In his Character Sketches series, Mr. Gothard retells many of the stories found in Scripture to illustrate some aspect of character, either good or bad.
Often, however, these sketches are better at illustrating how Mr. Gothard will twist Script
ure with points that are many times theologically poisonous and logically absurd. In light of the theme on Recovering Grace this month, it should be enlightening to examine how Mr. Gothard deals with the issue of sexual abuse as found in Scripture, particularly rape. Obligingly, Mr. Gothard provides us with sketches of the two instances of rape we find in Scripture where the victim is named. Let’s see what these sketches can reveal about Mr. Gothard’s view of Scripture and women.
First of all, it’s worth noting that these sketches reveal a lack of respect for Scripture. In order to make his point, Mr. Gothard has to continually insert ideas, motivations, and thoughts into the story to make it fit his attempt to illustrate a particular character trait. Notice how this works in his retelling of the story of Dinah (found in Character Sketches, volume 1, pp 287-289, and Genesis 34).
Dinah’s motives and thoughts according to Gothard:
“A young girl in her mid-teens wandered into a strange city with the intention of exploring and making new friends…
She may have considered asking her father’s counsel…perhaps a flood of memories prompted her to discount his opinion…She recalled the many arguments between her mother and her father’s other wife…Even if something did happen to her, he probably wouldn’t care.”
What was on Dinah’s mind according to Scripture:
“Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. “ (Gen. 34:1)
According to Mr. Gothard, Dinah went into the city with the intention of exploring and making new friends, and she came up with many reasons to support this decision. But Scripture simply says that she went to see the young women of the land. Now did Dinah wish to explore and make new friends? Maybe. But maybe she just wanted to see the local styles and customs. Or maybe she was going to a local festival. Or maybe…. Well you get the idea. The point is that Scripture doesn’t say. All it says is that she went to see the young women of the land. Claiming more than that is inserting into Scripture things that aren’t there.
Now, the above may seem like I am splitting hairs. After all, what’s the big deal if she went to make friends vs. going to a festival. Why does it matter if we say that she went to explore or not? And really, by themselves, these insertions don’t matter all that much. They are, after all, the sorts of insertions we naturally make whenever we read stories sparse in details. In fact, these particular insertions are fairly reasonable–so reasonable that it seems almost silly to protest against them. Now, maybe if all Gothard was doing was retelling the story with no ulterior purpose, one could easily forgo any mention of these sorts of insertions. However, this is clearly not the case.
This retelling is about examining and illustrating character, not simply trying to make an incident more understandable, interesting, or easier to read. In context, Mr. Gothard’s insertions work together to make Dinah seem a frivolous, flighty sort of person–someone who was doing something they knew they probably shouldn’t and had to come up with excuses to assuage her conscience. Mr. Gothard takes a single verse which says nearly nothing about her motivations or character–certainly nothing negative–and turns her into an example of initiative gone wrong. Without these sorts of insertions–insertions which, by themselves, may seem fairly innocuous–Gothard would have absolutely nothing to work with for his character sketch. So now that we have seen the seemingly reasonable insertions, let’s see how Mr. Gothard uses these to slide in his next, not-so-reasonable insertion.
Dinah’s initiative according to Mr. Gothard:
“Taking initiative which would have been contrary to her father’s wishes…
But none of these reasons justified the practice of exploring new areas of interest without the protection of wise counsel…Exploring our world may also expose ourselves to danger.”
Gothard goes on to claim that she decided to make this trip on her own initiative, without permission, and against what would have been the wishes of her father. However, Scripture says none of this, not even a hint of whether she did this with or without permission, or whether her father would have disagreed with her plan. As far as we can know, she very well may have had permission. The idea that she went without permission or that she took initiative on her own is pure speculation–even worse, pure speculation presented in Character Sketches as if it were Scriptural fact. In the sketch itself, Mr. Gothard spends a long paragraph speculating why Dinah may have gone off without “the protection of wise counsel.” He takes a passage which says nothing about the nature of Dinah’s initiative and assumes authoritatively that this as an unauthorized trip.
Without first using seemingly reasonable insertions to make Dinah seem like a teenager who is (thoughtlessly) out to have some fun, the part he inserts about her taking bad initiative wouldn’t make nearly as much sense. It is another classic tactic by Mr. Gothard: Propose ideas which seem so reasonable that it would seem silly to dispute them, and then use this as a basis to propose ideas which, absent from this foundation, wouldn’t seem nearly so reasonable as they do.
This same sort of tactic can also be seen at work in the character sketch about Tamar (found in Character Sketches, volume 2, pp 112-113, and 2 Samuel 13).
As with the story of Dinah, Mr. Gothard makes seemingly reasonable insertions in the story so as to find fault with the character of the rape victim. Yet when examined logically or compared with Scripture, the logic of his sketch falls apart.
For instance, he gives things which he claims should have been signs of danger if Tamar had had the proper level of alertness. He writes that “The first signal of danger came in the form of an unusual request. It was given…by her father the king.” Yet this makes little sense. Remember, this request first went to her father David–a man who was wise and had the experience of many years, not to mention he was no stranger to making requests of women with an ulterior motive in mind. Tamar, on the other hand, was young, inexperienced, and most probably highly sheltered. Yet Tamar was supposed to have seen this first sign of danger when her father didn’t? Furthermore, the narrative implies that such a request wouldn’t have been seen as a sign of danger. After all, the advice of Amnon’s “subtle” friend could reasonably be expected to not set off any danger alarms…otherwise such a plan wouldn’t have been very “subtle.” Such a claim is absurd and can only serve to call into question the character of Tamar.
The second sign of danger Tamar supposedly should have detected was…. HEY, BACK UP A SECOND!! I thought we had learned from the story of Dinah that wise counsel from one’s father would protect a girl from danger. Wasn’t one of the main points in the sketch on Dinah that if she had just gone to her father for permission she wouldn’t have been raped? But now Tamar is being faulted for going into a situation after being commanded to by her father! I am so confused now. Does this mean a girl is safe if she takes initiative as long as she is alert? Or does it mean that a girl shouldn’t follow the guidance of her father if she isn’t alert? Or does it mean that, when it comes to rape, it’s always the girls fault somehow?
Well back to the character flaws of Tamar…
The second sign of danger Tamar supposedly should have detected was that “he watched her with lustful eyes as she prepared to bake cakes for him.” As we can see in this Scripture passage, Amnon certainly had a lustful look in his eyes… err wait–Scripture says no such thing. This is nothing more than another insertion by Gothard into the story–an insertion which, again, works to call into question the character of the rape victim. Lastly, Gothard faults Tamar for failing to cry out to God. He claims that she didn’t cry out (another insertion which Scripture is simply silent on) and implies that if she had just done so, then she wouldn’t have been raped.
So we see with both of these sketches the sort of respect Mr. Gothard has for Scripture… Very little. Instead of sticking with what Scripture does say, he inserts his own thoughts and suppositions into the story and treats these as on par with Scripture. Without such insertions he would have no basis for presenting these women as examples of bad character, nor any basis for faulting them when Scripture never states or implies even slightly that they are at fault.
What is very ironic is that the story of Dinah could have been a very good sketch of initiative gone bad if Gothard had just focused on different characters. Instead of the near absence of any details about Dinah and her motives or initiative, very clear details are given about her brothers taking wrong initiative. They are said to have answered with deceit and to have made a plan to get revenge without the knowledge or counsel of their father. No blame or default of character is ever attributed to Dinah in the biblical story, yet the character and actions of her brothers are clearly faulted. In a story where one party is innocent and never faulted by Scripture, while another is clearly guilty of evil and faulted as such, why in the world would Gothard see fit to twist Scripture to turn the story on its head?
An incident which is primarily about the evil actions of others is twisted by Gothard to be an incident which would become “a constant reminder of [Dinah’s] uncontrolled initiative.” The rape of Tamar becomes a lesson on crying out when in danger of rape. All the focus of bad character is placed on the wrong people. The victims’ responsibility becomes the focus instead of those who actually perpetrated evil.
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
David Moeller is married and is a father of five children. He grew up in the public school system, but after his family joined the Advanced Training Institute he worked in various training centers from 1995 to 2001. David has been writing about Bill Gothard's abuses of Scripture for over a decade.
More posts by DavidM
I had to step away from all the comments for a bit ...
November 28, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0QBxjm6ZXA&li ...
November 18, 2023 "Their fundraising page didn't even crack 1% of th ...
November 17, 2023 Likewise delusional that an unknown/unheard of mom ...
November 5, 2023 "He obviously is not the robust man just ready to ...
November 5, 2023 Yes, I saw the video. He did come across as out of ...
November 3, 2023 Bill Gothard turned 89 yesterday. Just watched ...
November 3, 2023 Your comments are on 9-year-old posts. "that's the ...
September 24, 2023 The verse about mutual submission is a general ver ...
September 21, 2023 Whether the husband ruling over the wife is part o ...
September 21, 2023 Your post was very well written with much thought ...
September 15, 2023 Any thoughts on Jill’s book yet? Has anyone starte ...
September 12, 2023 I'm also "from the 80s." I was a young woman in t ...
September 10, 2023 I watched that trailer and nearly came to tears. ...
September 8, 2023 I agree with you on IUDs, but there was a study do ...
September 3, 2023 I understand there have been many inconsistencies ...
August 28, 2023 I'm just beginning to process the influence of Got ...
August 27, 2023 Seems like my comment may have gone into moderatio ...
August 25, 2023
Much of my childhood is blurry, yet I remember with absolute clarity reading these stories in Character Sketches, and out of my own curiosity, also reading them in the Bible and finding so many discrepancies. I asked my Mom how we knew for sure that Dinah didn't have her father's permission to go visit the ladies of the land, and I was reprimanded for questioning. That's another thing we were taught...obey without questioning. Apparently it was more than just OBEY without questioning, it was really ACCEPT without questioning...I am STILL trying to sort out what I "know" about the Bible and various Bible characters from who they really were and what they really did.
It's amazing how much you can learn by just reading, not assuming or putting details in that aren't there.
Your comment rang so many bells for me, Liz. I did the same thing. I loved reading those character sketches but I noticed so many differences to the real stories that I went to my mother about it. She told me that the Bible was so clear about the father always giving permission. So, because IBLP believes that Dinah did the wrong thing it automatically follows that she didn't have it. If that makes sense.
All these stories taught me to do was to judge and accuse the victims. And, as a female, to blame myself for any wrong action a man takes against me. What makes me angry is that there are still children being taught these things! It messes you up in so many ways.
"why in the world would Gothard see fit to twist Scripture to turn the story on its head?"
"Misogyny" would be a short answer.
Spot on!
Although it is a psychological condition, misogyny is quite complex
and not benign...and devastating in its effects.
Very well written and sound article!
What is also interesting and ironic to note is that Gothard instructs to memorize scripture from the King James Version so accurately that is is considered an offense if even a word is missed or mixed up in a sentence.
When I was sitting in IBYC way back in the 79-82, Gothard used the sad story of Dinah to justify his idea that single girls are suppose to stay at home until married and if they don't, this is what will happen to them, they will fall into immorality and be raped. It is all a bit of a stretch. I think what is more telling is that Dinah's brothers were more concerned about the honor of their sister and did something about it while Jacob's only concern was his relationship with his neighbors and keeping up a good image. Again it is blame the rape victim but keep up the good image by sweeping it under the carpet.
Tamar again is just another tragic story. Again Gothard missed the boat in that Tamar/Ammon highlight what polygamous families with rivalries and loyalties can result in children acting out what they see their parents doing, multiple sex partners. Gothard doesn't focus on that which he should but want to blame poor Tamar for being so violated by her own brother. Pretty sick stuff. Both sad stories have fathers that are more concerned about themselves than what happen to their daughters but Gothard doesn't point what horrible fathers these men were to their daughters, he blames the girls.
Hi, David. Good to see you are writing articles over here. I'm getting upset remembering how Gothard treated the Bible characters above, and also Abigail, and if memory serves me correctly also Jonathan. But the treatment of Abigail is infuriating to me for a couple reasons.
In order to shoehorn the story of Abigail, Nabal, and David into Bill's teaching on authority, he had to portray Abigail as a rebellious woman who took matters into her own hands. In truth, Abigail saved innocent lives, including her husband's life. This bothers me because Bill's teaching encourages not proper submission, but a very improper, even a fatalistic type of passivity in women. When women fall for this teaching, they will passively put up with very bad situations when they could be taking action to help them and their children.
Secondly, I'm upset because I was not aware of the Character Sketch on Abigail, and I heard Gothard mitigate that teaching when I went to Indianapolis for a seminar once. He shifted his teaching, as he shifted his teachings on grace and circumcision, claiming in one instance he was issuing a "clarification" when in truth he was altering his actual, original teaching on these subjects. So I walked away thinking this is what he teaches on Abigail, when the Character Sketches teaching was totally different.
The Character Sketches teaching of Abigail is 180 degrees different from what Scripture implies about her. She was a wise and good woman who acted quickly and creatively to bring out the best outcome out of a situation that was quickly headed for bloodshed. I am not aware of a single respected commentary that agrees with the Gothard spin, nor does the text lend itself to it. The interpretation in Character Sketches is more than a misunderstanding or a simple difference of opinion, it appears to me that it was driven by an agenda.
I agree. The agenda is his teaching on authority. Abigail's actions do not fit Gothard's teaching on authority, so he had to find some way to condemn them.
CS says that the Bible proves Abigail's evilness by not mentioning her again after she married David. First, she is mentioned again. Second, does that mean that whenever someone is not mentioned again, that's because they've been bad?
My sister just called me this week and asked if my daughter would want one of her CS books for my 8-year-old granddaughter. At first I said no, then she said ok she'd give it to a thrift store. So I said, "Why don't you give it to my granddaughter so she can use the pretty pictures to cut up?" (my daughter will know not to read the stories)
I did not grow up in ATI but was given the three Character Sketches books for a wedding present. My husband and I were reading through them for devotions - beautiful pictures! - until we got to Abigail. I was OUTRAGED! The Bible clearly said she was a good woman and for Gothard to twist that and say she was bad was deeply evil to me because he was altering the Word of God to fit his own agenda. I don't remember at the time if Jonathan came before or after Abigail so I don't remember which of the two was the straw that broke the camel's back but I remember my frustration at the negative portrayal of Jonathan too. I put the books away and never read them again, only realizing years later the huge industry that ATI was and how many children were under those false teachings.
another thought is that again Bill Gothard's ideas line up more with Sharia Law and Islam than Christianity. Under Sharia law, it is next to impossible for women to charge men with rape and what usually happens is that if there was a rape, the victim is usually stoned to death for adultery. This line's up with Gothard's thinking and reasoning here. My brother who served in Saudi Arabia knew of a case where a 14 year old girl was gang raped became pregnant and was stoned to death for adultery after she delivered her baby. Gothard would probably say that she must have "wandered" off without her father's permission and she got what she deserved because she wasn't under the "umbrella" of protection. Sick stuff really. All too often, women in Islamic countries cannot leave the home unless accompanied by a male relative. I am sure Gothard would approve because the male relative is offering an umbrella of protection however it is just another form a slavery and bondage.
Sharia law....Gothard would make a great muslim. If men are given such a huge amount of authority by God, wouldn't it make sense that they would bear an outsized amount of RESPONSIBILITY for their own behavior as well as how they teach their sons to behave? And how they treat their wives and daughters? If you read the old and new testaments, both contain instructions on proper treatment of women. To use the Bible otherwise, to build a case for male superiority, is simply a misuse of Scripture, plain and simple. Only abject losers need to use the Bible to back up male chauvinism and narcissism.
He makes me sick.
The practices in Saudi Arabia and in other places like Pakistan, while supported by Sharia precedents, are based on an older code than Islam, the code of honour - the same code which led Levi and Simon to slaughter an entire village of men for the rape of their sister. It is important to note that other religions, such as Hindus in India, also practice the same code. Indeed only a couple hundred years ago, the honour code still operated in Europe (the practice of a male relative challenging a girl's seducer to a duel to avenge her lost honour is mentioned in Jane Austen's 'Sense and Sensibility']. That ingrained idea of 'honour' is what made Joseph's unwillingness to charge Mary so worthy of comment in Matthew's account, and Christ's mercy to the woman caught in adultery so unprecedented. Gothard, failing to really understand how Christ's death took away all condemnation, reverted to the default position.
I was thinking some of these same thoughts. I believe the culture of honor still predominates in the world. The burden of that honor is often borne by the bodies of women. This accounts for the seclusion and covering of girls and women, for marrying off girls as early as possible to guarantee that they are virgins when they wed, and for the rape of girls as punishment for crimes of honor committed by another member of the family. Just thinking ... does it also account for purity balls?
Honor-based culture is still alive and well in the American South. Some well-known psychology experiments contrasted the reactions of northern and southern white male college students to a perceived slight. The differences were marked. Where I live in the Midwest, one seldom hears of people taking action to defend their honor.
Diana, I thought about Southern culture after I posted my comment, remembering the feud in 'Huckleberry Finn' and the scene in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' where Atticus Finch's cross examination of the victim's father, reveals that it was the father, and not the falsely accused, who beat the victim for breaking the code.
The honour code really is the default position of society. Too often it can be the motivation behind things like the purity ring - I knew a case where that was definitely true, but the story is not mine to share. Certain parents who joined programs like ATI in order to ensure that their children turned out right did seem to be more concerned about the family honour than their children's well being.
Yes, you are making a good point that the honor code and revenge for violation does predate Islam. Islam incorporated these concepts in Sharia law and the Koran and Sharia law enshrines this stuff. I agree with you that Levi and Simon were acting on this sort of honor code, I think as well as Absalom on behalf of Tamar. Note though the difference in that these brothers didn't go after their sisters but the rapers something Gothard over looks. Now a days in Islamic countries that isn't true and it's the victim that is blamed. I think in both Dinah and Tamar's cases, the brothers were frustrated and angry at the father's inaction and took matters into their own hands. All of this show you as well that Gothard had no understanding of the culture of the Bible times and read into these stories his own perverted ideas, ignoring the bigger picture.
It is true that women do suffer terribly under the honour codes in places like the Middle East and Central Asia. However, we must not make the mistake of thinking it is only women who suffer. Men also are brutalized and killed for 'honour'. Feuds between families tend to victimize both sexes and all ages - as in the recent story about the 18 month old arrested along with the rest of the family for a murder done by one member. In some of the cases reported recently, not only the woman who defied her parents to marry, but also the man she married were attacked and killed.
Many of the women targeted for rape are from a lower economic class or from a religion or ethnicity that is considered lower than their attacker, so their families are not powerful enough to wither see justice or avenge themselves - putting rape victims on trial for 'adultery' is often a way of silencing them to prevent dishonour to the rapist. Justice and mercy are both rare in honour culture.
Typo, should be *either.
Rob, your comment about understanding the culture of Bible times got me thinking. I think many people fail to understand how ingrained the honour culture was into the ancient Middle East. This can be seen in what Christ said about divorce in the Law, "Moses, because of your hard hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but this was not the intent at creation." Divorce is easy in countries that have the honour system - though dowry re-negotiations may complication matters.
Many things in the Mosaic law actually mitigated the harshness of the honour system, like the law of jealousies (Numbers 5) which gave a simple, harmless test to satisfy a jealous husband (or the wagging tongues of gossips) of his wife's faithfulness - to be even 'talked about' under honour culture could get you killed [Gothard managed to twist that law to say that the bitterness of guilt was what caused the woman's thigh to rot]. The law ordaining a trial before parents could execute a rebellious child is another - the women I mentioned above who defied their parents to marry had their fair trials forestalled by their murders. The Law was a partial measure, ultimately ineffective.
When Christ came, He wiped out the "ordinances against us" (Colossians 2:14); and gave a new a new commandment, to love one another, as He loved us. For those of us coming out of ATI, it is hard to realize that we will not be salt and light through our standards, but through the love of Christ. That is the full antidote to the "Honour Code".
Apologies for the errors - the eyes are getting tired.
Quiet, your insights are very good and greatly appreciated.
So, my question is "which Mr. Gothard?" Did Steve work on volume one?
Authorship would be at least interesting.
At this point it doesn't really matter. Bill has had plenty of time to retract, clarify or edit anything in the CS's that he doesn't fully agree with.
I apologize for for straying off topic here, but I've been curious to know what became of Steve Gothard after he was dismissed. I have not come across anything that talks about where went.
David, you have given us some very thoughtful things to consider. For many years I thought the same way and wondered why no one else saw the holes in Bill's stories. A well known pastor said this of Bill, "Bill uses the scripture as a drunk uses a lamp post, not for light but to hold him up." How sad, very sad, and good men and women have fallen for Bill's teaching without thought. Bill said it, I believe it, that settles it - Say What?
Wow. I remember reading these two stories and for YEARS thought I was spiritually superior because I saw the hidden meaning of these stories. How thankful I am that Gothard's hermeneutics have been exposed and now I wonder how much other garbage I've taken as fact.
[…] then she must’ve done something to deserve it. In his “character sketches” he twists the Biblical account of Dinah by attributing wrongful attitudes to her that cannot be found anywhere in the text. Gothard makes […]