About the author
More posts by Moderator
You are here:
“He deprives the trusted ones of speech And takes away the discernment of the elders.” (Job 12:20)
In a post put up a couple weeks ago, I recounted how, in the late sixties, my dad, Joe Bayly publicly criticized Bob Jones University. He did so in his monthly column in ETERNITY Magazine. It was also in his ETERNITY column that Dad issued public criticisms of Bill Gothard.
Back in 1975.
Forty years ago.
Now, Bill Gothard is eighty years old and others are seeing their way clear to say a few things themselves.
Mr. Gothard founded and ran his Institute in Basic Life Principles (formerly Institute in Basic Youth Concepts) for half a century. He also founded and ran his Advanced Training Institute for Christian homeschoolers, and our own church (Clearnote Church, Bloomington) has had several of ATI’s alumni in our membership—including one of our pastors, Jody Killingsworth.
For the past year Mr. Gothard has been laying low following a number of women who worked closely with him at his headquarters through the years coming forward with accusations of sexual misconduct. At first Mr. Gothard issued an apology of sorts, but sandwiched in that apology were these two sentences:
“My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.”
This man is really precious with himself. World reports sixty women who worked with Mr. Gothard have accused him of sexual contact and he responds, “I have never touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.” Think about it: the man is eighty years old using a publicity photo showing him with a full head of black hair; sixty of his former young female associates say he was a toucher-with-sexual-intent when they worked for him; in the face of these accusations by the young pretty women he made a habit of surrounding himself with through the years, he admits to holding their hands, hugging them, playing footsie with them, and touching their hair—even admitting these actions were indiscretions, wrong, a double-standard, and a violation of truth. But then this howler:
“I do want to state that I have never…touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.”
That was a year ago. Now, a year later, Mr. Gothard is making a move for redemption, publishing a new web site selling himself as repentant.
But the repentance he wants us to focus on is his losing his “first love.” So now Mr. Gothard is selling to the hundreds of thousands of fans you see pictured below “the rewards of meditation.” Here’s a screen shot from his new web site:
As for his apology a year ago, Mr. Gothard is parsing it more closely now in his latest version just released:
“A few years ago, I was accused of having selfish motives for inviting young ladies to the Headquarters. I knew this was not true. However, those who believed these reports relived their Headquarters experience through these presuppositions and were deeply offended. As a result many inaccurate statements have been made that are not true. God is my witness that I have never kissed a girl, nor touched any young lady in a sensual way. However, I do understand in a much deeper way how these young ladies feel and how my insensitivity caused them to feel the way they do. I have deeply repented before the Lord for offending some of the very ones whom I have dedicated my life to serve. I do want to continue pursuing reconciliation in a Biblical way.”
So Mr. Gothard continues to play the victim of all the pretty young women he surrounded himself with all the years of his “ministry” who say he touched them immorally and with sexual intent. Here’s World’s report of the account given by one of those women, Gretchen Wilkinson:
“Wilkinson said Gothard’s attention quickly became physical. A handshake became a hug. The hugs became longer and more intimate. She said Gothard started touching her hair, her legs, her feet. Then she said the touching became sexual, though she added that no sexual intercourse occurred. The relationship lasted several years. When she finally told her family, a blow-up ensued. Gothard denied the allegations. Her family sided with him. Wilkinson became estranged from her family and tried several times to commit suicide, her faith all but destroyed.”
Of course her family didn’t believe her. This stuff has been going on at Gothard’s headquarters since the seventies, starting with the sexual immorality of Steve Gothard, Bill’s brother who was an executive, there. Steve got away with it because Bill refused to discipline him. Then Bill got away with it, too, even to the point of convincing fathers and mothers that their daughter was a liar, leading her to such despair that she tried to kill herself, “her faith all but destroyed.”
World also publishes this testimony by Rachel Lees:
“Rachel Lees said she was a victim of ’emotional, physical, sexual, and psychological’ abuse in 1992 and 1993, when she ‘was 20 and 21 and Gothard was approaching 60.’ She said the sexual contact was limited to ‘intimate caresses in secret.’ Lees, who now lives in New Zealand, told me in an email that the board ‘has chosen to protect Bill and themselves. They have been self-serving and have not shown love, mercy, or justice.'”
Sixty women have come forward and Mr. Gothard responds to them:
“Charlotte [Gretchen Wilkinson] claimed I touched her in inappropriate areas. Those allegations are false.”
And:
“Of all the ones claiming that I offended them, only a few have revealed their names. All the others are still anonymous, so I have no idea who they are or how to contact them, or if they really exist. I have tried to contact those I know but have been rebuffed each time.”
Now really, ask yourself what sort of reconciliation could be had with a man such as Mr. Gothard who seems incapable of the most fundamental self-knowledge when it comes to his manhood? If you were a middle-aged mother who, in your teenage years, had been sweet and beautiful and Christian, and sent by your father to Gothard’s headquarters to serve your father and mother’s great spiritual prophet, personally, and discovered he wasn’t a great spiritual prophet, but a commonplace sixty-year-old bachelor who forced the young women he employed to give him sexual favors, how would you respond to his accusation that you weren’t willing to reconcile with him? Your job description hadn’t mentioned handsie and hairsie and footsie and gropesie and sitting-on-lapsie. So now, how would you respond to his announcement that what he did to your body was not “immoral” and had “no sexual intent?” Could you bear to meet with the man? Talk with the man? Look at the man?
Finally, the table has turned enough that someone with a seat at the Evangelical Banquet Table has summoned the courage to question the Great Bill Gothard publicly. But of course, it’s too little too late. Mr. Gothard is eighty, now, and it’s been years since he was useful helping other Evangelical organizations to turn a profit. Finally it’s time to look at the accusations of all those women Mr. Gothard was fondling…
A quarter-century ago.
Where was Mr. Gothard’s board back then? Where were the other women who worked at Gothard’s headquarters, were on his payroll, and knew what he was doing to the pretty young things who travelled with him across the country and internationally; those young daughters of supporters he forced to sit on his lap back at headquarters, in his private office? Where were the editors of Christianity Today there in Carol Stream just a few miles from Gothard’s Oak Brook headquarters? Certainly they heard the same accusations my own father heard. Wheaton is a very small town. Where were Christianity Today’s investigative reporters a quarter-century ago when Mr. Gothard was at the top of his game?
Now Evangelical publications are publishing those accusations, but it’s so very late. It’s decades after Mr. Gothard was busy molesting his pretty young assistant, Gretchen Wilkinson. And by the time of young Gretchen Wilkinson, Mr. Gothard was long-established in his trajectory of refusing to confront and discipline sexual immorality at his Oak Brook headquarters. Back in the seventies, Dad told us he had been contacted by Mr. Gothard’s board members (as I remember, it was more than one) who asked him to use his column to bring accountability to Mr. Gothard. They told Dad they themselves had been unable to get Mr. Gothard to discipline the sexual immorality of his brother, Steve; but also that there were a number of issues connected with Mr. Gothard’s curriculum and teaching that needed to be addressed. Dad himself was busy at the time as an itinerant preacher and speaker at Evangelical conferences around the country and he himself heard firsthand from women who told him their pastor and husband used the bad doctrinal teaching of Bill Gothard to justify wives submitting to their husband’s command that they commit adultery. Surely Dad wasn’t the only Evangelical leader who knew of such scandals within Mr. Gothard’s headquarters and constituency.
There’s little doubt any number of Evangelical leaders knew of Mr. Gothard’s failures in doctrine and practice concerning Biblical immorality, but they must have decided not to do anything about it. At the time Mr. Gothard was one of the biggest of the big in money and fame, consistently filling the largest venues in our nation’s largest cities.
If Dad knew the accusations, many Evangelical leaders knew them; and when a board member asks you to do something to bring their man under discipline, it’s not gossip to act on those requests, but rather Biblical leadership, discipline, and accountability.
It would have protected young Gretchen Wilkinson, Rachel Lees, and 58 others from the predations of Mr. Gothard and his brother in the nineties, fifteen years later.
So now, let me ask the obvious question: what responsibility do all the leaders, journalists, editors, board members, and pastors who heard of the sexual immorality in Gothard’s headquarters have for what was done to Gretchen Wilkinson, Rachel Lee, and 58 other young women? What responsibility do Evangelical leaders in the know back then have for the suffering and shipwreck of faith these women have suffered?
If you read the sites collecting information on the decades of immorality within Mr. Gothard’s organization, you’ll find people reporting that the first efforts to discipline Mr. Gothard were back “in the eighties,” but it was well-known in the seventies with Dad the lone voice calling for reform.
Here is what he wrote:
Is a Husband a Hammer?
A misguided, unbiblical marriage analogyby Joe Bayly, ETERNITY magazine, March, 1975
I was speaking about the limits of obedience to authority, and had quoted Jesus’ words, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” This meant, I said, that we do not obey Caesar—whether Caesar represents the authority of the state, the employer, the parent, the husband—when he commands anything God has forbidden, or forbids anything God has required.
Afterward a woman said, “If my husband told me to lie, I’d obey him. God commands me to obey my husband, and if I disobey, I’m disobeying God. My lie would be my husband’s responsibility, not mine. I’d only be doing what God tells me to do: obeying.”
Some other women were not so extreme; one said, for instance, that if her husband told her to lie when she answered the phone, saying that he wasn’t at home, she’d leave the phone and try to get him to answer it. “That delay would indicate that my husband really was there.” But nobody seemed willing to come out flatly and say, “I’d obey God rather than my husband if he told me to lie.”
I think these women misunderstood some teaching that has been given to large audiences throughout the United States in recent years. I say I think so, because I’m not sure (though ETERNITY editors who have attended assure me that the women must have misunderstood). Those who are under this teaching are asked not to share the syllabus of these meetings, and so unless you are willing to give up a week to attend the lectures, you are forced to judge by what you hear from those who attend.
Let’s agree at the outset that God has established patterns of authority, and expects submission to duly constituted authorities. Because we are Christian doesn’t mean that we have license to disobey Caesar. Caesar’s authority comes from God; it is derived authority (as we are told in Romans 13).
Every business needs a president, every magazine an editor, and every family needs a head. According to the Bible, that head is the husband—father.
Now it’s at this latter point that we tend to drift apart today, those of us who agree in other areas that authority is God-given, and submission God-ordered.
I find several reasons for the drift. Many Christian husbands lead in the business affairs of the home, but expect their wives to lead in the spiritual life and discipline of the children. Their abdication forces the wife to assume leadership in the more difficult parts of the family.
Another reason is that some wives are brighter, better-educated than their husbands. Does God really expect the husband to lead, the wife to submit, in such a situation?
Still another reason is a recent teaching that the father is a hammer, the wife a chisel, and the child a stone in the home. Hammer hits chisel, chisel strikes stone, and stone assumes its God-pleasing shape.
Related to this is a military expression, “chain of command,” used to describe the husband-wife-child relationship in the family.
The Bible does not describe the shared life of husband and wife as a military chain of command; it calls that wonderful life a “one flesh” relationship: “No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it.”
Nor does the Bible describe child training as “hammer, chisel, stone.” In both Testaments, children are told to obey their parents; in Exodus 20, father precedes mother, while in Leviticus 19, mother comes first. The great passage on child-training, Deuteronomy 6, is addressed to “you”—singular—rather than to fathers or mothers.
If we are one flesh, we are not divided—else we were schizophrenic. It is the unity of husband and wife we must seek. rather than a relationship of sergeant and private or hammer and chisel.
We should never forget that when God through St. Paul commands wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5), he has first said. “Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”
How about the marriage in which the wife is brighter than her husband, or can handle the finances better?
I am an executive and have others reporting to me. Does this mean I must make all decisions, show myself better equipped than they? if I am to fulfill my responsibilities as leader of the team?
Of course not. I would be stupid and remiss not to recognize that these men and women excel me in various skills and experience. I gladly accept their decisions; nor in so doing does my own leadership suffer—rather it is enhanced as I encourage each individual to exercise his gifts and develop his potential.
How much more the family. What a beautiful home it is, the closest thing to heaven, in which the husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church: in which they come to decisions unitedly, as one human body; and in which together they provide the model and training for their children.
Now back to lying because the husband commands it.
My fear about this is twofold. First. such a view is sub-Christian, even anti-Christian. It represents a view of authority that has frightening implications—as frightening as Dachau and Belsen and My Lai. Second, it denies the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers. In that priesthood there is no male or female. The husband does not stand between his wife and God. They stand alone and together. In any “thus saith the Lord” decision, the weight is on obeying God, not husbands.
* * *
Are Our Spokesmen Infallible?
Responsible criticism the best manureby Joe Bayly, ETERNITY magazine, August, 1975
Yes, I was writing about Bill Gothard’s Seminars on Youth Conflicts several months ago (March, 1975), in connection with a wife’s being a chisel, or a link in a “chain of command,” and disobeying her husband when he commands something that the Bible or conscience does not allow.
This magazine and I personally have received many letters about the column, most of them negative—the sort of outpouring that an equally mild reference to gun control also provokes.
I want to comment on what people wrote, and some questions that have been raised in my mind by the matter.
But first, with total sincerity, I start by saying that I thank God for the biblical content of these seminars. Bill Gothard has helped thousands of Christians in their husband-wife and family relations, and in understanding what the Bible teaches about the life of a Christian. To raise some questions about five percent of his teaching does not negate this.
At the same time, I can’t help wondering what pastors and churches have been teaching during the past 20 years, that this main body of seminar teaching comes through fresh to all these people—most of them from fundamental-evangelical churches. For the seminar locations have almost invariably been strongholds of the faithful: Portland, Dallas, Chicago; not New York or New Orleans.
Many of the letters made the same point in various ways, that a man who is quite evidently being used by God, who has such a following, is above criticism. Or at least he’s above my criticism, since I haven’t attended a seminar. “Go to a seminar,” I’ve been told, “then you’ll understand what he’s teaching. Don’t just listen to people who have been there and draw your conclusions from what they say.”
These same people would never have said in the past, “You have to take a course under Paul Tillich or Reinhold Niebuhr at Union Seminary in New York before you can criticize their teaching.”
Of course both of these men wrote books and periodical articles about what they believed and were teaching. So you weren’t limited to their disciples’ reports.
Bill Gothard not only has refused to write down his ideas for people like me to read; he has forbidden those who attend his seminars from showing their textbook with others who will not or cannot go. (Thus, he puts some teens in a Catch-22 bind: share the book and break faith with Bill Gothard, or refuse a request by their parents to read it.)
This is something new, and I think we should recognize that it’s something new. From new Testament times until the present, Christian preachers have spread their ideas out for the world—not just other Christians, even—to see. St. Paul or Martin Luther or the Wesleys or Moody or Graham never said, “Give me a week of your time and $45 and I’ll introduce you to some ideas that you cannot share with others.” They preached and taught the Word to whoever came; they wrote, holding nothing back.
From the beginning of Christianity to the present, “these things were not done in a corner.”
One common element in what most people have said or written to me is that “a wife may disobey her husband” if he commands something that the Word or conscience forbids, or forbids something that they require. That word “may” interests me. Not “must,” or “should,” but “may.” Somehow, a lot of people who have responded to me have the idea that Bill Gothard opens the door to a possibility here, not that he affirms Jesus’ word about obedience to God always taking precedence over obedience to Caesar.
I’m puzzled by this strong reaction against responsible criticism today. It’s not just true of Bill Gothard’s followers, it’s true of just about every other teacher’s following.
In the past, and in some parts of the world today (England and the Netherlands particularly come to mind), healthy controversy has thrived, and nobody—not even Martyn Lloyd-Jones or John Stott or Herman Dooyeweerd—have been considered privileged because of their position or following. The result has been light on the truth, occasionally correction of error. Sometimes that light has been accompanied by heat, but the light wasn’t extinguished, even so.
Everyone—including and especially myself—is open to criticism in a Christian environment. I grow by people questioning my ideas and correcting them. We share an infallible Word; we who speak or write for God are not His infallible spokesmen. Nor are our constructs or systems necessarily correct, even though we use many proof-texts.
And even if we don’t appreciate the criticism, even if it hurts us, there’s value in it. As Bishop Stephen Neill said, “Criticism is the manure in which the Lord’s servants grow best.”
More manure might produce more Stotts and Lloyd-Joneses in the United States.
* * *
Basic Conflicts
An open letter to Bill Gothardby Joe Bayly, ETERNITY magazine, June, 1977
March 10?, 1977
Mr. William Gothard
Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts
4S055 North Adams
Hinsdale, Illinois 60521Dear Bill Gothard:
God has given you great opportunities and responsibilities in recent years, and I, along with most evangelical Christians, am thankful for your ministry. Many people have told me of their growth through your Institutes. I therefore approach you as a Christian brother, believing that we share deep concerns for the church of Jesus Christ and its testimony in the world.
Two years ago I was ministering to a group of missionaries in South America. During a session on the biblical teaching about the relations of husbands and wives, I asked a question: “If your husband were at home, and the phone rang, and he said, ‘If it’s for me, say I’m not here,’ would you do it? Would you lie because your husband told you to?”
I was surprised when not one of the women answered “No.” The closest anyone came to saying she would not obey her husband was one woman who said she’d delay long enough in replying that it might tip the person off to the fact her husband really was at home.
After the meeting, another woman said to me in private, “Yes, I’d lie if my husband told me to do so. God would judge him for the lie, not me. I would only be doing what God tells me to do: obeying my husband.”
When I asked her and some of the silent ones (who later revealed that they felt the same way) the basis for their willingness to lie on their husbands’ instruction, they said that their opinions had been formed at your Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts. Several told me you used Sarah’s willingness to pass herself off as Abraham’s sister as the biblical precedent.
Since then, others have told me that this is a misunderstanding of what you teach about the relations of a man and his wife to each other, to sinful acts and to God.
As a believer in John Dewey’s principle, “Lord, deliver me from my disciples,” I was willing to believe this, even though other women in the intervening years have told me that they received that same impression from your seminars.
Now I’m not so sure, because of two recent incidents about which I’ve heard. It is for this reason I write an open letter to you, with opportunity for you to disclaim the impression people have received.
Since this is an open, public matter involving tens of thousands of people who have sat under your teaching, rather than a private matter between the two of us, I feel that this public means of your denying or confirming the teaching is appropriate and biblical. (An example would be St. Paul’s writing public letters to the Corinthian church and other churches, rather than going to individuals in private.)
Three weeks ago an attractive woman told me that her pastor is a firm supporter of you and your seminars, and that she had said to this pastor, “‘In the business world, an occasional husband who wants to succecd or get a big contract will offer his wife to his boss or a purchasing agent. If my husband told me that he wanted me to have such a relationship, should I do so?’
“My pastor told me that I should try to talk my husband out of this idea if he ever proposed it. But if he wouldn’t back down, I should obey. He said I would not be judged by God for adultery; my husband would be judged for telling me to do this. I would merely be doing what God tells me to do: submitting to my husband, which pleases God.”
A week later, in another city, I heard of a case that may be familiar to you. If it is, I think you may welcome this opportunity to set the record straight.
A father who claims his idea came from your Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts has recently been found guilty by a court and sentenced to seven years in prison for killing his young son. This man was a respected member of an evangelical church—in fact, he was about to start teaching a course on child discipline.
The father, believing that it was his duty to break his three-year-old child’s spirit, an obligation which he said you taught, had an argument with the child about birds perched on a wire which they could see through a window. The child—precocious and strong-willed—would not respond as his father desired. So the father struck his son, and for the next two-and-a-half hours, when the child continued to oppose his father, repeatedly struck him. At this point the child died.
[At the request of Mr. Gothard, I wish to add the following facts not available to me at the time I wrote the letter. This information is from accounts in the (Portland) Oregonian and Journal newspapers. The three-year-old boy was not the man’s son, but a foster child. (From another source I have learned that his previous years were tragic: both parents died in separate incidents.) The child did not die of the beating, but died of drowning in the bathtub where the man said he put him to revive him after beating him with a wooden stick. The autopsy further showed that the child had suffered multiple bruises in the buttocks, thighs, and calves. “Over the most minimal controversy, (the convicted man) took it upon himself to beat a baby almost to death,” noted Multnomah County Circuit Judge Clifford Olsen.]
During this time [of the beating] the man’s wife came in to the room, but did not intervene. The reason: she believed that it was not her right to object to the beating, because she would be taking authority away from her husband (which she had learned in the Institute was wrong).
I was told that the man, who pleaded guilty, does not feel that he disobeyed God; rather, he did what God commands Christians to do. The result of his obedience must be left in the hands of the Sovereign God.
Here are the questions I should like to have you answer, for the sake of the people who have attended your seminars; and for those who have not, but have been exposed to your teaching second-hand; and for the sake of the evangelical community’s testimony, with which you are closely identified.
1. Does a Christian woman who is a wife have the responsibility to obey God rather than her husband, when the two are in conflict? Specifically, does God hold her guilty of lying, of adultery, of complicity in child abuse/manslaughter when she does not cross her husband but obeys in these areas?
2. Do you follow the New Testament doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, including women, reaffirmed by the Reformers, with their immediate access to God; or is a married woman’s husband her priest, the connection between herself and God?
3. Is Old Testament Sarah a proper example for Christian women, in her obedience to Abraham when he told her to lie about their being husband and wife? If you have taught this (and a number of people claim that you have), do you give any weight to God’s act in the New Testament in striking Sapphira dead for agreeing with her husband to lie (Acts 5:1ff.)?
4. Does a Christian parent have a responsibility to break his child’s will? If so, to what lengths should he go to achieve this end?
5. This question is not so important as the others, perhaps, but I’d like to know whether it is a concern for you that people such as I must depend on second-hand accounts of what you teach in your seminars if we do not have the time or money or inclination to attend? Do you not feel a responsibility to put any of your ideas or explanations into print for the general public? Must we always judge your ideas by what others report?
Thank you for answering this open letter. I assume that you can do so in the next four weeks. If I receive your reply by April 10, it will be carried at the end of my column in ETERNITY magazine where this open letter will be published. Otherwise the letter will be published without a reply.
Sincerely, in Christ,
Joe Bayly
Perhaps, in the absence of a reply from Mr. Gothard, I should detail our contacts after he received the above letter.
1. Mr. Gothard called me on the phone after three weeks, telling me he had been away and, later, sick. He said he had not yet read my letter but it had been summarized for him. We discussed areas of disagreement, and he suggested I “interview” him instead of publishing the letter. I said No.
2. A psychologist who “advises Mr. Gothard” (in his words), and who has been blessed by his ministry, phoned me to say that he hoped I’d not publish the letter. Would I accept an answer from someone other than Mr. Gothard? When I replied No, he said that he had advised Mr. Gothard not to reply, since if he replied to me, he’d have to “defend” himself against all sorts of people—something that he has not done. Rather, Mr. Gothard, he said, has refused to answer criticism to date.
3. Mr. Gothard called me several days before the April 10 date, and again discussed various aspects of this open letter with me. He said he was writing a reply which I’d receive by April 10.
4. On April 11, Mr. Gothard’s secretary spoke on the phone with my secretary, giving several very brief comments from Mr. Gothard. I feel no Christian responsibility to publish these round-about comments, nor to pursue the matter further. It is my considered opinion, however, that no servant of the Lord is in a privileged position when it comes to answering the allegations of unbiblical teaching. And no leader, Christian or otherwise, who programs the minds of tens of thousands is above answering responsible criticism. (JB)
* * *
How Basic the Conflict?
An open letter from Bill Gothardby Joe Bayly, ETERNITY magazine, August, 1977
I have now received a written reply from Bill Gothard to the open letter published here in the June, 1977 issue.
Questions which I raised, to which he addresses himself, were:
1. Does a Christian woman who is a wife have the responsibility to obey her husband rather than God, when the two are in conflict? Specifically, does God hold her guilty of lying, of adultery, of complicity in child abuse/manslaughter when she does not cross her husband but obeys in these areas?
2. Do you follow the New Testament doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, including women, reaffirmed by the Reformers, with their immediate access to God; or is a married woman’s husband her priest, the connection between herself and God?
3. Is Old Testament Sarah a proper example for Christian women, in her obedience to Abraham when he told her to lie about their being husband and wife? If you taught this (and a number of people claim that you have), do you give any weight to God’s act in the New Testament in striking Sapphira dead for agreeing with her husband to lie (Acts 5:1ff.)?
4. Does a Christian parent have a responsibility to break his child’s will? If so, to what lengths should he go to achieve this end?
5. This question is not so important as the others, perhaps, but I’d like to know whether it is a concern to you that people such as I must depend on second-hand accounts of what you teach in your seminars if we do not have the time or money or inclination to attend? Do you not feel a responsibility to put any of your ideas or explanations into print for the general public?
Here is Mr. Gothard’s written reply.
>>Dear Joe Bayly,
>>My great reluctance in replying to your open letter was not because I reject criticism. On the contrary, I not only welcome criticism, but I actively seek it from many, especially recognized Bible scholars throughout the country. Neither is it because I don’t want to clarify publicly what is taught in the seminar.
>>In answer to your questions: the seminar teaches that a person should never do evil, even if asked to do so by one in authority. On the other hand, it does emphasize that we must have a spirit of obedience, even if we must refuse to do evil. Daniel illustrated this spirit when he refused to defile himself with the king’s meat and later when he refused to obey the king’s command not to pray. In the first instance, he was able to design a creative alternative. In the second, he willingly went to the den of lions. In both cases he had a spirit of obedience but did not do evil. The apostle Peter condemned Sapphira for agreeing to tell a lie; but this same apostle used Sarah as a model of an obedient spirit. He urges all women to learn Sarah’s spirit without doing evil: “…whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well…” (I Peter 3:6).
>>In our day the source of most conflicts with authority is not over commands to do wrong actions but in demonstrations of wrong attitudes by those under authority. Chief among these are ungratefulness, disrespect, disloyalty, and pride. For this reason, it is unwise to cite hypothetical situations. By their very nature they do not contain vital facts nor the power of God in a particular situation.
>>The seminar teaches that every Christian has direct access to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
>>The seminar emphasizes that a person should never break his child’s spirit. Instead, he must win the child’s will without breaking his spirit. If the child resists discipline, the parents should stop and examine their own attitudes. All too often, a child will reflect the wrong attitudes of the parents back to them.
>>My reluctance in writing a response to your letter was because of a deep respect for you as a Christian brother and a commitment to the scriptural principles behind Matthew 18 and Galatians 6:l. These require that we privately check all facts when a brother misses the mark, and that we do it in a spirit of trying to restore that person rather than trying to expose him. These apply to your report on the child abuse case. When someone who appears to be a “respected church member” brings shame to the cause of Christ, it is absolutely vital that all the facts be checked out before commenting on them publicly. Only then will others understand the real causes of the problem.
>>Those who were directly involved in this case have given me the following information: that the father who killed the boy was involved in a previous marriage and was accused of abusing the child of that marriage; that his present wife was unaware of the former child abuse and his pastor was totally unaware of both the previous marriage and the former child abuse. (We explain in the seminar how conflicts in previous relationships will affect a parent’s ability to give proper discipline, and Scripture explains that if a man covers his sin, he will not prosper.)
>>Further information given to us is: that the man stated to his pastor, “I was not following seminar teachings”; that the three-year-old boy was not their own son, but was a ward of the court from another family; that the man was absorbed in many books on child discipline and claims that these influenced him; that the man used an object for spanking which is not scriptural; that there were bruises on the child from his knees to his head; that the child did not die by spanking but by drowning; that the wife did interfere, but was ordered by her husband to go downstairs; that the man has acknowledged his wrong to the church and asked for their forgiveness.
>>Joe, I spoke to you privately on two occasions after checking out this information. I urged you to do likewise and give a fair report based on the facts. You refused to do so. Now I ask you publicly, is it “responsible criticism” when a critic’s use of incorrect information incites public indignation; when he refuses to check out secondhand reports, even after being told that they are false but instead puts the full burden of defense on the one being publicly criticized? I believe this question is vital to the cause of Christ and his reputation in the world.
>>If we are to turn back the forces of evil, we must demonstrate to the world a spirit of accuracy and of genuine love in all of our words. I would be grateful for the privilege of personally meeting with you and discussing these points together with any other questions you may have on the seminar ministry.
>>Sincerely in Christ,
>>Bill Gothard
In about two hours of telephone conversations, Bill Gothard and I have discussed many matters related to my open letter. I have reassured him, as I did in the letter itself, that I am thankful for his ministry, that many people have told me of growth and problems solved through his seminars.
I should like to make several comments about the letter.
Concerning Mr. Gothard’s judgment that I violated Scripture by not discussing these matters with him in private, I can only say that in this (as in several other areas), I realize more than before that our understanding of Scripture differs. This was no private “trespass” by Mr. Gothard against me (Matthew 18); it was a question of Christian doctrine that may have been taught or misunderstood by a multitude of people in the United States and Canada. (Mr. Gothard’s estimate is that a million people have attended his seminars.)
Because of this involvement of the church, the relevant example—if I may mention it with any semblance of humility—is Galatians 2:14, “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, ‘If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'”
Nor do I consider Mr. Gothard a man who has done wrong and needs to be restored (Galatians 6:1). He is instead a Christian leader whose teaching needs to be examined, as does my own and that of any other person with a public ministry.
One thing the church has lost in the past 30 years is the public discussion of issues on which differing opinions are held by Christian speakers and writers—what might be called creative controversy. And this loss has left us vulnerable and isolated. It is my opinion that on significant matters of faith and life, Christian periodicals can rightly and biblically provide such a forum—but only if they are open to such discussion.
Concerning Mr. Gothard’s statement that he asked me to investigate the influence of his seminars on the man who caused the death of his three-year old foster child in Portland, Mr. Gothard did suggest that I check with the social worker about this. Since I had previously heard directly from responsible members of the man’s church—people who knew him—of his repeated attendance at the Basic Youth Conflicts Seminars, and that there was a significant relationship between this and his practice of discipline, I felt no necessity to find what a social worker assigned to the case might say.
I can understand a pastor’s desire not to cause any problem to the seminars; I can understand the man’s desire not to harm something that meant so much to him.
Out of a rather tense exchange between Mr. Gothard and me, precipitated by my open letter, has come a positive result: I can now quote Mr. Gothard directly to all those missionaries in South America; the lady whose pastor told her she could commit adultery without guilt can show Mr. Gothard’s letter to him, and everyone will in the future know that this is not what Mr. Gothard teaches.
Perhaps one further statement is in order. There may be “creative alternatives” to the suggestion of violation of the ceremonial law (defilement), as in Daniel 1, but there is no creative alternative to a command or suggestion to sin. The only answer is disobedience (Daniel 6:10 ff; Genesis 39, in which Joseph proposes no alternative to Potiphar’s wife). Christian believers in Russia know this. Unfortunately, many Christians in Germany during the Third Reich did not.
I appreciate Bill Gothard’s gracious spirit and anticipate fellowship with him in the future.
So now, whose fault is greater? Bill Gothard’s, or Evangelical leaders who allowed him to continue to lead hundreds of thousands for decades, and to abuse young women privately?
A short while after Dad went public with his criticisms of Mr. Gothard, he flew to Dallas Theological Seminary to fulfill a commitment he had made to speak in their chapel service. When he arrived at the airport, he was picked up by a friend from DTS who, as they drove to the seminary, informed him an unfortunate oversight had occurred. Another man had been scheduled to speak in chapel, so Dad would not be speaking.
Dad asked his friend, “Was it because of my articles criticizing Bill Gothard?”
The man said “yes.”
This whole episode is a terrible blot on the Evangelical world, but most of the men responsible are gone.
Still, there’s a lesson to learn:
“And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” (Philippians 1:9-11)
This post was originally published on BaylyBlog, and is reprinted with permission.
Tim Bayly has served Clearnote Church, Bloomington since 1996. After receiving his M.Div. at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, he was ordained in 1983 by John Knox Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He transferred his credentials into the Presbyterian Church in America in 1991 and then into Clearnote Fellowship in 2010. Pastor Bayly writes articles for church leaders regularly at BaylyBlog. He is married to Mary Lee, and they have five children and twenty grandchildren.
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSSMore posts by Moderator
I have a very long-term view of Bill and IBLP whic ...
By rob war, November 12, 2024Some would say the posts here are just spin and fa ...
By JM, November 12, 2024Curious that you would bring up "Charlotte" becaus ...
By rob war, November 3, 2024I have seen the Amazon series, and I've seen the r ...
By JM, October 29, 2024Did you ever watch any of the Amazon series? The s ...
By rob war, October 25, 2024Yes, it does. Claims must be addressed because the ...
By JM, October 24, 2024I never claimed to work in finance, but I do have ...
By JM, October 24, 2024JM, What you're missing is that just because some ...
By kevin, July 31, 2024Good points Rob. There is also true irony in th ...
By kevin, July 31, 2024Jm, you must be a jack of all trades. For someone ...
By rob war, July 25, 2024Nope. Rob, you haven't properly evaluated Holly's ...
By JM, July 23, 2024Holly is a fraud herself. Her own son has come out ...
By rob war, July 22, 2024First off, it's "dam," not the other word. The spe ...
By JM, July 22, 2024Rob, This was MUCH BETTER! Thank you for findi ...
By JM, July 22, 2024I do have some training in science, but mainly in ...
By JM, July 22, 2024I hope it is soon. What is even more curious is th ...
By rob war, June 30, 2024Does anyone have an update on the expected release ...
By kevin, June 14, 2024Copyright © 2011-2023 Recovering Grace. All rights reserved. RecoveringGrace.org collects no personal information other than what you share with us. Some opinions on this site are not the opinions of Recovering Grace. If you believe copyrighted work to be published here without permission or attribution, please email: [email protected]
As much as I understand the concept behind the BG teaching that a woman being so blindly obedient to her husband that she would tell a lie if her told her to, I think that saying to the phone caller that the husband is not home when he was is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the list of sins. It's those little white lies that I think are moot to discuss if they are "sin" or not. Like "does this make my butt look big." is not one of those questions you are going to answer truthfully.
Should she instead say, My husband told me to tell you he is not at home" or "He is at home but does not want to talk with you now, which puts the caller at feeling rejected and having to explain all that part and assuage hurt feelings.
I have found that legalism majors on the minors and too much time is spent turning little things into big dogma.
I'm going to have to disagree. Integrity is integrity, even on the "little white lies." I won't say I never bend the truth to save social embarrassment, but I really try not to and my conscience bothers me when I do.
"I'm sorry, he's not available right now" or "sorry, he's busy, can he call you back later?" are truthful and polite responses.
As far as the article goes, the most startling thing to me is that members of the BOARD were privately asking someone in the media to do their job for them and hold BG accountable. And apparently it was more than one of them. What if those individuals had gotten together and mapped out a strategy to address the situation in a board meeting, with plans for an international exposure if the rest of the board and the Gothards tried to shut them down? It seems they were paralyzed by fear and isolation. The level of dysfunction is simply incredible.
I had similar thoughts about the phone call issue. In 2015 the phone is one of many ways to communicate, lots of nuisance calls are interspersed with actual calls from friends, family, coworkers or business associates. in 1975, the phone was the primary way to reach someone. Answering machines weren't common then either, so a woman thinking it was ok to lie for her husband because he wanted to avoid someone who was trying to reach him was absolutely wrong. Asking someone to lie for you is disrespectful to the person, whoever it is.
As to the boards request for outside help, I'd like to share my experience on the board of a Christian non profit in our area. When I was asked to serve on the board of this organization by the Director of the organization, I was both flattered and willing to work hard for the group. I'd heard that in the past there had been some problems, but the director told it was because prior board members didn't understand the groups"vision." It took a few years form me to notice the control and manipulation of the board that was going on. Eventually, I noticed some deception that could be verified as I looked at minutes of meetings over several years. When it was too much for me, I presented documented evidence to the entire board, and resigned, knowing that others thought I was over-reacting. Later that year, more problems arose, and eventually seven more board members resigned. The organization responded by deciding the board was too large, they didn't need so many people, and found more newbies who would accept the fact those of us who had left "just didn't understand their vision". My understanding is that some board members did try to correct Bill, but because they were unsuccessful, they resigned, and the Bill replaced them with people he could control. External pressure may have been seen as the best way to actually get results.
We have experienced that on church boards. I'm most certain it happens millions of times over. Sadly, manipulation is the way of man.
You just said it in a more diplomatic way..."I'm sorry, he's not available right now" - the caller can construe it to mean the husband is not there. So I still think it is majoring on minors. But that is the freedom we have in Christ. (not to lie but to look at situations in different ways.)
"I have found that legalism majors on the minors and too much time is spent turning little things into big dogma."
You got that right. In fact, many are doing that very thing with regard to Gothard. People debate and accuse over matters of playing footsie, and over what a wife ought to say on the telephone, when the real issue is that Gothard is the false teacher of another gospel. More focus needs to be on his false teaching -- for it is that false teaching that made all the rest possible. I say this, not to dismiss his sins towards those young girls, but because there are many people right now, especially those who continue to support Gothard, who believe Gothard committed those sins, but who nevertheless hold to his false teachings. This is exactly the stance of IBLP right now. "Bill sinned, but his teachings remain the Truth."
Authorities will not prosecute a man for falsely teaching a religion, but will go after matters they already have laws against such as sexual predatory behavior. The feds knew Al Capone had murdered people but they had no proof, so they got him on tax evasion. In matters of Christianity where there is a known false teaching, all you can do is warn others to stay away. But the issue of footsie and beyond can be proven by the victims telling their stories.
What the church ought to do is the issue here. And as far as what the civil authorities will do, it is very unlikely that Bill Gothard is going to be charged with any crime or prosecuted -- guilty as he may be. It would have happened by now.
I tend to agree with you. For those who are sticklers for all out honesty perhaps "he's not able to come to the phone right now, may I take a message?" would suit. But the bottom line is, we live by faith, not by law. Some will see this one way, some the other. Each should be convinced in his own mind, acting in faith, and neither should be judging the other.
Gretchen Wilkinson's testimony deserves my heartfelt sympathy..."When she finally told her family[about being sexually molested],a blow-up ensued.Gothard denied the allegations.Her family sided with him.Wilkinson became estranged to her family and tried several times to commit suicide."...Then "her faith,all but destroyed." This is the inevitable crushing blow for those who in fact dared speak up from the bottom of the caste system.There were plenty who now must realize the cost of silence in placating Gothard's maintained status quo.When this despotic tyrant who still would desire more ministry accolades,another "chance",{and no repentance},gets so much as a foot in the door,this episode having happened to the vulnerable will happen again,and in the past,who could say of what was going on in the victim"s hearts after having been cast by the wayside.Maybe some did this tragic act[suicide] unreported;the total magnitude of rejection by "Established Authority",the last proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.This can be expected again;after a time, a brief spiritual posturing,it looks like the basic cruel machinery remains intact.However the case may be may there now be adequate warning to not make this man anyone's moral compass!
Amen and amen! I still can't get my head around the fact that there were just too few pastors or Protestant leaders that did not take a more careful look at what he was teaching. It really is embarrassing. The fact that his teaching and books were not available for any review should have stopped any thoughtful pastor from encouraging their flock from attendance. The abusive chain of command went hand in hand with the authoritarian sheparding movement of the 70's. The social chaos of the times seemed to open the door for authoritarism to creep in as an answer. Instead of the objections to the teaching ending this, it took abusive behavior of Bill himself to end his time in his 80s. This only after IBYC morphed into ATI with all its destructive effects on more lives. It is a total shame. I asked my former pastor if he would now promote attendance, he said no but it was based solely on Bill's exposed behaviors not the guts of his teaching. Again, thanks for this article and the honesty of it. Thanks to your late father, it seems that you have inherited his willingness to be honest.
Rob, there were some pastors and laity that wanted to point out and expose BG, but we would have been ostracized, accused of being "rebellious" or "immature, and even less spiritual. As a seminarian back in the 80's I attempted to point out to some of our denominational leaders and sem instructors that BG and IBYC was false. I was hauled in to the school board the board members that were Gothardites threatened to remove me from the school---I looked at the option of legal action (my dad was an attorney at the time). Long story made short, the board let me pass by, but I have been looked at with suspicion. Some of us had to be like the French and Norwegian underground resistance to warn others of BG and his seminaries and programs. Fortunately for our denomination, we for the most part got out of that BG fad. Thankfully websites as Recovering Grace can be a place where the truth can be told.
Correction: It should be seminars, not seminaries unless I am unaware of one.
In short, one of the reasons that more clergy did not stand up to these things was a fear of repercussion.
Yes, I understand totally. I know the book in 1976 "Gothard" was repressed. At that time, I had left UMC for what I thought and deemed to be a more spiritual independent Charismatic Church that heavily promoted the seminars both basic and advanced and the elders attended the pastor one day seminars and even for one month followed Bill's order of worship. I think denominational Churches probably faired a little better and had more common sense about what was being taught. Like you said, it was a fad that blew in and out. But being young and dumb, any type of caution I could have had from something like UMC would have fallen on deaf ears because I at the time deemed them as unbiblical and spiritual. I think the voices of concern and caution were drowned out with the stampede of people attending them and the initial glowing reports of those that did.
In other words, they sacrificed the Truth to save their own skin. I can give the very young some slack on this, but in the end, how do you say you are faithful before God? And for anyone's info, I did take a stand, and I paid a huge price for it. I've never regretted it.
"but it was based solely on Bill's exposed behaviors not the guts of his teaching."
Right there is a HUGE part of the problem, and why Gothard continues to have a measure of power and influence. He is a false teacher of, "another gospel." He would be that if he had never been guilty of a single infraction against any young girl. His teaching is THE problem which gave him the power to do all of the rest. The church today is generally blind to the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ -- there is simply no possible way to see the Truth and make room for the ministry of Bill Gothard. And for those who would protest and say, "Well, there is some good in his teaching," I would refer you to the words of the apostle Paul who said, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." We are talking here about the governing spirit and the picture of God Himself -- Gothard teaches another gospel, behind which is a God that is not found in scripture.
is there any Christian "leader" (for lack of a better word) who preach the one true gospel and have no skeletons in their personal closet?
Not sure what is behind your question. But the answer is yes. I'm hoping that your question is not a way of saying that since we are all sinners we ought to lower the bar.
It depends on what you are defining as "true gospel" or even "full gospel" since that is subject to debate. In the Protestant world, I would think that Billy Graham is universally admired and has seemed to be above reproach. In the Catholic world, it seems like the current Pope has the same draw. I would even wager the St. John Paul II would be in the same boat. Again maybe you need to broaden your look. But I think there are thousands of very honorable men that are pastors and leader in their own little Churches that are honorable and above any major reproach that are not well known at all but are doing their best to serve God honorable and be above any major reproach and sin.
Esbee, this is a great question, and I think it's the heart cry of many genuine believers. Is there anyone, anywhere, we can trust to be absolute for God's interests on the earth and to lead us only to Him and in no other way and no other direction? I would actually like to know what you think the answer is.
Also, it seems to me this is something we can (and should) ask the Lord Himself, right? "Lord, where is today's Samuel, today's Daniel, today's Apostle Paul and Apostle John? Lord, where are You choosing to speak through man on the earth?" It seems to me that God must be faithful to answer this prayer from His chosen ones.
I well remember in 1976 , when BG was having one of his seminars in Oakland. There were several in our Presbyterian Church who were really enthusiastic, We couldn't understand why our Pastor was not as enthusiastic. I remember he did caution us. We who bought into BG thought the Pastor was too caught up in demoninational Hiergraphy ( bad spelling). I wish we had gone along with the boring old Presbyterian Church instead I'd an exciting ( so we thought). " New approach to Life". By the wat that Presbyterian Church is still there and serving the community. The new approach to life has produced much grief.
I have decided to become Lindsey77 to make room for any and all Lindseys who wish to join our conversation.
This post makes me very sad. It has me thinking about comments David Pigg, esbee and kevin posted under The Gothard Files: The Sleeping Giant. As esbee said, "...even today God's people are still asking for a 'king'."
I often wonder why human beings are the way they are. Why do we yearn so much for a king? It reminds me of a friend I grew up with at Christian school. He lost his faith and is now an atheist. One day, he made a post on Facebook about the late Christopher Hitchens. What struck me was how worshipful his post was. Even though my friend eschewed religious leaders, he wanted someone to look up to, perhaps even someone to exalt and adore.
I don't quite know what to make of it.
We all have the desire to worship someone or something - even atheists. It is hardwired into our nature. And of course, we often choose to worship someone besides God, such as a "great" Christian leader who in the end disappoints us.
Lindsey77: My experience is that everyone needs someone physically existent to admire, to look up to, Christians included. Invisible leaders are just not practical. So, pastors, and televangelists fill that role. It's natural. All the more reason for those who claim to dispense moral truth on their toes, with a Cato just around every corner to keep his Inspector Clouseau at the ready at all times. Megachurches just don't work. Maybe a few leaders can do it unscathed; but it's a bad idea. The Gospel According to Gothard led to my parents losing me for good; and contributed a good 50% toward a necessary attempt at suicide; which, surviving that, I have never darkened the door of a church since; nor will I ever.
I do not gloat over anyone's fall. I'd much rather they stand for whatever it is they claim as truth. Lenin couldn't do it 'cause his truth *wasn't*. For the likes of Bill G., it was foolish to ever not marry; but he said from way back he liked working with youth, which might be rather key, in hindsight.
All this scandal stuff is completely new to me as of last week. I'm quite disappointed, as he at least inspired (for a raft of wrong reasons) clean living. I read old literature. It's filled with nonstop Christianness. This isn't being rude. It's simply a point that the sense of Christianity, the whole milieu was wholly different back then. The church changes with the times; and from an ex-believer's standpoint, that's both disgusting and laughable.
I hope my post hasn't come across as being unkind. Just a response. :)
We yearn for a King because we were made for His embrace. We don't know Him because we also want to BE king! But He is patiently waiting, cleansing His Bride, that She may be presented to Him spotless.
Any leader who accepts adulation or nurtures devoted followers is a mere pretender.
Hello,
Scanning older posts, I just realized the two new ones from yesterday ... sandwiched in between.
Does anyone know what is taking place 'behind the scenes' with BG.?? He was to have a court hearing back in April, I believe... I have searched in vane for any updates....
Tim,
I was a friend of the couple whose adopted child was killed during an abusive disciplinary session. The couple, Dan and Kathy, went to our Bible school, where they met. Dan and I both worked washing dishes together in the school's kitchen before either of us was married. The school bussed large groups of us students to the seminar every year. Everybody knew Dan was divorced, so Dan and Kathy were not allowed by the school to date until they had graduated. I would find it hard to believe that the pastor did not know about Dan's previous marriage; everyone else did. The 3 year old was the child of a single mother they knew who died (of cancer as I remember) and asked them to raise her son. Dan and Kathy also had a biological 1 year old daughter. We all knew that Kathy was following the rules of the IBYC seminar by leaving the scene instead of calling the police. Kathy went to prison for a year, and Dan got the longer sentence. Their biological child was removed from them but later returned. This school is one of today's well known Bible universities, and this is where my husband and I met, and where we got firmly entrenched in IBYC, later IBLP, and 10 years in ATI. Dan was a hard man. I never once saw him smile. People like Dan could easily become abusive with BG's teachings. My belief for the last 38 years has been that Dan's hardness was bolstered by BG's teaching, and Kathy's submissiveness was too.
I have huge admiration for your dad, Tim, and for the witness he was during the struggles your family had when a couple of your siblings passed away. I think he wrote the story about the grandpa and grandson during socialistic medicine, right? Probably a very accurate prediction and very much "before its time"!
Thank you for putting your dad's correspondence on here. I wish I had known something about it back in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
Sorry for the trivia everyone, but this article really hit my heart.
Funny, in retrospect how could we have continued in BG's teachings for 25 more years after the death of this child? I guess we all weren't sure how to react. Kathy "probably should have called the police thereby disobeying her husband", Dan "went too far in discipline"....just goes to show that we all had ways of excusing atrocities...
Thank you for your kindness, Cyndi. Sorry it took me so long to read this. Dad's book on socialistic medicine and thanotels was unbelievably prescient. The book is called "Winterflight" and everyone should read it.
Warmly in Christ,
Cyndi,
What you've said is nothing like trivia.
If Kathy left the room, and failed to call the police, as a result of compliance to bg's teaching.........then that 3-year-old child's blood is crying from the ground to be avenged of the life bg took from him, too. Not to mention if the dad was merely following laid-out "discipline" in that he killed him. A hammer is a hammer. Apparently, Dan understood hammer/chisel/stone all too well.
Are either Dan or Kathy still living? I ask because they know what motivated each of them to do what they did.
This is too much to take.May God have mercy.
The illustration of pounding the wife into submission-----whaaaaaa! BG and the Gothardites need to listen to Peter, Paul and Mary's "If I Had a Hammer" for an infinitely better analogy for the use of a hammer.
"I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters all over this land". Amen to that. A much better analogy.
The wife becomes the slave mate not the help mate. The presentation of marriage by Bill, Phillips and the Pearls is basically horrific because the woman is not an equal help mate with the man but a slave mate to be pounded on.
Amen. Slave woman, not free. And doesn't Galations contrast the slave woman's child Ishmael with the free woman's child Isaac. The wife is called the free woman, the servant is the slave.
After reading this, I cannot help but feel that Bill Gothard is to sexual sin as Lance Armstrong is to doping. Armstrong led the world on for years through the self-promotion of "working hard" and "beating cancer." The hubris of both men let many down. They choose "self" vs. doing what is right. The individuals within this site I feel are like Frankie and Betsy Andreu and the others who came forward who told the truth about Armstrong.
If anyone is wondering about Lance Armstrong's lies...and the similarities I'm talking about: Watch the Armstrong Lie - it's on Netflix.
http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Armstrong-Lie/70287291?trkid=222336
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638364/
The similarities of the overall lying is pathetic on both accounts as both seem to be "shifters of blame" and "distractors of truth" by false pleasantry and false superiority. What junk!
I think the analogy to Lance Armstrong is very good.
This article is another story about the situation: http://www.outsideonline.com/1904256/my-life-lance-armstrong
It's bad enough to commit the original wrong deeds. But then to cover up and attack anyone who tries to tell the truth about what they saw - that adds another ongoing crime on top.
That's one of the things that I believe will indicate when Bill is truly repentant: when he chooses to come clean about the fact that he has bullied and intimidated those who tried to tell the truth.
Yes, and that is the opposite response is King David when Nathan confronted him about immorality and murder. He repented and he also reaped the consequences the rest of his life. I don't understand where the idea came from that Christians are not suppose to speak truth against sin and evil, even in their leader's lives. I like the quote from St. Catherine of Siena, "speak truth to power". The final and ultimate authority is God, everything and everyone else needs to be accountable included Bill and Lanse.
This couple who lost the three year old stepson,Dan and Kathy,having got Gothardism's subliminal message,drove it where most people's discretion would have stopped them:death;over a bird perched on a wire.This in no ways to me deviated from its essence,spiritual or physical.Intolerance for the three year old's disagreeing with severe consequences fomented by an unbelievable harshness,sick brutal finality,and now the trademark of Gothard's teaching's destiny:Instead of dead works the work of death.Maybe it wouldn't work out,but could Dan's relation with this little boy blossom down the corridor of life to a friendship?Life's ups and downs, severe as they are aren't meant for the burdens to be carried always alone,and could this young man have grown up to be an encouraging friend,a helpful son,down the last years of life's journey?Now we'll never know for Dan must be up in years and what of his little one now gone?The barrenness,the loss?At the end of life's journey,for my own father, [I write this out of joy].I was able to cheer him to be a blessing and now he's gone but I know where.How incredibly sad that this Dan will not see what could have and should have been.
Unfortunately, there are other examples of children losing their lives to other teachings similar to Gothards. The Pearls come to mind. They claim that the death of a child is not their fault, but their teachings, taken to their logical conclusion by angry people, can result in devastating consequences.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/the-abusive-teachings-of-michael-and-debi-pearl
There is such a difference between a few swats on the behind and repeatedly beating a child-the Pearls advocate beatings, starting with infants.
From what I have read about them, they promote "breaking the child's spirit" which I remember Gothard stating in his seminars in order to teach the child to have an obedient spirit. The tendency of a child is rebellion and that needs to be broken according to the Pearls and Gothard and Phillips and the rest of them.
I heard an ATI mother say that you must keep spanking until the child "can smile with his/her eyes". That mother spent ime in jail over child abuse. And her pastor, who encouraged that kind of discipline, told the church publically that she had sinned! That really makes me angry!
Interesting thread. We have six children. one ATI , who is now suffering grievously and trying to get out of the movement, with 8 children.One ex ATI who is extremely judgemental and legalistic , emotional growth and spiritual growth stunted. 5 children. One very hard headed, stubborn , motivated and driven. Career Mom, co-parents with husband , 3 children. In a healthy married relationship . And in a healthy church. Two rebellious sons who came to see the errors if their ways. In church. One is married, 2 kids in Awanas. One child, mentally ill.
Our stubborn hardheaded daughter and our two rebellious sons, actually have a better relationship with God and their family, than the two uber "religious daughters" who followed the teachings of Bill GothRd
I've seen this pattern too. sometimes getting out of the bubble of legalism and its cohorts, and experiencing life with all its hard knocks can be the very thing which leads us to Christ in a truer way than before.
Yes, Kaylene. I believe so, too. Thank you.
Interestingly, Michael Pearl has retracted his teachings on spanking infants in the last year or so. Wether he really believes it or doing it because of his being connected with that abusive family is anyone's guess. I do know a lot of conservative Christians that totally rejected Pearl's teachings on child discipline.
We are getting a little off topic here but my impression of them is that the Pearls appealed to a small segment in Fundamentalism. I am not all that familiar with everything they had taught but I also thought that they believed in feeding infants on a strict schedule as well. I remember Bill Gothard in the basic seminar making some sort of comment about feeding infants on a schedule not based on when they are hungry because if you didn't you would end up with spoiled children. I think Michelle Duggar stated that she following the Pearl's advice and used the blanket training (which is swatting infants if they don't crawl to your voice) with the Duggar children. I thought I read that in the police report on them with Josh that the Duggar children stated the parents spanked them with rods something the Pearls promoted as well as Bill. I believe I have read of situations in the news that those following a strict feeding schedule have ended up with malnourished, under feed babies. It is all very sick.
The feeding schedule would have been Gary Ezzo and the earlier versions of Babywise and Growing Kids God's Way.
The Pearls would have been the blanket training, as far as I have looked into it. Michael Pearl also has some teachings that are "out there" on sinless perfection or something like.
Not really off topic about the Ezzos, because IBLP sold their materials and promoted the "wise" feeding schedule. Not off topic about the Duggars, because they are a prominent IBLP family and used their show to promote BG's way of life, and have recently spoken at major IBLP events. I don't know about the Pearls, though.
thanks Lynn for the clarification. I really have no idea how anyone can read the Bible and then turn around and claim that "God's way" is to spank babies and put them on some kind of rigid feeding schedule. Every child is different and it is the wise parent that responds to each child individually as God made them. This other stuff is pretty sick and gullible Christian parents bought into nonsense to the determint of their own children.
Ohhh, the Ezzos, I remember taking a Growing Kids God's Way class when my babies were little. They didn't understand the dynamics of breast feeding at all and one of my kids would have starved for sure under their rules. I know it's off-topic, but that class only made life more frustrating and difficult for me in dealing with my son on the autism spectrum. I don't know how they can take all those extra-biblical rules and claim this is "God's way." I guess the same way Gothard does it.
The Pearls had some kind of IBLP affiliation; several summers they hosted IBLP orphans from Russia.
I just finished reading Girl at the End of the World, the memoir of, Elizabeth Esther, the granddaughter of "The Assembly" cult founders, George and Betty Geftakys. (More about Elizabeth at her blog: www.ElizabethEsther.com.) Her cousin, Rachel Steepleton, another Geftakys granddaughter, wrote a similar memoir a couple of years ago. Both, together with their own nuclear families, are trying to heal from the profound spiritual, physical and sexual abuse they each endured under their parents and grandparents. Formal charges of physical and sexual abuse were brought against Rachel's dad, David Geftakys somewhere around 2004 for his horrific abuses as a sadistic pastor, which ranged far outside his own family. I do not know the outcome of those charges. The man ought to be incarcerated for sure. It is profoundly disturbing material to read, but I believe every Ezzo, Pearl, Gothard or similar teacher's advocate should have to read them both. It is absolutely chilling and heartbreaking.
The above post perfectly describes the dynamics and lies which allow perpetrators to continue to carry out their unspeakable crimes. That this dynamic is justified in the name of Jesus is the most blasphemous lie imaginable.
I'm sorry, I had just also read the post, "Speaking up Late in the Day," when I read some comments also under this post, and meant to refer to the dynamics described in that earlier post, not the above, in my second paragraph in my first comment here. Sorry for any confusion that may have created.
I am always encouraged by Matthew 7:23 (actually 13-23) God will have the final say. If vs23 is applied it will not be "a cold day in hell" for these abusers and it will last for eternity for, God knows their hearts.
Yes, I loved Elizabeth's book and highly recommend it. She found peace and forgiveness yet is able to speak out against what she went through with her life. There is I think a video clip of her confronting Michael Pearl about how his books have lead to child abuse and deaths.
In the Fundamentalist world there may be a desire to rail against Catholicism, but secretly the leaders see the Pope as someone after which to model themselves.
They set themselves up as gurus and have a rubber-stamp board that places no accountability on them. A lowly rank-and-file member may be kicked out for the smallest of sins, even those that the member didn't commit (it was reported that BJU fired two staffers the Monday after their church voted to allow an interracial couple as members), but those in the inner circle can commit adultery, rape, etc. but just like the Catholics moving priests around, nothing of substance happens.
Revelation 3 mentions that God, seeing the sins of the church in Laodicea, decided to spit them out of His mouth. It is understood that each of the seven churches, in order, represents a period in church history. It is looking more and more like God has removed his hand from the church today. And despite His calls for the church to repent, instead not only does it continue on the same path it hardens its hard and stiffens its neck against Him.
If they think they are modeling themselves after a Pope, it wouldn't be based on the reality of how the last 200 years of Popes have behaved but on their own perverted ideas about Popes. Do you really see the last 4 Popes behaving in the way Bill has? John Paul II went to confession everyday. That isn't someone that obviously can't admit that he has sinned. Pope Francis certainly isn't acting like a demagogue in his own behaviors and actions that have caused him to be praised has being a humble man with a common touch. Popes are not dictators ready to pound on Catholics if they disagree with them. Yes, there have been shameful coverups with priests being moved around and a lot of money has been paid to victims and bishops have resigned due to these actions and there now have been so many safeguards put in place with priests, church employees and volunteers that the latest stats from last year are new cases are less than 10 out of 40 thousand priests for 2013/14. One case is too many but the goal is zero.
The actual number is 8 total
My argument is that these Fundamentalist leaders openly rail against what Catholicism both teaches and how it operates, yet they have done everything to institute the same type of system in their churches and institutions (and by making themselves somewhat indispensable, creating a Protestant "priesthood" to whom the rank-and-file must serve).
And just like the Catholic Church moved "problem priests" around when something came up, hoping that the problem would go away, the Fundamentalists have done likewise whenever someone of note committed a major sin.
Like the author of this article, I was frustrated to see Christian leaders/magazines ignore the horrific behavior of the late Fred Phelps and his family of Westboro church in Topeka. By the time anyone took a stand against his actions, far too many unchurched people considered Fred Phelps and Christianity to be one and the same.
atheists always find excuses not to believe, so of course, they point out the obvious ---but would they think any different if they found a Christian who was not a hypocrite and shows love and mercy. All they have to do is look to one of their own---Madyln Murray O Hare who embezzled funds sent to her, then was murdered by the 2nd in charge who also stole the funds. NOW who do they believe in?
I love how people like you whine about atheists lumping all Christians together in one breath and do the same in the next. Do unto others...as you want to and be angry when they return the favor.
Horrible account of the death of the dear child. I can't bear to dwell on it. By the way, Gothard spoke to the Daily Mail recently about Josh Duggar: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152889/How-Josh-Duggar-cleansed-sexually-abusing-siblings-carpentry-lust-counselling-one-one-talks-Jesus-s-seven-stresses.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailceleb
Vanessa,
Thanks for the link. I wonder if Bill thinks this article will enhance his image? When in reality it makes his ideas and teachings seem absurd. It was very interesting to see all the photos accompanying this story.
Thanks for this link. Here is a quote from it:
"After claiming God's work was still being done inside the building Gothard finally conceded that it is 'not active right now' "
Another way to say this...after LYING at first about the facility still being operational (because it makes me look more important possibly???), Gothard finally (after being confronted with facts and truth perhaps brought about by their thorough investigation?) admitted that what he said at first is completely FALSE.
Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, you will know them by their fruit.
Vanessa,
I found this Daily Mail article to be a contradiction in one of Bill’s statements. In the week we ended our effort with Bill we had several calls and emails. In one of the calls I asked about Josh Duggar’s treatment at Little Rock. Bill was very clear that they did not have a program or treatment for dealing with Josh’s issues. I ask if he just worked construction there and Bill agreed. It’s interesting how his story has changed in a month and now includes his new material on the Inner Brain. My mom used to say “Liar Liar pants on fire” when I stretched the truth as a kid. This is well beyond that, an out and out lie to enhance his image and sell his new program. What he fails to recognize is the world is not listening to him any more!
Larne
Larne,
would it be like Bill to give such an interview? especially with a British paper?
He must be getting desperate and nobody in the U.S. must want to give him the time of day.
Larne, is there some link to the new material on the brain?
LynnCD,
You could probably write Bill a letter and he might send you a copy. His address is linked below, or email him at [email protected]
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/6-24-15-Final-Matthew-18-17-Statement-to-Bill.pdf
Larne
Well if the lawsuite against the Duggars does go to trial, I wonder if Bill would be called in the testify about the "treatment" Josh supposedly got and them maybe and hopefully the truth will come out. But I won't hold my breath. Maybe Bill had some "senior" moment with you but suddenly and with great detail "remembered" with the British paper.
Keep in mind that the Daily Mail is a British tabloid with very, very low credibility and journalistic standards. I once mentioned something I'd read there to a British friend and he sort of rolled his eyes.
but it does establish and confirm the link between the Duggars and Gothard, something not in US new links when reporting on Josh Duggar's molestation of his sisters, etc.
the No Longer Quivering on Patheos did question if Bill was truly interviewed by them or if it was pieced together. They did link to the article and all the pictures of what appears to be abandoned part of the building still holding all of Bill's materials and teaching but are they truly current pictures or old pictures dug up from the past? While I can see Larne's point in that Bill is so desperate that he did interview and he probably would think that a British paper would be more sympathetic to him than either secular or Christian American press, I have question too. When Bill first was let go in 2014, he was supposedly interviewed by Mother Jones. Again, it is a curious choice to be interviewed by and my understanding of Bill was that he did not do any interviews what so ever. But being alone and ignored now, he must be getting desperate.
Rob he did do the June 2014 interview with the Chicago Sun Time after our Denver meeting. We questioned him on "what he was thinking" and he did not deny the interview. But he also believed he was innocent and still does.
Bill thrives on attention and having an audience for his ideas, and he's without a steady stream of attention right now. So my guess is that if ANY news source contacts him, he'll jump at the chance to be heard again and have an audience. Plus, my understanding is that he has no Board of directors or counselors to hold him back and tell him to stop giving interviews now. He had plenty of bizarre ideas throughout the years, but he at least had a few people around him who would tell him (in roundabout ways) that a certain idea was crazy and would never work. He wouldn't always listen, but at least he had *someone* helping him hold the craziness back. Now that's he's on his own and doesn't have to listen to anyone, it's the perfect storm for him to give very bizarre interviews to random news sources.
Your self advice is appropriate, I would not hold my breath either!
Larne- what do you think Recovering Grace should do about Bill's new website? Talking about it, even the World article, generates a lot of traffic for Bill. Maybe ignoring it, not mentioning it, or contacting news agencies would be good so as to not generate new undecided readers to his website?
RG doesn't need to do one blessed thing about Bill's website. Adults are free to make up their own minds.
Ruth, I’m sure you could find a dozen arguments either way. There is enough negative discussion regarding Bill, through RG and other sources, which anyone looking for information about his programs should be cautioned. On one side RG and others are saying Bill has unrepentant sin and on Bill’s website he claims he did nothing wrong. That in and of itself should be a huge caution to anyone searching for answers. I think people who are honestly searching are intelligent and able to see through the haze when confronted with facts. Those who approach an issue with a specific agenda will never be convinced to change their minds and God allows them to be blinded and for their hardened hearts for believing a lie. As Christians everything we do should exalt our Lord and Savior. In John 3:30 John the Baptist is quoted as saying, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” Does Bill’s website increase Christ or Bill?
Personally I believe in discussion, not everything is black and white and we all approach issues with personal experiences and bias. I recently retired from a union job and the perspective of the company and union were polar opposites. My comments to both were don’t tell me how to think just give me the facts. That applies here too.
Exactly that. I have received some private communication which has attempted to discredit many of the contributors to this site, and at the end of the day, the fact remains Bill admitted to so much of what he was accused of that would warrant immediate resignation from any ministry.
There are people loyal to Bill who refuse to believe this site. Yes, we are all biased, but that kind of bias is one that makes light of abusive workplace behavior, of which the person they are defending has already admitted he did. Kind of a blinding bias to have, really.
LynnCD, your comment about the private communications grabbed my attention.
Obviously I don't know what was in those private communications or who sent them but that is an interesting and ongoing tactic that Bill's supporters use: they publicly complain that everyone should only be going privately to Bill, one on one, not making any public statements against him. And yet, some of the back-channel things I have seen communicated by Bill's defenders against various people, some of them connected to this site and some not, can be downright malicious. So the rule is: if you have anything against Bill, that must remain private between you and Bill, but if Bill's image needs defending against you, you are free game for accusations public and/or behind your back.
That is one of the things that helped me realize early on that there truly was a deeply embedded hypocrisy going on, not just a big misunderstanding on the part of overly-sensitive people.
Matthew, I know several people who are or were connected with IBLP, and what you bring up does not fit this description in this particular instance. My point was there exists a fact: BG confessed to some serious sins, and it appears those who defend Bill do not appear to realize this as they continue to mistrust anyone who confronts Bill on what he has already admitted.
I recently read billgothard.com. I guess the term is "gas lighting, " when he claimed people were altering their perceptions of the past based on all the stories here, and that was creating many false accusations. I bet a lot of people will fall for it, too, except he confessed to evil behavior already. Facts are facts. Now he's claiming the allegations are false. Intelligent people can see through this. You can't admit to what he admitted to and then try to make himself a victim of false allegations.
I agree that mentioning the site is the best.
Yes, it will result in BG getting some traffic he wouldn't get otherwise.
But BG's entire ministry was based on secrecy (you couldn't get materials unless you attended the seminars, signed up for ATI, etc.) And that's why we have the problem we now have.
O!! If only those who saw thru BG had spoken more loudly back in 1975 when I was exposed to this heinous doctrine! So much grief could have been prevented!
Christy Bell,
Theologically its hard then to argue against crowds of 12-18 thousands Christians in one spot. Especially when you are unaware of the sinful problems in headquarters. Everything seemed rosy. The only other person that could draw that many across theological lines was Bill Graham. I don't mean to degrade Rev. Graham with a comparison to Gothard, I'm just talking about numbers.
secrecy isn't the answer and with everything now out there, ignorance isn't the answer either. Just looking at his own web site, a neutral person can see through his own defense as well as those trying to testify for him. You have one girl claiming that Bill was made her personal legal guardian. That in it of itself is extremely questionable. You have another claiming that Bill's prayers healed her. That is likewise questionable and there is no medical proof of what her medical problem was nor if she was "really healed". There is another from the old days that is put so vaguely that you can't figure out what really happen between her and his brother. RG had nothing to fear from Bill's redone web site. If people go there, I would wager that they would just end up scratching their heads and there are enough others out there talking about Bill, his behaviors and teaching that any neutral free thinking person will see right through his pathetic excuses. What is really curious is that the Christian leaders that came to his defense in 1980 are no where to be found. Why didn't any of them that ran to IBYC to yell at the staff come out now and yell at RG and everyone else? Why are they not on his web site defending him? I rest my case.
Today is the 14th day since most of them received their letters and still not a peep from the other side.
You could drop everything you're doing, take a 2 week vacation to the Florida Keys (or anyplace else in Florida for that matter), come back, and STILL have no response.
In fact you could sign up for a round trip to Mars and get the same results. But Florida is much nicer.
Mark R, we are getting the exact response we expected, "nothing"! We have had nice supportive comment on RG and in private from former staff and people that matter to us. This issue with Bill is a venomous snake that no one in Christian leadership wants to touch. We hoped and prayed for more, as we did with our efforts with Bill, but based on past history nothing has changed. Now our job is fulfilling the command of Matthew 18:17 of telling it to the church.
BTW I was thinking more along the lines of a couple of months in Wailea on Maui.
that is rather depressing. In all honesty, there should be some kind of response from Charles Stanely especially.
Stanley won't respond because he has his own skeletons. Mainly that he is Biblically disqualified to be a pastor (as he is divorced) and also because he went back on his word to his church (he agreed, when the marriage was first in trouble, that if it failed he would step down as pastor, yet when the marriage failed he didn't do so).
He has as much credibility as DeAndre Jordan.
Yes, I realize that he said that he would step down if he divorced and then when divorced, he revised it and now if he every remarried, he would step down. Yes, that is rather dubious. I also thought I read that he has a broken relationship with his son. It is speculation only, but I wonder if following Bill's marriage advice resulted in his own failed marriage. But as a prominant pastor with a public ministry, he does have a responsibility to be credible and honest and his earlier voacl support of Bill and his teaching should be retracted. He has his own failed family life to point to on how great Bill's ideas are.
Larne,I thank you for your leadership skills,discretion,and humility.There's a fine line between angry vindictiveness,and unfortunately the severity needed to bring Bill to his severity of his own iniquities,and you did not cross that line, whereas most of us would have.That his responses to those less intensive,and adamant show both a heartless indifference and cruelty,to those he exploited,remains seen by all."Charlotte[Wilkinson] claimed I touched her in inappropriate areas.Those allegations are false".Having been shamed by this denial, rejected by family,she attempted suicide.To even reiterate this disclaimer 15 years after a brutal attack on Tony Guhr,Bill Wood,where he called for reinforcements,Charles Stanley,his own family,and a puppet lawyer to bully and batter the opposition,only shows the cancer remaining,festering underneath feigned posturing.Cancer demanding a deep probing,and cleansing,for the sake not only of what it caused in him,[narcissism,bullying,pathological lying,heresies,abuse of power and authority],but the influence this cancer had on the Body of Christ,[attempted suicide,loss of education potential, careers,being shamed in front of large audiences,exploited,used,manipulated,and cast by the wayside in abject denial.Those that seemed so in need of representing God's vulnerable children are gone,neither seeing the cancer or indifferent to the cries for justice.Bill's ongoing motive for his website:a 40 year broken record:to discredit and remove all opposition.
David, Thanks but I've been there, angry and bitter but God provided me a way to release that. For me it was a 26 page letter and finally giving it to God then He waited another seven years to the month before He allowed be back into to the fray. Those seven years I had to prove I was resting in Him. I would say the same for Bill Wood he too is not angry or bitter and neither is Tony. Our effort is for the Charlottes, Megs, Lizzies, Annettes, Graces, Rachels, Robins and the women of the 1980s plus all the rest of you who have been injured. Others have attempted suicide and probably more completed the task. What a legacy Bill will have.
Bill is a symptom of a deeper disease of the church that is spoken of in Revelations 3:15-21, the church of Laodica;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
In verse 16 God is clear on what He thinks of the end times Church, in Verses 20-21 He gives a promise that He is there for us and has a place for us in heaven if we but trust Him. Recovering Grace is about recovering that true Grace of God. His Grace that is about what He did for us at Calvary, “His unmerited favor” and not what we have done. We rest in the peace knowing that God is in charge, He knows our hearts and His “Will” will be done.
Larne, this is a great close to the discussion.
I do not see John MacArthur on your copied list. Has there ever been any remorse from him for letting himself be used against the staff way back when?
Don,
John MacArthur is on the "copied list" on Bill's letter. John MacArthur and Joni Eareckson Tada had been the guest speakers at the Northwoods staff retreat in late summer of 1979 when the "new" lodge was first opened. So there was a connection with Bill.
From my understanding Tony was unable to get John's support post scandal. I have not heard of any public remorse from him but that's not to say he hasn't said something. He might not want to get involved.
I well remember reading the book Joni, and hearing about how she said she derived spiritual benefit from the Basic Seminar. I read her book around the time of, or before I started attending them myself.
You all haven't heard what I have- Bill's new website has improved his image, from what I hear I still feel the World article and any discussion about his website here will benefit him.
It will benefit him in the eyes of his close associates for sure. However, if it comes to the point where he resumes a significant role in IBLP without going through true repentance - I seriously doubt that would happen - but if it comes to that point, it will be like all the advertisers pulling from 19 Kids and Counting. It'll be driven into the ground, both engines running. But it's not going to happen. What is going to happen is some of the "old guard" will rally, but in reality, step back and look - IBLP is waning.
I also think MatthewS' reply on another blog entry fits here perfectly, so I will quote his comment:
MatthewS: "Some people will probably stick around to the bitter end, choosing to believe they are standing faithfully for the cause of an innocent martyr. It's not so different from arguing with someone who believes in a geocentric universe or a flat earth: no amount of objective evidence will ever be convincing to them, and no matter what evidence you raise they will always have a response."
You need to stop listening to rumors. Either you want this to be true and are here to promote Bill or you are too surrounded by his die hard supports that are making it up as they go along. Bill doesn't have anyone attention anymore but for the die hards.
... or you are Bill, and you are desperate and pitiful.
If it walks like a duck...
;) GuyS!
I've been thinking that the whole time. And I thought the name "Ruth" was intentional because her comments are always directed at Larne.
agree 100%
This is in reply to Christy Bell. I myself had this question and struggled with it. In reading all the pre-1980's articles here as well as all the comments, the answers are much more broad based and complex than one thinks. I think Larne is correct in that packing in 10 thousand plus in big city auditoriums can be somewhat intimidating to the average pastor trying to do his best. I think Bill in the hay day had a message that did hit a core within American conservative Protestantism. He came around, a somewhat shy soft spoken man with answers to problems that were erupting in society. He initially and on the surface made sense. He talked about staying out of dept, staying married, accepting yourself, importance of authority, having high morals, etc etc. I also think the fact that for many years his materials were not available for review unless one attended the week long seminar and it was too easy to be overwhelmed when in attendance that either you were to tired to review all the Bible quotes and gave up or you ignored the small voice in your head that may have said "hey, wait a minute". While you mentioned 1975, I'm not sure if you realize that in 1976, a book did come out that reivewed Bill and his materials called "Gothard". You can still get it used on Amazon. Since the book was somewhat critical of Bill, Christian book stores did not sell or promote it. The other voices documented here were ignored as well. The cult of Christian celebrity was blossoming, too many people went and then turned around and praised him, the target audience of teenagers and young adults was a factor, the numbers and so called positive results blinded those from looking deeper. I think all these things played a role. Likewise, other Christian groups were preaching authority at that time which parralled Bill's authority teaching. The big hit book "Total Woman" was out and had similar wife submission message. I think all these things made the perfect storm for the rise of Bill.
I have a question...
Can IBLP even continue to forward as an organization without BG at the top. The seminars and all of the written/published material have BG authorship. I also dare to say that the foundation of the entire organization has not been the Bible alone, but the red books with scripture only serving as a rubber stamp. I mean, you think IBLP/ATIA you automatically think BG, and you might even say that by BG, through BG, and to BG does IBLP/ATIA exist.
On their website BG's authorship and picture are still present. They have some various conferences scheduled but no seminars.
Every major cult has outlived its founder so yes it is possible.
The problem IBLP is having (from what I've heard on this site) is that they're having to sell significant assets to pay bills. They recently sold a property they owned near Downtown Dallas, for example. At some point there won't be any assets left to sell.
And it didn't help them having the scandal come up about the Duggars (Jim Bob could easily have taken over the speaking duties, and they were VERY popular until the reports about Josh came out). So who takes over that could possibly provide a rebound?
(Forget any of the Duck Dynasty clan; the Robertsons are Church of Christ which is heavily New Testament oriented, the exact opposite of IBLP which tries to impose Old Testament law on Christians)
I will have to look up those conferences. If they are close to socal, I will go and picket. That is all.
The conservative seeks to preserve the past from dissolution;the liberal to destroy it utterly and substitute his own invention; God to transform it through death and resurrection.
- Unancestral Voice by Owen Barfield
Slightly modified quotes from the end of Chapter 5 of Unancestral Voice ( one of my summer readings ).
Brothers/sisters , move on!
I think Bill made an update to the statement page on BillGothard.com Kind of a bizarre attempt to completely re-engineer the whole fiasco through his own lens. Instead of recognizing that which is clearly obvious, the actual events that caused the pain, he wants to admit to something lesser. Instead of "I'm sorry I was a creep and a slug," its "Despite my striving, I wasn't quite good enough. Now I have discovered the Ultimate Truth and that has fixed even this minor misunderstanding.
Here's what he says:
"I am sure we are all aware of the three levels of love described in the Bible: Sensual Love, Friendship Love, and Godly Love. My conscience had been assuring me that notwithstanding the human frailties of my life, the first category did not describe my motives or my life. So I rested in this confidence. Now I understand how wrong I have been for not consistently demonstrating Godly love. "
His statement rings hollow, as if he's found yet another "excuse" for his actions. Now he says it was due to a lack of "Godly love".
Mr. Gothard, no it was not due to a lack of "Godly love". It was due to SIN. Period.
His actions and words, in my opinion, show how indicate that he continues to resist the Holy Spirit's prompting. This may be the early stages of being given over to reprobation or the latter stages before God finally does so.
I hope that every woman who got up the courage to open the painful past and share her story here realizes that most of us know that it was NOT a "lack of genuine love" that prompted BG's predatory actions. We will continue to pray for his repentance, and we will know it is real when we hear him call it for what it is: SIN. Sin that has devastated many innocent girls, NOT a "showing of favoritism" that some people got bent out of shape about! NOT "misunderstood fatherly affection." When he says "I was wrong" with no excuses or blaming or "new middle-of-the-night" revelations and explanations, we will know he is beginning to acknowledge the truth of his actions and the consequences they have brought.
Daniel, what you quoted from Bill begs the question: Bill if you were not motivated by sensual love, then WHAT WAS the motivation behind the footsie stuff, and the hair, hand, and lap stuff??? You know, all the behaviors you said "crossed a boundary." Did you do these things with the young men? No? Well, if it was only done with very nice looking young females, then WHAT WAS YOUR MOTIVATION???
Do you see how utterly unbelievable your statement is?
I think it is four types of love not three. He is denying that he had any "sensual love" and that God supposedly reassured him of this. Just another way to deflect his real sins and he is lumping them under lack of meditation on his part or now lack of "genuine love". The first one didn't get him anywhere so now he is trying this excuse. It is getting very tiresome that he is still claiming that "God revealed or God showed him or God woke him up in the middle of the night". Sorry but this is not credible at all. The four Greek loves are agape, eros, phileo and storge. Bill is confused.
He is also, indirectly, arguing that sensual love CANNOT be Godly. He denies the natural, designed GOODNESS of spousal love in all its fullness (naked and unashamed). He has never understood love or God. His is a works based righteousness and his admission is just not being good enough. May God have mercy on his soul and CONVERT him.
Ok, so let me get this straight: While Bill Gothard, over the course of decades, was doing his thing with these attractive girls, his mistake was that he was expressing love in one category, but made the mistake of thinking that it was love of another category? That's nice. He just had the wrong category in, uhhh, his conscience. It is amazing that Gothard actually thinks that we are all that stupid. But again, this is what pathological liars do: Their lies become so utterly transparent and obvious, yet they themselves believe them -- which, for a professing Christian, means that a person has rejected the light and now has a darkness that governs him.
Girl - "Bill, you lured me into giving up the best years of my life so that I could be your your fun little squeeze. Looking back, I wish I had the chance to go to college, or perhaps earn some money during those years."
Bill - "I would like to apologize personally to you. God has showed me that I failed to meditate day and night. During my 3 hours of nightly sleep, I failed to meditate on some occasions. Did I mention that I wrote three books since I stepped down? So really, I'm all good now."
Everybody else- "Um, what?"
I would recommend to Bill not to meditate on Song of Solomon. Just the thought. He might be encourage in the "eros" love department and not the "agape" love kind.
Just a little observation from an outsider ... BG is just dipping his toe into repentance when he needs to take the plunge. It appears to me that the obstacle is, and always has been, pride, along with fear. I'd like to tell him to come on in, because the water is fine. It's cold at first, but after the first shock, it will feel good.
Well if it was OK for him to do those things, then the young men in the 'ministry' should have been allowed to take part in the same sort of 'brotherly love' of the young women, right? And the husbands of the couples that worked there would have been encouraged to be just as 'fatherly' and have their own lovely 'helpers', right? BG would have encouraged everyone else to act like him, since he didn't know it was wrong. Right?
Exactly! He KNEW it was wrong.
Let's walk through the logic.
1. He admitted to "holding hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair" at one point. That "statement" is now off of his website.
2. All seventy hundred stories had him doing it in private. There is no public footsie story. The entire point of footsie is to communicate sexual feelings without words and without the observation of others. Duh.
3. It was clearly gender (sex) based. There is no story ever of male footsie.
I'm not seeing how he can deny it at this point after he has already confirmed it.
Daniel, that's exactly it as well. He's in denial. Sensual love (should be lust) very much characterized his motives and actions with scores of young women over many, many years. Not just one slip up. A continuing pattern. He's in D . E . N . I. A . L .
there are crocodiles in de nile!
Predation is not love. Only lust.
You hit the nail on the head! Boys and girls could hardly walk past each other without suspicion. But he gets to touch their hair. As a woman, if my husband touches my hair it is intimate. When one caresses hair or plays footsie it is always sexual in nature.
He is sorry he got caught.
I don't know why you are all doing what you are doing to Bill. Could it be envy? The bible says who can stand before envy. Could it be you want to be one of the "big dogs"? Could it be that you finally have a pulpit called the Internet and you were always just a nobody before? I don't believe a word of what you are all saying, sorry. If all these stories are true then were is the proof? It is all allegations! Give us some proof! Bill has never been taken to court. Do you all realize that everything you are doing here is not biblical at all? It's not biblical to talk about someone else on the Internet, that's called talebearing. Very unbibical! There is nothing scriptural about what any of you are doing now. Is it your chance to have a big website?
Let me tell you my testimony of my experiences with Bill Gothard and see what you think about them. I attended a Bill Gothard seminar about 33 years ago. I had a major change in my life. I went on to help my husband be delivered from 9 demons and then I went on to be shown by God that my entire church was demon possessed. I became the only person to understand that the churches had fallen away and just exactly what the falling away is. I started to have one supernatural experience after the next all because I attended a Bill Gothard seminar. I became the woman of Revelation 12. That's right! I came out of Bill Gothard's seminar! The woman of Revelation 12 came out of a Bill Gothard seminar. I also followed Bill's financial advice and became debt free. I've been debt free for 3 decades and it's the best thing that has ever happened to me.
If it wasn't for Bill Gothard, I'd be dead right now. My kids would be dead. Bill Gothard saved my life literally and saved my children's lives and my husband's life.
I don't believe Bill did the things you claim he did, I'm sorry I just don't. I believe there are a lot of people out there who are out for opportunity over this whole deal. Even if Bill did those things, look what King David did. God forgave him and he was a man after God's own heart. King David became one of the greatest prophets there ever was.
My husband and I have also been talking to Bill recently and he knows everything I've experienced now. That's probably why he put his new website up!
My advice is to start doing things biblical! Scriptural! Where does it say we go public with THINGS LIKE THIS????? You got differences you go to Bill personally, you don't talk about him where he can't defend himself. Issshhhh PEOPLE!
Kim
Woman of Revelation 12
Welcome to the end times!
King David spent his final days in bed with a young virgin who was subsequently raped by David's son to show HE, the taker of David's last companion, should be king. So I don't think it is faithful to Scripture to say that David "became" a great prophet in spite of his gross sin and immorality. It is more accurate to say he was a gross sinner in spite of his calling as a great prophet. Of course, David acknowledged his sin, something your hero refuses to do.
You really should direct your righteous indignation to the Board of IBLP. They fired Bill Gothard without proof (according to your evaluation of the facts).
I have not encountered anyone here who does not wish to see Bill Gothard receive forgiveness. I have encountered people here who have made every imaginable attempt to reconcile with Bill Gothard but found his hard heart impenetrable. Please pray for his deliverance from THAT demon if you might.
If you would read all the articles on this website, you will find answers to all your specific questions, particularly how Scripture commands telling these things to the church, especially regarding false teachers. On what authority do you publicly berate the sponsors of this page?
I am sure that you see yourself as "the" woman of Revelation 12, and Bill Gothard as enviable, a "big dog", a real somebody. The two of you have much to be proud of, unlike the Apostle Paul who commended himself in II Cor. 6 this way:
by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; 6 by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; 7 by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 8 through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything."
I am sure that both you and B.G. are "Super Apostles" of the kind that Paul was unfavorably compared to in wicked Corinth. Particularly you, the ONLY PERSON "to understand that the churches had fallen away and just exactly what the falling away is". We would not be great like you. We would follow Christ alone.
You do not mention Christ, and only mention God in claiming forgiveness as some kind of exoneration for evil-doing. But if Bill has not done evil, of what would he need to be forgiven? If he has done evil and refuses to confess and repent, of what are you accusing these writers? If he has not harmed anyone here, of what is the source of the injuries that THEY testify of? If you reject their testimony without knowing any facts of their circumstances, on what basis do you demand that your testimony be accepted?
If Bill restarted his webpage because of you, be warned: are you envious of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the woman in Rev. 12:5 whose "child was caught up to God and to his throne"? Or do you imagine yourself as Bill Gothard's mother? Is he your redeemer and savior?
Let Scripture and its Author judge between we and thee.
Kim, I've seen you on another thread. You keep talking as though you have very special insight that no one else has.
Working backward from your comment, you asked, "Where does it say to go public with things like this?" I Timothy 5:19-20. Many witnesses over the years, and since Bill decided to continue in sin, public warnings have been issued. Very Scriptural. There were private meetings in Denver, and since Bill has not repented, people are being warned against him.
Calling yourself the woman of Revelation? I can't comment on that, only to say I'm praying you would get some help for thinking too highly of yourself to the point of being delusional.
I'm glad you felt you got some help from Bill Gothard years ago. Many people have been helped by some aspects of his teaching, including you, apparently.
You don't believe Bill did the things people claimed he did? He did admit to sick behavior with some of the young women, around the time he resigned. Don't you believe his first confession?
The website, as it stands, is a pitiful attempt at him trying to do damage control. It means he hasn't really repented. And as rob war said, there is no envy, only frustration that he has not repented. I have prayed for him, but not holding my breath any more that things will change. But no, no envy. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes for anything.
Kim, thanks for your input.
But because God makes us all individuals with our own thoughts, dreams, personalities, likes and dislikes, and faults, we are not always going to agree on everything. That is what trips up believers and unbelievers alike. They both have a preconceived notions of what Christians should look and act like but the truth is God does not make cookie cutter christians.
That said, once we find someone who really fits what we think is God's ideal person (i.e. what Christians should look and act like) we tend to put that person or ministry on a pedestal. We sing the praises of that person or ministry and what it has done for us spiritually and follow as close as possible, because after all, what christian does not want to follow the will of God, grow in grace and be holy! Then when we find out there is a serious hole in that person/ministry, we are either devastated or turn a blind eye to the problems. To acknowledge they were wrong seemingly reflects back on us that we were wrong for following them in the first place. Though David sinned worse than Gothard (i.e. Gothard has not murdered) God still let some good things come out of that situation, even though the consequences were mostly bad. And yes, David was broken when he realized his sin and was very sorry for what he had done.
God also does not want us putting those people on a pedestal as He alone is to be worshipped but to raise an individual up to that level of adoration puts an unfair burden on them to live up to what we expect. And you know what Gothard says about expectations.
Your problems aren't with Bill Gothard, they are with the false churches everyone goes to!!!!!!
The churches fell totally away! If you leave your false churches, you won't have as many demonic things happen to you. Plain and simple. It doesn't take a genius to see this, but then again maybe it did! Like the woman of Revelation 12, she knows all about it!
Don't fool yourself, she is very real! And she came out of the Bill Gothard ministry. And I am watching you!
Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!
The people who usually see demons in everyone and everything probably are dealing with a few themselves. The people that scream and yell that all Churches are false and fallen away are doing so themselves. To come on the internet and start yelling at everyone, accusing them of envy of Bill and then state that they are in false Churches and influenced by demons has some serious problems themselves. No one here is "envious" of Bill Gothard. A single old man who lost his ministry due to his own behavior and now is isolated and alone is nothing to be envious of. He is like King David, isolated and alone most likely shivering in the corner. The traditional interpretation of the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary, the Mother of God. Some may say she represents Israel but the historic view is that St. John was seeing Mary. Now, if you really think that you are Mary, then you really have some deep seated issues and I would suggest you seek help because this is bordering on delusions. I am referring to the first few verses of Rev 12 with the Woman clothed in the sun. do yourself a favor and seek some help.
If Bill Gothard thought you were the woman of Revelation, he would have put you in front of us at the Family Conferences every time. Whatever you think of him, he does NOT recognize you as that woman. That probably create a problem in your world, but you are free to ask him directly about that to confirm. If he believes you are that woman, ask him to post that on his website so we can all hear his testimony.
In the meantime, I would love to know the perfect church, but people like you who accuse the brethren are generally reluctant to point us in the right direction. What church do you recommend? Does Bill fellowship there?
Kim, your comments are only serving to further confirm that Bill Gothard's ministry is not from Christ. At least for me.
In the early 1990's,if it wasn't enough from what happened at the scandal of the 70's with Ruth,six more victims of sexual violation from Steve,Bill's brother,Bill himself performed his conscience less acts of sexually perverse barbarism,routinely mowing down the Bill Woods,Larne Gabriels,and Tony Guhr's,quietly leading the shattered girls out the so called "back door",some penniless,no family sympathy for Charlotte,out on the streets,Charlotte,Heather,Wendy,gut wrenching accounts,all of them,exploited,thrown into fending for themselves.And what of us who knew nothing of this,still on the bandwagon?I was one of countless many who heaped accolades upon him,as happens so rarely in the lives of Christian leaders.The fanfare following the bandwagon,the fanfare on the bandwagon,seminars,the quiet reverence for Gothard; his founded projects,activities,involving a wide spectrum of subjects,tailor made for the passive Gothard automaton,all with a staff who benefitted with its success,who Larne Gabriel called the IBLP Machine,...And now for the cost to all involved.The price to pay for the few who actually knew the inside of the rotten core,and the price we all had to pay.I know of absolutely no one coming forth from the top pyramid of the organization,even after the disclosure to admit of the darkness experienced by the girls and others exploited:so I guess all these testimonials never happened.We the former ignorant have got to relearn such things as self worth,civil justice,God's justice,caring for the broken sheep,helping the hapless,maybe speaking out after having to admit to ourselves we were used.Perfect Gothard couples and families never existed.Carefully note the Duggars.Carefully note the denials and failures to get involved from leaders in the protestant church.A price is going to be attached.Already has been.Investments have to be reinvested.Wrong kingdom,admit it wrong kingdom,while you can.Before your heart gets hard,condemning,proud.
Miles Stanford was clearly rebuking Bill Gothard on the basis of the errors in his teaching (which are the basis of his and his followers actions). https://web.archive.org/web/20101226060149/http://withchrist.org/MJS/gothard.htm
Over the last several decades the gift of discernment has been rejected and pushed out of the church, deemed divisive and unfair. Maybe it is time to value this gift again?
Great link, Lisa, thanks! RG should post this one and the other two linked there if they are not otherwise linked by RG. Good posts all.
I've often times wondered for many years... How does BG view those within the church at large, even now (whether within IBLP or on the outside looking in) who challenge his teachings entirely, who seek to hold him accountable, or even those who only disagree with him on select points? Would it be a stretch to suspect that he's viewed all of us here (whether or not we were actively affiliated with IBLP or ATI) as being "rebellious" to his 'authority' within the church at large? From the past to this very present day?
The author’s father is a courageous man who very correctly points out that a good leader will welcome and seek out the opinions of sme’s. Solomon said that “there is wisdom in a multitude of counsel.” The flip side of this coin is his statement that “a fool despises correction.” Pretty cut and dry choice: Wisdom or foolishness.
The issue that the author sheds light upon is not the specific details of his father’s criticism/questions concerning Gothard, it is about the church being above reproach in the community we claim to serve. Credibility with the community we seek to affect is destroyed when the church assigns God’s infallibility to our human leaders.
I humbly ask you to correct me if I am wrong.