physical infractions like hand-holding.
    
    "With what measure you judge, you shall be judged."
    
    Bill Gothard harshly judged young people of opposite genders who were entirely innocent of wrong-doing or of illicit intent, to preserve his own reputation. He publicly humiliated and disgraced people who were doing things far less intimate than his own actions. He did not live by his own teachings.
    
    That's really the bottom line. And the problem is that now that his own standards and teachings are being enforced on his behaviour, he doesn't like it one bit. Well ... too bad.
    
    And then there are midguided people like you who want to defend him and say he "stayed pure." Please. That's bilge. Pure, unadulterated bilge. And you know it.
  - Father with Daughters April 27, 2014 Reply
    
    A man his age playing footsie with a young girl is not pure. Had he done that to any of my daughters, he'd have a big problem from me.
- greg r April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  @Alfred: busy day, eh alfred ?? you wrote:
  
  Some suggest - even as some of the players in 1980 did in documents published on this website - that the relative weak case for even "sexual harassment" is justified to take him down . . . .because his doctrine is so bad..
  
  count me in the other camp: even if a case could be made that BG's doctrine is not as legalistic as some present it, he is disqualified as a leader for his pattern of behaviors and abuse of power over the last three decades and then some..
  Notice I did not say anything about Bill's position before GOD, just his ability to lead.
- fireflight April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  Alfred, if you think this is just about somebody's accusations against a man you appreciate, you are deeply wrong. Take a look around this website. Bill Gothard may or may not be a sexual predator (which, by definition, may or may not involve sexual intercourse), but the real issue at hand is his teaching, which is false. It creates a false concept of God, a works-based system of earning God's favor, and a platform on which abuse of authority can thrive uninhibited for decades.
  
  Whether Bill abused the women who trusted him is a serious issue that should be explored, but the larger issue is the system of beliefs and teachings that has fostered the abuse and damage in evidence on this website and elsewhere, including my own family.
- Elsa April 24, 2014 Reply
  
  Maybe it would be best to just ignore your comment, but I can't.
  "Agony"??? Seriously???
  What about us girls who worked for him?
  Yes, sure, we "suffered harm", but "we have to think of the agony that Bill is experiencing right now..."
  You know, that hurts...A LOT.
  Bill just got caught. That is all. Part of the story came out in the open.
  But us girls... We have been struggling for years to make sense of a world that is marred by messed up perverts like him.
  - P.L. April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    Thanks for sharing, Elsa. I am deeply sorry for your hurt. Many of my, and I think others, responses to Alfred and other Gothard defenders in these comment threads are not so much to change those minds (which is unlikely), but because we know from personal experience how their justifications can be fresh hurts to one already wounded.
    
    So we don't let them go unchallenged, hoping in some small way to participate in your defense and healing. I'm glad you didn't ignore this comment. Blessings on your journey.
Nancy April 18, 2014 Reply

This, friends, is a classic example of doublespeak. This is a definition of doublespeak by English professor Dr. Richard Norquist:

"Doublespeak is language which pretends to communicate but doesn't. It is language which makes the bad seem good, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem unattractive, or at least tolerable. It is language which avoids, shifts or denies responsibility; language which is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language which conceals or prevents thought."

Two books come to my mind as this whole situation with Bill Gothard unfolds: "1984" and "The Handmaid's Tale". Both are excellent reads and deal with the issue of power and control taken to the nth degree, particularly with women in the second book.
"Emee" April 18, 2014 Reply

This whole letter makes me sick, so reading the other comments has been very affirming--thanks friends! One part from the statement really struck me:

"I am grateful for the opportunities I have had thus far to be reconciled with individuals and it is my goal to contact as many others as I can, fully hear them, and do whatever I can to bring about Biblical reconciliation."

Has BG newly defined 'reconciliation' to be listening to others share how he hurt them? True reconciliation should (at the very least) involve an apology from the perpetrator--something sadly lacking from BG's game plan quoted above (unless it's included in his 'whatever').

As stated in the MOM Factor:
"To reconcile is to “settle after an estrangement.” It involves many aspects:
• Confronting and being confronted...
• Apologizing and accepting apologies
• Forgiving and asking forgiveness
• Repenting and asking for repentance"

Thanks, greg r., for your weekend wish--I second it!
"A blessed Easter weekend to all of the RG staff, and ATI alum everywhere...and the lurkers like me."
- Dan W April 19, 2014 Reply
  
  Well put, "Emee".
  
  When he says "I am grateful for the opportunities I have had thus far to be reconciled with individuals and it is my goal to contact as many others as I can, fully hear them, and do whatever I can to bring about Biblical reconciliation", it is obvious he denies his own sin or any real personal responsibility. Otherwise, instead of "fully hear them" he would have said "fully confess my specific sins to them". He has no intention, at this point, of dealing with his sin. But then, perhaps the Holy Spirit is not finished with trying to convict him.
Paul VA April 18, 2014 Reply

A warning flag of a self-justifying apology is the use of scripture verses in it. It infers superiority, righteousness, and a teachers role. As said above it smacks of "doublespeak." When someone has made a living off of manipulating people those who have been serially abused by that manipulation need more than this.
Lisa Joy April 18, 2014 Reply

I'd love to see a comparison between this "apology" and the one he made in 1980.

Also, his "three root causes" of all sin are Lust of the Flesh (sex), Lust of the Eyes (things), & the Pride of Life. Apparently he figures that "pride" is the least of the three evils, so he'll claim that one!

Suspicious timing for this to come out right before the Big Sandy conference, too!
Leon Hipp April 18, 2014 Reply

It's amazing how judgemental people are on this website. Jesus tells us to forgive and we will be forgiven. Too many people on here play judge and jury.
- Cricket April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  RG is doing as God commands in Ephesians 5:11- "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them."
- greg r April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  It's amazing to me how some assume that because someone of high public profile is held to real accountability, it is therefore assumed that forgiveness is not offered or extended. Consequences and forgiveness do not have to exclude each other. Bill is not a 'worse' sinner than anyone who posts here, most/least of all greg r.
Shane Boone April 18, 2014 Reply

We all can see the insincerity in BG's statement. When you have to qualify things (justify yourself) at the end...it is totally false humility. Just like DP's statment. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you been found wanting.
Caroline G April 18, 2014 Reply

I am appalled by this. It is so insulting to everyone who has ever suffered because of him. If all I can do in all of this is to add one small voice to the crowd trying to give support to the victims, then that's what I'm going to do. If you are a victim here and you are reading this, please know that you have an immense amount of support and I for one believe you, 100%, and I'm praying for you.
Caroline G April 18, 2014 Reply

Oh, also, you all deserve so much better than what he's pathetically offering. He isn't even offering it to anyone, just the cosmos.
Beverly April 18, 2014 Reply

"This emphasis on outward appearance was also manifested by bringing selected young people to serve at the Headquarters and causing others to feel rejected and offended by my favoritism."

="I'm sorry I made the rest of the girls so jealous that I didn't pick them as favorites."

"My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust...[But I have not] touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent."

= "Too bad those girls misunderstood my fatherly love and affection for them, which I admit was a double-standard and a violation of trust. But there was no immoral touching or sexual intent to anything I did with the girls, even though I never once played footsie with the guys, or ran my hand through their hair, or placed my hand on their thighs as I gazed into their eyes. Trust me. Nothing sexual about what I did at all. I just happened to express this fatherly interest only to the beautiful girls who were my favs."
TiaraLi April 18, 2014 Reply

What steps specifically is he going to take to look towards restitution and restoration? What is he going to do for the victims? What public statements regarding the wrongness of his teachings is he going to make? Will there be any actual repentance? Will he submit to a police investigation (which he should have no problem doing if his actions weren't actually illegal).

They've sent all the minors home - have they released the names and details of those minors to child safety officials so they can check that those children were not harmed by their time at headquarters?
P.L. April 18, 2014 Reply

"...nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent" and I, Gothard, get to define what immoral touching is and what sexual intent is. And how dare you judge the intents of my heart!

This is classic abuser talk. "I didn't abuse you because I get to define what abuse is and by my definition it wasn't abuse".

It is so pathological that most people know to take these statements as confirmation that abuse has occurred, not denial. If only BG knew just how much he is outing himself. No wonder they asked him to keep quiet.
- eva April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  ....and Alfred doesn't get to define what abuse is either.
  - fireflight April 21, 2014 Reply
    
    What? No!
Leon Hipp April 18, 2014 Reply

Bill created an almost Mormon like ministry and showed a lot of favoritism, but touching someone's hair is not punishable by going to jail.
- Dan W April 19, 2014 Reply
  
  Leon, please do not try in any way to minimize the abuse suffered by so many young women at the hands of Bill Gothard these many years. Read their testimonies found elsewhere on this website before you attempt to dismiss these inappropriate actions by a church leader with considerable influence on their lives as just 'touching someone's hair'.
nmgirl April 18, 2014 Reply

What a pile of bs. So according to BG, in 40 years no one has ever, ever ever told him is behavior was wrong. I always love the 'i'm sorry your were offended' type of non-apology.
- "Emee" April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  This sadly seems appropriate: http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2010/10/06#.U1bfBvlkSa8
Mosessister April 18, 2014 Reply

@Leon Hipp, "unnecessary touching," which Gothard did admit to, is punishable by law under Federal Hostile Work Environment laws. It is instructive that he confessed to this, which has a much shorter SOL (I think less than a year in Illinois), while denying the more serious claims that have longer SOL. Very strategic.
- Leon Hipp April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  Don't know for sure he did those more serious things...maybe that's why he's not confessing
  - Ryan Sapp April 18, 2014 Reply
    
    He only admitted to what he had to at this point.
    - Leon Hipp April 18, 2014
      
      Maybe or maybe not. Basically right now you have a He said/ She said situation. II have no idea who to believe.
    - 'Megan' April 18, 2014
      
      Leon, that's fair enough, not knowing who to believe.
      
      I will say this, when it comes to cases of molestation and certain other sexual crimes, there are RARELY witnesses. Why? Because if someone wants to grope the private parts of anyone else when they know they don't have the right, they will wait til there are no witnesses. Simple as that.
      
      According to my information, when cases like these are presented, the lack of witnesses does not necessarily mean that the court will dismiss it. Other types of evidences will be produced and considered.
      
      Hope that helps.
Betty April 18, 2014 Reply

I have been 'researching' quite a bit since first learning of bg's behavior, and I agree that bg's redefining of terms used by the victims is classic for certain 'problem personalities'.

This 'person' always has to be right, even when it is obviously wrong. Will manipulate your thinking so you don't even believe yourself. Crafty. Deceptive. Was referred to as 'gaslighting in one of the blogs I read. (Haven't seen the movie yet, though...1930's, Ingred Bergman?)

Very hard to read. For me, unimaginable to experience. Completely, disgustingly wrong. Heartbreaking. Sickening. Jesus knows. Thank you for helping me understand and join with you in carrying this heavy load.

God Almighty is Sovereign even over the worst. Recovering Grace has exhibited the wonderful Grace of God to me through these past few months as I have opened my mind to these horrible past events, and as I have allowed my heart to begin grieving. Thank you for showing me patient endurance, even while working through your own pain.

I guess what I have been learning from rg: "These" are the facts, carefully compiled; We painstakingly relate them to "you"; We wait patiently to see how the offender responds, hoping desperately that the 'offender' will respond appropriately (!); Praying 'do justly, love mercy, walk humbly.

Now is the time to 'get that yoke on--with Christ--continuing to learn that He is meek and lowly of heart... for you and I desparately need His Rest!

I claim God's Sovereign Control over bg and all of us. He loves us. He will NOT leave us. No matter what. God is JUST. Wrong will be punished. It is HIS Time-table. I wait with you all. In God's All-Powerful, All Controlling, All-Loving way--God's Justice will be complete.
"Hannah" April 18, 2014 Reply

Does anyone care to explain to me, how, in his mind, molestation is without sexual intent? Just assuming for a moment, that he really believes this statement. That's one I can't seem to wrap my mind around.
- Matthew Voyer April 18, 2014 Reply
  
  I'm not sure that anyone but Mr. Gothard can explain his singular definition of molestation. From reading the letter, I do not believe that he is utilizing mainstream logic.
Betty April 18, 2014 Reply

Yes, and I also appreciate those of you with legal training and agree that your work might become significant to bringing the justice for which we are praying!
Matthew Voyer April 18, 2014 Reply

I'm not sure if Mr. Gothard realizes how savvy his students have become through the lessons he has provided. This letter is not an apology, it is an explanation that negates itself.

We were taught that a proper apology is "I'm sorry, I was wrong, please forgive me." This letter does not follow that criteria.

Also, I'm not certain that Mr. Gothard understands that he has turned many people away from God due to his actions. Utilizing religious themed language at this point is not appropriate - his audience is not comprised of only active believers anymore.

After I read his apology, my initial response was that he should be careful - if his greatest offense is against God, I would not bank on undeserved mercy from Him or from the people he is writing to. There are natural consequences to actions - not all humans are going to be willing to grant the love of God to Mr. Gothard. This may have opened up a Pandora's box that will not be easily shut.

I hate to say this, but I think this letter will do more harm than good.
Daniel April 18, 2014 Reply

If he claims the footsie was nonsexual, why was it done only in private to cute girls? It seems that all the stories are consistent that it was done in settings where it would not be observed by others. Do we have any stories of footsie with boys and men, public footsie with girls, footsie with old ladies, etc? If we had examples of those, then we could possibly give room that he was a nonsexual footsie player...

Do we have stories of stroking boys' hair, holding their hands, etc?

Notice the passive voice in much of the "confession."
- Elsa April 24, 2014 Reply
  
  Believe me, there was no stroking or petting going on to any girl when her father was up for the business conference, or her brother, to Journey. For some strange reason, he was extremely professional then.
Joshua April 19, 2014 Reply

"...I have asked the Lord to reveal the underlying causes and He is doing this." How can he be sure the Lord will even talk to him? It seemed to me that he talked with the Lord in his own term. According to Matthew 7:21-23 (quote)Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! (end of quote) Based on what he did, I doubt he actually knows the consequence of all of it from the perspective of eternity.
Chagrined April 20, 2014 Reply

Bill Gothard only has authority because others yield it to him. This should be crystal clear, no matter what one believes about God or the Bible. Bill constructed his entire empire out of rhetorical "say so" and did so on the trust and submission of tens of thousands of sincere folks who love God and believe in an inerrant Bible ...yet were somehow convinced they needed Gothard/ATI in order to more fully understand and obey it. Through a slow, systematic process the mind is "converted" to Gothard's principles. For the truly committed these become their standard from which all of life is measured. The longer people believe and act upon this ideology the more completely it controls their subconscious; which at some point makes challenging Gothard the man and his teachings so difficult that it becomes far easier to live in denial or passively move on to a "kinder form of Christianity" and refuse to "give an evil report" on what went down during their time in ATI-land.

Kudos to all above who have by degree discerned this dynamic. Women and girls of all ages are NO ONE'S property nor "hugging dolls". They don't need "covering" but instead respect, safety, and boundaries so they can be who they are. Men and boys need to taught this - no matter what they believe (or not) about God and the Bible. Bill's apology is basically meaningless because he fails to understand just how morally contemptible his twisted ideology is.
LynnCD April 20, 2014 Reply

I don't know why my comment was deleted, but I am curious as to how these two comments can be squared so as not to form a contradiction.

Gothard's latest confession:
"Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent."

Years ago:
(https://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/LATimesArticle.pdf)

"Bill Gothard was seen by staff employees patting and fondling women employees. Later, he admitted in staff meetings that these actions were "moral failures" on his part."

How can he admit moral failures w/respect to women on staff, and now claim he's never touched a girl immorally?
- Sally April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  You raise a good point here. Very good point.
- Alfred Corduan April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  Don't feel bad . . . my response to you was also deleted. In it I noted that I have spent a decade chasing down the basis of those statements. The basis appears to be found of two events - Bill vigorously wiping spilled Coke off the front and lap of a secretary while on a flight in the jet . . . and the Smalley-observed cabin incident, where Bill had the secretary (whom he told the board he was dating at the time) on his lap in her nightgown. That's it.
  
  In the story of Ruth, the secretary at the center of this "defrauding", RG states:
  
  "Although he taught the highest standards of physical conduct for the sake of outward appearances, Bill started asking Ruth to sit on his lap in his office. He would invite her to come watch the stars, and they would lie on the roof of the old Headquarters building under a blanket together. . . . . While the things that they did would not be terribly unusual for a dating couple outside of the Institute, Bill’s behavior was way out of bounds for a Christian leader and boss, and a clear double standard set against Bill’s own teachings on moral purity."
  
  That is it, Lynn . . . that is the "patting and fondling". I was told by the one making the allegation - in a long chain of emails from 2005 until this year, that the fact that his genitals were less than an inch from hers with her on his lap (fully clothed, of course) constitutes "sexual fondling". I had my wife on my lap prior to our engagement . . . sorry, I will never characterize it that way. I am at a loss to know anyone else who would.
  
  And, to be completely clear: Bill has NEVER confessed to any sexual activities with any women at any time, not to the board, not to anyone else. Quite the opposite. He has vigorously denied doing anything of the sort. What he confessed to is fully detailed in the "Ruth" account on this website.
  
  And, is it not strange that a man of Gary Smalley's character and integrity would, knowing Bill is guilty of "sexual immorality", allow himself to be openly linked with him within the past decade, headlining ATI conferences, featured in "Embassy University"? When I point this out, folks say, "We just don't know why he did it". But . . . we do know. Either Gary is corrupt . . . or it wasn't what the LA Times article alleged.
  
  The witnesses to "Charlotte" witness to the fact that she is real and that she came to HQ during the time she indicated, spending a lot of time with Bill as counselees often did. That is it. Notably she told no-one of any concern - real or imagined - until a decade later, and then in a context of "repressed memories" of full incest experienced at the hands of her father which she had somehow forgotten. She came to HQ because she was in rebellion against ATI and her family . . . yet presents herself as terrified that Bill would kick her family out of ATI if she told what had happened. I do hope some further clarification of that account will be produced - I, for one, believe she is not telling the truth.
  - Catherine April 22, 2014 Reply
    
    One adult sitting on another adult's lap not sexual? Right. If this is socially acceptable behavior we could all save a lot of money on airline tickets. Ladies could also save a ton on their wardrobes and just wear nightgowns all the time. What a wonderful world that would be.
    - Elsa April 24, 2014
      
      Sitting on another adult's lap is not sexual?
      Maybe you think of it that way, but my guess is that your wife would be of a different mindset if she saw a different woman on your lap.
  - Ryan April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    Is it acceptable for any student at the institute to go to a roof of a building and there have a girl sit in his lap? No, you get sent home in a minute for that type of action. What a double standard.
- Luanne April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  Back in the 80's he also confessed to a 13-14 year long addiction to masturbation. If nothing else has changed, why would this have changed? Alfred's questions of, "Grooming for what?" seem rather naive. He seems to have created the perfect set up for a fantasy sex life. He may think that since his sexual actions are alone, the women he uses are unaffected, but this is not so, obviously. These young women were made to feel uncomfortable and knew that BG's actions were inappropriate and sexual. At best, thees actions violated 'levels of friendship,' but we all know that any single guy in the Institute would have been out on his ear for even one instance of what was Bill's constant behavior with single women and under-age girls. To say that he had no 'sexual intent,' while demonizing the very behaviors he practiced when they were done by others, reveals the truth. He knew very well what he was doing, and why, deep in his heart... Lord have mercy.
- Alfred Corduan April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  Well, we all stand before Jesus. He knows all there is to know and He is fair . . . and just . . . and loves us. The fact that Bill made that known - in private and not in any context of coercion - indicates that he was dealing with things that a great many men deal with. I will let others decide whether is a big deal or little deal, but I respect him for dealing with it.
  
  The one who published that little piece of information - who also insisted that a fully clothed woman sitting on a fully clothed man's lap was equivalent to fondling - called Bill guilty of "the repeating sin of adultery" as he was sure it involved fantasizing about women (I have the document). Dr. Dobson, for one, is on record to strongly disagree with that sin linkage.
  
  The pure and holy One was crucified naked on that cross . . . Isaiah had to walk around naked for a period of time to make a point to the people . . . and there are times where every weakness or failure a man has is put on display for others to ponder and discuss and judge. Even things which have been dealt with and are under the blood.
  
  Jesus had no faults . . . Bill certainly has some, as do I. Again, the Lord will sort it all out - but I am so thankful for His grace and mercy ministered through His shed blood, a fountain opened for sin and uncleanness which can wash us and make us pure.
fireflight April 21, 2014 Reply

Eileen, your comment made me think of this:
"Squirrel!"
Moderator April 21, 2014 Reply

FYI, the host was changed over the weekend, causing some comments to seemingly disappear and reappear. It may have caused some page loading errors for some of our readers as well. Apologies for the inconvenience. The benefit of the move will be increased reliability.
- horse April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  Thank you for explaining this. At some point there were well over 100 posts and then it went down to 86 (when I saw it). I don't have the impression that the lost posts ever returned but that the number went back up some because of new posts. For example, I had posted a "Person A and Person B" post talking about the fact that grooming can be grooming for grooming's sake. There were 3 responses to that post that I saw. That's all gone. And like I said, I suspect that a lot more are still gone too.
  
  Anyway, thanks for letting us know that whatever is gone is due to the host change.
  - Ann A. April 21, 2014 Reply
    
    Yes, both of mine are gone and many others'. I saw 128 posts at one time, then it went down, then back up, now down again with new ones being added.
- Alfred Corduan April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  And chance we might get the ability to correct typos after submitting a post? I am the typo king . . .
  - Moderator April 21, 2014 Reply
    
    The best way to handle this is to post a correction comment immediately after the comment in question, and our Moderators will try to catch it and make the correction to the original comment.
  - Alfred Corduan April 21, 2014 Reply
    
    OK . . . in most cases it is not worth wasting your time over.
Jennifer April 21, 2014 Reply

This site is deteriorating. If you share a view opposite of what others feel you get attacked without mercy. Someone has to be the voice of reason here.
- Brumby April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  @Jennifer: I responded to your post earlier but it seems my original comment has disappeared and not yet resurfaced. The gist of what I wished to share with you earlier was that a lot of people here, including myself, are very passionate about certain things. It is easy to become forceful when discussing things such as abuse, victim advocacy, spirituality, and etc. I'm very passionate about social justice, and this passion does drive many of my comments. I wanted to acknowledge your observation about "attacks," and also hope to explain from where these come. I do think that most posts here are driven by passion, and not meant to be hurtful on a personal level [key word: most]. I'm too tired right now to continue rambling, so I shall cease. But I hope this helps and don't be afraid to share your opinion. Just do it. :)
  - Jerry Wood April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    Your justifying yourself with this comment is exactly what you all are accusing BG of in his letter. Oh I am not mean and hurtful just passionate. While I have hurt some folks with my "passionate" comments, I did not really mean too. This is a sad day for the body of Christ.
    - "Emee" April 24, 2014
      
      @ Jennifer, I'd like to echo Brumby's invitation to you to freely comment and I look forward to reading what you have to add to the discussion.
      
      @ Brumby, sorry you were attacked so viciously for responding to Jennifer. I've enjoyed reading your thoughtful, gracious comments on various articles.
      
      @ Jerry Wood, not sure what's going on with the comments here, but possibly it's due to the recent server switch. I only see one comment from Brumby on this article, which makes your accusation that she's justifying herself seem quite aggressive and unjust (especially when she NEVER claimed that all comments were only passionate, just most). [Each commenter is only responsible for their own comments, not those of everyone else.]
HalfNorsk April 21, 2014 Reply

This strikes me as a feeble attempt to admit a bit of wrong without admitting to the destructive, toxic, ungodly nature of his behavior, teaching, and leadership.

Yes, I probably also have a log in my own eye. But I have not misled, abused, and deceived hundreds of thousands of people in the name of God.

Mr. Gothard is not beyond the grace that he failed to preach. Nonetheless, his reputation and authority have been fully unmasked, and he needs to drastically confess and repent, then never again be allowed to teach the Bible.

IBLP has been built on polluted sand. The board needs to dissolve the organization, then surrender all its assets to a ministry/ministries with proven integrity and credibility.

In addition, if Mr. Gothard is truly repentant, he will personally remunerate the women he has wronged, and keep only enough money to live a very modest life. He can keep that "humble" '71 Oldsmobile. Nobody wants it.
Leo McNeil April 21, 2014 Reply

What I find most interesting is that Gothard seems to think his great sin is in showing favoritism. He claims no sexual intent of course but to me the real key is that he thinks the problem is favoritism. Perhaps he thinks other girls might have been disappointed not to be groped or put into uncomfortable positions with someone of high authority. He's basically admitting the sin no one is accusing him of (at least not in any significant way) and denying all the important things. This screams sociopath.
- 'Megan' April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  I don't think he actually thinks favoritism is the sin, I think he has just picked what seems to be the most minor of offenses to discuss, and by 'admitting to' the minor stuff, convince his most devoted followers that he's an honest, humble man. He's playing them for all he's worth, and probably succeeding.*
  It is incredibly sad to see, and it makes me angry because so many lives will be utterly and completely turned upside down when the truth finally comes out once and for all, and it's going to devastate many.
  
  *I say that because I have seen that exact behavior time after time after time, and recognize it. I don't say that because I just want to be nit picky.
Stephanie April 21, 2014 Reply

Do you have a way of reposting the missing posts as stored by a cache?
kevin April 21, 2014 Reply

"It is a grief to realize how my pride and insensitivity have affected so many people."
"The more I have listened to people describe their experiences the more grieved and sorrowful I have become."

Dear Bill,
The problem here is that you act as if you are just learning of the hurt that you have caused people now. You would have us believe that you are just now learning that the boundaries you crossed with touching these young girls was wrong, because you are just now listening to people. Really?
Let’s set aside for now the fact that you are completely denying the more serious allegations against you. You have been teaching others that such behavior, in fact actions that are far less intimate than such behavior, is immoral. You have taught such things were wrong and have even taught how they affect the other person and lead to their defrauding. And when others have crossed such boundaries, in much less offensive and predatory ways, you have punished and humiliated them. You knew. It is inconceivable to imagine that you did not know your actions crossed boundaries. But, in the event that somehow, as inconceivable as it may be, you taught these things, but were not aware of the inappropriateness and harm that your actions would cause others, as if there was a Bill Gothard clause that stipulated that the same rules and principles did not apply to you, you had other people all around you for 40 years telling you specifically that these things crossed boundaries and harmed others. How could it have been more clear? It was like a bright neon sign on the Vegas strip telling you specifically that this was wrong and crossed boundaries- telling you of the hurt you were causing others.
You have admitted to having girls alone in your cabin in the Northwoods late at night. Were you not caught in the act? You were caught alone with a young girl, in the act of having her sit on your lap in her night gown. Were you not confronted in 1976 about these things by Gary Smalley, Ken Nair and others? They knew these things were wrong. Your friends told you so. You knew Mr. Gothard But, the behavior continued, didn’t it?
No, this certainly isn’t the first time that you have learned that these things were wrong. Some may believe that you are really that naïve to just be learning of the inappropriateness of your actions now, but anyone who has followed this knows otherwise. You have been confronted regarding this behavior by your victims, by their parents, by your board, and by your friends- for forty years!
What about Robin? https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/03/robins-story/
She confronted you in 1992 about the inappropriateness of your touching her. Her dad confronted you too. They did this in private and then with witnesses. You were told it crossed boundaries. You were told how it made her feel. You knew Mr. Gothard! You knew these things were wrong! You knew how it harmed others! They told you so. Many, many people told you so, for many, many years! And, you continued in your behavior! You continued in your pattern of grooming and defrauding!
I sincerely hope that you come clean and confess the things which you know in your heart to be true. You know very well this letter of denial of the serious charges and the false naivety you suggest is absurd. Please come please. Please repent. Your victims deserve no less. Jesus will be waiting with open arms.
- Alfred Corduan April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  Let's see . . . Bill resigned from IBLP in the 1980s because of things he confessed to, i.e. "defrauding" young women he was "dating" by allowing liberties with them that were not evil but inconsistent with his standards. Besides completely mishandling his brother's open immorality. At what time is that enough, dear brother? Any chance we can allow that that was "dealt with" and move on?
  
  Eliminating "Charlotte" as very doubtful we are left with 5 accounts on this website (not 50) post 1980s. Five that testify that he played footsies with them or held their hand too long . . . had them in counseling sessions alone, or sat too close for their comfort. Not one of them alleged anything beyond that.
  
  And, yes, he really did not think there was anything fundamentally wrong there, just people overreacting. He said that as recently as last year's Big Sandy conference where he publicly committed to further limits to avoid the "appearance of evil", as he saw it. That was his stance in public, in private, and he has never given any indication of trying to cover anything up. I say that to emphasize that his statement of "no sexual intent" is, again, consistent with everything I know and have observed. It peeved me that he did not take the stated concerns of others with the level of alarm they were given in . . . that speaks to pride, not immorality.
  
  He is in his late '70s (79 to be exact). He would never have accomplished half of what he did by being swayed by every opinion that came before him. In fact, he ignored most of them, a characteristic of most any person who has accomplished enormous things in life. That strength is also a weakness, and here it is on display. IF you know him at all, you know that what I am saying, both the good and the bad, is true.
  - Donna April 21, 2014 Reply
    
    Alfred,
    A major issue is even if someone wants to argue that playing footsie, holding hands, and having solitary counseling sessions is not wrong, Bill Gothard and his organization absolutely taught that those actions are wrong! Many young people were disciplined and humiliated for lesser actions. I completely agree with Kevin that Mr Gothard's insistence that he is just now becoming aware of the inappropriateness of his actions is beyond believable. I am hearing from many former ATI students who were not victims of Mr Gothard's sexual harassment, but they are victims of this extreme hypocrisy. It does not appear that Bill Gothard nor IBLP leadership is willing to own up to this hypocritical behavior and damaging teachings.
  - Anonymous from somewhere April 21, 2014 Reply
    
    Pitiful. Pathetic. You just don't get it.
    - Anonymous from somewhere April 21, 2014
      
      My reply was to Alfred's justification for believing what he wants to believe. I'm in complete agreement with Donna's post...
  - eva April 21, 2014 Reply
    
    Someone posted above that since pride and immorality are both sins and demand the same punishment, then why does he choose pride over the sexual immorality? Alfred, you said, ...."that speaks to pride, not immorality." Why would i want to follow someone who has a problem with pride? I lost all respect for him when I realized several years ago that what he was teaching was false.
  - Alfred Corduan April 22, 2014 Reply
    
    It is a sincere thrill that others have been able to find the high standard of practical righteousness that Bill has long sought for, with or without ATI. Showing the effects of grace with Love, Joy, Peace, Gentleness, Patience, Meekness . . . what we have been called to, saved for . . . trusting Christ, then "giving all diligence, adding to our faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge self control; and to self control endurance; and to endurance godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness love" (2 Peter 1:5-7) I know that is his purpose, these fruits, however far he may have failed of it. The effects of grace, "teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world" (Titus 2:12) That is what ATI is all about. That is what I want.
    - Caroline G April 23, 2014
      
      Ariel Castro was a normal, kind individual to everyone he met. He had daughters he showed love to and countless others. Ten years went by any no one knew he had three slaves in his basement.
      
      The number of people who had good experiences with him is absolutely irrelevant. His intent was irrelevant, just as Castro's intent to have a woman he could control completely was irrelevant because those women were still his slaves. If there was even one girl he mistreated (clearly there was) then that is all that matters here.
      
      The issue here is that you don't believe that. If that's your side, then that's fine. You don't have to believe it. But try to imagine how you would feel if you did. That is how everyone else on this site seems to feel. I don't even care what Bill Gothard's "intent" was anymore. I'm sorry, I just don't. Surprise surprise, it's not about him. He's been a legal adult for longer than probably any of us here, and he has no excuse.
      
      I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you, because I know you absolutely have a good heart and mean well, and I 100% respect that, as well as the meaning behind your opinion. But the people you're trying to argue with on this site are convinced of something that our minds cannot be turned on. Please imagine just for a second that there ARE victims involved, and respect THEM because of what they've been through, despite your belief of the intent.
    - greg r April 23, 2014
      
      Not one of your more perceptive posts, Alfred. What Bill has confessed is that the ministry, not the people who make up the ministry, became his #1 focus. This is not a surprising revelation. What good are any of those character qualities , if Jesus and HIS dearly loved ones, are not what matter most ?? Character for character's sake= pride. your list ends with brotherly kindness leading to love. Was that Bill's end game ??
      
      I hope and pray that it is ours , by faith in Christ.
    - Gracie April 23, 2014
      
      If it gives you a "sincere thrill" to see others trying to meet a high standard put out by Gothard and presumably some interpretation of the bible, what does it make you feel to see and hear and read about the thousands and thousands of hurt lives that came from this movement and subculture? Whether you believe the totally corroborated accounts listed here and other places or not, you have to admit that the very population of the comments and readership of this blog proves that the organization of Gothard accomplished great hurt and damage. Read these comments, listen to how hurt these people are. Can't you agree that *something* isn't right? Something much bigger than "losing sight of a first love" or whatever tripe is in that letter.
      But maybe you're right - maybe it's better (it's sure easier!) for you to call victims melodramatic and hurt hearts, rebels. May you never find out firsthand just how wrong you are.
    - Alfred Corduan April 24, 2014
      
      My point is a reaction to spiritually together people finding fault with Bill. The target he overtly - and I believe sincerely - is pursuing is the one laid out for us by the Lord. He missed the mark . . . The presumption is that those rejecting his acknowledgment of that have not. I personally am still very much a "work in progress".
      
      I always find it interesting when people refuse to accept an "I'm sorry" at face value, at least as far as it goes. Personally I think it stems from both an ignorance of the same problems in our own heart, making us "fellow sinners", and an unjust desire to control a person through guilt. Here is what Jesus said:
      
      Luke 17:4. "And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."
      
      More specifically, in Matthew 18 He tells us a story of two servants . . . One had an enormous, unplayable debt and was about to be sold into slavery for partial payment. He pleaded for mercy, whereupon the master just released the entire debt. He left there and, seeing another servant who owed him some small amount grabbed him by the neck and demanded payment, ultimately exercising his legal "nuclear option" on his friend. The master hearing this was furious:
      
      Matthew 18:33-35
      Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
      
      Holding on to grudges, especially in the light of a confession, smacks of pride to me. Control. Might even be dangerous when we factor a genuinely righteous Lord into it that chokes at times when He sees our own shortcomings.
      
      I mean, what is lost by taking what he said, accepting it . . . And looking ahead to the future? I remain befuddled at what danger 79 year old damaged Bill Gothard remains to the folk here. Unless there just is a need to see vengeance.
    - Beverly April 24, 2014
      
      "I remain befuddled at what danger 79 year old damaged Bill Gothard remains to the folk here."
      
      The issue, Alfred, is Bill's predatory behavior---which you refuse to see a predatory, even though the secular world at large sees it and condemns it. Predatory behavior does not stop, no matter the abuser's age, apart from professional counseling and intervention. If Bill is acting in a predatory manner, NO teenaged girl near him is safe, or will be safe, regardless of how old he is. Especially if Bill himself does not see his actions as being sexual in nature. If these actions, in his mind, are simply annoying to girls who are touch-sensitive, he will take his touch to other girls who are not quite as sensitive, who will "appreciate" his fatherly affection, and not be so stupid as to make a fuss about it. That's how a sexual predator thinks. Keep in mind that most predators will NEVER see themselves as a predator or acknowledge their sins as any worse than the average man's. THIS is my beef with Bill's apology. He doesn't see his actions as being SEXUAL, when the rest of the world sees it as such, and the girls whom he has sinned against see it as sexual. And so that leaves him free to continue this "non-sexual" affection with other girls who won't be so sensitive about his touching and who will keep their mouths shut this time.
      
      It concerns me greatly, Alfred, that you refuse to see how a sexual predator operates, and you refuse to see the patterns that are so clearly laid out (and confessed by Bill himself, just short of confessing to it as sexual).
      
      To put it another way... If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and acts like a duck... In my mind, it's worth calling something a duck. You can call it by another name, but calling a duck by any other name does not change the facts.
    - P.L. April 24, 2014
      
      Alfred, I haven't seen one person here claim to be "spiritually together" Your "presumption is that those rejecting his acknowledgment of that have not" is just that, a presumption.
      
      So the whole premise of your comment is false.
    - Shane April 24, 2014
      
      "He missed the mark . . . "- no, he transgressed. He as an individual is allowed to be in progress and working through his deep sin. As a leader whose actions and false teachings have harmed those in his care there needs to be accountability. People can both forgive him and pursue accountability for his actions and teachings all the while honestly repenting of their own sin.
    - Gracie April 24, 2014
      
      Alfred, there was no "I'm sorry" in the entire wordy, flowery, pointless statement. So....
    - Ellen April 24, 2014
      
      I clearly remember this from the Seminars: A proper apology does not simply use the words, "I'm sorry". A proper apology also *asks* for forgiveness...as in "Will you forgive me?"...not "Please forgive me." This isn't a matter of a formula, using the right words...It's a matter of there being a much greater level of humility required in the request vs. the statement. It's easier -- less vulnerable -- to simply make a statement of "Please forgive me".
      
      In thinking about the "good" that I got from the Seminars, this is one of the things that stands out -- one of the few things, I'm coming to realize thanks to RG -- that *is* good.
      
      And it's the first thing that I noticed in BG's letter -- he, once again, did not follow his own teaching.
    - Alfred Corduan April 24, 2014
      
      You have an ATI background, right Beverly? What have you personally observed of this "predatory" behavior? I guess I can forgive the masses that do not know the man . . . But are you prepared to take up such an accusation and stand to it before The Lord?
      
      I read Joy's recent testimony with interest. Particularly because it is dead on consistent with the man I know . . . Striving for a high standard, somehow really unable at times to discern true motives, misfiring, then having the humility to double back to try to fix what he broke. The girl suffered unjustly . . . Interesting too that she experienced close seating and "footsie" but never thought ill of it. I have never known even little girls that were molested "with intent" that did not figure out real quick that something was wrong.
      
      What people say and the names they use is between them and The Lord, I suppose, and to Him we give account. But I want to know if you are prepared to put your personal testimony, things you observed, people you knew, behind that accusation of "predator".
    - P.L. April 24, 2014
      
      @Beverly, Alfred has no right to call you out. If you want to answer his questions do so, but don't let him make you feel pressured to defend yourself.
    - kevin April 24, 2014
      
      Alfred,
      Your attempted intimidation of Beverly is getting a little creepy.
      
      It is hard to imagine that anyone could have as much information as you have, has read as many testimonies as you have, and not see the predatory nature of his actions.
      
      You indicated that you and your wife were aware that Bill Gothard had a type- that he sought out the pretty girls at the conventions that were this type. I remember that you commented that your wife had first noticed this and brought it to your attention. You also said that one of your own daughters really wanted to work at HQ, but was not his type, but another one was, and that Bill sought after her and informed that he wanted her to come work with him. Even knowing that she was selected because she was Bill's type, you did not have a problem with this.
      Your refusal to see Gothard's predatory behavior is willful. You know he has a type and has sought out these girls the look a certain way, and it happened to your own daughter. I am very thankful for you and her that somehow her coming to HQ, as he had requested somehow never came to pass.
      
      There will be an account for those who are aware of evil deeds, but who willfully choose to look the other way.
    - Alfred Corduan April 24, 2014
      
      Beverly and I are not strangers . . . and, of course, no, she does not have to answer me or defend herself. To call this intimidation? That is hilarious. Her husband will clobber me long before it ever got to that. Which he is likely too nice to ever do. I respect her and her family. No, these are serious questions . . . to ATI family.
      
      As far as pending judgment - those kinds of things can be hurled in either direction. That Bill noticed and promoted the attractive ones is a matter of fact . . . the whys have been debated elsewhere. As everyone who knows him knows he is very much into the "dress for success" principles, that appearance dramatically affects the favorable opinion of others. So staffing public roles with attractive individuals of either gender is equivalent to the meticulous detail he puts into the layout of buildings and rooms and materials. Throwing out thousands of dollars of materials over a typo. Photoshopping pictures to put in more plants, etc., etc. Coloring his hair.
      
      There are actual Scriptural precedents for that sort of thinking, which has also been discussed, i.e. the staffing of the temple with only the whole and attractive (Lev. 21:16-24). Another round of condemnation and righteous indignation looms.
      
      But I say all of that to counter your argument that I am well aware of predatory behavior. I deny that most emphatically. And I welcome those who know him to look me in the virtual eye and tell me that they know a predator or pervert or whatever else. It is offensive to me. I am a voice lost in the noise . . . but there it is.
      
      Like I said, read Joy's story, the new one. That it about as accurate of a portrayal of Bill and his faults as you will find. Insensitive, hard, quick to opinions of individuals that are either way too high or way too low? Yes . . . Sincerely attempting to correct issues once he understands them? I have heard that over and over. Predator? Pervert? Not in a million years.
    - greg r April 25, 2014
      
      @Alfed: If it's true (and I believe it is) that bill very much approached people like he approached the details of publications or the layout of a building, then how true is it that he was pursuing the goals that Jesus set out for us ?? How can relationship= fastidious obsession to details that I prefer ?? this does not add up, Alfred, and I'm sad that you can't take part of Bill's confession at face value: he admitted that he did not know how to properly value people. maybe start there, friend
    - Alfred Corduan April 25, 2014
      
      What, this is some kind of blanket acknowledgement that he never valued people properly?! Of course not. At times he put the ministry before the people . . . that did not define him. Those that know him know a man that cares deeply for people, will spend countless hours and resources to meet a need, in private as well as publicly. Again, this website is SO not a reflection of the man . . . his faults, absolutely. Those that seek to bless him, talk about what an impact he has had for good, how they and their families will be blessed for a lifetime and in eternity . . . they are shouted down. Job one is to spank him, and spank him hard. And worse.
      
      I am SO glad that Jesus is the judge of all things . . . it is before Him we all ultimately stand. He loves and He chastens, and He NEVER misses a thing. Things I know . . . things that will continue long after this particular inquisition has ended its run.
    - MatthewS April 25, 2014
      
      It's almost as if you are walking on eggshells with God, and the scariest thing to do would be to speak against Bill. I get the impression that it is inconceivable in your mind that God could be happy with you and bless you if Bill were to be upset or disappointed with you.
    - greg r April 25, 2014
      
      @Alfred: rough night last night ?? that's ok..
      My point wasn't to dwell on the obvious (Bill has a fetish for appearances, and I don't mean just in women) my point was to help you see that what you want to call a virtue is actally far from that.
      Ironically, I could use more of Bill's approach , here, sometimes my car looks like a homeless man , or posse, hijacked my camry and called it theirs. It helps no on to act like Bills' use of things and people was just a little out of whack. When you mentioned how he likes things "just so" (my quotes), I just wanted you to connect the dots, Alfred.
      the REASON Bill did not rightly value people is that he OVERVALUED the way things looked, and the prestige/effects that came with that. WE've all done that, I've done that. Just don't call that a virtue, or 'going for GOD's best' or some such caca. that's my point for 10:13am friday.
      a blessed weekend, esp. to the Corduan clan
    - Shane April 25, 2014
      
      @greg r-this is well said and a great point: "the REASON Bill did not rightly value people is that he OVERVALUED the way things looked, and the prestige/effects that came with that."
      
      @Alfred your defense of Bill's loving the pretty things is that he's a legalist. Again going back to the Levitical law to defend his pretty little world of idols. Defending his discarding of people as having biblical precedence. I don't get it. Anywhere else this would be seen as a problem and yet you make it a virtue.
      
      I wish you would actually take the law seriously and realize that Gothard gets nothing but the severest wrath and judgment for his failing at his own sincere attempts at practical righteousness. The law crushes him. He FAILED! He would quiver before the bar of justice based on his practical righteousness. Then
      
      If you watch Jesus you'd see he walks a crooked line to touch and interact with all the unpretty things. The bleeding woman, the demoniac in the tombs, the dead, the withered hand, the blind, the lame, sick, the poor, the tax collectors, the sinners, washing nasty feet.
      
      Again, your and Gothard's view of the law is SO BAD. The law always drives us back to our inability and need of grace.
    - greg r April 25, 2014
      
      If you watch Jesus you'd see he walks a crooked line to touch and interact with all the unpretty things. The bleeding woman, the demoniac in the tombs, the dead, the withered hand, the blind, the lame, sick, the poor, the tax collectors, the sinners, washing nasty feet.
      
      YES.... and Jesus does not come to pretty up the ugly, to gather to HIMSELF the right people, those 'humble enough', HE gathers the ugly, the horribly sick, the perverts (like me), and gives them LIFE. this is not let's see how close we can get to GOD's perfect design.. it's "WHO is that MAN, Jesus, that HE would even want to be found in my zip code ???"
      
      the 'pretty it up' campaign is what the Fortune 500 is after.... it does not, and never will, GIVE LIFE
    - Dan W April 25, 2014
      
      @Alfred
      You claim "Those that know him know a man that cares deeply for people".
      
      It is quite clear, despite his careful avoidance of directly stating it in print, that Mr. Gothard has very negative views on adoption, which extend to counseling families to send adoptive children back so they (the parents, never mind the twice-abandoned children) can be blessed by God (see 'Sins of the Fathers' at "A Call for Discernment" elsewhere on this website). This opposition to adoption is corroborated by the statements of many on this website.
      
      As a family completed by adoption, please explain to all of us how he deeply cares for each of the members of our family.
    - kevin April 25, 2014
      
      Alfred,
      Your attempts to intimidate Beverly was not of the physical nature. You've done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that you are that type of person. Rather, yours is the intimidation along the lines of "Woe be to those who stand against God's anointed."
      
      You threatened her with eternal judgement for speaking out against Gothard. You have also recently suggested recently that God may take vengeance against all those standing against Gothard and destroy them. Mathew called you out on it.
      
      This is disturbing, but not surprising. Bill Gothard, as many have testified, has threatened people with the vengeance and wrath of God to any who oppose him throughout his career. Pastor Richard Fisher outlines this in steps 17 and 18 in his "Bill Gothard's 21 Steps to Conflict Resolution"
      
      17. Threaten pending disaster
      18. Now, out of "deep concern" warn opponents of dire consequences (David and Saul- Ananias and Sapphira). Use Proverbs 6:19 in a pinch(What God hates- you are at fault-it's all you)
      
      Your recent warnings in this regard are textbook Gothard.
    - kevin April 25, 2014
      
      @Shane,
      "If you watch Jesus you'd see he walks a crooked line to touch and interact with all the unpretty things. The bleeding woman, the demoniac in the tombs, the dead, the withered hand, the blind, the lame, sick, the poor, the tax collectors, the sinners, washing nasty feet."
      
      Yes, exactly! Our Savior went out of his way to be with the lame, the sick and the poor. It is a completely skewed picture of our Savior that Gothard teaches and Alfred echoes. It is as if an altogether different Gospel.
    - greg r April 25, 2014
      
      @Kevin: it is precisely at this point that Jesus and the pharisees/church leaders NEVER saw eye to eye. It is precisely at this point that the gospel of the kingdom and the law, as understood by these leaders, went BOOM. Pharisees and Co. could not fathom how Jesus, the alleged messiah, could so flippantly , flagrantly, make Himself unclean.
      Jesus was not that concerned with ceremonial cleaness, He was concerned with loving people with the love of the Father. These two differing approaches will NEVER get along.
    - Alfred Corduan April 25, 2014
      
      Amazingly, y'all are entitled to your opinion, gentlemen . . . and I to mine. You have acted out a melodrama to me, but . . . I didn't cry or hiss the villain. You played me a tune, but I didn't dance.
      
      I can look you in the eye and say: Not buying it. I have 55 years, 40 of it walking with Jesus and, coincidentally, walking with Bill (I received the assurance of my salvation through the testimony of Bill in a Basic Seminar). I don't have to jump when you say "Boo". Bill isn't like you say . . . and, for that matter, the law of God isn't even what you say. What strange notions we get . . . the thing that God calls "perfect", converting the soul . . . the thing we establish . . . the thing that shows us what Jesus is like, for He lives and embodies it! The law of God is our friend, our "schoolmaster", not our enemy. It just can't get us to heaven. Amen to that.
      
      And of course Jesus seeks out the unpretty things, for He sought me out. But once He finds us He fixes us, makes us beautiful. Do you think there will be one ugly person in heaven? Not a chance. He MAKES us fit.
      
      "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Phil 4:8)
      
      Bill has spent is entire life working with ugly people. He started with the gangs in Chicago back in the 1950s . . . pretty ugly. He has focused on juvenile delinquents, getting courts to send troubled youth so he could see them saved and then their lives recovered. An not a few of these end up at HQ . . . because Jesus saves and makes all things beautiful.
      
      Are a woman wrong who wears makeup or her hair to cover up a blemish, choose clothes to highlight certain aspects of her construction and diminish others? Should people who stink and have bad breath and rotten teeth staff our church offices? Sport teams should let everybody wear more or less what they want to games, hair any way it suits them? When we take family pictures we should have the kids wear whatever they wear when they are goofing around and look "normal". Not going to happen? Why? Why . . . because we like things to be a beautiful as we can. Others appreciate it . . . and, right or wrong, spend more time with us when we do.
      
      You might say, well . . . he should have SOME standards for an international Christian ministry . . . just . . . not favor naturally beautiful people and those who know how to take care of their weight and appearance for the front lines? When you have built and are running your own such ministry you may staff it any way you choose. Until then, I am guessing it might be wise to stop finding fault with people who actually are in that position.
    - Alfred Corduan April 25, 2014
      
      [BTW, don't blame Bill for the temple staff example I gave. I came up with that one myself. So your wrath may fall on me.]
    - greg r April 25, 2014
      
      @Alfred: well, usual straw man argument response, Al. Because it's very difficult to show that Bill did not have a fetish about having things his way (oh my, this gets lurid in a hurry, sorry kids....) You try and make the above (including me) say that ALL efforts at improving appearance are irrelavant, and that's what we were trying to pin on Bill.
      Alfred, either you don't listen/read very well, or you are just desparately grasping at whatever will prop up your hero. NOBODY was trying to establish that improvements to appearance are a bad idea. Bill did not know when to stop with this, my use of the word 'FETISH' is instructive: and did it occur to you , Alfred, that a young women choosing FOR HERSELF to wear a certain kind of undergarment is one thing, but having a 'fatherly figure' help her, ummmm. groom her, to help make that decision FOR HER is quite another.
      Forest and trees, Alfred, forest and trees.
      One other detail: I NEVER said the law was bad: I don't believe that for a second. What I'm pretty sure I typed was that the pharisees USE of that law was opposite to the way that GOD himself , and Jesus Himself, appoached things. Read a little slower , brother. I have not hidden cards here: Bill's use of the law , and these very same religios leaders are remarkably the same...or maybe unremarkably after you get to know how Bill thinks.
      
      You don't need to sing, dance, or juggle or anything for us, Alfred. You are a free man.
    - greg r April 25, 2014
      
      Forgot one more thing, Alfred: I don't need to run a ministry, a company, or a copying machine correctly to know what toxic leadership looks like. Yeah, I've got a few yrs under my belt also , Alfred, and I've actually met a couple of 'Bill Gothards' in my time: sadly, it's getting a little easier to spot them, they rely on many of the same manipulations and scripture twisting.
    - Shane April 25, 2014
      
      Oh you're dancing. But yes we're both entitled to our opinions but they are not both valid. My response was to your defense of Bill's penchant for young pretty girls. Make that your attempted use of the Levitical law to defend Gothard's surrounding himself with pretty girls. Your use of the law and Bible here is poor.
      
      Judging by your use of "schoolmaster" you should do some research. IT is not a term of fondness and endearment. That word had a very specific connotation in the first century. It's better translated "harsh taskmaster". Which is actually fitting for the flood of testimonies of folks experience under Bill's law making.
      
      Again, I don't think you or Gothatrd take the law seriously enough. It always confronts us with our inability and drives us to Christ whether initially for our justification or in an ongoing way for our sanctification.
    - Dan W April 25, 2014
      
      Alfred, you state "(I received the assurance of my salvation through the testimony of Bill in a Basic Seminar)." By this, do you mean that you knew you were saved because Bill told you so? Please clarify if I misunderstood your statement.
    - Alfred Corduan April 25, 2014
      
      Weird as it may be, Greg R, but there are people paid to tell young ladies and young men - but especially young ladies - how to obtain the look they need to go the places they want to go. I never heard him referencing undergarments, so I suppose I will have to take other people's words on that, although if it is like "circumcision", which I do know about, it would be another titillating thing taken completely out of sense and context.
      
      I have heard others relate his advice on hair style and color combinations . . . and he has put some study into that . . . "Dress For Success" kinds of study. IF he had suggestions of underwear - I presume a type of bra? - it would be the same sort of thing. What you never told me was whether his advice was good or bad. Just tripping over a woman's right to make her own decisions. THAT has never been in question.
      
      Shane: I guess you read other authorities than I do. This is Vine's Expository Dictionary:
      
      "a guide," or "guardian" or "trainer of boys," lit., "a child-leader" (pais, "a boy, or child," ago, "to lead"), "a tutor," is translated "instructors" in 1 Cor. 4:15, AV (RV, "tutors"); here the thought is that of pastors rather than teachers; in Gal. 3:24,25, AV, "schoolmaster" (RV, "tutor,"), but here the idea of instruction is absent. "In this and allied words the idea is that of training, discipline, not of impartation of knowledge. The paidagogos was not the instructor of the child; he exercised a general supervision over him and was responsible for his moral and physical well-being. Thus understood, paidagogos is appropriately used with 'kept in ward' and 'shut up,' whereas to understand it as equivalent to 'teacher' introduces an idea entirely foreign to the passage, and throws the Apostle's argument into confusion." * [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 163,164] Cp. epitropos, "a steward, guardian, tutor."
      
      That is SO completely different from what you said as to ask the question, "Why".
      
      Dan W: When I attended my first seminar in 1973 I was not sure I was saved, a Christian. I had a lot of doubts about whether I was accepted by God . . . or not. The terror of hell was always upon me. Bill explained God's way of salvation so simply . . . and talked about some of the practical reasons for "doubts", many of which hit dead on. A few weeks later I saw a birthday card that Bill had sent to my Mom (every alumnus used to get a card on their birthday) with the following little definition:
      
      "Worry: Assuming responsibilities God never intended me to have".
      
      The verse referenced was Phil. 4:6-7. As I peddled off on my paper route it smashed through my consciousness that this was exactly my problem. I was worried about whether I was saved or not. But I could not save myself, or force God to save me. Salvation was His responsibility. MY responsibility was to come and admit that what He said about me was true - my sin, his righteous judgment - and to call on Him, cry out to Him to do what I could not. It hit me that God would never dishonor His Son by sending him to the cross to die for me, then to turn me away when I came with nothing else but Jesus as my claim. The peace and joy of assurance that I never thought possible flooded my heart . . . and I was free.
      
      Anyway . . . long story . . . In several steps what I had heard and read guided me to peace.
    - P.L. April 26, 2014
      
      Sorry, Alfred, there's just no excuse for a male boss giving advice on undergarments to a woman in his employ. Particularly in this setting of old man/young girls.
      
      If indeed there was a need to address an issue, it should have been handled through one of the other women so as to prevent embarrassment and any of the 'appearance of evil' Gothard is so big for everyone else but himself.
      
      'Dress for success principles' and whether the advice was 'good or bad' (seriously, seriously? Like, did the underwear he recommended make her look better or not??? And if it did that made it ok?) has absolutely NO bearing on the matter.
    - Shane April 26, 2014
      
      Alfred. What are you insinuating?
      
      P.L. You forget about God dictating the undergarments of the priesthood.
    - Alfred Corduan April 26, 2014
      
      Shane: Have studied that word a bit, was confused by your definition. Insinuating? That you never studied it, maybe made up a definition to suit your prejudice? This would have been the time to straighten me out on that.
      
      PL: Male boss?! Bill's relationship to staff was NEVER a boss/employee relationship. He overtly stated to each one - my son included - that this was a discipleship setting, they being there to learn and grow and mature and minister. Which is why off-hours situations, like staff meetings, were mandatory. Bill offered advice on all kinds of topics for personal improvement. Including hair styles and clothing. We are kind of going in circles. You need it to be bad . . . I rather think it was not. Fit it in as part of an overall program for personal improvement and enhanced effectiveness as a public witness for Jesus.
    - Shane April 26, 2014
      
      Well. I'm on my phone away from my library. Here's a quote from Krister Stendahl – Paul Among Jews and Gentiles: "As we have already noted, a "pedagogue" for us is a super-teacher, but in ancient Greek and to Paul it was a person less than a teacher. In ancient Greece or Rome it meant a sort of ambulant baby 'Sitter, a slave who took children to school, taught them outward manners, saw to it that they did not fall into sin and difficulties, as, for example, homosexual relations, and otherwise looked after them before leaving them at the door where their true education took place. In the Greek comedies and on Roman reliefs, the paidagogos is always described as a harsh, uneducated slave, who, for example, holds a little school boy a couple of inches above ground by his ear. Thus “custodian” is a more adequate and accurate translation than “tutor”"
      
      Again- I don't appreciate your personal attacks. You have no business calling me dishonest.
    - kevin April 26, 2014
      
      Alfred,
      Please tell me that you did not just justify Bill Gothard telling young girls what bras and underwear that they should wear. But you did. Dress for success? You're serious? Can you please step back for a minute and look at how absurd that is?
      The mental gymnastics that you go through to make Gothard's actions acceptable and understandable, is nothing short of amazing. If one could only earn gold medals for this event.
      
      Would you be okay for a man, other than their husbands, telling your daughters what undergarments that they should wear?
    - Nick April 26, 2014
      
      Alfred said, in reference to Bill's dress requirements for women, including what bras & underwear should be worn:
      
      Fit it in as part of an overall program for personal improvement and enhanced effectiveness as a public witness for Jesus.
      
      That's the problem, Alfred. Bill has no right to "improve" and "enhance" anyone, when the Very First Basic Principle is that God designed each and every one of us Specially for a purpose.
      
      And even our "Defects and Detractions" are going to be used by God for His Greater Glory.
      
      So Bill is contradicting his own teaching when he tried to "improve" and "enhance" the women around him.
      
      Can you see how Bill is contradicting himself Alfred?
    - greg r April 26, 2014
      
      @Alfred: you know you are probably riight, Alfred. don,t know what got into me. Bill wants their bust line just right so that those young ladies can succeed in life...and it sounds like he didn,t even charge them for the advice...which I am VERY sure was spot on. Have a restful weekend all here @RG..
    - Alfred Corduan April 27, 2014
      
      And, of course, that is accepting that this actually took place (underwear advice). Strange how it is not recalled by people I talk to who also worked with Mr. Gothard. First i heard of it was "Charlotte", and I don't believe her account, as you know. I suppose you gentlemen have first or second hand info. No? Why . . . Then render your hypothetical analysis, add mine to it, and move on. More melodrama.
    - Alfred Corduan April 27, 2014
      
      Ok, Shane . . . You have a source who based his analysis of "harsh" on exaggerated comedies of the day. Would imagine that is no more true than the slave nannies employed in the south. Guessing most parents would ensure their kids were well looked after . . . And the development of a relationship of genuine love and care and nurturing would ensue. And that is how W. E. Vine reads the history. Think "The Help", though not slaves, very much had that kind of real care for the offspring of their wealthy employers.
      
      You enjoy making prejudicial authoritative pronouncements and expecting me to salute. If you can tip a tad more toward objectivity - you know, acknowledge some validity on the other side - I would be less inclined to react.
    - P.L. April 27, 2014
      
      "Bill's relationship to staff was NEVER a boss/employee relationship."
      
      So since he wasn't a boss he must not have had the authority to hire, fire, or set organizational policy. Oh wait, he did.
      
      Newsflash, Alfred. If you're the president of an organization, you're the boss of the people that work for that organization. And legally accountable for how you treat them.
    - P.L. April 27, 2014
      
      Alfred, you've demonstrated some very clear patterns in your interactions here, and one is that when your argument has been discredited (as happened previously with your assertion that Bill Gothard's behavior with young women was 'normal') you turn to saying that we shouldn't be having the discussion at all.
      
      Just pointing out that we can all see that you're doing that again.
      
      I don't expect to change your mind, Alfred. But I won't let your absurd assertions stand lest one of the women who experienced these things see them unchallenged, and think "Wow, is that what everyone thinks about what happened to me?" It's not.
    - Shane April 27, 2014
      
      so @Alfred is that your apology for attacking me personally; to lecture me on objectivity and then blame me for your reaction? You don't like my method so you attack me personally? You asked last week what ad hominem when I asked you to stop. This is a perfect example. I will certainly check my responses more closely for charity, but I'm fairly sure I haven't attacked your person. If I have please tell me and I will gladly apologize. Your comments about objectivity cut both ways. I can think of no concession you've made with people you disagree with here.
      
      Here's some more resources for you, making the point that you insinuated that I was lying about.
      
      Plato--"Just as no sheep or other witless creature ought to exist without a herdsman, so children cannot live without paidagogon, nor slaves without masters. And of all wild creatures, the child is the most intractable; for insofar as it, above all others, possesses a fount of reason that is yet uncurbed, it is a treacherous, sly and most insolent creature. Wherefore the child must be strapped up, as it were, with many bridles—first, when he leaves the care of nurse and mother, with paidagogois to guide his childish ignorance, and after that with didaskalois [teachers] of all sorts of subjects and lessons, treating him as becomes a freeborn child. On the other hand, he must be treated as a slave; and any free man that meets him shall punish both the child himself and his paidagogon or his didaskalon[teacher], if any of them does wrong"
      
      Plutarch (not the hunger games one)- "And yet what do tutors [hoi paidagogoi] teach? To walk in the public streets with lowered head; to touch salt fish but with one finger, but fresh fish, bread and meat with two; to sit in such and such a posture; in such and such a way to wear their cloaks"
      
      “…the dominant image was that of a harsh disciplinarian who frequently resorted to physical force and corporal punishment as a way of keeping his children in line. For example, a certain pedagogue named Socicrines was described as a ‘fierce and mean old man’ because of his physically breaking up a rowdy party. He then dragged away his young man, Charicles, ‘like the lowest slave’ and delivered the other troublemakers to the jailer with instructions that they should be handed over to ‘the public executioner.’ The ancient Christian writer Theodoret of Cyrrhus observed that ‘students are scared of their pedagogues.’ And with they might have been because pedagogues frequently accomplished their task by tweaking the ear, cuffing the hands, whipping, caning, pinching, and other unpleasant means of applied correction,” (Timothy George, Galatians, pp. 265-266).
    - Alfred Corduan April 27, 2014
      
      Shane: I liked your quotes up to the last one. That SEEMS like another individual with an ax to grind and a point to drive home. Paul says the law is "holy, just, and good" (Rom. 7:12). Boy, that just doesn't sound like the mean, capricious, even wicked old geezers you describe. See my point?
      
      And as to me abusing you, I want to laugh. I see alone as the sheep among wolves - or the lone wolf among sheep, as some would see it - and for every point I make I get 10 pointed back at me. As to you and I, we attempted to have a discussion on circumcision and I found that you could barely contain your disgust and disdain. I doubt you ever considered any point I made seriously, as I was condemned from the get-go. I am not your equal, intellectually . . . right? Can't be . . . because I still like Gothard, correct? I just get tired of it.
      
      And THIS can be Exhibit A. I quoted one of the most mainline dictionaries for lay consumption available. Your image of Roman culture is bizarre, parents devoid of any care for their children so as to commit them to the torture of malicious thugs. If you can't overcome your prejudices to attain even this level of objectivity, it doesn't speak well for our ability to have a respectful, mutually objective conversation.
    - MatthewS April 28, 2014
      
      Alfred, you are playing the victim again.
      
      A quick survey of the comments, by my quick count 160 comments in this thread are not centered around Alfred, the remaining 113 comments are either by him or interacting with him (not counting the few overhead ones, such as from him to the moderator). 113 of 273 is roughly 40%.
      
      In the past when I've seen the pattern being repeated, I have at times made a comment such as the following:
      
      Alfred pretends to ask honest questions but he often does not act in good faith and often hijacks threads. I believe that Dave's comments to him a while back were enlightening:
      
      https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/03/stolen-treasures/#comment-15788
      
      https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/03/stolen-treasures/#comment-16020
    - Shane April 28, 2014
      
      Nice try @Alfred.
      1)
      A. I challenged your understanding of "schoolmaster" as a term of "fondness and endearment". I said it had a very specific connotation in the first century; one of a "harsh taskmaster".
      B. you quoted Vines and made your insinuation (this is ad hominem)
      C. you clarified that insinuation: "That you never studied it, maybe made up a definition to suit your prejudice?" (this is ad hominem by insinuating that I lied)
      D. I responded that I was on my phone, but sent you a quote by NT scholar Krister Stendhal.
      E. You rejected the validity Stendahl's take and questioned my objectivity. And proceeded to talk about what I enjoy and expect in my interactions with you (this is also ad hominem).
      F. I sent you 3 more quotes: Plato and Plutarch; fair representatives of the 1st century milieu that give credence to my original challenge to reconsider "schoolmaster" as a term of "fondness" and "endearment". I also quoted a commentary on Galatians by NT scholar Timothy George who quotes from 2 Greco-Roman sources describing "schoolmasters" and their harshness.
      G. You responded:"Your image of Roman culture is bizarre, parents devoid of any care for their children so as to commit them to the torture of malicious thugs." That is not simply "my image" those are quotes from that world. At minimum they're plausible reasons to expand the lexical range of meaning based on the historical evidence. This is what grammatical-historical exegesis does. It takes the lexical definition and looks at the Biblical text and the historical usage of words. This is not in dispute of Vine's or other lexicons it's a fleshing out. It's not uncommon. It's certainly not unique to me.
      H.You go on to state: "If you can't overcome your prejudices to attain even this level of objectivity, it doesn't speak well for our ability to have a respectful, mutually objective conversation." (Again the ad hominem).
      
      I don't know how we got from A-H in your mind. I don't know where you think I got off the objective path except that I don't think Vine's is all there is to say about the matter. In my reading of Vine's, it nowhere gives the indication that the "schoolmaster" is a term of "fondness or endearment" (my original point) or directly contradicts the historical evidence I've cited of "schoolmasters" being perceived as harsh (my original point).
      
      2) I will take the above shift of the conversation onto my "prejudices" and failure at a minimal level of "objectivity" to be an inadvertent admission that you were wrong to insinuate that I was lying. It is not a legitimate tactic. You can ignore my honest request to reconsider your ad hominem tactics, but it is extremely frustrating to discussion.
      
      3)I never said you were "abusing" me. Laugh if you want. I said that your attacks on my person and character were wrong. I believe it to be an uncharitable way to engage in disagreement. Perhaps you don't. My offer to apologize for attacking you personally still stands if you will point out where I have done it or if ever I do so in the future.
      
      4)I never felt "disgust and disdain" toward you. I have never once thought; "I am not your equal, intellectually . . . right?" You said "I doubt you ever considered any point I made seriously, as I was condemned from the get-go." I have and do consider what you say. I have not condemned you.
      
      I don't mean this as snark- you cannot read my emotions or motives. I've told you explicitly what I think . I disagree with your view of the law and grace. I disagree with your hermeneutics. I disagree with your exegesis of passages. I have rejected Gothardism based on what I believe the Bible teaches on these and other things. I argue where I think you're wrong, not about who you are as a person. Reading personal into the flat medium of a blog discussion is risky, especially when I've said nothing about you personally.
      
      As to considering what you say: I have said things like; you and I and see the Bible very differently, that our hermeneutical lenses are very different (while defining mine briefly and refraining from defining yours), I've said I get your defense of the man for whom you have such affection and consider a friend, I said about circumcision that our starting points were so different that we'll simply have to agree to disagree, I've actually pointed out some of my presuppositions, etc.
      
      5) I'm sure you do get tired of it. I and many others at RG sympathize with you to a point. But much of the pushback is of your own making. If you're going to defend Gothard on his views on adoption, circumcision, OT law, grace, authority, etc. and his actions of physical affection toward young women under ministerial care, selecting to himself a certain "type", having ANY (I mean ANY) say in their undergarments and hair styles and skin tags, etc. then you're going to get pushback. To be honest, many of these things that you defend strike others, myself included, as absurdities. Reaction, for my part anyway, is to what you say about these things not who you are.
      
      6)I have apologized to you in the past for the barbs of my sarcasm that I believed crossed the line. I do want to treat you with kindness. I apologize if I have not done so well in my disagreeing with you. Again, I'm happy to apologize and retract anywhere I've gone after you personally. I honestly know of none. I pray for you, your family, and Mr. Gothard.
    - Nick April 28, 2014
      
      Alfred you side-stepped my question. You don't believe that Bill ever made underwear suggestions so you ignored the rest of my question.
      
      I repeat the question for you below without reference to underwear.
      
      This is in reference to Bill Gothard making recommendations to numerous young ladies to change hair styles, remove moles, change makeup styles and make other "physical enhancements" -
      
      Bill has no right to "improve" and "enhance" anyone, when the Very First Basic Principle is that God designed each and every one of us Specially for a purpose.
      
      And even our "Defects and Detractions" are going to be used by God for His Greater Glory.
      
      So Bill is contradicting his own teaching when he tried to "improve" and "enhance" the women around him.
      
      Alfred, can you see how Bill is contradicting his teaching when he makes these sorts of suggestions to women?
    - Nick April 28, 2014
      
      Bummer, I can't edit my comment above.
      
      Alfred, don't ignore my comment because I used hair & makeup styles in my list of example suggestions... just ignore "hair" and "makeup" if you don't think they should be on the list.
      
      Instead, keep in mind that Bill has asked multiple women to change all sorts of physical features more severe than just hair and makeup.
      
      Looking forward to your answer to my question, and if you don't want to answer, I ask that you please share the reasons why you don't want to answer.
      
      Thanks
    - greg r April 28, 2014
      
      @shane: you have the patience of Job. hope your wife treats you better,though.....
    - Ryan April 28, 2014
      
      All this stems from Alfred's undying love for Bill and his belief that Bill ONLY has pure motives and wants to help people. I believe Bill does have those motives but you also have to see that's not his only motivation and purity isn't his only quality. Alfred can then rationalize anything Bill does wrong by we are all sinners, who can stand and cast the first stone? Alfred has played a game in his mind where he is right both ways.
      
      Alfred, news bulletin, You don't know Bill. Tiger Woods' Caddy thought he knew Tiger and he obviously didn't. He spent much more time with Tiger then you ever spent with Bill. Affairs happen all the time in marriages without the knowledge of the spouse. The spouses spend much more time together than you ever did with Bill.
      
      I know Michael Jordan. I've been to his house here in Park City many times. He has personally invited me to stay for dinner. I know his wife Yvette. He calls me by a nickname. Would I say I know MJ? No way.
      
      You need to realize your value doesn't come in knowing Bill or pretending to think you know who he is. He has been a big influence in your life. That's great. You relationship with him does not give you value and it shouldn't define who you are, sadly some of your self worth is tied to Bill, if he goes down you view it as a real blow to you.
      
      Regarding you stating Shane made up a definition to state his belief is egregious. It's one thing to state a different opinion but to voice that he made a definition up is classless.
    - 'Megan' April 28, 2014
      
      Ryan, that brings an interesting point to me: Even bullies can be nice sometimes. One of my parents has serious issues, and has done stuff to their children that were prison worthy offenses. But if you were to confront this parent, they would deny it forever and ever amen, and then try to distract you with a few stories about how nice they were to you this time and that time. While those stories of nice behavior were absolutely true, so were the abuses.
      
      Even dangerous monsters don't spend every second of every day being horrid and cruel, they are nice on occasion too.
    - Ryan April 28, 2014
      
      Megan, I live in the Ponzi scheme capitol of the world in Utah, How does it happen? They are charismatic, generous, trustworthy people. Every person ever taken by a ponzi scheme never saw it coming. they trusted the individual because the liked them.
      
      Because of Alfred's theology is so black and white you can only be a serious christian or an apostate. No, Bill can be a sincere believer and still hurt people and commit injustices along the way. Maybe a better term for Alfred would be a Belieber?
    - Shane April 28, 2014
      
      @Ryan- "I know Michael Jordan. I've been to his house here in Park City many times. He has personally invited me to stay for dinner. I know his wife Yvette. He calls me by a nickname. Would I say I know MJ? No way. "
      
      Uhhhh...H*ll yes you say you know MJ!! I appreciate the point you're making but dude you know Michael freakin Jordan.
    - P.L. April 28, 2014
      
      That would be *Billieber*, @Ryan. Love it. :-)
    - Shane April 28, 2014
      
      Megan and Ryan- What you guys are describing regarding Gothard, bullies, charlatans, is, in my understanding, textbook narcissism.
    - P.L. April 28, 2014
      
      Thanks, @MatthewS, for the links to those old threads; that's before I was participating at RG so I wasn't aware just how long Alfred has been making the same tired arguments. Helpful perspective.
  - J.B. April 22, 2014 Reply
    
    Alfred,
    
    You've mentioned on multiple occasions that because there was no sex involved in Bill's interactions with the girls, it must not have been wrong. But you know as well as anyone else here that that's not true - and that this isn't an issue of the letter of the law, but rather the spirit of the law. Jesus raised the standard when he preached that whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart, sex or not.
    
    It doesn't matter whether there are five accounts or 50 accounts of misconduct on this website. What matters is that what happened happened, and this "apology" doesn't acknowledge the far-reaching effects of a culture that fosters shame, nor is it complemented by any actual action that can help provide some restoration for the victims. Yes, victims. You may be making yourself out to be a martyr here, Alfred, but a bunch of people disagreeing with you is not in any way comparable to what these girls have experienced. Do you understand just how hard it is for them to step forward with their stories? After living a life where they have been used by a manipulative abuser for years?
    
    If you're still counting how many stories there are and attempting to find some way to discredit anyone who would deconstruct this reality you've constructed for yourself in which Gothard is placed on a pedestal, then it's time to take the blinders off. It's time to wake up.
  - Alfred Corduan April 22, 2014 Reply
    
    The term "victim" is also an interesting one, just like "normal" (batted around elsewhere). When I talk to young ladies who operated in close proximity to Bill and appreciated what they saw as acts of concern and affection I see that sometimes it comes down to how you take it. THAT is where the 5 vs. 50 vs. hundreds comes in
    
    To what, then, should he confess? If he really had no sexual intent, how should his confession be worded? Insensitivity . . . pride for basically ignoring the alarm expressed by others. I think he said the right thing.
    
    Some have testified to being "victimized" by the program as a whole and you are alluding to that. Others experiencing the same culture have thrived and appreciate it to this day. Group 1 has every right to pull together a website to address their grievances . . . but others would be deeply grieved if Bill issued a confession that ATI was a mistake and he was wrong for teaching what he has.
    - J.B. April 22, 2014
      
      A slave who knows not that he is a slave is still enslaved, no matter how he "takes it."
    - P.L. April 22, 2014
      
      "it comes down to how you take it."
      
      No. Bill clearly treated some women differently than others. His favoritism isn't in dispute at all, even by you, and in fact he confessed to it in his recent letter. So the testimony of women whom he did not target cannot substitute for the testimony of those he did.
      
      Any criminal can treat fifty people nicely, and still do grievous wrong to one, for which they must bear the consequences. Fifty houses that a robber did not rob do not in any way make up for the one s/he did.
      
      Yours is a particularly troubling argument when made by a Christian, who should well know from the Scriptures the preciousness of each individual life experience to Christ. The tears of these women are numbered, God has them in his book (Ps. 56:8). Individually. Not relative to some other woman's experience.
      
      Sexual harassment/predation is a well-known behavior. The perpetrator does not victimize say, his entire office (which would likely result in immediate consequences). Instead s/he carefully selects individuals on whom to prey with an eye to feeding their own desires as long as possible.
      
      Bill Gothard's behavior exactly fits this pattern.
    - Mamaraye April 22, 2014
      
      @Alfred...you said...
      
      "but others would be deeply grieved if Bill issued a confession that ATI was a mistake and he was wrong for teaching what he has."
      
      Sometimes deep grief is what God uses to make the blinders fall off.
    - Shane April 22, 2014
      
      @Mamaraye- very good point. If it's true (I believe so) it would be a life-giving grief. It certainly was life-giving for me and the many others at RG to see it.
  - Holly April 23, 2014 Reply
    
    Meg also alleged that he placed her hand over his own leg, and stroked her leg with his feet (which seems a bit more involved than "footsie"), and Robin alleged that he touched her leg with his hand (I believe there were some instances of this in lesser degrees in Rachel's story as well). I noticed that Mr. Gothard did not include "touching legs" in his apology alongside "touching feet and hair". Maybe he means for that to fall under the same category as touching feet? I don't know. But I do know that if he included it, it would look silly in the same paragraph as "no sexual intent."
    I do appreciate the admissions that Mr. Gothard has made, and it seems very encouraging to me that he is willing to acknowledge as much as he did in the other categories. This is quite a change from the letter he sent to ATI alumni a year or so ago.
    I appreciate the humiliating nature of some of the allegations here, but I do hope that he will come to grips with any chronic sin patterns he may have, in addition to the pride he has already owned.
    I also hope that people observing from afar will be gracious, and people walking with him through this will uphold him in prayer, and will be faithful friends to him in the truest sense.
    - Caroline G April 24, 2014
      
      He touched my leg too! Just to add to the voices, not like I need to or anything. He definitely acted inappropriately with me when I was 17.
    - Shane April 24, 2014
      
      Sheesh!
      
      No Caroline G- it is necessary to add to the voices, because there is a ton of damage control and willful blindness going on. Maybe, if the stories get stacked high enough, some will finally give up the blind defense.
    - kevin April 24, 2014
      
      Caroline,
      Your story matters more than you know. The vast majority of us believe the victims and their testimonies. Some still have blinders on. As each new voice is added, more blinders come off. The collective voices become undeniable. Please tell your story. It matters. It will help others and hopefully will be a part of your healing.
  - kevin April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    Alfred,
    As to your suggestion that we forget about his transgressions of the 70s and 80s scandal and move on, because Bill said he was sorry and stepped down. Are you kidding brother? Bill stepped down for 17 days. That was a joke. He also lied about the fact that he had known about the abuses of Steve since 1976 and hid it from the Board and then denied having done so. Are you forgetting this? Are you forgetting that during the time of his return to power, he and his surrogates fired or forced the resignation of 2/3 of the staff- about 50 people because he saw them as a threat? What about all of those families destoyed? Many of them had sold everything to follow Bill and work for the organization and he just kicked them to the curb like rubbish. Behavior at the time left many lives in shambles, and for this he was never brought to account. He just took the reigns again and proceeded as if nothing had happened. No, he does not get a pass for his behavior at that time and the damage he did to so many. For one thing, as the wealth of documents that have been published here from that era show, his public apology, much like this recent public comment, was incredibly lacking, acknowledging the little things, but ignoring the big sins he had commited.
    He would have not accomplished what he did if he was swayed by every opinion that came before him? It would have done him a lot of good to listen to others, which narcisists just don't do. It might have done him some good to care about others as well. Maybe he would still be the leader of his organization if he listened to those he hurt. Maybe he could have not hurt those girls in the first place by sending them to the Northwoods to be molested by Steven, knowing full well what his brother was up to and what sentencing a girl to Northwoods would mean.
    Maybe he should have listened the first time that a girl and her parents spoke to him about his unwanted fondling and footsie and kept his hands and feet to himself. Listening would have done him a whole lot of good.
    
    I know that you believe that you received good from Bill Gothard. I am friends with people who once thought that, but now realize the legaistic hell that they were trapped in and the false teachings they were being fed and have had to unlearn much.
    
    As it has been said, a man can build 1,000 bridged and molest one child, and he will be remembered not as a bridge builder, but as a child molestor. By his actions, Bill has established what his legacy will be.
  - Father with Daughters April 27, 2014 Reply
    
    I would say that is 5 too many accounts would you agree Alfred?
    
    How would you feel if it was one of your daughters making these claims? I find it hard to believe you as a parent would defend such a man.
    
    Alfred said:
    
    "Eliminating "Charlotte" as very doubtful we are left with 5 accounts on this website (not 50) post 1980s. Five that testify that he played footsies with them or held their hand too long . . . had them in counseling sessions alone, or sat too close for their comfort. Not one of them alleged anything beyond that. "
  - Alfred Corduan April 28, 2014 Reply
    
    ATI Father With Daughters . . . based on all you know, do you consider Bill dangerous? I am quite sure "Charlotte" is not telling the truth - if she were, that would change everything for me. Eliminating that, based only on the man you and I know coupled with the other accounts given, would you consider that a dangerous situation for our young ladies? We have 50 years of track record here. I am not interested in what he might have done - I am interested in what we know he did. We know he got emotionally entangled with several young ladies in the early years . . . and with others he had a different perspective of proper boundaries than most of us do. It remains whether that is a sin, a crime . . . or just irritating, insensitivity, lack of manners. I think the experience of most would be what Joy (recent story) said . . . she just never gave it much thought until reading other stories.
    
    Have you ever known Bill to lie? I haven't. If he said he never had sexual intent . . . or that he "never saw nor touched the private parts of a woman", his track record backs up that that is the way it is.
    
    When a man is being attacked, every action and motive is reinterpreted in an bad light. But that is not how it really is. Jesus knows it all.
    - Father With Daughters April 29, 2014
      
      Based on what I know, I consider Bill Gothard very dangerous. From my point of view, he is a sexual predator. Intercourse or not, he has/is taking advantage of his position. Taking young girls and women far from home to work long hours, sleep deprivation and inappropriate touching from a "ministry leader", sounds very similar to a cult. Don't you think? By all means, a dangerous situation for young girls, ladies and boys.
      
      Charlotte's experience has the same method of operation as the other girls experiences. I find it hard to believe she would make up her experience after reading her account.
      
      The only fifty year track record appears to be a sexual problem with Bill Gothard and his family/staff.
      
      What Bill Gothard has done is improper actions with young girls and ladies and to violate his rules he had laid out for others. Bill Gothard's boundaries should be exactly what yours are as a Gothardite. If your boundaries are different than Gothards, why do you follow his teachings? It goes against what you believe.
      
      I would say Bill Gothard's actions are a sin. From my point of view, "footsie" is an intimate activity and an "older man" should not be doing with a teenage girl. Footsie is not a "fatherly thing".
      
      Bill Gothard covering up his brother's activities in the 1970's is the same as a lie to me. Therefore I would say yes Bill lied and no doubt lies about many other things as well.
      
      You never did answer regarding your "only 5 accounts post 1980's" comment. I still say that is five too many don't you agree?
      
      Here are a few more questions for you:
      
      What if one of your daughter charged that Bill G. was playing footsie with them? Is that appropriate behavior?
      
      What would your family/friends/associates think if you were playing footsie with a teenage girl?
    - Alfred Corduan April 29, 2014
      
      You know, I made a mistake . . . I thought you were "ATI Father with Daughters". If you were, you would not be repeating the party line but actually engaging on the man we would both know. And about experiences of our young people with ministry situations which are far from what you describe.
      
      So . . . best we leave it there. I am so fed up with generic prejudices that kick in. Bill is anything but a "predator" or "pervert". If the Lord wishes He can at some point speak out on his behalf. If not, that is His business. I know the truth.
      
      If Bill had touched a daughter enough make her uncomfortable I would have been in his office to address it. "Wake up, sir. Whatever you think this is, it isn't. The appearance of evil has the potential to cause all of us really big problems downstream". This be because of my daughter's feelings and because of how it looks, not because I ever would believe an evil intent. He is a toucher - I can relate. I have to shake hands with everyone at church . . . I am constantly touching my wife during the day in non-sexual way, patting the kids on the head, giving a squeeze, high fives, fist bumps. Other than hugs I don't do much of that with older daughters as I do agree it seems inappropriate, especially in this day and age. Maybe that is our minds being corrupt, I don't know. Falls in line with the story that Wendy told often, of people finding fault with her walking around campus holding hands with her brother. They did nothing wrong . . . but our culture has twisted us.
      
      There are some "touches" that simply can't be done without evil intent. Bill has personally looked me in the eye and said what he said in his public apology, that this never happened, once. I believe him and do not believe "Charlotte". All the information I have been able to secure, from 1980 and since, bears this out.
      
      You will notice with one (or others I missed?) exception nobody ever actually went to him on these touch issues, the ones experiencing it or their parents. That is where Matthew 18 demands to have a its start. For others with second hand information to try to do Matthew 18 . . . far less effective if not unscriptural. I would have taken that as far as I needed to to to make sure that this "fly in the ointment" was addressed. You know me, I don't give up.
      
      This is exactly what I did with the Veinot book when someone dared me to read it, sending a copy. I contacted the authors, I contacted those that they sent me to, I took all of that and spoke to Bill. I was stunned to see how few who read the book ever went back to examine the matters discussed. So far I have heard of one, that being Dr. Karl Coke, who approached Bill to rebuke him about how he had handled - and was handling - his brother, Steve. Dr. Coke got all his inquiries satisfied, and ended up being one of the most public champions of IBLP I have seen, headlining conferences for years.
      
      When my son screwed up enough courage - mind you toward the end of all of this summer of last year - to go to him on the things he had observed, the favoritism toward the young ladies, favoring the more attractive ones, the long hours at night (in front of a lighted, open window, mind you), he was respectfully received. Bill asked questions and thanked him. One week later he announced to the staff - with tears - that the HQ ministry would henceforth focus on young men, with the young ladies leaving.
      
      A public announcement website is not Matthew 18. The LA Times is not Matthew 18, which some of the players resorted to back in 1980. The obvious point is that this is not "telling the church". It is hanging out dirty laundry for the world, the devil, to laugh at and mock. Atheists and agnostics and worse that publicly revile Bill. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 6, far better to be "defrauded" than to shame the name of the Lord in front of unbelievers.
      
      I know of some on this site who have had the courage to have gone to Bill directly. Well done. I have deep respect for those, would count them my friends, don't care if they agree with my conclusions.
    - Beverly April 29, 2014
      
      "If Bill had touched a daughter enough make her uncomfortable I would have been in his office to address it. “Wake up, sir. Whatever you think this is, it isn’t. The appearance of evil has the potential to cause all of us really big problems downstream”. This be because of my daughter’s feelings and because of how it looks, not because I ever would believe an evil intent."
      
      Thank you for shooting straight here and clarifying that you're more concerned about Bill's reputation and the appearance of Bill doing evil than you are about your own daughter being sexually harassed. So basically, no matter what she says to you, you'll always refuse to believe that Bill has evil intent. It's good to know exactly where you stand, so thank you for making it clear. I hope and pray that one day your daughters will still love and forgive you, because that's the quickest way to lose their hearts.
    - P.L. April 29, 2014
      
      "Falls in line with the story that Wendy told often, of people finding fault with her walking around campus holding hands with her brother. They did nothing wrong . . . but our culture has twisted us."
      
      That culture that saw fault in brothers and sisters holding hands was ATI culture. The people finding fault were ATI people. Yes, Alfred, your culture has twisted you.
    - P.L. April 29, 2014
      
      You didn't answer Father with Daughter's questions, Alfred. Here they are again:
      
      "What if one of your daughter charged that Bill G. was playing footsie with them? Is that appropriate behavior?
      
      What would your family/friends/associates think if you were playing footsie with a teenage girl?"
    - Alfred Corduan April 29, 2014
      
      Beverly: "not ever believe" is based on all I know and have experienced of Bill in 40 years and the testimonies I have read . . . and is a poor choice of words in this context. It's just not him. There are facts that would change my mind, but I have not seen them yet (and I keep distancing myself from "Charlotte").
      
      I asked you about this elsewhere, whether you know him capable of the implied vile intent . . . assuming you know him (I don't recall your exact background, but thought you were ATI). A lot of people jumped in to tell me I had no right to "intimidate" you . . . which was certainly not my intent.
      
      I just what to know if you, personally, know him, have worked with him, and are willing to accept these accusations of "sexual perversion", in so many words.
    - Beverly April 29, 2014
      
      I've actually already answered that question before, many times over in my comments, but I'll repeat my story for the newcomers. My family was in ATI for 20 years. Yes, I knew Bill personally. Yes, I witnessed Bill hitting on my underaged LIT. All of us students knew what types of girls he liked. The very fact that he HAD a favorite type of girl was a well-known, common-knowledge fact among the students. I have since gone on to work for other Christian ministries and churches, and I can assure you that a Christian leader having a common-knowledge "favorite type" of girl or woman is NOT normal in Christian ministry---be they married or single. Besides, if Bill had the gift of singleness, why was he attracted to a certain type of young, underaged girl? If the fact that he had a certain type was common knowledge and openly-recognized by those around him, then he NEVER HAD have the gift of singleness.
    - Alfred Corduan April 29, 2014
      
      My question remains unanswered. Are you prepared to call him a "pervert" or "predator"? Is that term appropriate for the man you knew for 20 years, including all that you mentioned?
      
      PL: I, like Beverly, thought I answered it. Incidental stuff is . . . incidental. Reread Joy's account . . . it happened, she didn't think anything of it. It is the difference between the oncology exam given to the young lady in the "other" newer account by one doctor as opposed to the same exams given by others. One was clearly sexual . . . to her. The others were not. SAME activity.
      
      And since it didn't happen to my daughters, nor to anyone in ATI that I know, I leave my comments there.
    - Alfred Corduan April 29, 2014
      
      PL: ["That culture that saw fault in brothers and sisters holding hands was ATI culture. The people finding fault were ATI people. Yes, Alfred, your culture has twisted you. "]
      
      Now we have a conundrum. IF ATI culture twisted the thinking to condemn siblings holding hands (well aware of the increasing tidal wave of incest all around us . . . King Agrippa and sister "Bernice" in Acts) . . . why can we not allow that culture in general has twisted all kinds of expressions of affection between friends around to make them "sexual"? Like people finding fault with Doug Phillips kissing Michelle Duggar on the check . . . at a public award ceremony . . . in the south. Do you not see any irony in your comments?
      
      Footsie was a non-issue in my youth! I have said that repeatedly. The fact that some people found it sexual was mind blowing . . . within the last decade. I know sex, sex is a friend of mine . . . and that, sir, is ANYTHING but sexual (to me). I can't think of a time where I did, but I could see a situation of goofing around where I might do that - out in the open - without a thought. Can you hear me?
      
      Does that make me a pervert? Some have tried to go there. I get a little . . . wee bit . . . angry. So . . . no . . . "Footsie" in and of itself, without a context of concern from my daughter or others, would not have tripped my alarm bells.
    - P.L. April 29, 2014
      
      "What would your family/friends/associates think if you were playing footsie with a teenage girl?"
    - greg r April 29, 2014
      
      @Beverly: love your posts, just one small suggestion as a male who married @ 40 and have a 64yr oldest brother never married: Maybe Bill had the gift of singleness , maybe he did not. what is safe to say is that his sexuality was (is ??) a wild beast untamed. that does not reflect, imo, that he ever should have gotten married. Alfred thinks so, I am very doubtful that marriage would have changed much. he would have been a very dysfunctional married man instead of a dysfunctional single man. this isn't just about bill: marriage is no magic sexual wand...lol, almost typed "want"...freudian typo....
    - Nick April 29, 2014
      
      Alfred: Like people finding fault with Doug Phillips kissing Michelle Duggar on the cheeck . . . at a public award ceremony . . . in the south. Do you not see any irony in your comments?
      
      Alfred, do YOU not see the irony in YOUR comments? You have the audacity to hold up Doug Phillips as a victim here? As a man who is "misunderstood?"
      
      Doug Phillips was caught in the act on several occasions with a young woman who lived in the Phillips home as a nanny, and continued to pursue sexual relations even after the family of the young woman tried to remove her from his influence.
      
      The irony is on you this time Alfred.
      
      (PS - rewatch the video of Doug kissing, and notice how he continues to gaze at Michelle, until Jim-Bob gets uneasy, and protectively moves in between Doug and Michelle... yeah not creepy at all bro... geez)
    - Nick April 29, 2014
      
      Alfred: Does that make me a pervert? (playing footsie)
      
      Yeah it does, if playing footsie is how you get your sexual fix
      
      The biggest sex organ is the brain, and some people "get off" differently than you do Alfred.
      
      If Bill gets sexual gratification from playing footsie, than playing footsie makes him a pervert.
      
      Alfred, have you asked Bill if he gets sexual gratification from playing footsie?
    - Gracie April 29, 2014
      
      The underlying point in all of this is that almost any act (touching feet, playing with hair, personal grooming advice) can become sexual harassment if it's done with improper intent or lacking permission...I can tell you that I have had people give me bad vibes (communicating creepiness/skeeviness) through a handshake that are more offensive than most kisses on the cheek I've received. (obviously, for this kind of argument, I'm not talking legally actionable offenses here, just usually inane things turned creepy by gross people)
      
      In fact, wasn't that an IBLP teaching? That if you had a "strong spirit" or whatever you could feel nasty-spirited things happening? Like the reason you get a feeling that someone is checking you out when your back is turned?
      
      Anyways, you said you might be persuaded to confront Gothard (in the hypothetical daughter situation) based on appearances and "not because I ever would believe an evil intent." Come on, man. Never?
      
      At least we know where you stand.
    - greg r April 29, 2014
      
      Gracie wrote: HEY Alfred...
      
      The underlying point in all of this is that almost any act (touching feet, playing with hair, personal grooming advice) can become sexual harassment if it's done with improper intent or lacking permission...I can tell you that I have had people give me bad vibes (communicating creepiness/skeeviness) through a handshake that are more offensive than most kisses on the cheek I've received. (obviously, for this kind of argument, I'm not talking legally actionable offenses here, just usually inane things turned creepy by gross people)
      
      Forest and trees Alfred.... context is everything; and we would be wise to listen to the women on this one; there's a lot we guys are slow on...
    - P.L. April 29, 2014
      
      @Alfred: "IF ATI culture twisted the thinking to condemn siblings holding hands . . . why can we not allow that culture in general has twisted all kinds of expressions of affection between friends around to make them "sexual"?"
      
      I don't see irony but I do see faulty logic. If you are equating the ATI twisting with the wider cultural twisting you must either condemn both or absolve both, or differentiate between them so as to absolve one and condemn the other.
      
      I did not do the equating, you did.
      
      BTW, it's telling how much you, like Gothard, love the ellipse.
    - P.L. April 29, 2014
      
      And I say again: "What would your family/friends/associates think if you were playing footsie with a teenage girl?"
    - MatthewS April 29, 2014
      
      The question is not to me but it's hard to resist answering. I am a bi-vocational pastor. I minister to folks in age ranges all the way from children to elderly. There is no demographic where footsie in sock feet would be meaningless. Add to it that we are talking about ongoing, repeated instances, with young ladies hand-selected based in part on their appearances, and something not done in public but in private. Clinton can argue all day long what the meaning of is is. Baghdad Bob can declare all day long that there are no tanks in Baghdad, even as the cameras are adjusted so as not to show the tanks. Calling it meaningless doesn't make it meaningless.
      
      I was recently at someone's house with some youth from our church. If footsie were meaningless, I could have easily engaged in touching teen girls' sock-clad feet with my sock-clad feet. I thought about that while we were there and it underscored to me, with some internal emotion, how un-meaningless that gesture would be. We aren't talking about an occasional tap. We are talking about an ongoing habit of making contact that was outside usual boundaries.
      
      Thinking about it now, I'm reminded that one of the first things that alerted the youth group my wife and I were in years ago before we had a relationship was that we sat next to each other and we began playing footsie, resulting in some amused and knowing looks from our friends.
      
      Having said all that, to use a graphic illustration - we don't have to persuade the person holding the knife that the victim was cut. We look at the person to see if there is a wound. The way I know that these girls were wounded is the ongoing and unwanted scars and consequences. I keep hearing comments about how they thought they were OK but years later, sometimes not until they were newly married, the wounds gave evidence of the person having been wounded.
    - P.L. April 29, 2014
      
      @Alfred: "It is the difference between the oncology exam given to the young lady in the "other" newer account by one doctor as opposed to the same exams given by others. One was clearly sexual . . . to her. The others were not. SAME activity."
      
      To her??? SAME activity??? This is a clear misreading of Tanya's account to justify your own arguments. Shame on you. Go repeat your implications on the comment thread for Tanya's post so that you can be answered appropriately. Don't hide your comments over here.
    - Father With Daughters April 29, 2014
      
      No I am not ATI Father with Daughters. I just put the first name that came to mind. I had never heard of ATI until I came across this website while searching on "false teachings of Bill Gothard" (just to confirm or refute my suspicions). I attended the IBYC in the early 1980's before I knew anything about covering up his brother's escapades and Bill's fascination for young teen girls with a "certain look". Luckily enough, my family was not die hard Gothardites and I was spared the pain and stress that I have read about on this site.
      
      >>>>
      From Alfred's 4/29 post:
      
      So . . . best we leave it there. I am so fed up with generic prejudices that kick in. Bill is anything but a "predator" or "pervert". If the Lord wishes He can at some point speak out on his behalf. If not, that is His business. I know the truth.<<<<<
      
      I have yet to see any "generic prejudices" on this website. What I see is a repeating cycle with Bill toward his "assistant(s) of the month". So if we are to take it by scripture (as I'm sure Bill would), may I offer you Deuteronomy 19:15. I believe the Lord uses people to bring out the truth. Perhaps this website is one? I tend to think so knowing what I know.
      
      I do not think you walking into Bill's office and saying "wake up sir..." would have any effect on Bill from what I know. As a parent, our responsibility is to protect our children from such things. God help those who knowingly send their children into such an environment. Had any of the events I've read about been my daughter, the authorities would be hauling me to the local police station and Bill would be having some problems with the authorities as well. There is a big difference between high fives, fist pumps and playing footsie or touching a girls leg. This has nothing to do with our minds being corrupt. It is all about appearance and acting improper. Footsie has always been a flirtatious action (ask any woman) and I don't think they would appreciate an unwelcome leg touch or "pat".
      
      Bill looked you in the eye and lied to you. The above two touches are for a couple in a relationship, not a "ministry leader" and his assistant. The incident I remember at the moment is the "godly music" and plant food scam.
      
      In regard to your "Matthew 18" excuse, I do recall reading several attempts at going to Bill and Bill in turn blowing them off, accusing them of having trouble with authority or a spirit of rebellion.
      
      People like Bill Gothard turned me away for Christianity for twenty plus years. Only now am I returning to Christianity. Not churchianity or gothardism.
      
      Thank you Beverly and PL for your post, I find them very thought provoking.
    - Shane April 29, 2014
      
      MatthewS- well said. I'd add that my understanding is that he not only repeated the physical actions but he also ignored repeated warnings/pleas about the impropriety of his behavior to no avail.
    - Alfred Corduan April 29, 2014
      
      Nick: ["Alfred, have you asked Bill if he gets sexual gratification from playing footsie?"]
      
      Let's see, he said "no". Several times. But you knew that.
    - Nick April 29, 2014
      
      Alfred ["Alfred, have you asked Bill if he gets sexual gratification from playing footsie?"]
      
      Let's see, he said "no". Several times. But you knew that.
      
      No, I did not not know that. How long ago did you ask him?
      
      Is it possible that Bill is not telling the truth? How can you verify that Bill is being truthful?
      
      Sometimes just taking a man at his word isn't enough when that man has a demonstrated habit of changing his word to fit the situation.
      
      Thanks for answering this question... although you didn't answer my previous question about double standards, nor did you reply to my comment regarding the infidelities of Doug Phillips.
    - Nick April 29, 2014
      
      I said: "you didn't answer my previous question about double standards, nor did you reply to my comment regarding the infidelities of Doug Phillips."
      
      I am interested in your responses Alfred, just wanted to let you know that. Thanks!
    - Ryan May 1, 2014
      
      You can't possibly think Bill would ever divulge personal information to Alfred.
- Sally April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  Kevin,
  
  Appreciate your words. I think back to the board notes of the LA seminar leaders, that all who were there were trying to explain the seriousness of the issues at hand. BG didn't get it then, as if he couldn't. It has been said, "money and power corrupt, absolutely"! It sure seems true here. All those men and ministers and counselors couldn't get BG to see the wrong. There was no repentant hearts, just trying to circle the wagons to protect THEIR livelihood. It happens time and time again.
  
  Another thing your words made me think of is that of all the times we heard BG talk about being alone with prayer and fasting to learn what he should share at conferences etc.... did God to speak to him through the Holy Spirit convicting him of his double standard? Did he not hear from God? I am not trying to be accusing here but when you have a big job to do for God, one pretty much has to be bare and honest before God to hear and get direction.
HalfNorsk April 21, 2014 Reply

BG's statement on his billgothard.com website has a site for comments -- but none have been published. I'd bet there have been dozens, if not hundreds of negative comments that people have posted, but summarily censored. So tragic that BG and his minions won't face the truth.
- greg r April 21, 2014 Reply
  
  I don't see a way to view ANY of the comments, pro or con or something in between. Is there a way to view any of this ??
- Sally April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  I noticed that too. I thought no one left one. Good point.
  - Dan W April 25, 2014 Reply
    
    I left this comment today:
    
    "You have advised against adoption for years because of the principle of "Sins of the fathers". Is your behavior with these young women the kind of thing we as adoptive parents might have expected from our children of unknown genetic background?"
    
    I will check occasionally to see if it appears.
    - Kevin April 25, 2014
      
      Good comment.
      
      If your comment should appear, I would quickly check with yahoo weather to see the forecast in Hell, because I would suggest it may have just froze over.
    - Dan W May 2, 2014
      
      Still no comments published as of 5/2/14. There are published comments on other posts, even ones (slightly) challenging him. He also published one thanking BG for his 'rhemas'. THAT is certainly an eye-opener as to what BG thinks of the authority of his own words.
Fred April 21, 2014 Reply

For a while he appeared to be seriously repenting, until I came to the line "Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent." -- at which point my bovine excrement detector went off.

Bill, I'm so sorry. Nice try, but you lose! Johnny, what parting gifts do we have for Bill?
Jeanne Owens April 21, 2014 Reply

Hey, Bill - What about an apology for completely twisting and distorting the image of God held by thousands of followers and their innocent children who were dragged into IBLP? That kind of damage can last a lifetime, and can cost a ton of money and time in therapy to process some kind of recovery. I know I am far from alone when I say it took me over 30 years (18 spent trying to forget God, and 12 years untangling the confusion created by BG's endless lists of rules and principles and misuse of scripture) to find a God of grace, love, and light right here within me.

Find a therapist, Bill, and do the hard work to overcome yourself. Many of us have done just that to find the truth - it can happen for you also. Beware - it's grueling work to get past the damage of IBLP.
- Catherine April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  That's what I see as the main issue: that many have turned away from the true and living God because of the man-made system of BG.
Tim April 21, 2014 Reply

I evaluated ATI curriculum for my children about 3 years ago. My wife had settled on it because some friends of hers suggested it. She wanted me to look it over and finalize the application. I neglected to do this for months until it was close to time for school to start. So I finally got around to it.

I was pretty turned off by the far reaching hand of what I now know to be the chain of command. I was raised in a legalistic church and spent a decade as an adult in a rigid discipleship structure that was similar to Gothard style of authority. I was weary of the “do as I say” crowd. I have discovered this authority structure is always promoted by those who desire it, not those who deserve it. It is more or less a Christian pyramid scheme.

After going through the ATI application, I was very turned off by the intrusiveness of the questionnaire. After recovering from legalism I knew better than to jump into this ship. The questions about watching TV and alcohol in the home were enough for me to know this was not for us. Plus my wife had a job and I somehow felt like this disqualified us as a family. Thank God!

We had been through one of the BG home study courses. I was a bit taken by his charisma, but never wanted to drink the kool-aid en masse. Looking back, the biggest problem with Bill Gothard’s style was initially, Bill Gothard.

It seemed very odd to me that a single man, with no children of his own, that lived at home, could be instrumental in helping me be a better husband, father and head of my household. He had very few “scars” of experience that would test his theories in the marketplace, aka the real world. Plus, nothing about him made me want to be like him. However, his initial charisma drew me to him in an odd sort of way. Now I see him for what he really is…a manipulator.

The fruit of his work is self-evident. If 10 percent of the accounts of surrounding himself with you and your children are true, this guy should pop up on every pervert site on the internet.

There are a lot of opinions and thought I could present, but these verses stands out the most:
MATTEW 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Also…
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

In the Gothard style of teaching, anyone who presents a methodology that does not bear fruit in his own life, is weighing his followers down with undue burdens.—Matthew 23:4 This “gospel” is no gospel at all. Galatians 1:7 According to Paul, let the message bearer be accursed.

Harsh words. Not mine. If there were ever any benefit to rigid adherence to the law, it would have come from Paul, who knew the law as well as any man that ever lived. And he counted it all as loss. Christ and Him crucified.

What “hidden” meaning could Bill Gothard pull from the scriptures 2,000 years later? Those who make the claim to not throw the baby out with the bathwater or chew up the meat and spit out the bones are on a slippery slope. It is no Gospel at all.

If someone can adhere to the whole law AND love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves, then by all means show me the way. But, when your system breaks down because the love of God has lost its place in it, better take a back seat to someone who knows how to love unconditionally…perfectly.

I pray that Bill Gothard is brought to justice under the weight of the law that he so freely imposes on his followers, or that Jesus himself has such compassion on him that he has a Damascus road experience. Win-win!!
- Guy Cooksey April 29, 2014 Reply
  
  Tim: I appreciated your comment and can relate it to my own life. Honestly, coming out of seminary and beginning to pastor, my wife and I attended a seminar in 1989 and were helped by the teaching. In fact, we attended a few more seminars and even attended an advanced seminar and were again helped. I even use some of his material in my own ministry, contextualization it to fit y own philosophy of ministry (and throwing out the legalism that I saw). However, with that said, I can still sense the uneasiness I felt as I attended these seminars and filled in the blanks. I really felt uncomfortable when my wife and I were considering the ATI program for our 4 children at the time (1996). Like you I was alarmed by the application form and even as a pastor, felt that I just could not measure up to these standards. My wife, who really loved BG, even was turned off by it. It just screamed "Cult" and "Legalism" at us! How thankful I am that we steered way from it as we have seen some dear friends of ours truly hurt by it.
Paul VA April 22, 2014 Reply

Bill has grown accustomed in his narcissistic life to getting to live in his own world and reality and somehow finding people to join him in that world...a world with demon possessed dolls and music and a world where he gave "insights" that weren't available elsewhere about little ways to Christian superiority. Why would we assume he would suddenly come out of his dream world where he defines the terms and what fits in the categories of righteousness and sin?
Its often subtle and covered in spiritual syrup...and this confession is true to form. Why do people believe him? Because they want to. When their ticket to spiritual superiority is about to be canceled some people will be desperate for a way to renew it.
- Vaila April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  "When their ticket to spiritual superiority is about to be cancelled some people will be desperate for a way to renew it." Thank you for this excellent explanation as to why people continue to choose to blindly "believe" him.
Alex S April 22, 2014 Reply

I'd be interested to hear how BG justifies the whole "holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies" thing in light of his teaching on defrauding. Most young people in his program aren't even allowed to hold hands until after they're married soooooooo...touching hair?! Oh my! :P
- Glad to be free of this. April 23, 2014 Reply
  
  Alex, my thought exactly. Can you imagine even a courting couple playing footsie under the table? Most aren't suppose to even hold hands. So what are bare feet or slipping off to socks and rubbing on legs or feet suppose to mean? This is all nonsexual?
Jerrod Forrest April 22, 2014 Reply

As an outside observer to RG, I would like to lump today's BG apology (for what the term is worth) into the aggregate of his past body of work,beginning in the 1960s. I would kindly ask this website's readers to examine the facts of all that has occurred, and to dissect habits, patterns and pieces of evidence. If we remove the spiritual element from it all, as one might do when reading a detective novel, to me, the facts speak plainly for themselves.

I don't have a dog in this fight - although I certainly feel very bad for the victims, and am not a fan of heretical teaching
- but the heinous acts described on RG point to the work of a confidence-man extraordinaire. Again, if this were an Agatha Christie scenario, we would not place a veneer of religion over our observation of the facts. In Christianity, however, to the believer's credit, s/he is taught from an early age to place strong trust in biblical teachers and in the faith itself. That's commendable, and as it should be.

In this case, however, from the myriad testimonies, it appears that Mr. Gothard has, from the beginning, been nothing more than an Elmer Gantry character, or a fascimilie of Steve Martin's Jonas Nightengale, the sham preacher in 1992's "Leap of Faith". If we boil down the requests for BG to "repent, apologize, and otherwise admit his error", I think we may be giving a wolf in sheep's clothing a very generous benefit of the doubt.

Examining the history of the organization and its evolution over the decades, it's easy to see how its puppetmaster, a very shrewd businessman, has concerned himself with profit - over prophecy - and focused his energies on a demographic that would deliver (him) the goods. Namely, those to whom the most "feel-good" benefit would come, and who because they were adults, would always win a home argument against a "rebellious, bitter" progeny, and/or a spouse who could be put in line, once the message had been slowly but surely inculcated.

And as to our novel's antagonist, what was his motivation - what was ultimately in it for him? Namely, the thrill of resting atop a multimillion dollar empire, and indulging his base peccadillos whenever the opportunity allowed. Had tens of thousands (or more) over 40+ years not acted on their convictions to believe a sincere-sounding con-man masquerading as a Christian leader, his activity would have puttered out long ago.

My firm theory, based on the many threads of evidence on the RG website, leads me to conclude that Bill Gothard saw an opportunity, in the same way that any success-seeking business person would, and decided to take every possible advantage of it. Knowing the coded-language, and whom to flatter and appeal to added credibility and band-wagon strength to his rising star, and the rest, shall we say, is history.

I cannot speak to the final state of Bill Gothard's soul, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that any believer with a conscience and heart could never have perpetrated the kind of deeds that we've read about on this site. A calculating, predatory shape-shifter, however, would have no trouble doing so.

Although it sounds tawdry (and in my estimation, is), the entire core of BYC/IBLP/ATI has been built upon the inexorable lust for power, influence and greed of one man. This may sound ingracious, but again, let's examine things from a clinical, courtroom-based perspective, and it all starts to make perfect sense.

As to the vehement BG supporters on these pages, their "testimonies" are impotent to a fault. Furthermore, their disregard for clear-cut evidence, and saddest of all, those adversely affected by BG's pathological selfishness is contemptable. Had their erroneous rationale not continually flown in the face of those who true-heartedly trusted BG and his organization, their attempts at justification would be more humorous to read than merely
aggravating. And as I've in no uncertain terms suggested that lucre wends its way through this entire saga, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of belief to imagine that the cheerleaders are receiving financial compensation for their efforts to sow disharmony.

The upbeat side to this story, however, is that the Truth has set us all free, and no nay-sayer can ever refute the immutable Word of God and its awesome power in our lives.

I appreciate your consideration of this point-of-view, and hope that it helps to bring healing to those who are earnestly seeking answers.
- 'Megan' April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  THANK YOU!
- Sad April 23, 2014 Reply
  
  Thanks for a VERY thought provoking post. Well written, kudos.
  - Jerrod Forrest April 23, 2014 Reply
    
    Many thaks for the kind words, Megan and Sad April. It may be Friday now, but Sunday's comin'! :)
- Anonymous from somewhere April 25, 2014 Reply
  
  Very we'll said Jerrod!
  - Jerrod Forrest April 25, 2014 Reply
    
    Thanks for your chime-in, Anonymous from Somewhere, and I also appreciate your (and so many others') contributions here. It's cathartic to help process a multitude of emotions, and to realize that no one is ever alone in his/her experience.
David Pigg April 22, 2014 Reply

Bill Gothard doing what he is used to,buying and selling.Since any mere commoner could not come up to his own vaunted idealism ,he is buying us through the inexpensiveness of a few jestures of contrition,always keeping the idealism, so high,unattainable except for very few,[Bill].Then add some political posturing to the iblp,and then he will sell us,the expendible,disposible people, his revamped package of half baked "truths" and heresies.More victims more darkness,more redefining.Heresy,never acknowledged,and left unacknowledged publicly, by the board, becomes serious,but in Gothardism,becomes a cat and mouse game he was adroit with for 40 years.Needing to exploit some more.Think of the inner core of 40 years.Behind the smoke and mirrors.
Andy April 22, 2014 Reply

Proverbs 10:12
- "Emee" April 22, 2014 Reply
  
  Proverbs 10:8-9
Paul Glader April 23, 2014 Reply

It's very odd that Gothard lists a PhD on the top of his web site. His bio suggests he has a PHD in 2004 from a Louisiana Bible College. Either a) He was pursuing an actual PhD while encouraging his followers NOT to attend traditional colleges; or b) He received an honorary doctorate from that bible college and is pretending he earned it. Either approach is disingenuous.
- Gracie April 23, 2014 Reply
  
  @Paul Glader - If I remember correctly, he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Louisiana Bible College. At which point, all the True Followers began calling him Dr. Gothard.
- Anonymous April 23, 2014 Reply
  
  In response to Paul Glader, Bill Gothard earned an M.A. from Wheaton College and was later given an honorary Ph.D. from Wheaton. I apologize for not knowing the exact year of the honorary Wheaton doctorate, but it was well prior to about 1990 when his seminars were approved in some states for continuing education credit for professionals like school teachers, nurses, and law enforcement officers. He had to have at least a master's for his seminars to qualify, and he held both his earned master's and the honorary doctorate at that time.
  
  When the concept of obtaining degrees by submitting equivalency exams or life portfolios emerged in the late 1990s, Gothard encouraged his homeschooling families to pursue that route, and he eventually obtained his own Louisiana Baptist University doctorate at least partially by that method in 2004. He may currently be publicizing the LBU doctorate rather than the Wheaton one for the reason you named, to appear more genuine. However, the LBU doctorate is NOT accredited by any recognized organization.
  
  In my opinion, Gothard's honorary Wheaton doctorate is more valuable than the LBU-issued title, since Wheaton is a highly respected institution in the Christian community. Remember that Gothard was one of the most popular Christian lecturers in the United States from the 1960s through the 1980s, filling stadiums with his crowds. It is no surprise that Wheaton chose to recognize Gothard's achievements with an honorary doctorate, especially at a time when his private life remained undisclosed.
- greg r April 23, 2014 Reply
  
  Someone else who is more up on this can chime in, but I'm pretty sure that the Ph.D is honorary; I'm very sure that the college in question both does not have, and does not want general accredidation from any typical board or group, both secular or christian. At least that's the way it was in the near past. the school is an offshoot, I think, of a cosortium of baptist churches, most/all of them very missions minded.
  Honorary or not, I still see it as disingenuous to discourage college at ANY level, and then go pursue or even accept an honorary degree. Two sets of rules, anyone ??
Glad to be free of this. April 23, 2014 Reply

My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.

Footsie is always considered sexual touching. Can you imagine if a boy got caught doing such a thing at headquarters? Yickes. How many father's who sees his daughter's boyfriend playing footsie would blow it off as nonsexual touching? HMMM, Men what might happen with your body if you played footsie with a pretty girl? Let's not bury our heads in the sand people.
''Never touching a girl immorally or with sexual intent.'' Anyone who buys this I have a flying carpet I would like to sell them.
Heidi April 23, 2014 Reply

I so very grateful to those who have established RG and for the comments of others. It has been so very healing for me. I attended conferences but was never at the HQ, though deeply struggled with the teachings for many years and had a negative impact in so many ways on our marriage. I just thought that he was clued out on so many issues because he was not a married man with children. No married man with many children would have written and spoken like he did. Little did I know what was going on at HQ as I struggled with guilt and shame in not adopting his teachings as I should have. Even a letter back from him did not answer my questions but rather imputed more guilt. No surprise that he is incapable of addressing the issues we are most concerned about.
I think we need to build BG a little cabin in the woods, made from our many rejected IBLP books, wall papered it with the pages from the books so he can read and meditate on it for the rest of his days and actually begin to live by them. I can think of no other purpose this printed/published material might have.
Daniel April 23, 2014 Reply

Merriam Webster defines footsie as: a furtive flirtatious caressing with the feet (as under a table).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/footsie

I'm thinking that "furtive flirtatious caressing" describes things pretty well.
Heidi April 23, 2014 Reply

I would like to also add that if the statements of sexual misconduct such as these on the RG site, would have been brought forward in the secular world from teachers, coaches, health care workers… towards minors, or for that matter anyone, they would have been clearly classified as sexual harassment and various other charges. The non christian world would he alarmed How much more applicable is it in a situation where more trust is given because BG was a spiritual leader, someone who has written the book on conduct. For the board to have ignored all this, or bandaged concerns voiced for so many years, clearly reveals the 'rot to the core' of the entire organization. How can it hold any credibility for its past and the future. Why is that it has taken a website to bring it to the light?
- P.L. April 23, 2014 Reply
  
  Agreed. I find it so strange that the Gothard defenders are arguing that there is a *lower* standard of conduct for Bill than for those in secular organizations. And this after decades of proclaiming their own high standards as a badge of morality, integrity, and Christian commitment!
  
  I've worked in both corporate and academic environments (all of the secular variety), and in any of them Bill's conduct would have resulted in his immediate termination.
  - greg r April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    Bill would not have lasted 4 months (with HQ kind of behavior) where I work. Not even sure the cops would have let him clean out his desk. May sound harsh, but MOST parts of corporate america are not playing around with sexual harassment.
    - Beverly April 24, 2014
      
      Yes, but as Christians, we're allowed (in fact we DESERVE) to be held to a lower moral standard than corporate America! {sarcasm alert} ;-)
    - Heidi April 24, 2014
      
      One event would fire most people from any respectable job.
Luke Braly April 24, 2014 Reply

Leaving Charlotte's account out, which btw, was by far the least credible (really the only account that was not largely credible), I think its plausible that Gothard thought he was somehow protecting these young women from falling into sexual sin with boys, by redirecting their affection to him, by his displays of affection towards them, etc. No one has mentioned this, and I think its a possibility. Misguided, delusional on his part? Possibly, or possibly not. We know that none of these girls were having sex with Gothard while they were his "favorites", because none of them remotely imply they were (with the exception of Charlotte to an extent, but her account is not credible to me). So, if these girls were also not having sex with other teenage boys while they were Gothard's favorites, then maybe mission accomplished in his mind. Not saying I subscribe to all this, or any of the goings-on at Gothard's cloistered, insular, cultish compounds. But the above has to be considered, I think. Some of these women can really write too, btw, e.g. Lizzie, Rachel, etc.
- Luke Braly April 24, 2014 Reply
  
  Why I think this is a possibility: Many years ago, I heard a Christian leader, who in retrospect I almost positive was Bill Gothard himself, indicate the following -- that one reason teenage girls become promiscuous is because of lack of affection from their fathers. And this speaker encouraged fathers to not shy away from their teenage daughters as they sexually matured, but to be effusive in their affection towards them, to hug them, etc. And, as I say, I am pretty sure it was Gothard who said this -- it certainly is exactly the sort of thing he *would* say. And, many, many years ago I did attend numerous of his conferences (my family as well growing up was one that followed Gothard "religiously"). So, if any of the commentators above are not just speaking off the cuff, but like me, have actually been to his conferences before, perhaps they could confirm what I'm saying here. Certainly, the terseness of Gothard's response above belies the fact that he must have had a well thought out rationale (or perhaps "rationalization") for his approach in dealing with teenage girls.
  - 'Megan' April 24, 2014 Reply
    
    I have heard that saying as well, although I don't remember if it was Gothard or not. While you certainly have a good point with your reasonings, I do not think Gothard intended all of this to do anyone a favor but himself. His going after the damaged ones who were also beautiful suggests otherwise, if protection of virginity were the main point for him.
    
    If these were his intentions, why didn't he go for the less attractive ones to protect them too? I suppose he could have thought that anyone who wasn't attractive in his eyes couldn't possibly be the target of anyone else (which is foolish and offensive to say the least). Or why didn't he have further restrictions that males and females were segregated to the point where they barely even crossed paths?
    
    I don't think your ideas are impossible, although I find them rather unlikely in this particular case. Still, it's good to consider all possibilities.
    - Luke Braly April 24, 2014
      
      Perhaps he thought the attractive ones were most likely to be the target of teenage boys. All speculation certainly, but I'm operating on the premise that Bill Gothard is not in fact a monster.
    - Luke Braly April 24, 2014
      
      I just confirmed what you already said, sorry. I just read your first sentence about only the attractive ones being targets and fired off a response.
Travis April 24, 2014 Reply

I feel sorry for this guy. He's so blinded and trapped by his delusion.
Gothard Gave Me PTSD April 24, 2014 Reply

The "undue pressure" my sister and I endured was straight-up abuse. This is a baby step in my healing process.
- P.L. April 24, 2014 Reply
  
  I'm glad you felt able to take a baby step! Keep going. You're not alone.
AuntieGoGo April 24, 2014 Reply

My heart aches for all (including my family) who have endured the religious, mental and emotional abuse of this cult. So many have painted God with the Bill Gothard brush and walked away from Him.

To the victims of Bill Gothard's abuse (in its many forms):
I believe you. Thank you for your bravery in examining and sharing your story. Know that your heavenly Daddy looks nothing like this man; and He loves you more than you can possibly understand. I am praying peace, comfort and healing for you. God bless you. Micah 6:8
- "Emee" April 24, 2014 Reply
  
  Well-said, AuntieGoGo, I agree completely with your sentiments and prayers.
Caroline G April 25, 2014 Reply

To Shane and Kevin, thank you for that. It's really okay for me, though, I need no healing here. I was never a part of IBLP and there really isn't any more to my story than that he touched a 17 year old in an inappropriate way and he would talk to me about things that were not appropriate, and absolutely none of his business. He tried to take over role of my father, and that was the most insulting thing because my father is a great man and is extremely supportive of me. I wasn't damaged by what he did because I never let it happen more than once and he had no power or control over me. I was very careful, and I definitely realized what was appropriate and what was not, but that puts me in the minority for under aged victims, I think. But just clarifying, I was not damaged by this, but it is what I always think about when I read the testimonies. "Man, this sounds exactly like him. Tthat could have been me in a heartbeat."

I just think it's important to have that filter, for me. EVEN if there was a lack of evidence, EVEN if there was a lack of victims, EVEN if this isn't exactly the situation that a man with too much power would seek out to give himself liberties to be taken in secret, then I still have this piece of what I know of him to be true from personal experience. In other words, he has chosen countless times to be MILES below reproach, and I can only believe the victims that I have something (even if very small) in common with.
- Gracie April 25, 2014 Reply
  
  xoxoxo
  love you CarCar
  - Caroline G April 25, 2014 Reply
    
    love you too graygray
- Shane April 25, 2014 Reply
  
  Thanks Caroline. I do think this is very helpful still. It's further confirmation of a longstanding pattern of folly on his part. Plus, since you weren't damaged by it's hard for someone to accuse you of being on a spiteful vendetta, and it provides some cover for the girls who were damaged by it. So thanks again for sharing.
  - Caroline G April 25, 2014 Reply
    
    That's a good point.
Nick April 26, 2014 Reply

I'd like to know: is Bill Gothard circumcised?

Honest question, no snark.
- Shane April 26, 2014 Reply
  
  Yikes! I have NO idea, but his defenders are arrdant defenders of open dialogue so maybe you could post that as a question for discussion on his site.
- 'Megan' April 26, 2014 Reply
  
  I gotta say, that's one thing I could live without knowing.
- Nick April 26, 2014 Reply
  
  I assumed he probably is... but if he isn't, then his teaching on circumcision is two-faced at best.
  
  Also, Bill's site is denying me access to 2 pages that discuss his methodology of hermeneutics. I wonder if this is intentional or accidental:
  
  http://billgothard.com/teaching/hermeneutics
  
  http://billgothard.com/teaching/commandsofchrist/rightlydividing
  
  They were working back in the past:
  
  https://web.archive.org/web/20140102230734/http://billgothard.com/teaching/hermeneutics
  
  https://web.archive.org/web/20130125033502/http://billgothard.com/teaching/commandsofchrist/rightlydividing
"Hannah" April 27, 2014 Reply

I cannot wade into all the Alfredness, above, the threads and crossthreads and lengthy threads.

But it occurs to me that if Alfred wants to believe you, he will, despite all evidence to the contrary. If he doesn't want to believe you, he won't despite a mountain of evidence.

That's me, taking a very generous view of the situation.

But I will point out that his math sucks. In his equation, 6 girls alleging harrassment-1 because he just doesn't believe her, = 5 girls alleging harrassment, -5 girls alleging harrassment but not molestation = 0 girls alleging molestation. 6-1=5-5=0. BG is innocent.

But his equation is wrong. The equation is 50 girls alleging harrassment, -46 who did not also allege molestation, =4 girls who have alleged molestation. RG is not going to allege 4 molestation without having the girls' statements to back it up. But that information will not be released to Alfred, no. More like, with a court summons!
- Aila H April 27, 2014 Reply
  
  Hannah, Thank you for wading in. Your math is excellent.
- kevin April 27, 2014 Reply
  
  Hannah,
  Good points and thanks for correcting Alfred on his math. I've wondered about the other 3 abuse victims. I wonder if they will give their testimonies at some point. I find Charlotte's story completely compelling and believe her, but if the other 3 come forward, it would add tremendous strength to her account and possibly open the eyes of the few doubters- and they are few, despite how loud they sometimes are. Easier said than done, as I know it requires tremendous courage to share these stories. For one thing, look at the attacks that Charlotte has received from a few loudmouths. They act as if she has a duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her story is true. All she can do is share her experience. It's not her job to prove anything.
  Perhaps they are not sharing because they occurred within the statutes of limitations and there is a LE investigation ongoing. I do hope this is the case.
  
  "I cannot wade into all the 'Alfredness' "
  
  Ha! New words are getting adding to our lexicon everyday. Awhile back I had used a number of verses to make a point with a friend, who is a long time ATI dad, now ex-ATI dad. One of the verses was out of context and he said to me: "You're pulling a Gothard" So, the word Gothard was added as a new descriptive noun. That's two new words in one week! lol
- Alfred Corduan April 27, 2014 Reply
  
  Just curious, Hannah, are you dealing with privileged information? 4 alleging molestation . . . is this new data that has not been released? My math is pretty good since based on what I know and has been released. And you know I have worked every channel I have available to clear this up.
  
  I have had people tell me there was more information for . . . a decade. Always seem to find a reason to not disclose it. In one case told that it was "to not damage the ministry". In another case I discover that "adultery" is really an allegation of presumed sexual imagination and that the 30 year old charge of "fondling" is in fact lap sitting, literally nothing more. Strange . . . I kinda get tired of the shadows. Can't even imagine what reason there is to keep hiding in there. Perhaps the shadows are simply the most effective means of smearing someone? It REALLY is effective. Not godly, but effective.
  - Nick April 28, 2014 Reply
    
    Looking forward to your reply to my question Alfred:
    
    https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/04/bill-gothard-issues-public-statement/#comment-61666
    
    Thanks
    - greg r April 28, 2014
      
      @Nick: the LORD bless you for wanting to interact with Alfred, I have and there is (I hope) merit to that...but you might want to carefully read Shanes long , recent, relply to Alfred to get an idea of what you are in for. Alfred plays by a certain set of rules, you might want to get ready.
    - Nick April 28, 2014
      
      Thanks greg for your thoughts. I'm still waiting for Alfred to answer my question, or at the least, share why he's not comfortable answering my question:
      
      https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/04/bill-gothard-issues-public-statement/#comment-61666
  - "Hannah" April 28, 2014 Reply
    
    It's not new information, Alfred. It was released in this article: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/03/06/conservative-leader-bill-gothard-resigned-following-abuse-allegations/ (at the time this was printed, there were 34 harrassment allegations, but that number continues to grow with the passing days, the last number I heard was around 50. Then 4 is the most recent number of molestation allegations I have officially heard).
    
    I'm not going to argue your perceptions with you. You've already shown the futility of that. My comment was intended for others to read.
    - Nick April 28, 2014
      
      Hannah, the source of the number 34 in the Religion New article can be tied back to Recovering Grace, so Alfred will likely discount it.
      
      Like you said: My comment was intended for others to read.
    - "Hannah" April 28, 2014
      
      It's all tied back to RG. If he's going to discount the number 34, why not discount it all? Oh, wait...
      
      He is doing some definite picking and choosing of which stories he wants to believe, without any pattern that is discernable to me. Nor do I wish to expend the brain cells to figure it out.
    - Nick April 28, 2014
      
      Ah, I understand what you're saying now... yeah if it's all tied back to RG why is Alfred not discounting the all the allegations carte blanche? Good point...
- Nick April 28, 2014 Reply
  
  Hey Hannah, Alfred wrote a comment on April 22, 2014 in which something important was lacking, see if you notice it:
  
  https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/04/bill-gothard-issues-public-statement/#comment-59118
  
  Alfred said: Showing the effects of grace ... what we have been called to, saved for...
  
  Also: The effects of grace... That is what ATI is all about. That is what I want.
  
  I have noticed the absence of the Person of Christ in Bill Gothard's teachings, and his personal communication. And I've noticed this absence in Alfred's comments as well.
  
  Was not grace given that we might be born anew into the Kingdom of God? And to personally know Christ, and through the Spirit abide in him, as he abides in the Father?
  
  Is it possible to be so focused on achieving the effects of grace, as to completely miss the reason why grace was given in the first place?
  
  If you don't understand (or choose to ignore) the reason why grace was given, are you truly in Christ, and a child of the Kingdom?
  
  I find this a disturbing line of thought.
Don Rubottom April 28, 2014 Reply

The introductory statement says enough to discount any humility behind Bill's statement:

"I have withheld this statement in order to honor the request of the Board of Directors to wait until an initial review has taken place. As the review continues, I now want to make this statement."

If the review is continuing, he is saying that he is making the statement in direct contravention of the Board's request to wait until completion. By this he confirms that he is not a man under authority. He is also attempting to sway the review.

As a father, I believe I was defrauded by ATI.

I thank God for the thoughtful discussion of works and grace that has been stimulated by these events. It is a blessing to hear how God has opened eyes and hearts to the perfect sufficiency of Christ. May He free us all from our own sufficiency. The only New Way of Life ever given to the world is this: "Love one another as I have loved you." This is free, fruitful, faithful, full and unconditional covenant love to the point of death. There are no standards to meet or principles to practice in order to receive all the benefits of this Love.
- Karen April 30, 2014 Reply
  
  A hearty amen to your last paragraph, Don! Great catch on that introductory statement, too.
AuntieGoGo April 28, 2014 Reply

This article hits the nail on the head: http://graceformyheart.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/narcissistic-apologies-2/#comments
- horse April 29, 2014 Reply
  
  That is a really good article.
  - SHY April 30, 2014 Reply
    
    Agreed.
Elizabeth April 30, 2014 Reply

This isn’t a forum about Alfred and what Alfred believes, and nobody has to prove anything to Alfred, and BG isn’t going to repent or change because of Alfred. And I’m not dissing Alfred. But A L F R E DDDD!! I just read the post from April 28 and can’t help but comment.

IF Charlotte is truthful, that would change everything for you. Why do you insist and persist in considering her untruthful?? Her characteristics and story are very much like the others; there’s not much different about HER. Except for your trustworthy friend kissing her on the lips and having his hand up her crotch. She even has corroborating stories that don’t in themselves prove or disprove anything, but that still add to her credibility. (There are tons more corroborating stories that attest to your trustworthy friend being a manipulative creep.)

But you’ve actually already answered my question. You stated that YOU’VE NEVER KNOWN YOUR TRUSTWORTHY FRIEND TO LIE. And since HE LOOKED YOU IN THE EYE when he told you he’d not done the things you asked him about, then that is enough to conclude that no, in fact, he has never touched any female (or male, for all I care) with sexual “intent.” So THAT is why you insist and persist in considering Charlotte untruthful. Because of what you know about HIM … not what you know about HER.

To most of the RG readership’s disgust, you have rationalized your trustworthy friend touching everyone but Charlotte without sexual intent. (Really now??) But since the body parts of Charlotte’s he allegedly touched can’t be rationalized any other way, then her account must be a fabrication. Your trustworthy friend not only wrote to the world that he didn’t do it, he also told you to your face – even looked you in the eye – that he’d never done anything like that. And you’ve never known him to lie. End of story. SHE is the liar. With no motive, by the way, except the vulnerability of exposing dark personal secrets that she assumed for years would die with her.

Stay with me, Alfred. I know I’m being rough, but I want to share something with you. I have no personal issues with either you or your trustworthy friend, but I (and a lot of others) see something going on here and sincerely don’t want you to be ill-informed.

If we turn your statement about everything changing for you if Charlotte is truthful around the other way, it reads – if your trustworthy friend lied, that would change everything for you.

I’m not a frequent poster (and not the only “Elizabeth,”) but I mentioned in a previous post that I’ve been married to a narcissist for more than 25 years. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your friend exhibits every trait of narcissism, and they lie. It’s what they do and who they are. And they’re EXTREMELY adept at it. There are far more qualified people to explain to you why they do it, but they do it. They will do it to your face, and yes, they will look you in the eye with utmost sincerity. They’re so good at it that they’re hardly ever questioned or caught. But there’s a Plan B in that case, which is just more lying and blaming.

(Are you still with me?) Most people will at some point lie to cover their own behinds or keep you from finding out something they don’t want you to know. Or to not be totally honest for any number of reasons – like when you answer if your wife’s jeans make her look fat. A narcissist will do it for these reasons and infinitely more. They will do it to make you feel guilty. They will do it to control you. They will do it because they can. They will do it to frame “reality” to you as what they want it to be. They will do it to mislead your thinking about somebody else. They will do it to discredit you. They will lie serially over many years to maintain their story. They will lie to the other person about you while they’re lying to you about them. They will lie – again, serially – to chip away at and eventually steal your sanity. Because they are all about projecting an image vs. reality (the basic characteristic of narcissism), they will portray themselves as credible at ALL costs … whatever it takes.

A narcissist’s lies are crafty and imaginative and intricate and deliberate, and beyond what you can fathom if you’re not already familiar with their tactics. How many times on the RG website have you read, “I just can’t believe he could do that,” or “It just doesn’t make sense,” or “I can’t believe anyone could get away with something like that for so long.” To believe that someone has a vendetta and would slander another person is far more believable – it makes more sense – than what a narcissist can pull off. **I know.** Have you ever heard of the 1940’s movie, Gaslight? If you want a peek into the kinds of things a narcissist will do, I highly recommend watching it.

So your whole premise is that your trustworthy friend would never lie. My premise is that your friend isn’t trustworthy at all because he’s actually a narcissist who knows no other way of life than to lie with such skill that most cannot imagine. I’ve never met him and I don’t have the qualifications to diagnose him if I ever do. But it doesn’t change the fact that he quacks and waddles just like a duck, and I’ve got tons of experience with quacking and waddling and can recognize a duck when I see it. Still that means little to those who don’t know ducks, and I will leave it to others more qualified to describe narcissism so you can decide if my premise holds any merit at all.
- Becoming Free May 2, 2014 Reply
  
  Thank you, Elizabeth and P.L., for your comments. I've read them over more than once and will continue to do so. They are extremely helpful in helping me sort out some "stuff" from my (non-ATI) past. May God bless you for sharing.
- Aila H May 3, 2014 Reply
  
  Elizabeth your comments have helped me tremendously. I have been helping my 90 year old father for several years. After my mom's death, he remarried in his 70's. His wife seemed lovely, but somewhat aloof. Over the years we have realized that she is demanding, manipulative, controlling, critical and only cares about herself. After reading your post, I did some research on narcissism. My sister and I never knew what we were dealing with, we've discovered lots of info, pretty depressing, as this behavior can be described, but is very hard for others to live with or to change. This heart breaking, but now we have a name for it.
- 'Megan' May 3, 2014 Reply
  
  Narcissists are adept liars who are very capable of 'looking you in the eye', and lying blatantly. I've been on the receiving end of it several times. That doesn't mean it's impossible to catch them at it, but sometimes even when you know better they can still fool you. The other thing is that many of them would never acknowledge to themselves that they are in fact, lying. They are really, REALLY good at justifying their behavior to themselves. Only when they are absolutely backed into a corner would they possibly tell the truth (that's a big maybe), and even then, they'll find a way to make it someone, ANYONE else's fault. Or pass it off as a 'well I thought we were joking.' Or otherwise make themselves seem innocent.
P.L. April 30, 2014 Reply

"A narcissist will do it for these reasons and infinitely more. They will do it to make you feel guilty. They will do it to control you. They will do it because they can. They will do it to frame “reality” to you as what they want it to be. They will do it to mislead your thinking about somebody else. They will do it to discredit you. They will lie serially over many years to maintain their story. They will lie to the other person about you while they’re lying to you about them. They will lie – again, serially – to chip away at and eventually steal your sanity. Because they are all about projecting an image vs. reality (the basic characteristic of narcissism), they will portray themselves as credible at ALL costs … whatever it takes."

Having recently come face to face with a family member's narcissism this rings very true for me. They get away with it for a long time and you try to understand and rationalize and explain and excuse, and then suddenly, with a shock like cold water, you realize that they have been lying the. whole. time. It's gutting, but also in a strange way a relief, because suddenly everything that you couldn't understand makes sense.

Thanks, Elizabeth.
Karen May 2, 2014 Reply

I attended a BYC seminar in the late 70s and was underwhelmed even as a teenager with Gothard's handling of Scripture and fantastic leaps of logic. Apparently my mom with whom I attended was underwhelmed, too, because we never pursued anything further. I thank God my father wasn't interested in spiritual things at the time, or this might have turned out differently. However, the ATI mentality deeply penetrated some of my loved ones. I also had a brother get mixed up with another Christian cult, the "Boston Movement". In looking into that (over 25 years ago now), I began to think very deeply about the Jesus I met in the Gospels, the nature of the gospel I'd learned from childhood in my Methodist Sunday school from those Gospel accounts, and about the nature and spiritual dynamic of a legalistic spirit I began to encounter in many different forms as I matured into adulthood within the Evangelical world. As a result, in addition to intensifying my study of the Scriptures, I did a lot of reading on the dynamics of spiritual abuse in research by other pastors, Christian theologians and Christian sociologists and psychologists over the years. Critical in all this also was becoming a more genuinely honest and faithful student of my own motives and the effects of various kinds of teaching on them.

In light of that, it is deeply disturbing and disheartening to read Alfred's comments here. I can only conclude that he has for a long time in his mindset about Scripture and others come to rather too closely resemble his teacher--who isn't Jesus, but Gothard. This is the very reason we are warned in the Scriptures to avoid false teachers. Alfred claims he "loves Jesus." I'm sure he's sincere in this belief, but as I read through his responses here and the kind of mindset they evidence, I can only scratch my head and ask, which one? Certainly, it isn't the One I encounter in the Gospels.
- P.L. May 2, 2014 Reply
  
  "he has for a long time in his mindset about Scripture and others come to rather too closely resemble his teacher--who isn't Jesus"
  
  Very perceptive, Karen. We shouldn't be becoming like anyone else but Jesus.
The almost-apologies of Gothard, Phillips, Mahaney, Driscoll May 5, 2014 Reply

[…] and the general public seem to be missing a key element: true regret. Leaders like Doug Phillips or Bill Gothard engineer almost-apologies. As I’ve followed these cases over the last year or so, it strikes […]
"Gloria" May 7, 2014 Reply

@Chris Jones Thank you for noting that. It was my thought as well. I feel he used the word "girl" with intent. He is a very crafty liar. According to his teachings, 12 and up are women and men, not girls and boys. Tell me I am not the only one who remembers the gravely adult responsibilities placed upon 12 yr olds. He created his own world and lived in it, redefined words so lies could pass for truth. The statements blurring what is sexual intent, are on one hand a veritable confession, and on the other hand, so much gibberish.
The almost-apologies of Gothard, Phillips, Mahaney, Driscoll @ Michelle van Loon May 14, 2014 Reply

[…] the general public seem to be missing a key element: true regret. Leaders likeDoug Phillips or Bill Gothard engineer almost-apologies. As I’ve followed these cases over the last year or so, it strikes me […]
Terri May 17, 2014 Reply

I have been around the IBLP program for a very long time. My sister and I went to the seminars for years and later on we were homeschooled and then we were put in the ATI program. I have a lot of issues with this program and I still feel it was a occult. My dad at the time had a beard and part of that was having to shave it off. He did it and never said anything about it. I know it hurt him because he always had a beard. Well, I was the girl who had the boy haircut. I was glared at when we were in Knoxville for the program. My parents liked my short hair. I believe you can take one thing and make a religion about it. My sister left and went off the Dallas and Indianapolis for quite some time. It was horrible because it was not like she was in college and could call home when you wanted to. Again I say it was like a occult. I went to Indianapolis for a counseling seminar. Mainly to see my sister since I couldn’t just see her whenever. Well a few of the guys that were there were friends of mine, we have grew up together yes they spoke and I did as well. You should have seen the gasp on the other girls face because a guy spoke to me Because my sister was up in Indianapolis she missed my high school graduation may not seen like much to some people , but to me it was and that is something we will never get back. Well when I was about 18 I quit going to all of the seminars. I got a job, I dated I didn’t court. I got married and divorced. I have a awesome family, Yes, I made bad decisions but it wasn’t anyone fault but mine. If I ever have kids I want put them through this. I believe my family put us in the program which they thought was the best decision. I want say because of this program I am a better person. I will say I survived
Bill’s Cabin: Uncovering Sin | Recovering Grace May 21, 2014 Reply

[…] insists that his thoughts and actions, including his close proximity to and touching of girls, have never been sexual in nature (though he has admitted in his public statement that such actions were […]
Gary Sellars May 22, 2014 Reply

Boy, do people ever love to judge where it's absolutely none of their business.

Matthew 7:1-5 is very clear.
- Don Rubottom May 22, 2014 Reply
  
  Gary, Gothard, in his public letter, says this:
  "My wrong focus produced a further consequence. Families were made to feel that they must “measure up.” This resulted in some parents putting undue pressure on their sons and daughters in order for the family to be accepted. When there was a lack of love or consistency, sons and daughters saw this as hypocrisy and rejected it. Also, many felt that the expectations where so high that they could never measure up to them. This resulted in a feeling of deep defeat."
  Most of those "judging" on this site are members of those families who were made to feel that they must measure up. These concerns are the business of all members of all ATI/IBLP families and of all their fellow church members because if you hurt one member you hurt the body. Gothard misled us all damaging our churches.
  Please listen carefully to the concerns raised on this site, most of which were raised many times earlier and never resolved. Please study the Scripture diligently to see if the critique of Gothard principles is Biblical. Ask yourself why Gothard continues to refuse correction and reproof after 40 years of confrontation, evasion and cover up.
- kevin May 22, 2014 Reply
  
  When you have a ministry leader sexually harassing and/or molesting dozens of young girls, it is the business of all to know and be cautioned.
  
  When you have a false teacher, twisting Scripture and leading followers into bondage, we have a duty to call them out.
A Guide to the Sovereign Grace Ministries Scandal and the End of New Calvinism May 29, 2014 Reply

[…] year, I’ve watched Bill Gothard resign after Recovering Grace documented stories of his sexual predation. I’ve watched Doug Phillips lose his ministry and his […]
Dear Mom and Dad | Recovering Grace June 16, 2014 Reply

[…] many of whom don’t know each other, all have the same story? Why, even in light of Bill’s admitting to at least some of these actions, are you not expressing disgust at what he did, which you’d be more likely to do in the case […]
Our Response to the IBLP Board Statement | Recovering Grace June 20, 2014 Reply

[…] If one could actually accept Gothard’s assertion that he did all of these things without “sexual intent,” as he publicly stated in April, it would still be irrelevant, because sexual harassment is defined by the negative impact on the […]

Bill Gothard Issues Public Statement

About the author

341 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Explore All Content

Seen "Shiny Happy People?"

Their Day in Court: Part Three

Their Day in Court: Part Two

Their Day in Court: Part One

Statement from Recovering Grace regarding the lawsuit a ...

Rethinking the Nativity

Bill Gothard’s Powerless Gospel

Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Go ...

An ATI Education, Final Chapter: Guilty Silence

Introducing our IBYC/IBLP Facebook Recovery Group

Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Go ...

Charlotte's Story

Bill’s Cabin: Uncovering Sin

Sacred Grooming, Part Six: A Secretary's Account of Lif ...

Trapped in the Shadow of 'God's Anointed': Breaking fre ...

Our Response to Bill Gothard’s Statement

A Call to Repentance

Bill Gothard Issues Public Statement

The Agent of Satan

Confident Statements Do Not a Solid Argument Make

Search Recovering Grace

Recent Posts

Tags

Bill Gothard Issues Public Statement

About the author

Related posts

341 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Explore All Content

Search Recovering Grace

Recent Posts

Tags