by Don Veinot on April 3rd, 2014
We often receive questions by mail, phone and email about Bill Gothard’s teaching on authority, which at one time was “Chain of Command” and later renamed “Umbrella of Protection.” Obviously the latter sounds more benign than the former, but they essentially come down to the same thing. Who is the boss, and who are the bossed? Due to the amount of questions we have received, I thought it might be helpful to comment on his claims again. This is a modified and somewhat expanded version of a section of chapter 3 (The Emerald City) of our book A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life. In this chapter we discuss proper contextual understanding and demonstrate how Bill Gothard abandons, ignores, and abuses context in an attempt to make his point sound biblical.
For instance early on in the Basic Seminar, on page 20 of the Basic Seminar Textbook, Gothard begins discussing his favorite subject of “authority.”
The essence of Gothard’s teaching of submission is:
not “getting under the domination of authority but rather getting under the protection of authority.”
According to Bill Gothard, authority is like an “umbrella of protection,” and when we get out from under it, we expose ourselves to unnecessary temptations, which are too strong for us to overcome. This is why Scripture, in his view, compares rebellion to witchcraft – “Rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft.” (I Sam. 15:23). Both terms have the same basic definition – subjecting ourselves to the realm and power of Satan.
Here a pattern emerges not only of citing Scripture that does not prove his point, but also of not giving any scriptural support for something Gothard considers essential. His citation of 1 Samuel 15:23 is not contextually related to his definition of “submission” as “getting under the protection of authority.”
The context of the story describes Saul’s sin as disobeying a direct command from God. Instead of Gothard providing us with a Scripture verse that does prove his point, he diverts our attention to another issue entirely. He smoothly glides into a comparison of rebellion to witchcraft that is designed to establish the following thesis: Rebellion (getting out from under the “umbrella of protection”) is evil; therefore, submission is righteous.
This idea sounds biblical enough so that to most seminar attendees – who are usually balancing a three-ring binder on their knees, feverishly taking down notes, while trying to catch everything on Gothard’s overhead presentation – it is not obvious Gothard has just misused the Bible. But then who doesn’t occasionally quote a Scripture verse in support of a point it does not prove? We all make this mistake from time to time. That doesn’t mean that Gothard’s or our teaching is dangerous, does it?
While this reasoning may pacify the conscience of a seminar attendee, it will also set that person up for difficulty because:
1) Gothard’s view of submission to authority is the foundation upon which he builds many of his other teachings.
2) By the time Gothard deals with the subject of authority, quoting verses that do not prove his point has already become something of a habit for him. So, for a person to have read all the way through to page 20 in the Basic Seminar Textbook without being alarmed by this trend either: a) shows that person is not very familiar with the Bible; and/or b) that person is kept too busy by the pace of the seminar to notice. Only the more informed and alert seminar attendees would be likely to pick up on these problems.
Even if it is true that all rebellion is evil and, thus, all submission is good, it is still not the same as saying submission means “getting under the protection of authority.” When is Gothard going to supply us with a scriptural basis for this idea? He isn’t. He basically expects us to accept his assertion and follow quickly to his next point, before we have the opportunity to notice he is not teaching Scripture but rather his own ideas. His citation from 1 Samuel, therefore, reads more like sleight-of-hand than a reference for a biblical principle.
Gothard builds on this by teaching that God had three primary purposes for instituting human authority:
1) “To [help us] grow in wisdom and character;” 2) “To gain protection from destructive temptations” (as outlined above); and 3) “To receive clear direction for life decisions.”
To prove this point, Gothard writes:
The only recorded incident in the life of Christ between the ages of two and thirty was a discussion with His parents, which involved authority. This occurred when He was twelve. Should He follow His spiritual calling and be about His Father’s business (Luke 2:49), or should He become subject to His parents and leave His ministry at the temple? He did the latter, and the following verse reports, “And He increased with wisdom and stature, and found favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52).
Here Gothard took a story from Luke, designed to illustrate the identity of Christ as the Son of God and Messiah. But in his hands it becomes a story about internal conflict within the Lord Jesus over whether to obey the parental authority of Joseph and Mary, so he can fit it into his system. However, there is nothing in Luke 2:41-52 that even remotely implies that Jesus was struggling with the issues Gothard mentions here. He reads these ideas into the passage, giving unwary readers the impression that they are in the text itself. As illusionists quickly distract their audiences from what they are actually doing, Gothard quickly moves on without providing readers with a verse to back up his assertion.
One might be tempted to argue that Gothard doesn’t realize the theological problems that result from this sleight-of-hand. However, as we met with him on this particular issue, we spent several hours walking through his claims which are that Jesus deliberately remained behind in the Temple against what He obviously knew (since He was God) to be his parents’ wishes as His authority. Jesus intentionally chose to get out from under the Umbrella of Protection, and that is, according to Gothard’s definition, rebellion, and this rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. This would mean that even before the boy Jesus had resolved His supposed “inner conflict” of getting back under the Umbrella, He had already sinned by having chosen to get out from under it to begin with! This, of course, directly contradicts biblical teaching on the sinless nature of Christ. Either Jesus is a sinner or Gothard’s teaching on this is wrong.
The notion that this is a story about Jesus resolving His own internal conflict is also at odds with its climactic scene (which Gothard oddly omits). Luke records this in verses 48-49:
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, “Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.”
And he said unto them, “How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”
Luke’s climax also does not uncover any sort of “inner conflict” Jesus supposedly experienced. On the other hand, Luke portrays Joseph’s and Mary’s inner conflict quite vividly. We can read and re-read this passage countless times, but we’ll never find Gothard’s teachings — however, we may find Luke’s.
Luke is telling a story in narrative form. Narratives are about conflict and resolution. When you read this kind of story (or hear it, or see it in a movie), you can tell what it’s about by following the key players in the conflict. A good storyteller knows how to focus your attention on the conflict to build suspense, so that the conflict’s resolution makes a memorable impact on the readers.
Everyone who has children or young siblings can relate to the terror of losing track of one’s young charge, even for a brief period of time. Joseph and Mary were a full day’s journey away before they realized Jesus was missing (v. 44), and it took them three days to find Him after they made it back to Jerusalem (v. 46)!
Luke supplies these details because this is what the story is about. He wants his readers to ask the same question Joseph and Mary were asking: “Where could Jesus be?” He wants them to feel the same range of emotions any parent would feel, because the lesson for the reader is the same as it was for Joseph and Mary.
How would you know where Jesus is? Answer: by remembering Who He is!
This is also the only record we have in Scripture of Jesus ever being scolded by His human parents. But, if we believe in the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ, at age 12, then it was a scolding He did not deserve. But Gothard’s view assumes He did deserve it, since he had already gotten out from under their “umbrella of authority.”
Fortunately Luke is telling this story instead of Gothard. And as Luke tells it, the sinless Christ, at age 12, answered His parents’ question with His own questions: Don’t you know Who I am? And don’t you know that Who I Am dictates where I am? So the basic issue was: Why didn’t they think of coming to the temple first? It would have saved them a lot of unnecessary worrying!
So, again, this story has nothing to do with any conflict within Jesus over whether to stay in the temple or go home with His parents. Jesus was not contemplating entering the ministry at age 12! Additionally, since Gothard’s view is that not being in submission is rebellion, and therefore sin (it is “as the sin of witchcraft”), we do not see any way for him to avoid the conclusion that Jesus was a sinner, based on his explanation of the passage. According to Gothard’s explanation, Jesus had to make the difficult decision of submitting, which means He was not submitted under His parents’ umbrella of protection at that time. By choosing to submit and get back under their authority, He would have ceased from His rebellion and sin, but the damage would have been done already. He would have been a sinner and therefore unable to save anyone else. Certainly Bill Gothard would never overtly say such a thing, but his mystical understanding of this passage doesn’t leave any apparent escape from this dilemma. When we asked him this question in one of our meetings, he was quite befuddled and offered no solution to this conundrum.
Since this is not a story about Jesus making the tough choice to “leave His ministry at the temple” to submit to His parents, neither is it about how His choice to submit was the reason why He “increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.” It wasn’t the point of Luke’s story. Luke was simply describing the progress of young Jesus’ life. He didn’t write, “Therefore Jesus increased in wisdom and stature…” Luke did not even imply the cause-and-effect relationship between submission to human authority and character development that Gothard forces upon the text. There are many people who have submitted to authority in this way but have not “increased in wisdom and stature,” nor “in favor with God and man” (e.g., the followers of People’s Temple leader Jim Jones, and Branch Davidian leader David Koresh).
Bill Gothard moves on to the story of the centurion, yet another attempt to support his idea that obeying “those He has placed over us” is “one of the most basic aspects of faith”? He claims:
After the centurion asked Jesus to come and heal his servant, it occurred to him that just as his life was structured around a “chain of responsibility,” so the kingdom in which God operates must have a similar structure of authority.
The account Gothard is referring to here is found in Matthew 8:5-10 (NIV):
When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.” The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But Just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.”
Is the point of this story that God’s kingdom is structured around a “chain of authority” (or “umbrella of protection”) similar to that of the Roman Empire? No. The point of this story is the centurion had such great faith in Who Jesus was, that he knew Jesus did not need to come to his house in order to heal his servant. Jesus was God. He could heal long-distance.
Once again, it is possible that this story could be making Gothard’s point in addition to its main one, but it would have to be obvious in the text, and it is not. Furthermore, if it does teach that God’s kingdom has a similar authority structure to pagan Rome’s, then it contradicts the direct teaching of Christ, Who said,
… The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. (Lu. 22:25-26)
The main point of this story, as with every story in the Gospels, is to highlight for us Who Jesus is! By distracting us with his “authority” teaching, Bill Gothard not only is violating the rules of proper interpretation, but he is frustrating the intent of the Gospel authors, and diverting our attention from the glory of Christ’s person.
Alas, Gothard is relentless. He interprets Matthew 8:5-10 as yet another passage which corroborates his view that submitting to a “structure of authority” will help us “to receive clear direction for life decisions.” Once again, we look for a connection between Gothard’s thesis (“to receive clear direction”) and Gothard’s proof-text (Matt. 8:5-10), but we come up empty. If anything, here we have a story where the centurion was telling Jesus what to do (“just say the word, and my servant will be healed”) instead of receiving “clear direction” by submitting to Jesus’ authority! It soon becomes apparent that Gothard cites Matthew 8 primarily to support his underlying premise (since it does not support his immediate point), which is that Christians must get under one of his all-important umbrellas of “protection of authority.” This core teaching of Gothrd’s, upon which so much else is built, is not only unbiblical, but anti-biblical!
Republished with permission.
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/2014/04/03/is-jesus-a-sinner-according-to-bill-gothards-teachings/
July 31, 2024
thanks for reprinting this article. It cuts to the heart of the matter. This does point out how Bill Gothard's slight of hand with scripture was missed by too many of the attendees of his seminars. I also think this and many more un-Biblical teaching was missed because the target audience was teenagers to young adults that would not have life experience and Biblical know how to catch this and many more. I kinda wished that they would have gone into the roots of the authority teaching which is Watchman Nee and his book "Spiritual Authority" which taught a chain of command and that to obey God, one had to obey their authorities such as parents etc. I think this would be accurate to say that Watchman Nee took his authority type ideas from his Chinese Confucian culture which does emphasize obedience to parent's authority.
3) “To receive clear direction for life decisions"
which all have been neatly outlined step by step by step in the rest of BG teachings and one never ever has to think again, plan again, be surprised by life again ever...it is all done for us. Another modern pre-packaged convenience.
As a teen girl, and young adult I remember for quite some time believing that if my father wasn't sure, or completely supportive of a decision, suitor, etc, then it must not be right for me. Thank God I have been delivered from that. While I respect my father for the godly man he is there comes a point when you have trust your own heart, your own convictions and beliefs. It doesn't make sense to leave crucial life decisions in the hands of others, yet this is exactly what BG and ATI encouraged us to do.
Claire said, "It doesn't make sense to leave crucial life decisions in the hands of others..." So true. Especially since we all must answer for our decisions, and we will not be able to hide behind, or blame anyone. Of course, this was never emphasized by BG. Got to keep serving the Kool-aid to keep control of his cult.
Yes, that was something I never understood. I am the one marrying an individual, I should be the one making the decision, since I will bear the consequences or blessings of my choice. (Not saying oversight and guidance from parental or other figures is out of the question...)
Of course, many times in ATI, you have the conundrum of children who are emotionally and in some cases, cognitively kept in perpetual childhood all their lives, and because of that stunted growth (not being allowed to become an adult), probably aren't able to make the wisest of decisions in the really big areas. It's a lose-lose for the young person in question. So very sad.
I never did understand the story about the Roman centurion, and why him being a man under authority and having servants who obey him had ANYTHING to do with the fact that he wanted Jesus to heal his servant. Thanks for explaining, it was about WHO Jesus was, and this centurion was intelligent enough to understand that. I totally get it!
Thank you for this wonderful and clear explanation of why Gothard's umbrella of authority is wrong. It's a challenge to all of us to study Scripture and see what it teaches, not start with our principle or idea and then twist Scripture to support it.
Don you are my hero and a hero to many. Thank you for all of your work. You said,
"Certainly Bill Gothard would never overtly say such a thing, but his mystical understanding of this passage doesn’t leave any apparent escape from this dilemma. When we asked him this question in one of our meetings, he was quite befuddled and offered no solution to this conundrum."
This rings so true. Your clear article brings resolution and helps me process the madness. BG was a master of clarity when it was good for him, but otherwise he "loaded" his language to overtly sneak around like a snake to deceive many. Looking back, I can see this happened many times. BG did this a lot.
Thank you Don for this example of how BG "abandons, ignores, and abuses context in an attempt to make his point sound biblical." BG is a master at creating a fabric of deceptive language to create a net to enslave others and protect his precious "Godly" image.
Don, I have your excellent book, A Matter of Basic Life Principles. Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's many of my friends were diehard Gothardites. It didn't matter what the circumstances were, if your parents do not want you go to seminary or mission field, marry a certain man or woman, then it is not God's will. People held on to this as if it were the word of God. I told a friend that I know several men who went to seminary against the wishes of their parents. His response was that he knew a lot of men who should not have gone to seminary.
The problem I had, was not so much Gothard, it was the diehard Gothardites who often distorted what he said, or took it as the word of God (Man shall not live on bread alone, but every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Gothard). For example, I had a friend who kept telling me I need to get back under my parents authority. He would not even listen to what I tried to tell him, and that I was 31 years old. At a seminar, I went down front and talked to Bill at the break, and shared how I was able to restore my relationship with my father. I asked him exactly what is his teaching on this. He said that if you are a child, living at home, you are under your parents authority. If you're an adult, living independantly, you make your decisions independantly, but you are under your parents counsel, not their authority.
I believe we are to honor our parents, and I have found it wise to go back and ask their advice on something. And I believe God can use that. But the idea, that God is speaking word for word, is wrong. People were often distorting Gothard's teaching. When I first considered going to seminary, my father wanted me to get established in something first. A few years later, I really had not found something I was settled in and he asked me what I want to do. I told him the only thing I wanted to do was go to Dallas Theological Seminary and study for the ministry. He told me that he can't tell me what to do, just as long as it's nothing illegal. I assured him it wasn't. He asked if I would consider going back to my old job, but I did not want to go back.
There is value in our parents counsel, but as an adult, it is one of the factors, especially when our parents counsel us to go against God's word. Even Gothard himself would say it. But I went through a time, when I often felt guilty and that I was out of God's will, any time I went against my parents counsel. God has given us brains and his word, and I believe He will give us His wisdom in decisions to make.
As I shared from my review on your book, Don, in talking with Bill, I found him to be a humble and gracious man. But what he was in public sure doesn't square with what he did in private. Any person who is not accountable is a red flag. Just look at some of these well known TV preachers. Thank you again for sharing this.
Whether they were die hard followers or not, honoring one's parents does not equal to obey in everything. I am sure the die hards you knew "obeyed" to their own detriment later on. They became too dependent on their parents and would later find out they couldn't make their own decisions or learn how to hear God themselves. Jesus never told his followers to obey one's parents in every little thing. He told people to leave their families and follow Him. When one person went to Jesus and said I will follow but first let me bury my father, Jesus told him to let the dead bury the dead and come follow Him. One of the most popular mideval saints if St. Francis of Assisi. He was from a wealthy Italian family and was a bit of a playboy. As he had a conversion to God, he started to give to the poor using his father's goods. Tensions mounted to the point where St. Francis publically renounced his father, tore off his clothes in front of the town and ran into the arms of the bishop. His female conterpart, St. Clair refused to marry the man her parents picked out and then ran away at night to join St. Francis. There are many more examples but these two people single handedly brought revival when it was badly needed. They choose to obey God's calling on their lives than obey their parents. These examples show how far off Bill Gothard was.
I actually struggled in my faith about the sinless perfection of Christ due to the teaching about obedience to parents, over this very passage. It is fantastic to me now that I should have placed the ATI handout about True Obedience over the Bible (Luke obviously believed Christ was the sinless Lamb of God and he still related this story); but it shows the power that can be gained over the young, immature believer by a plausible false teacher.
[…] an independent adult, I choose who hurts me by choosing how I live my life; but under my parents’ authority, I had no control over what I could do, say, or believe. I was not only withheld from being myself, […]
Scripture is very clear about authority of the husband and the authority of the parents. It is clearly seen in the wedding ceremony when the father gives the daughter away. He is giving away his daughter to the husband for the husband to have the responsibility and the authority. There is different teaching for women and men. Eve was deceived and so she was not to ever be out from any authority. She is never to be on her own, making her own decisions unless her father has released her to do so. Scripture over and over again tells the wife to be submissive to her own husbands, as in I Peter 3:1. This is why the Bible says that the older women are to teach the young women to love their husbands and be subject to them as in Titus 2. Likewise, children are to obey their parents. Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Also, it is clear in the Bible that we are to obey God over our earthly authority, that is, if they were to ask us to break the Law etc.
As to the many people who have obviously an intense dislike for Bill Gothard so as to seek to destroy the man. I don't personally know the man and was never involved with ATI. I did attend the seminar and benefited greatly. However, it seems to me that the issue is not the man now, but after having sought to destroy the man, you are now seeking to destroy the sound Biblical teaching that the Lord used him to teach. It reminds me of Mark 3:6 The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.
I went to the seminar and then went home and searched the Scriptures to see if what was said was true in the Bible. The Lord confirmed and showed me many more wonderful insights. It was a privilege to hear a man who had put God's Word in his heart to such a degree. Many others talk about it but do very little of "hiding His Word in their heart". To the many young women out there: Be careful of being your own authority and making your own decisions by saying to yourself...I ______ rather than the Lord tells me to ______. "God is not mocked..." Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. You can always find someone who will tell you what you want to hear...but it is not always the truth or good for you.
Hi Anne, you said, "Scripture is very clear about authority of the husband." It is not so clear that we all agree on it. I have no problem agreeing with many of your points and agreeing with the scripture you quote. I disagree with some of your conclusions.
The elephant in the room that is not addressed clearly by those promoting the "authority of the husband," (in my experience with this topic) is: What to do if the little women is out of line? Are handcuffs and duct tape OK? Or maybe it would be more Christian if the husband just stood over her and yelled?
You may say, "Brother Guy, don't be ridiculous." But Anne, this is where it sometimes leads with your prominence given to the "authority of the husband."
And will you be there to pick up the pieces when the marriage blows apart? When my marriage blew apart, the ones who promoted the "authority of the husband" were nowhere to be found. I was discarded like a dirty penny. The ones who I trusted, betrayed me and turned their back on me. This is not an academic issue for me.
Thanks for your comment. I am sorry about your marriage. That is why I am so grieved over the broken marriages today and especially among Christians. I don't mention the husband's responsibility due to limited space but it is clear also that he is to love his wife like Christ loved the church. Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," also the Bible says that Jesus did not raise His voice. Since Jesus never violated anyone then we know that neither solution mentioned is acceptable. The Lord says in Romans that His will is good and acceptable and perfect. So, everything we do should be in accordance with this standard. The word "good" means the highest form of love and "acceptable" means is right in God's eyes and perfect means "there is nothing to add to it or take away from it, in other words is it wise. So how we should treat everyone should be according to: "is it loving and is it right and is it wise?" Yes, I have met with many women and taught and discipled many women over the years. I have listened to many tears. A broken marriage yields broken people.
Anne, I am sorry but I think you missed my big question: "The elephant in the room that is not addressed clearly by those promoting the "authority of the husband,"... is: What to do if the little women is out of line?"
Maybe you did answer it with, "I don't mention the husband's responsibility due to limited space but it is clear also that he is to love his wife like Christ loved the church."
If that is your answer, then it is nothing new to me. That is what I tried desperately to come to grips with for years. On the one hand I heard, "Scripture is very clear about authority of the husband." On the other I heard, "he is to love his wife like Christ loved the church."
Those 2 conflicting coded messages did not include what is being discussed here on RG.
You might say, "Yes brother Guy, you do both." My response is that in the middle of marriage conflicts, only one message takes precedence. It was cognitive dissonance to try to keep both messages in my head.
Today I reject that cognitive dissonance and now I believe the message here on RG. The one that you seem to be in opposition to.
You say you are sorry about my marriage. Thank you Anne. Thank you for interacting with me. I am glad things are going so good with your marriage.
Anne, I don't know you, but you seem like a caring and nice person. May I kindly say that your message resembles the message I heard in my time of desperate need. That message did not help me. It made me crazy. I tried really hard. I had friends who said they had never seen someone try so had at having a good marriage.
We can not turn back the clock, but it would have been nice 3 decades ago to have available the RG community.
Did you have moral excellence in your relationship before you were married and did her father want you to marry her at that time? By moral excellence, the Bible says in I Corinthians 7:1 "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman." The word "good" means the highest form of love. It is the highest form of love for a man to wait until marriage to even kiss his finance and I would certainly even discourage holding hands or any touch before engagement. A man does not understand what it does to a female who is attracted to a young man. The moment they hold hands the relationship changes for her and as the touching continues she can no longer see him objectively. She has started to give her heart to him. I have never seen a wife leave a husband that she believed who loved her. He may have loved her but it is her perception that she responds to and that certainly can change. If she says that "holding hands" is nothing to her then there is possibility that she has held other hands. Therefore the Law of Diminishing Returns. People do not realize what they are sacrificing for the moments of pleasure before they are married. Especially if it is more than simple kissing she realizes after marriage that it was not love but lust. She struggles to trust and respect a man who has not had victory over lust. The Bible says in Proverbs 27:20 "Nor are the eyes of man ever satisfied."
Anne, you ask "Did you have moral excellence in your relationship before you were married and did her father want you to marry her at that time?"
Was that a general question, or was that specifically for me?
You certainly know the answer and it is not any of my business and I don't want to know but...if the answer is yes then that would put one perspective on your marriage. If the answer is no to both questions then you got what you sowed. God is not mocked.
Anne, I am tempted to ask for more clarification whether it was a general question or a question specially for me, but I am not sure if it would be productive.
I will therefore assume it is a general question for the RG crowd.
Where is Christian compassion in that statement? Seriously? What ever happen to forgiveness of one's sins. Whether a couple kissed, held hands or even ended up having sex before marriage is not an excuse for suffering abuse, neglect etc while in marriage. There is no excuse no matter what happen before marriage. You are taking relationship advice from a man that 1. never married 2. couldn't keep his own hands off of the young girls that he surrounded himself with. You want to wag a finger at Guy but really ought to be wagging it at Bill who can't even follow his own teaching about the "no touching".
Rob, thank you. You said,"There is no excuse no matter what happen..."
So true. A couple of stories come to mind. The women at the well. Not exactly a BG approved background.
(Sarcasm on.) Was Jesus misguided when he said He had living water for her? Perhaps He should suffer the cross again for such a vile wrenched sinner. Perhaps the first atonement was just not enough.
What about Rahad? The one who saved the spies. Is it OK that I identified her that way? She had another name. Was a mistake made in including her in Matthew chapter 1, the ancestry of Jesus.?
(Sarcasm off.) I am so proud. My first sarcasm true colors, and I lasted for about a year. I need some ice cream to celebrate.
What verse states the law of diminishing returns?
You imply that any physical touch before marriage (I assume you mean the civil/religious ceremony) permanently damages the prospects of the marriage. How does one gain restoration from that?
Are second marriages after widowhood diminished?
You said above that broken marriages produce broken people. How do they gain restoration?
You have reasoned from the tradition that the father gives the girl in the marriage ceremony. Can you tell me what Scripture that comes from?
Where is the Father in Ezekiel 16? Where is the father in Genesis 2 (the only perfectly pure marriage)? Where is the church's father? When did he give the church to Christ?
Two more questions: What bible verse uses "husband" and "authority" in the same sentence? If submission of a wife means obedience to the authority of a husband, why do the chapters discussing this issue use "obey" for children but not for wives?
A little touch of sarcasm does spice things up and let off some steam with humor. Thanks, GuyS.
Tangent, thanks. After I posted that, I was concerned that it might not be OK. I have been plenty transparent here, and hated to show more of my colors. But some things just push you over the top.
Don R asked: "Where is the church's father? When did he give the church to Christ?"
In my theological understanding, our father, prior to
giving ourselves to Jesus/ Jesus taking us, was the devil. (Jesus talks of people with the devil as their father, and elsewhere condemn others for listening to their fathers who killed the prophets.) When the church went to Jesus, God adopted us (we got a new father).
So, by that standard listening to your father in who to marry is a bad idea.
Anne, have you read the stories of the young women who were Bill Gothards favored girls? Would you say that he demonstrated "moral excellence"?
Now this is a question that gets to the heart of the matter...
GuyS, I always appreciate your honesty and vulnerability. I had to check the names on some comments because I thought perhaps Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had suddenly showed up to offer some insight.
It reminds of this from the story of Jesus:
MatthewS, you make me smile.
Part of my motivation for the painful discloser has to do with the questions that have been ask concerning the dynamics of the disfunction from a ATI parent's perspective. I remember some time ago a discussion regarding the pressure the family coordinator (ATI contact accountability person) put on fathers. I did not speak up at that time. It is so hard to talk about and come across as kind, honest non-defensive, and non-blaming. I am not so sure I can do it now.
There was a lot of pressure put on me by my family coordinator to fulfill "Scripture is very clear about authority of the husband." Week after weak, month after month. (that's what I get for getting sucked in) Of course, it was a code phrase that meant for me to be a good little cult follower, I needed to pick up the pace. I wasn't doing enough. My wife was not doing enough. My kids were not doing enough.
I do not blame my family coordinator. He was about 15 years younger than me. His advise was from BG and he was just passing it on. I would love to see him here on RG but he has high profile job with clients. He worked for IBLP for 7 years. We became close. I visited him at Oak Brook headquarters. Thank goodness he finally got out of the cult.
When he was hired, it was before ATI existed. What is so interesting to me is, how should he fit in the "blame the parents" game? Should he be blamed also? For instance I have never heard, "How could any young person become a family coordinator? They do not have the excuse of being born into it. How could anyone be so stupid? It takes a special type of young person to be so deeply attracted to the cult"
Of course no one would say that. But even if it was said, sometimes it is part of the healing process. In no way am I admonishing those on RG to hurry up and get over it. Take as much time as you need. This info is my contribution and may not be much good. I only bring it up for those on RG to see this from a ATI parent who is deeply sorry for his part in the evil cult.
The biggest reason to drag all this up, it might be helpful in light of the interest for ATI parent reconciliation. It is to hard for many of us parents to admit how wrong we were. I hope seeing this perspective might help with the processing for those reading on RG to reconcile with each other. I am guessing that there are many ATI parents who are in a lot of pain and would like things to be right with their kids. I have also read how many on this site feel.
There is no blame game at the foot of the cross (or empty tomb.) We are all just so grateful to be loved by God and forgiven. I am praying for relationships to be repaired and made whole.
Good words, GuyS.
Amen,Guy,Time will stand still,We may be together again,a Light here,Life there,Hope defying hopelessness,Light dissipating darkness,by a Person,A Miracle has already happened,It makes Itself Manifest now radiating into an eternal cry not to be thwarted by man,or demonic oppression.Unto God the Father.I stand with it my brother.
David, thank you for turning our attention back to the One from Whom All Blessings Flow!
Brother David, your victorious summary is a credit to your God who having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them.
Your words brought to mind meeting with you in the early 70's at the corner of 13th and Poplar, where we stood shoulder to shoulder with a group of Jesus People singing with a guitar and experienced the power of God. It was a first for me in so many ways. Who knew we would stand together after 4 decades.
"There is no blame game at the foot of the cross (or empty tomb.) We are all just so grateful to be loved by God and forgiven. I am praying for relationships to be repaired and made whole."
Thank you GuyS for those words. I really needed them.
Bless you Flower. May God show Himself strong to you.
I think you have great insight Guy. I pray that you continue your healing. I am sorry about your marriage. God Bless
Rob, thank you for the encouragement.
GuyS, thank you for this. I feel much the same way. It is also hard for many ATI parents to even consider, let alone admit, that we were mistaken to be involved: holding on to the "good" (hymn sings at Knoxville, diagraming Bible verses, family time) and suppressing or ignoring the destructiveness. While I am extremely motivated and encouraged by many discussions on RG, many close to me do not want to discuss any of the concerns, even though our family has moved way past BG fundamentalism into a rich Reformed faith.
I am thankful for the fellowship here.
Matthew, next time you have Him over, can I come? I'm qualified as a sinner!
Thanks for your comments. I love Christians because they are my family and of course the Lord commanded me to do so. I have been sick in bed today and it has been a joy. I had no idea there were such varied opinions among Christians.
First, I want to say that I do feel much compassion for broken people from broken marriages and also for their children. The Lord says He hates divorce so I would never counsel anyone to do what the Lord hates. He says if we love Him then we will keep His commandments.
However, concerning the "God is not mocked", that verse was written to Christians who had already been forgiven. It was not about forgiveness it was about life. The Bible says that "If you are wise you are wise for yourself but if you scoff you alone bear it". Let us remember the verse in Colossians 2:25
For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.
The Bible also says "wisdom shall be vindicated by her deeds".
Also, at first I did not know who rob war was referring to since I was not apart of the BG ministry or family or whatever anyone calls it. I never studied his material but went home and studied the Bible. I was a new Christian and wanted to know what the Bible said. To this day I spend most of my free time in God's Word. My goal is to memorize the entire Bible because that is the truest picture of who God is. I love Deut. 29:29. I memorize an average of one chapter a week and have done so for over 40 years. If I have a question I do go to my husband and not other men, including pastors, men Sunday school teachers etc. I do this because this is what the Lord told me to do. he says that if I want to learn anything then to go home and ask my husband. I do believe if the body of Christ did this then there would be fewer affairs in the churches and especially among pastors and women who go to them for counsel. Also, maybe if more wives did this then more husbands would go to their pastors asking to be taught and discipled. Just a thought about all the wonderful things that would happen if we followed His ways.
Since no one knows me and I do not know anyone on this blog and live very far away. I would like to say that apart from my relationship with the Lord, then my husband and my children and our business, which we work six days a week, we spend our time and money with inner city teenagers. They come into our home two times every week for Bible study for several hours. We have also done Bible study with them during the week. They are the "fatherless" and we love them as if they are our own because they are His. It is hard to believe but when we meet them we find out that most have never heard the Gospel. In the past year and a half we have seen over forty give their lives to the Lord. They were homosexuals, drug dealers, thieves, etc. Many were already in trouble with the law. We love it and we love them.
You haven't mentioned anything about animals. Are you currently engaged in any animal rescue/foster efforts?
I didn't know being sick in bed was such a wonderful thing. Seriously though, you didn't really answer what I was saying and justified your "reap what you sow" which in reality was mean and condescending and judgmental. Marital breakup is painful and cannot be simply brushed aside with comments that someone's marriage fell apart due to lack of moral excellence ( what ever that means) before hand. You have no proof to support such a ridiculous assertion. Your posts are rather curious. You are claiming that you only went to the seminars once yet you spout Bill's teaching very well, in fact all too well. Your simple so called reading of the Bible or search which supposedly mirrors Bill's teaching can't be concluded by others simply reading the Bible. In fact, most all others reading the Bible do not come up with Bill's conclusions from it. It is also curious that you spend a great deal of your posts promoting yourself and the things you do which mirror Bill's ministry of starting out with working with inner city youth. Your advice to women coming to you on how to have their husbands love them better come directly from IBLP web site. Thinks just don't add up here.
rob war, Thank you for your reply. What can I say? I went to the Basic Seminar in the 70's when I was a brand new Christian. I did not say that I just went once. Back then, I don't know anyone who just went once since it was free after the first time. However...I told you that I do not know BG, I never was in ATI, I am familiar with what he teaches in his seminars but have never studied them. When I went to the seminar it was so overwhelming for me, being a new Christian. I thought to myself that I would take one thing from the seminar. When he said that meditating on the Word was the most important then I thought "then that is what I am going to try to do". I thought, "Well, if this man can do it then the Lord might help me to do it." This was huge because I had a poor memory and poor grades in school but I was desperate. I was afraid that I would go back to my old lifestyle which was very sinful and I knew I needed something solid. I went back to my home and started meditating on and memorizing one chapter a week. I did not understand most of it but the Lord showed me a verse..."Wise men store up knowledge" so I continued. I also gave myself completely to the Lord and said to Him that He could take my life and do whatever He wanted to do with it. I had to change all of my friends and the places I used to go to. My life was truly transformed and the love, peace, joy and gladness that He gave me was incredible. I wanted to tell everyone about Him and I wanted to know the Lord more than anything else. To me, His Word is His love letter to me and I can not spend enough time in it.
As to the inner city kids, I am in my 60's and no, I would not have chosen myself to do it nor did I want to do it but the Lord broke my heart with the need. He has opened many doors with the kids and we have seen amazing things that only God could have done. I only shared it because of MatthewS' comment...On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
It is really interesting to me that some of the men who have responded on this blog do not seem to understand moral excellence. EVERY woman that I have ever taught understands it very clearly. The word lust is the same Greek word for desire. Moral excellence is NOT desiring or taking what is Not yours until the Lord gives it to you if He chooses to. Until a man is ready to take on the responsibility of a wife and marries him then she is not his. Can you explain why you don't understand what moral excellence is? What would you say that the meaning in in 11 Peter 1? Also, I have never known a man who did not want to marry a morally excellent woman. Is that statement true?
I certainly do not intend to come across judgmental, condescending and mean but I just wrote the truth. The truth is what will set one free...and it is not until he sees the truth that can he move on. Grace is what allows us to obey the truth. The Lord gives grace to the humble so when we humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God and say "Lord, I can't do it" then He gives us the grace to do His will.
I am a woman and I do not understand at all what you mean by moral excellence. You seem to define it as never holding hands or kissing before marriage, which I think is complete nonsense. You also seem to think it means not desiring someone physically before marriage. That also does not make sense.
I would say that most men want a woman who will not cheat. This is worlds away from your unusual definition of "moral excellence."
You seem well meaning, but I would be cautious about drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence gathered from your two-question interviews. Correlation is not causation. Plenty of happy marriages thrive without the partners adhering to your premarital standards. Plenty of successful couples are happy they did not marry the people their fathers wanted them to marry.
I doubt any of us will change your mind because you seem awfully pleased with the way you have ordered your personal universe. However, one thought. I believe that unless a person is willing to listen to an abused spouse, offering them encouragement and perhaps supporting a means of escape, they are on the side of the abuser, and in some cases, partially responsible for the abused spouse's suffering.
It reminds me of the priest and Levite who ignored the suffering man in Luke 10 before the good Samaritan took care of him.
In this case, I guess we would be stepping to the other side of the road, saying, "It must be your fate to be beaten. It is not our responsibility what a man does to his wife. Suck it up and obey him. By the way, you probably brought this on yourself by holding hands before marriage."
Like.
Anne, I hope that you meditated day and night, because BG had recently reported that he failed to meditate at night and that shipwrecked his life. Whew, he just barely missed the mark and has reaped what he has sown! May you be complete in that MOST important thing.
I thought I knew what you meant by moral excellence but then you claimed to have lived a very sinful life before being saved. So now I am confused: is premarital physical touching only a destroyer of marriage if the touching is with the future spouse? Or did I infer too much from your confession not understanding that you only sinned in other ways but never were touched by a man before your wedding night?
When a man touches a girl or woman inappropriately he is violating her. The word violate means "to change". Any woman who has been violated needs healing especially emotionally. The Bible says in I Corinthian 7:1 "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman." The word "good" in the Greek means the highest form of love. A man will never go wrong having the highest form of love for his future wife. Even holding hands means two different things to a man and a woman. Once, there is any physical relationship with a girl she can no longer see the guy objectively. What I felt like the Lord was saying to me before I was married was to treat every guy in such a way that if he married my best friend then there would be no awkwardness. That is, to treat him like a brother in Christ.
Thank you for your kind encouragement on meditating. I want to be found faithful to the Lord and return Words of truth to Him who sent me. I want that heart for God that learns His Word and keeps it.
Proverbs 22:17-21
17 Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise,
And apply your mind to my knowledge;
18 For it will be pleasant if you keep them within you,
That they may be ready on your lips.
19 So that your trust may be in the Lord,
I have taught you today, even you.
20 Have I not written to you excellent things
Of counsels and knowledge,
21 To make you know the truth of the words of truth
That you may return words of truth to him who sent you?
I Cor. 7:1 means nothing that you assert above. It means that it is better not to marry if that is one's calling. It is categorical, not conditioned on "until married". It is good not to marry. Later he says it is not bad to marry. So there is not even a good vs. bad contrast here. It is in response to a question the Corinthians had asked him which clearly was: Should Christians refrain from marriage? This question has been around since the beginning of Christianity, it was a question the disciples asked Jesus when he told them just how much sacrifice the marriage covenant demands (which, by the way is the same conversation where he attributed divorce to hard hearts, NOT to reaping what is sown). So, you may have memorized 200 chapters of Scripture, but you do not understand the Word of God and simply grab things out of context and use them according to your preferences.
Here are some other statements from I Cor. 7 that appear to contradict your teaching:
"the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband"
"the brother or sister is not enslaved"
"let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him" (including the married person who "sinned" before marriage)
"those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that"
"let those who have wives live as though they had none"
"the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does"
"the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband" (mutual submission, not simply she pleasing he)
"because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband"
"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin"
"whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed [virgin], he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better."
"But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is."
This is the most comprehensive discussion of Christian marriage. There is nothing about a father's involvement in a marriage. There is nothing about any authority role of a husband. Nothing about a subjection role of a wife. The only sowing and reaping seems to be if you sow to marriage, you will reap trouble.
Marriage appears in this chapter to be particularly suited for those whose passions are strong and who do not have their desires completely under control. In your teaching, that person is doomed to brokenness, not eligible for the blessing of holiness that Paul says comes even to an unbeliever through marriage.
God joins them together. Do not despise that covenant. Guard yourselves in your spirit and do not be faithless. (Mal. 2)
One other thing: is Exodus 22:16 reaping, or reconciling?
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife." (Remember that these are not permitted to ever divorce because he has "spoiled" her. Brokenness is NOT an option!)
Don, true confession time. I confess I also wanted to ask about this puzzling sin issue. Thank you for saving me a lot of time. Plus, I am fairly sure you did a better job than I would have.
Anne, I'm most curious about one other thing: does your husband approve and support all your postings here, or are you doing this outside his notice? Because a woman is not supposed to teach without a sign of authority, I'm seeking the sign. If I seem too strict, it is you who have raised the bar quite high in recent days.
"It is really interesting to me that some of the men who have responded on this blog do not seem to understand moral excellence."
"Can you explain why you don’t understand what moral excellence is?"
You may not be at a place you can hear this right now, Anne, but the fact that someone disagrees with you does not immediately imply that they lack understanding or are rejecting the truth. It may be that they have real reason not to accept your interpretation. For example, if you were to assume that your interpretations are always infallible, you obviously would have a major pride issue (and I'm sure you don't think that).
The question is not what precisely Peter means by the word ἀρέτη. The issue is that you are pressing a meaning onto Scripture that Scripture is not saying. Scripture is not saying "moral excellence is the root of true love." Not even close. This passage does have a good, clear, helpful meaning.
An egregious example of a major, sustained, covered-up lack of moral excellence is Bill's actions as reported on this page and many others like it: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/ruths-story/ Have you read that page?
Anne, I'll ask your question back of you: Can you explain why you don’t understand what moral excellence is? What about Bill's actions is so confusing to you that you seem unable to see that they were clearly, inexcusably wrong?
(take your time, I'm sure you are going to get a number of responses, not trying to pile on)
For someone who is claiming that you never studied Bill, you do very well in stating and promoting his teaching. Likewise, you do not speak for all women and your analysis of touching. Maybe that is how you feel but that is not true that touching is different meaning for men vs women. I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas from but they are very curious. If this is your analysis of touching, then you have condemned Bill much better than anyone else could. You can't have it both ways, claiming that you never really studied his teachings but promoting them verbatim all too well. If you are equating moral excellence to absolutely no physical contact before marriage, that simply is not realistic or even healthy. Simple signs of affection are normal. The extreme view you are promoting is unnatural, unhealthy, unbiblical, unwise and unreal. All of this coming from a man that taught others this yet couldn't control his own desires towards girls. Is this someone you really want to promote and follow? Your story is too similar to him. Working with inner city children and memorizing the Bible which caused you to finally succeed at school. It doesn't add up.
Anne, you said "I was desperate. I was afraid that I would go back to my old lifestyle which was very sinful". That leads me to conclude that you did not exactly possess this "moral excellence" before your marriage. Hmmm. Maybe your wonderful marriage is not because you sowed "moral excellence" in your youth. Maybe it is by the grace of God that you married a kind and loving husband. I am happy for you. I think it's great that you bring young people into your home, but if they are learning the things you have been telling us here in your comments,I don't believe they are getting the message of true grace.
I agree with Rob War that something does not add up. You promote "expect your marriage (and other things?) to be bad if you sinned" and yet claim to be popular with kids who were "homosexuals, drug dealers, thieves," and "already in trouble with the law".
From my experience of working with inner city kids in the past (and other kids), they need the message not "things will be screwed up because of what you did" but "God can give a new hope and a new start."
And from my experience even from the time I was a teen, teens love straight answers, but you avoid all questions you dislike, talking of your favourite topics instead.
I'm calling Poe on the new poster. Too many details are straight from the seminars, IBLP materials or BG's life. For those of you who do not have a clue what I'm talking about, Poe's law of the internet states:
"Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
I don't know up from down about the lives of posters here, except for those who are my fb friends. I only tend to trust other identities after observing consistencies in their writing patterns. I mean, if I read many posts by one person, and the style is the same, I safely assume it is one person honestly representing himself or herself.
I know and assume nothing of the person writing Anne's posts, but after reading her statements accusing those who don't agree with Gothard on authority that they are now trampling underfoot the Bible, I figured whoever Anne is is not mature enough to have a conversation outside of the echo chamber she (or he) lives in.
Along these lines, a HUGE red flag went up when Elaine used the word "thrilling." It sounded way too much like IBLP speak.
Funny how Elaine seems to have gotten lost and Anne has appeared.
some forums call them trolls
I could be wrong but I don't think Anne is a troll. I think she's stating what she believes.
Thanks. This website is the first time that I have ever blogged. I had to ask my husband what the lady meant when she used the word poster. I did not know these were called posts. I thought they were comments or replies. At first I did not understand what the other person meant when she used the name Elaine since I have not used the word thrilling...but since learned what was being said with the other comments. I have many faults like all of us but I can not ever remember any one saying that I was insincere. When I see things spoken of about our Lord and His Word then I feel compelled to speak up. Maybe I should not have.
May I ask, if this is the first time you have ever interacted on a blog, what drew you to this site? The internet is a big place - how is it that you landed here?
As far as speaking up in the Lord's defense, the good news is that he will outlast all of us and he does not depend on any of us to defend him. Even if we were all to join together to attack him, we would still fail. It may sound strange to say it like that but I find it comforting to know that I am never the last line of defense for God's reputation.
Hi Matthew,
I appreciate your style, manner and gentle, but straight-forward, approach. I like the way you preface your comments with "for what it's worth," "in my opinion, or "I could be wrong," etc. It helps me want to continue reading what you write and learn from your comments, which seem to be mostly fair, unassuming, and without sarcasm or ridicule. Thank you.
Thank you, Mary Olive! It's kind of you to say that.
I am impressed with the quality of the dialog here. So many good and thoughtful comments and commenters who are an inspiration every day.
And I will readily confess that I continually sense within myself a temptation toward the "flesh" side of things, including things like anger and ego. The "Spirit" side of love, joy, peace, patience, treating others with gentleness and respect, speaking truth in love - those things are not natural instincts but something I am learning and trying to grow in day by day.
Well, now I'm going to start rambling, sorry! But one of the things that convinces me beyond the shadow of a doubt that something was very rotten in the state of Denmark was how people were treated when they made a sincere effort to speak the truth in love. If you are ever in a group where a genuine effort at truth in love is viciously attacked, and you are told to preserve image at the expense of victims, you are in a bad place. Perhaps that is a political or public health necessity at times, I don't know, but that is not how the kingdom of God operates. That is a life lesson that many of us have learned from experience, which is why we invest the time on projects like this in a desire to help others.
yes, I would agree with that if you use the new urban definition.http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
yeah, good point, rob
I do not agree with what BG did because it is not morally excellent. He is reaping what he sowed. However, I do not agree with RG either in the way that they have tried to deal with it. Neither have been according to God's ways. The meaning of evil is to "cause grief". Both BG and RC have caused much grief.
In whose dictionary is the meaning of evil "to cause grief"?
Is something not evil if no one is grieved? No offense, no foul?
Webster says: sinful, wicked.
The Bible seems to equate it with wickedness, sin, unrighteousness.
Your statements have grieved people here, does that make them evil? I don't think it does. It may only mean they are oversensitive. The cross is an offense to many, it grieves people, is the cross evil? No.
You have posted a lot in the past few days, but I have yet to see one point that you have made that points out and corrects any specific error of RG. Do you not understand that simply to convict someone of error, without saying what the error is or what the correct alternative is NOT edifying in any way? We understand that you are offended by RG. But you have not told us what exactly you find offensive.
where is the world did you get your definition of evil from? What grief is RG causing? For many of the posters here, there is no grief but steps for healing and wholeness.
And do you know anyone who is "morally excellent?" You seem to have an interesting standard. I disagree with Gothard because he teaches things contrary to Scripture. I disagreed with him before I knew about all the immoral stuff.
And seriously, causing grief is evil? Didn't the Cross cause Mary grief? Didn't it grieve Jesus? What about the Father when He had to forsake His son?
God's judgment on Egypt was evil? It surely caused grief. How about the death of Paul? Or the teachings of Jesus in the ears of the Pharisees? Jesus said he came to divide people. That causes grief.
Hi Ileata,
This is off subject, but will you share how you were able to put your photo on your comments? I wanted to do this but my attempts haven't been successful. For me, it's helpful to see who is writing the comments.
This is quite strange; this poster named Anne has said she never was involved with ATI and only briefly attended a basic siminar, and yet she comes up with definitions like "the meaning of evil is to cause grief"?! Doesn't sound like something she learned through memorizing and meditating on scripture to me.
Yes, the cross caused Mary much grief and Jesus too. It was very evil. My husband is a Bible teacher with an M.Div. and he did a word study in the Greek on what the word means and gave me that definition awhile ago. Not often in the Bible does the Lord say "never" but He says never return evil for evil. The temptation when someone causes us grief is to cause them grief. Evil is contrasted with good in the Bible. The Lord said that "He is good and no evil dwells with Him". He only does good toward us. The word "good" means the highest form of love. So, He has the highest form of love towards us. That is the love He has called us to, so that is why the "touch" issue in I Cor.7:1 is a love issue. Also, it needs to be read in the Greek, not the NIV. If the man loves the woman he can wait. Also, one of the names for Satan is the evil one because his agenda for all of us is to cause us as much grief as possible. He does this when we believe his lies and don't believe what God says in His Word. Also, when people do evil toward us it does not have the same effect as when we do evil. People are haunted by the words and deeds they have done to others. It destroys a person. At the bottom are some Greek definitions of evil.
Can we please God? Faith is what pleases the Lord. When we do not believe His Word then we do not please Him. Heb. 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."
As for righteousness. There is nothing we can do to earn salvation or merit it in any way. It is a gift from God. He gave us the righteousness of Christ when became His child and yes, He sees us as righteous and there is nothing that we can add to it. It is finished. However, there is another aspect of righteousness and that is He made us righteous so that we would act the right way towards others. The right way is His way. The early Christians were called the way. We should be different from the world. The Lord talks about the "peaceful fruit of righteousness" in the New Testament. In the Old Testament He says "the work of righteousness is peace and the service of righteousness is quietness and confidence forever". If those are things that we all long for and I know that I do then when those things are lacking in my life then I go back to the Word to see what I am not doing right. The many wonderful things that I have learned has been through the Word and through discipline. The Lord says in Hebrews 12:11 "All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness."
The Bible says not to speculate or presume. Your speculations and presumptions about me are wrong. If I am saying the same message that BG said then maybe that is the Lord speaking to someone. You may destroy the messengers but you can not destroy the message. I do not know BG and have never been a part of ATI or been to his headquarters. I became a Christian at 19. I did not know the Bible at all but felt like if it was the Word of God and He had given it to me then I wanted to know it like the back of my hand. I set my heart and mind to do that and meditation was what the Lord said in His Word to do. Also, if I put it in my heart then it would be with me forever. I love spending time in His Word and have averaged about two hours a day for over 40 years. I have taken a little bit of Greek but mostly rely on Scripture to interpret Scripture. My husband knows Greek well and he helps me when I have a question. We are business people and have had our business for almost 30 years. Our kids went to Christian and non-Christian schools. We never home schooled them. I think that I asked BG two different questions at his seminar years ago. I agreed with one of his answers and did not agree with his other answer. We started working with inner city kids because of Ezekiel 16:49
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy." We realized we were guilty of the same sin of Sodom. We did not even know the poor and needy so how could we help them. As we stepped out in faith the Lord directed our steps.
As for the standard or (bar) that someone referred to. It is not my standard but God's standard. It was hard for me when I heard it. However, I knew it was good for me because God is good and also, I hate pain. When we do not do His will or His ways it brings pain or when He disciplines us. I would rather learn from His Word than from His discipline.
As for does my husband know that I am blogging? Yes, I am sitting here with him and he told me I have his blessing.
As for what do I tell women who come to me with troubled marriages. Every woman's story is different and there is nothing that I can say until I hear their story. Then we start on her most urgent need. I give her the Word of God because the Bible says that is our counsel. It is almost like asking a doctor "what do you tell your patients?"
As for RG. I have no idea who they are and don't want to "meddle in strife not belonging to me". I have no issues with BG or anyone else that I am aware of and I certainly don't know who anyone is or if these bloggers are BG. I thought they were like me, another Christian who loved the Lord and His Word. The Bible does not tell us to take publicly our grievances toward other Christians. I did read much of the testimony but only found one incidence where a girl said she was touched in her private parts. The Bible says that every fact is confirmed by two or more witnesses and I saw no confirmation of that fact and yet it was published for all to read.
The Bible says that Satan is an accuser of the brethren and it seems there were many accusations against the man. If you read much Church history then you will see that it is a common thread in the lives of great Christians. Also, men take up an offense easily for women and some seemed to do that with some of these girls and their testimonies. Women understand women much better. Most men, if not all, are clueless when it comes to women just like the comment that touch is not different for a man than for a woman.
I certainly did not intend to cause grief to anyone. Please forgive me if I did.
Strongs
4190 ponērós (an adjective which is also used substantively, derived from 4192 /pónos, "pain, laborious trouble") – properly, pain-ridden, emphasizing the inevitable agonies (misery) that always go with evil.
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Phonetic Spelling
pon-ay-ros'
Definition: causing pain and trouble bad
"The Bible says not to speculate or presume. Your speculations and presumptions about me are wrong."
Anne, it feels like hypocrisy to me when you say that on one hand and this on the other:
You yourself stated that Bill was wrong. Here is Bill's response to those who told him he was wrong in the past:
He has accused of bitterness, immorality, and unclean spirits: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/01/a-response-to-bill-gothard/
And he has attacked reputations and careers, calling someone an agent of Satan: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/the-Agent-19-Page-Letter-9.5.1981.pdf
Families who worked for him were fired. People on the board who dared disagree were fired and lied to and lied about. And so on. There has always been a high cost for those close to Bill when they dare to disagree with him. My point in saying this is that you now have the luxury of stating on a public board that Bill was wrong, without repercussions from Bill. That luxury was purchased for you at a high cost. And yet the way you respond to that freedom as a a fellow guest with all the rest of us commenters on RG's blog is to accuse everyone here of being just like the Pharisees, plotting to kill Jesus (making an implied connection between Jesus and Bill), and making assumptions about their motives, that they are driven by a wrong desire to destroy the man.
Do you see how that could seem harsh, and contrary to your own assertion to others that it is wrong for them to speculate?
Matthew, I was going to take that quote of Anne's about now that this site has destroyed Gothard, we are now intent on destroying his biblical teaching, but you already have called her on it. Talk about speculation! Anne - you started it.
Furthermore, Anne said this:
"As for RG. I have no idea who they are and don't want to "meddle in strife not belonging to me". I have no issues with BG or anyone else that I am aware of and I certainly don't know who anyone is or if these bloggers are BG."
Anne, no offense intended, but you already have "meddled in strife" by accusing everybody from people who disagree with Gothard's views, to his victims - in short, anyone who has written a blog entry on RG - of being out to destroy Gothard, and also destroy sound biblical teaching.
You are so full of contradictory verbage my head is nearly spinning. You won't take the time to argue against anyone with whom you disagree in a respectful manner, but go right for the jugular, making assumptions about RG being destructive of what is right and good, and of being a destroyer of Bill Gothard.
You mean it's OK to engage in meddlesome strife if the people you are talking about are the ones with whom you disagree? I know you would say, "no," but that is what you are doing - according to your own standards.
LynnCD, thank you for this line. "You are so full of contradictory verbage my head is nearly spinning. You won't take the time to argue against anyone with whom you disagree in a respectful manner, but go right for the jugular..."
This is so much like I felt so much if the time when I was in the cult.
Thank you for this extensive response to many of the questions and challenges that have been directed toward you. You have explained many things that help me to understand you better. KNow that I was not mocking you about your husband's approval, but sincerely pressing in to test your claimed submissiveness.
It appears to me that your husband's definition of "evil" has resonated with your own feelings, allowing you to see "evil" in all the pain that you abhor. I also thank you for providing the definition of the Greek word that you were really defining. I do not have my Strong's available to me and I know no Greek. However, I am certain that other Greek words may be translated "evil" in the N.T. because the English word "evil" is not identical to the Greek work you have defined. I mistook your definition of "evil" because I thought you were defining "evil" and not "ponayros". My bad. Who knew? The issue was clouded by the fact that I did not see your definition applying to any particular N.T. passage so there was actually no evidence whatsoever that you were not defining the English word "evil". My insistent response was a direct result of that misunderstanding. Forgive me for presuming erronously to understand what you were saying.
It is very helpful, nonetheless, when you do respond directly to questions instead of avoiding or evading them as many critics have practiced on this website. Direct responses help clear up misunderstandings. They also advance the discussion and help to clarify where we do disagree. I completely accept your definition of "ponayros" (although I do not understand what it has to do with your discussion of moral excellence).
I request that you also respond to the other significant questions that we have raised, particularly my assertions regarding I Cor. 7:1. I do not have the gentleness of MatthewS, but like you, I do not wish to cause grief. I do, however, greatly desire to understand the Word of God as the Spirit has given it to us, which must be contrasted with the way all of us, you and I included, are tempted to abuse it to proof-text our extra-biblical notions.
May I also be so bold as to ask some additional background questions?: How many times did you attend the Basic Seminar? How many times has your husband been under the teaching of Bill Gothard? Did your husband have any additional contacts such as visiting or working at HQ or a Training Center? Are your husband's parents Gothard followers? Does your church promote Gothard's teachings?
I wish to clarify the discussion of the meaning of "evil". Anne said:
"However, I do not agree with RG either in the way that they have tried to deal with it. Neither have been according to God's ways. The meaning of evil is to "cause grief". Both BG and RC have caused much grief."
This has nothing to do with any N.T. passage, but is merely your indirect (passive aggressive?) assertion that RG articles are evil because they cause grief. As Anne says, the cross was evil and used with evil intent. But the preaching of the cross is clearly NOT evil, even though it causes much grief and offense. It causes trouble, and I fear that translators might be more helpful if they used "trouble" instead of "evil" in some places in order to distinguish trouble from wickedness. But I am back to defining the English word which it appears Anne cleverly avoided by defining a Greek word she did not use. Alas.
Yeah, that "definition" of evil is problematic at best.
If someone wants to accurately and precisely define a word, they must consider semantic range, that is, the set of things a word means in various contexts. An example I've seen for this is the word "run" as in: The captain can run the ship with a run in her stocking while her crew members run a race on the run on deck.
There are four separate meanings for run in that one sentence, none of them are the same, and all of them are correct.
A copy-paste of one possible meaning of a word is probably going to be more misleading than helpful.
Here is a fuller definition of the word (though, with Don, I find myself wondering what in the world this question even solves!):
full of labours, annoyances, hardships
pressed and harassed by labours
bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and trouble
bad, of a bad nature or condition
in a physical sense: diseased or blind
in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad
(I used http://biblewebapp.com/study/ to get the definition, I wish you could link deeper into it but it's a great tool anyway)
Ephesians 6:13 has this word in it:
Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.
On the one hand, Anne talks of how much touching means to a woman and how marriages turn out bad because people did not do "moral excellence" by things like hand-holding. On the other hand, she believes Bill did little wrong because she has an excuse to dismiss the one where he touched privates - the other touching don't matter.
Which is it? Is all touching very bad and a way to wreck marriages, or only touching privates?
Retha, If I ever forget my place and begin arguing with you, remind me that I am out of my league :-)
Ha, ha!
Never in scripture is any man given a free pass to use his so called attainments in the flesh,qualifications,acclaimed status in natural religion,to manipulate vulnerable,naive,trusting sheep into hapless victims...Tony's story,Charlotte's story ,Ruth's story,performed over accumulated years,rather adroitly with Tony being an "agent of Satan."At first denied by Bill until the document was submitted.And why was he an "agent of Satan"?Simply because he had to investigate and document evidence of sexual impropriety,squelched for years by various means instilled by the mehodologies' the IBLP machine inforced,and so called authority figures,backed by threats,some carried out,like Tony being excommunicated from his own church.Joy Wood's husband was targeted,people lost their jobs;the end of course justifying the means;the end in Gothardism,granted,has not consisted of "speaking against authority","taking up an offense","Giving a bad report",but rather a suppression into passivity.By the "Supramoralist".It would be better that a millstone by hung about the neck and the offender cast into the sea than he should offend "one of these little ones".Food deprivation at the ITC.Solitary confinement.What is more disturbing?The suppression for years of these testimonies,or our responsibility after having read them?Maybe its the searing hot realization that after all the years of investing in a sham program the inner core has this at its fountainhead.I too drank the coolaid.I was played.I can no longer drink or be played,but will encourage any victim.Thanks again Recovering Grace for awesome theology,and doing the work of our Lord,Who identifies with the beaten and downcast.
"Never in scripture is any man given a free pass to use his so called attainments in the flesh,qualifications,acclaimed status in natural religion,to manipulate vulnerable,naive,trusting sheep into hapless victims..."
Agree 100%. That sounds a lot like what some people call an "entitlement mindset." Sometimes even good pastors and ministers fall into that mindset after many years of faithful service: "I have served the Lord and sacrificed so much, now I am entitled to a little something for myself."
Brother David, "What is more disturbing?The suppression for years of these testimonies,or our responsibility after having read them?" Ahem. Your words are inspiring to me.
The suppression for years will not withstand the True Light shinning, the One who divides the light from the darkness, He who gives light to them that sit in darkness, will bring to light the hidden things, and will make the crooked things straight (and such were some of us), and will reveal the deep and secret things. He is awesome and there is no other, who can withstand Him? May His name be blessed forever. May we walk as children of His marvelous light, testifying on the house tops what we have seen and heard so the beaten and downcast will have a voice and find healing and restoration.
Others have tiptoed, and I’ll just barge in. I don’t enjoy taking risks, and I try not to speak unless I feel strongly about something. This would be one of those times. Where my manner is not gracious, please forgive and bear with me. What I state is my own opinion formed from strong feelings. I take absolutely no offense that others will disagree. I only encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ to consider a few things.
“Anne” did not mysteriously stumble onto this site, and she is not the submissive wife of the near-perfect husband she describes. The similarities between “Anne” and a person familiar to readers here are extensive. Some of them include:
*With all sincerity, substitutes a personal relationship with and devotion to Jesus with moral law-keeping.*
- Talks extensively about loving the Bible (law); not so much of loving Jesus with any degree of awe, devotion, or humble gratitude.
*Asserts faulty assumptions as givens.*
- “The Bible says that every fact is confirmed by two or more witnesses.” (So if I claim that a strong wind came and blew my papers away but I was the only one there to see it, then it’s no longer a fact.) “Taking up offenses” is wrong; no basis, no discussion, just fact. Fathers give daughters in marriage because it is their authoritative role. Again, no scriptural authority or precedent, just historical (patriarchal) tradition used to illustrate a point. Once a male and female touch, the girl starts to give her heart (what does this mean?) to the guy. What happens to the guy’s heart? Sounds like an underlying faulty sense of personhood and gender roles. Hmmm …
*Draws illogical conclusions.*
- Eve was deceived. Therefore, women for all time are not to be out from under male authority, and they’re not to make their own decisions (this was stated and restated). No parameters are given here, as far as how big of a decision can the inferior one make? (Much less, where is the Biblical guideline?) “Anne” says women are not to make their own decisions. Period. Do I want tomatoes in my salad? Charmin or Scott? What time should I set my alarm clock for? There is NO woman that would ever make a blanket, unqualified statement such as this. A misogynist, on the other hand …
*Insensitive, unfeeling, devoid of empathy.*
- If you answer “no” to the two magic questions about purity and authority, then you’re just reaping what you’ve sown when things go south in your marriage. Tough. Yet many women continue to approach her for Godly counsel.
*Conceited.*
- She walks intimately with God, who has provided her with special insights. Her home is a sweet place of refuge. Her marriage is so heavenly that she wishes she could share it with the world.
*Tries to make points with Scripture passages that don’t fit.*
- James 3, 2 Peter 1, …
*Misses the point of a relationship with Jesus. Inconceivable that a woman can have a direct or intimate relationship with the Lord. Locates a woman’s identity in her man.*
- “Anne’s” sin causes grief for her husband; she lives to please her husband. What’s missing here?
*Redefines words with peculiar to inaccurate definitions. Insults readers’ intelligence by assuming faulty definitions.*
- Good. Evil. Iniquity. “Violate” = “Change”? NO, that’s NOT what it means. And how could anyone miss the dead give-away, GRACE. It’s what allows us to obey the truth. Whenever we humble ourselves, THEN He gives us the grace “to do His will.” Yes, dear, we’re supposed to believe you came up with that one completely on your own.
*Bases salvation on obedience instead of the blood of Jesus.*
- We cannot be saved UNTIL Jesus is LORD of our lives. Our faith and His sacrifice aren’t factors here.
*Attempts to preempt objection by putting the reader on the defensive.*
- “Your speculations and presumptions about me are wrong.”
*Testimony is suspiciously identical to the pattern prescribed in BG’s teaching.*
- When I discovered what I was supposed to do and started doing it, my life got better – vs. – I was a sinner and Jesus took my blame on the cross and made me clean, even though I didn’t deserve it.
*Uses the exact same language we’ve heard elsewhere.*
- Moral excellence. Moral compromise. Violating. “Taking up an offense.” (Has anyone heard this outside of Gothard culture? Wonderful things will happen (God’s blessing will flow) if we all just get with the program and step in line. Giving one’s heart away.
*Is of the opinion that BG is guilty of very limited indiscretions. BG sitting at home for a while and enduring “bad reports” is apparently adequate penalty for “all” the harm he’s caused.*
- “He’s reaping what he sowed.” (He’s not in prison, so we must be able to assume he didn’t sow too much harm.)
*Bad stories can’t be trusted. And by the way, there’s only ONE really bad story, anyway … the one that involves you-know-what. YES, friends we saw this one coming – touching of private parts.*
- The Bible states that every fact is verifiable by 2 or more witnesses, and since we don’t have that for stuff that allegedly happened behind closed doors, we cannot give it credence. And shame on people who claim to be Christians who would dare to disseminate such hearsay.
(Lest you’ve gotten this far and think I’ve reverted to BG’s or BG-supporters’ accounts, let me remind you that these are all things that have come from “Anne’s” writings of just the past few days.)
*Inordinate preoccupation with physical touch. Sets an unreasonable standard for touch between an unmarried couple.*
- Moral excellence = hands completely off, although no Scriptural authority here, either. Comparable to BG’s desperate desire to convince people that he’s never touched a woman … to the degree that he apparently equates it with righteousness.
*In addition to the “nobody can prove anything that matters” defense, she tops it off with the “this is to be expected” martyr validation statement.*
- “It’s common for great Christians throughout history to be falsely accused.”
*Makes comparisons that equate BG with Jesus.*
- Mark 3:6 reference. Suggests that her message (which happens to be the same as BG’s in every way possible) may be the Lord speaking to someone.
*General dissonance.*
- It’s a joy to be sick in bed all day. (Anybody wanna venture a sin diagnosis for her?) Inner city teens apparently flock to the home of this retirement-age-approaching couple in spite of the apparent extent of her empathy being pointing out that people reap what they sow. Nobody knows her and she lives “far away.” From WHERE? She never realized until she read comments here that Christians have such varied opinions. Apparently she doesn’t get out much, bless her heart.
*Peculiar similarities to BG.*
- Her goal is to memorize the entire Bible. She works 6 days a week (and probably doesn’t sleep much, either.) She ministers to inner-city youth (in spite of living “far away” from somewhere). Apparently agrees on every point of Gothardism, in spite of her claim of discovering insights for herself and not being a student of BG. (Sounds like duplication of randomness to me.) Wants to share her formula for successful marriage with the world. The world would greatly benefit from what she has to share. There is “another aspect of righteousness.” We should be different from the world. Finds fault with Christians taking “publicly our grievances toward other Christians.” Really familiar stuff there.
*Denial of possible association.*
- “I certainly don’t know who anyone is or if these bloggers are BG.” Why would “Anne” mention this? It’s not a great analogy, but it sounds kind of like Mom returning to the kitchen, noticing something amiss, and the guilty child saying nobody took any of the chocolate chip cookies.
~~~
The rest (the packaging) is just fabrication to give the appearance of authenticity. As I’ve mentioned several times, my experience comes from living a long time with a man that lies as a way of life. When credibility suffers and he needs back-up to prove a point or manipulate a particular outcome, fabrication is no object. Need a friend? Make up a friend. Need a friend’s opinion? Make that up, too. Need people to agree with you to be convincing, because you can’t make an independently convincing argument on your own? Make the story as elaborate as it needs to be to convince the victim it’s authentic. Throw in ridicule and shame for her differing opinion. Pull out the big guns of twisted Scripture as needed. She can’t argue with Scripture. And then add on a few more details for good measure. Pick up the story years down the road when it comes in handy again. The end justifies the means. So long as the point is made, the authenticity of the details doesn’t matter in the least. Judgment Day’s not a problem, either, because that’s when the weights and balances are brought out and Victim’s transgressions far outweigh a little necessary fabrication.
I mentioned once before that I believed BG made up (not just enhanced) testimonials in his publications. Dude is no amateur, and Dude is highly experienced. RG is just a different venue.
If I’m right, “Anne” will cry foul, nitpick with details, and accuse ME of deceit and damage to the Kingdom. My motivation is not to be right (I have nothing to gain even if I am), but to help others evaluate suspicious behavior for themselves. I take no offense whether readers choose to agree, disagree, or withhold judgment. It matters little to me who’s doing the actual typing or if there may be a ghostwriter involved. I’d actually love to be wrong; I have HUGE regard for talent of this magnitude and would really rather not engage it. I just have a really hard time when I recognize the quack and waddle of a duck to not warn others of stepping in duck poop.
I appreciate people who prevent me from walking in duck poop. I find your observations helpful.
Elizabeth D, thanks for your point of view. I agree with it. I did not have the courage or eloquence to speak up.
"I have HUGE regard for talent of this magnitude..." I also have such a regard. I was raised by narcissist father. I think he might give the man you live with a run for his money. When I was up against that "talent of magnitude" for so many years, I had no frame of reference. I had no idea how committed he was to protecting his beloved image. I tried in vain all my life, and got hardly anything for my trouble.
He died a few years ago at 90. He basically died before he would admit out loud he was ever wrong. He said he had a direct line to God. How can you engage with someone who will take a bullet before admitting they are wrong. Plus, you get "duck poop" all over you for your trouble.
This story about my dad is somewhat of a rabbit trail. It is my way of agreeing with your analysis. Others may find this extreme commitment to narcissism foreign.
Guy, was your dad Arthur Fonzarelli??? Wow! (Please don't take offense. I was inspired by how the show Happy Days patiently dealt with that kind of self esteem over period of years to produce, through grace, a kind and generous character. I do sense your grief. Be assured that Christ will glorify your scars as His own.)
Don, none taken. It probably was not worth bringing up, except without experience or hearing someones story, it's hard to believe what you might be up against.
Elizabeth, also be assured that "Anne" will love you because you are family, God commands it, and therefore it is an involuntary obligation. I just hope she recognizes in your attempt to decode just how formulaic her works based system appears to us. She hasn't gotten out much, so this is a beginning of her education on how other Christians think NOT like her.
Excellent points Elizabeth. Anne does not pass the smell test with me either. I see no possible way that her views could mirror Bill Gothard's so closely, having only attended one seminar.
Along with the many other parallels, the concept of current day problems being the result of some deep dark sin that was committed by the individual long ago is so Gothard, that I too question if she is not, in fact, Bill Gothard posting as Anne. And the comparison of Bill Gothard's situation with the persecution of Jesus- please spare us all. The comparisons to King David were difficult enough to stomach, but now Jesus?
"I mentioned once before that I believed BG made up (not just enhanced) testimonials in his publications. "
I'm almost certain that his testimonies are make believe. He has been caught red handed in his fabrications before:
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/bill-gothards-tornado-that-didnt-happen/
"Has anyone heard this outside of Gothard culture?"
I come from a rather conservative religious background and have had many friends in various denominations, and those phrases only ever came up if someone was reading from a particular translation of the Bible. Nobody ever harped on "moral excellence" like this, even though I've attended churches where there wasn't nearly enough talk of grace. And every church I've ever attended has called "moral compromise" or "moral failure" by its more scriptural, less compromised name: sin.
Elizabeth D- I appreciate your forthrightness and willingness to "barge in", although you did not come across as barging. It was more like a breath of fresh air :)
Wow, Elizabeth, you've got skills! If Anne is not BG, then certainly his evil (by any definition) twin. Another clue might be the total disregard for all the testimonies here. Like Anne, BG enjoys "ministering to troubled youth", especially the ones HE troubled. Thank you for your thorough unveiling of the Phariseeism. The similarities are uncanny. Fool me once...
yes, I was tiptoeing around it but I agree with you, "Anne" is either Bill himself or his sister he lives with I think (according to Alfred) who is Anne. I also think that "Anne" is elevating the "no touching" before marriage for a couple of reasons. First, "Anne" knows that it is rather unrealistic and a stretch and will get the usual objections that this is totally ridiculous which it is. But hand holding and hugs are being used to justify what Bill was doing with the young ladies under him. He will say that these "affections" were not of a sexual nature on his part. However, he fails to admit that "touching" by an employer to an employee is totally inappropriate and is sexual by legal and standard business practices let alone Christian ministry standards. Sadly simple dating or courting expressions of affection which is normal in normal humans does not have to mean at all sexual intent but touching, holding, footsie in a supervisor role is sexual in natural. Telling girls what bras to wear, removal of moles and skin tags, constantly being alone with them is. That is probably why "Anne" came on and zeroed in on this issue. My two oldest had an unmarried teacher that rewrote well known musicals for the school play production. She was and is a marvelous teacher, very dedicated to Christ and her faith. There were some faint rumors that she was engaged once and the boyfriend was killed in an accident. Curiously, she always rewrote all her musicals with a female character that never married that lost their love. "Anne" reminded be of this teacher, just left too many parallel clues that point to Bill himself or someone very close. The only grief is from RG is to Bill himself. However, RG did not fire Bill, RG didn't removed him from his own ministry, Bill's hand picked board did that. RG did cause Bill to keep touching girls and surrounding himself with the same, Bill did that all on his own. If Bill has grief, he has only himself to thank for his grief. RG didn't cause any of it but shed some badly needed light on the evil that was there. Curiously, "Anne" is married to master of Divinity with Greek which I think was the next direction "Anne" was going to take. Not only do we not know the Bible and what it says but the Greek word support Bill's interpretation as well.
Rob, she used the Greek word to defend her definition of the English word "evil" that she used in her own writing and that not in reference to any passage of Scripture. It was simply weird.
"Greet one another with a holy kiss" must be a hard command to obey for her, outside of marriage, I mean.
I wonder how her inner city protégés take to the "no touch" standard.
I still want Alfred to join in the fun defending pre-marital touching.
It grieves me that the defenders of this system appear compelled to lie, deceive, mislead and obfuscate to defend the gift to the world of "a New Approach to Life". (Wish I could do italics here!)
Pitiful actually. I do admire Alfred's greater honesty even if he does have to sidestep many issues to evade capitulation. But let it be known that if the IBLP "approach" cannot be honorably defended in an open and fair debate, it is worthy of no one's commitment.
"...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." They appear neither ready, hopeful, meek, awestruck, nor acting in good conscience. They are proving unable to falsify the all encompassing Grace of God the preaching of which condemns their false doctrines.
The Word of our God stands forever. I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of His glory He may grant they and we be strengthened with power through His Spirit in our inner being, so that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith—that we, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that we may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Thanks Don!
Thank the Spirit and Paul. It's their instruction and prayer! (The obvious quotes, not my ramblings.)
Elizabeth's comment is a tour de force of logic and looking beneath the surface in an insightful way. I always like it when people recognize and point out underlying patterns, and this is that in spades.
I advocate for giving each commenter the benefit of the doubt in a wise-as-serpents-harmless-as-doves way. And that sets me apart from basically no one here :-)
FWIW, with reference to Elizabeth's analysis, another possible explanation:
All of the same points of contact between a person's comments and Gothard's own comments could just as easily exist if the commenter were steeped in Gothardism and if they were sincerely posting from within their isolated bubble of Gothardism.
I did a quick search last night and the earliest comments I saw from Anne were on this thread: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/bill-gothard-placed-on-administrative-leave/
The background that seems implied to me by the comments there are that she and her husband were not directly involved in ATI but there is a long history of some kind of IBLP involvement, including helping to send some youth to IBLP's Journey to the Heart events. If most of someone's Christian life has been shaped by Gothardism, they will not see much of a gap between their red notebook and their Bible - the one explains the other and they are both received as inspired truth.
For the sake of conversation - in general with a commenter like Anne, I tend to see a few possibilities:
1) Troublemaker, faker, just here to stir things up.
In that case, any effort I spend on them is mostly wasted, other than for my own practice and perhaps for someone else seeing the interaction. Hopefully such a person will be recognized and pushed aside as soon as possible.
2) A defender of Bill, less than honest in their comments.
Even if the person is not entirely sincere in their approach, it is probably being driven by an underlying devotion to the cause, and perhaps their friends or family will read the comments, or perhaps other insiders will read the comments and something might speak to them. Interacting with them, in spite of the factor of being taken advantage of somewhat, is not without benefit. For example, it is probably revealing some of the current lines of thought within Gothardism circles and is a chance practice responding to that.
3) A sincere and sincerely deluded person, commenting from within their isolated little bubble, a place many of us lived at one point. You'd hate to see this person wrongly tagged as being number 1 (the faker and troublemaker) and they would probably feel ganged up on.
In sum: perhaps Anne is a fake but it seems just as possible to me that she is where we once were, and that the parallels between her comments and Gothard's style exist because she is genuinely that steeped in his thinking (which goes back to the Poe's law comment someone made earlier).
MatthewS, thank you for this excellent analysis. You saved me a lot of time.
You said "it seems just as possible ... because she is genuinely that steeped in his thinking..."
I would like to add to that. I would say, because she is genuinely that steeped in his thinking AND cruel dismissive abilities.
If you recall, 3 days ago (Oct 13) I had a few interactions with her.
1) First, I talked about the elephant in the room question. Finished by asking who would pick up the pieces. And mentioned the betrayal and feeling discarded like a dirty penny.
2) She responded in part by saying "I don't mention the husband's responsibility due to limited space..." I used what little self-control I had by not schooling her on "limited space" on this site. Kinda like blaming "limited digital ink." Of course she did not mention the husband's responsibility, she was too busy beating her "authority of the husband" drum. Just like BG would do.
3) I talked about how that did not help much. I said in part "...your message ... did not help me. It made me crazy..."
4) She responded with her 2 questions and other ramblings schooling me on moral excellence.
5) I tried to clarify who the 2 questions were directed to.
6) Her response here reminds me of my interaction with BG's "cruel dismissive abilities." She said,
"You certainly know the answer and it is not any of my business and I don't want to know but...if the answer is yes then that would put one perspective on your marriage. If the answer is no to both questions then you got what you sowed. God is not mocked."
Very confusing and cruel. Clear enough to know that you have be put in your place and judged harshly and God is on her side and will not be mocked. There you have it folks. This is the kind of send off you can expect, if there might be those who are thinking of joining up.
This is exactly what I described in my last paragraph in 1) : " the ones who promoted the "authority of the husband" were nowhere to be found. I was discarded like a dirty penny. The ones who I trusted, betrayed me and turned their back on me..."
I love RG. Who knew this madness could ever be talked about let alone have an audience?
And Anne has refused to tell us how a young wife could find deliverance from the pollution they brought into a troubled marriage. Just: wear it, hon.
Don, I hope she does't tell us. I am already a few bricks shy of a load. Any more ramblings, schooling us on moral excellence, perhaps will lighten other loads for having listened to it. I award her no points.
Correction: "I hope she does't tell us....I award her no points" was not kind.
May I change it to, "If she does tell us, I hope she will refrain from (what seems like to me) condescending moral excellence injunctions....I have yet to award her any points."
yes Matt, you do have to have good caution not to rush to judgement. I think that is why I tried to tiptoe around the identity. I know on some other forums or blogs, questioning openly someone else's true identity can get one banned. I agree with you that Anne is sincere in support and beliefs, not truly a troll in that sense. But the puzzle pieces of what she did post don't really fit together unless it truly could be Bill or someone very close to him. Someone not use to using the internet (like Bill according to Alfred) and did a poor job of trying to be someone else in their descriptions of themselves, claiming to love all Christians yet accusing RG of evil, Someone that is dismayed by differing ideas in Christians yet want everyone to follow their own ideas. It doesn't make sense on the surface but does if one concludes "Anne" is really someone else very close if not Bill himself. Someone can't claim that their only contact with IBYC back in the 70's, change their life around and then supposedly shelf it when IBYC alumni use to go free and received birthday cards many years after attendance. That just doesn't add up. Yet Anne can pop out perfect Gothard definitions and ideas that are current. Doesn't add up, Something is amiss. They become easily rattled when asked direct and simple questions. Then they claim that scripture meditation and memorization will lead to Gothard type conclusions so why don't the rest of us see that? From the personal encounters documented on RG, this is what Bill himself acts like. That's when the pieces fit together.
Rob, what you said is why I make no assumptions about identities until I've read many posts by a person. What I objected to about Anne was her straw man about people being out to destroy Bill. Stop him, yes, especially from hurting other young women, but destroy, no. Her second straw man was built on the first - now that we've destroyed him, we want to go further and destroy sound teaching. Her language is too extreme for me to want to dialogue with her. "Going for the jugular" is what I said. It's hard being the opposing view in a forum; perhaps defensiveness is why she said what she said, but it definitely kills the deal for me as far as interaction goes.
Elizabeth, once again, your deliberation has enriched us all!
(RG can probably I.D. the IP address of posters. Most programs allow that. I wonder if they have ever done a cross-check of all the posts on here to identify posters with multiple nom du plume's. IF Anne is B.G. (or even B.G.'s sister) it would be fun to get old lap sittee Alfred into a debate with "her" over the smallness of pre-marital lap sitting. And it would be fun to get a B.G. defender to vehemently argue how the touch is not the sin, but the "intent" is the thing. This all opens up many channels of entertainment. Fruit from trees.)
@Elizabeth - Thank you for your well-developed truth detector. It's unfortunate that your husband is as he is, but the skills you've developed to detect truth/narcissism as a result have been very helpful on this site.
@Don - Thank you for a good laugh! :-)
BTW, where is Alfred when you need him? :)
When you hit the "Add Comment" button and say to yourself, "Bring it on" as you wince and brace yourself for what may follow, then you come back to a bunch of really kind comments like these - you know you're in the company of a bunch of stand-up kind of people. :)
Lindsey - you're very kind, and btw, I have very much appreciated your posts, also!
Kevin - it's comforting to feel I'm not out in left field. I posted before on the inane case study about the family where the brother "violated" the 3-year old sister, and some of the root causes were diaper changing and the kids not being kept busy enough (by Mom, of course!) I don't remember what the feedback on that was (if any), but it's nice to be affirmed when you stick your neck out!
Anna - thank you for your thoughtful input.
Don - I can't thank you enough for all the wisdom, good sense, and great theology you share with us on a regular basis. And specific affirmation of posts from one I highly respect is humbling. You are not only challenging and wise, but patient and kind.
Becoming free - I so appreciate your kindness and the consistent thoughtfulness and wisdom in your posts, also!
And GuyS - to say that I said something that you were thinking is huge to me; I am honored. I have not forgotten when you came to the defense of my intentions in one of several interactions with BG's friend - Thank YOU. The story of your dad isn't a rabbit trail; I am so glad you shared it. It helps describe the frames of reference we all come from. Now that I am understanding my own situation a lot better, it is edifying to hear similar stories from others. On one hand, it breaks my heart to know that others have experienced similar pain and loss. On the other hand, I'm comforted beyond words to know that what I thought was solitary craziness is actually (unfortunately) understood by so many others. I wish it weren't so, but it's helpful to share stories for that reason alone! And I'm so impressed that you "get" what I meant by the huge regard. :)
You guys rock. I am thankful.
Hi Elizabeth - thank you very much for your comment re: my comments. :-) I'm glad they've been a blessing.
Re: "Anne" - I agree that "her" posts sounded a bit off. Although I didn't catch (many of) the theology issues, she sounded to me like a newly-married 20something, caught up in worshipful adoration of her new husband. To read that she stated she was a 60something person married for 40 years sounds a bit weird.
To whomever posted the link to "Crying out for justice," thank you. It was very helpful in processing some stuff of the past.
Although "Anne" may be other than what was posted, the dialogue with "her" about grace and against legalism was very helpful, and I learned a lot. Thanks to all for your contributions.
Becoming Free said "Although "Anne" may be other than what was posted, the dialogue with "her" about grace and against legalism was very helpful, and I learned a lot."
The "dialogue with the opposition" is where a lot of the vitamins are.
Sometimes, I feel there is no way to discuss details that are layered in both messed up theology and convoluted dishonest reasoning, which has humanly speaking ruined my life. My head reels wandering how to start.
And then Anne comes along, and I get excited to begin the "dialogue with the opposition." The very thing I could not do decades ago. It is easier for me now that I have been reading here in RG. We all need to find our "no" to darkness and bondage.
Thank you, Elizabeth!
You guys are tops! I feel like I have received whole boat loads of truths through all the discussions and that I am gaining more confidence in working through and facing a very abusive past and the 13+ years of my life I gave working for the Institute. Talk about toxic! I didn’t even realize what ridiculous and dangerous lies I had floating around inside my head until I started reading RG last March. Now as I write down the things I “caught” from IBLP teachings, I am so horrified. I am still working through a lot, but you guys give a safe place to do it at and things are starting to make sense. Thank you all for sharing!
I like your name Flower because now you can really bloom as you detox yourself and rebuild your faith.
Elizabeth D, I have more thoughts about the evil talent you mentioned: "I have HUGE regard for talent of this magnitude..."
Some years ago I cleaned carpet for a man who was a guard at the federal penitentiary in our county. He told me one of the first things he learned in his training, was that the inmates will "get one over on him." Maybe it will only be something small, but it will happen. Just accept it and not take it personal. His trainer assured him that the inmates think about "playing him" 24/7. They are committed, day and night. There was just no way to keep yourself totally protected.
Whereas, when you get off work, you try and forget about work and the inmates. Meanwhile at the pen, they are plotting. It is one thing to be a guard, quite another to live with and depend on family who scheme continually. Especially if you have bad theology that forces bondage and no escape, no freedom, just accept your lot in life, it is God's will.
However, this is not new. There is lots in the Bible about this. One place is in Micah. "Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand." To dismiss the evil talent that we are warned of is folly. Unlike the guards, when we quite drinking the Kool-aid (any kind, not just BG's) and embrace good theology, we are equipped. There is no good reason to continue to be a victim.
Sometimes in times of clarity, I accept that I can trust God's wisdom and providence for what has happened to me (and my mother, sister and brothers.) And sometimes, it is good to talk about this madness. Good theology is so cool. May God grant us all wisdom and freedom.
Guy,Thank you for sharing about your father;it would have been difficult for anyone to live with him.So much appreciate your sharing.I believe it will bring in more people,and it has already edified many already here.Its brought people together.
Agree with David. Guy, thanks for sharing. To my knowledge (and I have asked some people who know more than I do), Bill hasn't made things right with Tony or the women who have come forward. IBLP has determined he needed to resign. And now, thanks to the blogger on spiritualsoundingboard, we learn that Bill is attempting to launch a public ministry. If you have not seen the online video about the importance of being in "one accord," if you do see it, it is pathetic. Pathetic in light of Bill's termination from IBLP. Pathetic in light of (as far as we know) no repentance or humbling himself before all the victims of his slander, libel, and the other abuses. HOWEVER, if one did not know about these things, the talk just seems to be a well done pep talk that sounds biblical. Bill is very gifted in his persuasive abilities, and if one were not aware of what he is not dealing with, I can see where that one would wind up being very deceived.
And I have heard of men where I have been told they have been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. They look totally different in public than they do in private, so I'm told. And that makes it nearly impossible for people to understand the pain of the family members who have to deal with this kind of sickness and sin. I agree with Dave, Guy, you have insights into what is taking place that many can either relate to, or be encouraged by.
LynnCD, thank you for the kind words. You said about the video,
"HOWEVER, if one did not know about these things, the talk just seems to be a well done pep talk that sounds biblical. Bill is very gifted in his persuasive abilities, and if one were not aware of what he is not dealing with, I can see where that one would wind up being very deceived."
I wish all on RG were at a place to see that video. It might help answer the reacquiring question that comes up, time and again: "How did he/they get sucked into the cult?"
Many of the ATI parents were young when they saw BG at a seminar (just like the video.) I was maybe 26 or so. Very emotionally crippled with not much discernment. Humanly speaking, I had no chance. I am sure many other parents feel the same way.
Having said that, it is still hard for many of us stubborn parents to humble ourselves and let go of our precious image. I hope it is OK to bring up this messy subject to stubborn parents reading this: Who is going to change you diapers in your old age? Now is a good time to repent. It does not get any easier. It might be hard to demand to be changed in a controlling manipulative way. You gonna get better care at a nursing home?
In my best Dr Phil voice, "Let me know how that works out for you."
Mistake: "reacquiring question" is not right. Should be "reoccurring question."
LynnCD, I wanted to tell you a little more about watching BG's video. You are so right. What I watched was pathetic. I could not watch more than a few minuets. I started to carry on, of course no one was there to listen. If I were a better and faster writer, I would be able to work my way through it, pausing to write up my uncharitable thoughts about his "New approach to Life." It was infuriating for someone like me, who got in too deep (which does not make me unique here, but feel at home.) It might be cool if someone here had the interest to dissect the slick typical BG presentation. People need warned, but it takes a special type of gifting to wade through it.
Looking back on my comments last week, emotionally I felt like I was off my meds, my blood (pressure?) was up, and ranting about painful insanity not visited in years. So cathartic. One definition of cathartic, "the purification and purgation of emotions...that results in renewal and restoration."
Guy, I sure hope you are feeling better this week. It appears there is not much traction gaining on this new "ministry" if that helps.
I am amazed at the extent to which believers can go to kill each other. We all expect perfection from each other, but not from ourselves. The expectation of perfection from the other brother or sister is sadly not in fact but in fiction. Even the courts of the world would not convict without hearing the other side, but we shamelessly do it here. Please leave Bill Gothard alone. I have not been to his seminars, but my late wife was in some. We even discussed some of his principles at home with the children. I was helped immensely by some of his teachings. I do not necessarily agree with all, but it is my duty to search out all teachings biblically, and to throw out the chafe and keep the grains. If you have complaint about him, why not take it to the heavenly court, or if you would resort to the ways of the world, please take it to the worldly courts. Stop poisoning the minds of others towards him. It is only fair because you would like to be treated the same way. If he hurt you, I am sorry about your pain, but please remember that our heavenly Father is still on the throne. He specializes in healings and restoration. I pray that He will meet you at your point of need and that the balm of gilead would be enough for you as you forgive. God bless you. Amen!
Onyeka you said, "Please leave Bill Gothard alone."
You might be missing at least one thing. He will not leave "us" alone. He is up to his old tricks. People need to be warned. Bless you also.
Thank you for dropping by, Onyeka. I'm sorry for the loss of your wife, it sounds like she was dear to you. We've recently lost someone that was well-loved within this community, a too-young wife and mother. Such a painful a loss.
Of the things that your wife shared with you that were meaningful to her and have become meaningful to you, would you be interested in sharing one or two items that stand out out in particular? No pressure to do so - I'm just guessing that there is common ground to be found.
I think this site is going to be a painful site for you. If you keep reading, you'll see that the issue is not merely petty hurt feelings or disagreements. If no one in your family was harmed by Bill, and if his teachings are part of the good memories of shared experiences with your late wife, hmmm, wow, even though there is a lot of important truth here I have to wonder if for you personally it will bring more pain than its worth. Please don't take that as any kind of a personal slight. Just trying to be clear-eyed about the reality of it.
Onyeka, please hear MatthewS. There are many good things Gothard has taught. You have a tangential experience of his teaching, third hand, and it was positive, as was the experience of Alfred and many others. Others, not so much. There are many unbiblical things Gothard has taught as well, and he has been abusive to many young women at the Training Centers and other places. It took this site, unfortunately, to bring that behavior to light - and to a stop.
I'm sorry for the loss of your wife. I hope you will keep reading here, and learn other people's points of view as well. No one is out to "kill" Gothard. The key people who have been involved with him would like to see him come to repentance and restoration. But - something had to be done, and if you read any of the articles here for long, you will understand why.
I am not sure how RG is killing Bill. First of all, RG did not fire Bill or cause him to resign, his own hand pick board did that. Second of all, Bill killed Bill by his own behaviors to others. he taught as a corner stone that everyone should be under authority, yet he never was himself. He taught that any type of physical affection before marriage is immoral yet he couldn't keep his own hands off girls. He taught that going to college was not "God's plan" yet, he trumpets his own higher education by beginning with the title "Dr or Phd". He repeatedly fired those working for him if they even talked to the opposite sex, yet he could spend hours alone in "counseling" session with young ladies. Taking one's complaints to their heavenly Father is a bogus straw man argument. There is no basis in scripture either by teaching or example. That is just sweeping the sin and error under the rug and the problem with that is that it has gone on too long to begin with. The early concerns, books and warning were unheeded in the early days. This whole ministry should have ended in 1980 when the first sex scandal blew open. Yet other pastors and ministers came to his defense and ignored what his staff had to say. And most of the people on this site have taken their complaints to their heavenly Father to begin with. The other bogus straw man argument which you didn't bring up yet but I suspect you will is that we are all sinners so leave Bill alone. That problem with that is that again, it is lame excuses. The Bible does state that those in teaching authority and ministry are held to a higher standard. The Bible never states that we are to ignore sin and erroneous teaching in the name of being nice. Jesus called people snakes, liars, hypocrites etc. Not so nice words. Jesus made a whip and ran people out of the temple that were desecrating it. Not really so nice, I'm sure someone got their rear end hit. I'm sure it didn't feel good. There are too many false ideas about unity or what make that up. Covering up sin and error is not being nice nor does it bring unity among Christians. Discussing Bill's teaching and his behavior is being nice because it will set people free including himself.
Guys thank you so much for your kindness and sensitivity. I just came home at 5:30 am, and am reading your responses for the first time. It was had to keep dry eyes. I do not consider your request a slight. I will gladly share. But please permit me to share it tomorrow later this evening. i had to drop this note so that you will not think I am ignoring you. Thanks once again for your kindness and God bless you guys abundantly.
Guys thank you so much for your kindness and sensitivity. I just came home at 5:30 am, and am reading your responses for the first time. It was had to keep dry eyes. I do not consider your request a slight. I consider it a privilege. I will gladly share. But please permit me to share it later this (Sunday) evening. I will have time then as well as the energy. I had to drop this note so that you will not think I am ignoring you. Thanks once again for your kindness and God bless you guys abundantly.
I think there are a couple of points to address here. The first one is how can RG "critisize" Bill Gothard because his teaching "works" or is successful for so many. The problem with this type of point is that something should not be judged on if it "works". That type of standard can also be used against Bill Gothard as well as Christianity in general. I'm not sure how many have been in apologistics with Muslims but they would claim their religion work well for them too. I once read a testimony of a family that left Christianity for Islam. At first the dad started reading the Koran. He had a drinking problem and in reading the Koran, he stopped drinking. The wife saw the change and then followed the husband into Islam. They point to a successful sobriety and that Islam "works" for them. Muslim apologists also point out or claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, therefore it is a sign that it is true. One should never base or judge something as "true" based on if it is "successful" or "works". False teaching and religions and ideas can "work" for people. I also know an ex-Christian that became a Buddhist monk. He claims that Buddhism works for him and that the Christian faith didn't answer or work for him (as well as bad behavior he suffered by so called Christians). One should object to a teaching or ideas on whether it is true or not. For most Christians, that plum line is the Bible. If we fall into the "don't critisize Bill because his teaching works for so many", we end up with a contest on who was helped or hurt more and if someone was hurt, it was because they didn't follow Bill right or misapplied it or whatever. It is a bogus trap by supporters. Bill supportors need to show that Bill's teaching has been always taught throughout 2000 years of Christian instruction, dogma and teaching. The problem is that there is nothing out there to support this and instead come on here, call RG evil because RG caused grief. Again, if supporters have nothing in their arsinal but name calling and blanket generalizations then they basically have lost the battle of support.
Do I see a pattern of the critics here promising to "get back to us" and not getting back? I don't know, maybe the RG administrators could post a standard initial reply to these "why are you all criticizing others" posts, in order to draw them in to a real dialogue sooner. (Some of Matthew's posts might serve the purpose.) I confess to jumping down some illogical throats a little quickly but I'd be happy see the person more constructively engaged if that is possible. I want their minds and hearts opened not to see them run off.
Regardless of how we respond, is there a direct correlation between self-righteousness and refusing to keep promises?
yes, that is a pattern and I think for a couple of reasons. I think that I've notice that those steeped in Gothardism are not able to or use to dialogue over his teaching and having logical, Biblical and historical answers in support or defense of Bill. Of course it is hard to defend the indefensible but this system of teaching doesn't encourage or lend to dialogue, questions and give and take. When people can't or don't dialogue, they end up just making blanket generalizations, calling names, making accusations that RG is breaking Christian unity, and finalizing with "well it works". I've had some limited experience in dialogue with people outside Christianity over faith, God etc. Even other religions, one can have a respectful interchange of beliefs and ideas except one, that is Islam. It is very difficult to have discussions of differences with Muslims and again the conversation usually degenerates the same way, false generalizations, name calling, storming off and accusation that Christians are violent too look at the crusades. It's the same sort of pattern. To have an intelligent discussion, one must be able to step back from your beliefs and be willing to look at different angles even if you don't agree and never will. Gothardism doesn't encourage its followers to think and reason on their own. One is just suppose to submit, no questions asked. That is probably why Gothardism and Islam which have as their cornerstone submission can't discuss their beliefs and defend them.
Rob. "One is just suppose to submit, no questions asked. That is probably why Gothardism and Islam which have as their cornerstone submission can't discuss their beliefs and defend them."
I think this is very correct, this is a large reason, maybe the biggest. Especially, if your parents instructed that behavior, before getting involved with BG. In other words, they had problems before joining ATI. ATI just made it way worse, until it became unbearable. My limited experience with other hard core ATI families, was that they (and I) were a few bricks shy of a load before joining up (the ones who drank the kool-aid, not just a sip now and then.) Almost by definition. Would a well adjusted parent become sold out to BG? Not likely. If they were well adjusted. they would have the discernment necessary just sip a little. Not be an embarrassment (by drinking it by the quart) to the respectable ATI crowd who only sipped it.
Have you seen the outrageous Jimmy Kimmel youtube, "YouTube Challenge - I Told My Kids I Ate All Their Halloween Candy" There are lots of them, but that title is the first one I saw. It is the 2012 one with 48 million hits so far. Of course it is evil to do that to your kids. If you watch it, ( just watch a little, it is hard to take) pay attention to the last segment, 2:46 to 3:50. This last segment really struck me as amazing. These 2 kids are so different than the rest. They can communicate. I was so impressed. I probably could not do that good a job at 15 years old. Anyway, I remember talking to some of my kids about how I thought the 2 kids parents must be amazing to raise them with such respect that they knew how to disagree and discuss their intense feelings.
ATI did not come close to painting a picture that was clear like the 2 kids on the video. Frankly, I felt very embarrassed for my kids (when I saw that video) that I had done a very messed up job as a parent. I had not even taught them simple social skills to be able to disagree and discuss their intense feelings. Too busy with wisdom books and so on. Step up the pace. The social skills were all just suppose to magically come to pass, with God's automatic blessing.
A second big reason for failure is BG's example and parents ( for instance, my dad's) example. BG was very mean if you disagreed with him and some of the ATI parents had dads that were mean. If that is all you see, it sure looks normal.
So there you have it, bad theology instruction and bad theology examples, brings offspring that do not raise up and call you blessed. I hope I don't come across as flippant. It is just hard for me to come up with better words. I like the way you said it Rob, "this system of teaching doesn't encourage or lend to dialogue, questions and give and take..." That is putting it mildly.
Not flippant at all. Great analysis from both you and Rob. Thank you.
As I read these, I was pricked that, in 'recovery' mode, we might at times keep the focus on 'our' changed approach and miss His Gracious Patience. When I think about His restoring what the locusts have eaten, it reminds me that it is all nothing: my entire life, whether 60 years, 80 years or more is actually, mathematically nothing, zero, nada in eternity. The full restoration is then and we should all thank Him every moment for His patient, redeeming, ultimately and completely satisfying Finished Work.