Was a woman raped? Don’t jump to her defense—God might hold her just as guilty as her attacker.
In Wisdom Booklet 36, Gothard discusses the legal penalties for kidnapping, assault, battery, and rape. He writes: “God has established some very strict guidelines of responsibility for a woman who is attacked. She is to cry out for help. The victim who fails to do this is equally guilty with the attacker.” (pg. 1839, first edition)
The Wisdom Booklets were revised and re-released as a second edition in the early 2000s. This particular passage was reworded to say: “God has established guidelines of responsibility for one who is attacked. When a woman is attacked, she is to cry out for help. The victim who fails to do this is considered guilty, even as the attacker is guilty.” (pg. 48, second edition)
Even when given the opportunity to revise his previous statement, Gothard merely restated it.
The “strict guidelines” he refers to are in Deuteronomy 22:23–27:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her, then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Most of the Old Testament laws regarding women are problematic when you try to apply them to modern life. For one thing, our nation’s laws are not based on ancient Jewish law. Second, women today are not merely a commodity to be kept pure and sold to the highest bidder. Third, even Christians aren’t bound to follow Old Testament law, much less the whole nation, right?
But Gothard had spent 35 booklets addressing this kind of reasoning, in among “resources” about rabbits, bankruptcy, Abraham Lincoln, sets and subsets, spectroscopy… (Yet again, the volume of information we had to take in was mind-numbing.)
And we didn’t learn his views just from the Wisdom Booklets. They were repeated at every conference, every seminar, in every publication. All other approved IBLP teachers taught exactly the same viewpoint. The teachings soon ceased to be “Gothard’s teachings” and became the truths that all of us accepted.
So before we even asked any questions, we knew who we should turn to for God’s wisdom (Chapter 1: Authority). We knew he had the right answers even when our instincts told us otherwise (Chapter 2: I Am Always Wrong).
We already understood how a woman must always protect herself against a man’s lust (Chapter 3: Eye Traps). In the case of rape, well, God never released Christians from following His Law once we were saved by “grace” (Chapter 4: Legalism), and that went for our country’s laws as well (Chapter 5: God-ordained Government).
So ATI families—my family among them—read that a woman who didn’t cry out was as guilty of the rape as her attacker, and it fit in completely with everything we’d been conditioned to believe. We accepted it.
Then we moved right over it to read about why some people are genetically weak to certain temptations, how eagles illustrate deliverance from evil, and graphing on an X and Y axis.
Had you been so intensively educated according to Gothard’s worldview, it’s highly possible that you would have done the same thing.
**
But…
Those “strict guidelines” haunted me. Because of the heavy emphasis on eye traps and dressing “modestly,” I was highly aware of myself as a sexual temptation to all men at all times. Every time I ventured into public, I risked inciting a man to violent lust and rape.
Gothard assured us that God would deliver those who cried out:
“How has God provided for deliverance from evil through the law of crying out?
A Christian who is attacked by another person is wrestling not just “… against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Eph. 6:12
Because our battle is spiritual, God commands us to cry out for spiritual protection. His law on the matter in contained in Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22, and He makes the following promises to deliver those who follow those instructions.
“When I cry unto thee, then shall mine enemies turn back; this I know, for God is for me.” (Ps 56:9) “… When I am in trouble, incline thine ear unto me: in the day when I call answer me speedily.” (Ps 102:2)” (WB 18, pg 1797, first edition)
But that was a cold comfort. We weren’t talking about an invisible spirit here, but a flesh-and-blood man who could violate my flesh-and-blood body. What if I were attacked and he threatened me with a knife or a gun? What if panic choked me and I couldn’t make any noise? Should I try to shout anyway and at least die in innocence?
The answer was yes, apparently. Gothard explains,
“Some women have been advised that it is safer for them to cooperate with one who would morally attack them than to offer resistance. This counsel not only violates Scripture, but is not valid, as is illustrated in the following account…” (pg. 48, second edition)
What follows is an unverifiable, anonymous anecdote about a man who heard a woman scream, went looking for her, and scared off the attacker. That is Gothard’s sole support for this claim.
If we did suffer rape, though, Gothard’s materials included a chart to help us get over it:
Our “responsibility” was clear, then. It did seem harsh that, at a time when a woman was at her most panicked and most vulnerable, God demanded that she fulfill the proper rituals to maintain her innocence.
But by the time we got to Wisdom Booklet 36, attended all those conferences, read those newsletters, and worked in Gothard’s training centers… that was the God we knew.
He was the God who didn’t speak directly to us, but only through our authorities. He punished us for making our own decisions. He demanded that we keep not only his Laws, but a myriad of other rules provided by Gothard. If we failed in any area, it was because we weren’t being obedient enough or humble enough for God to grant us enough grace.
This was a God who would hold a woman guilty for her own rape.
And no matter how it hurt our spirits to do it, we agreed, because the alternative was destruction at the hand of this same God.
But who was teaching this perspective? Bill Gothard, whose brother maintained sexually abusive relationships with seven women at one time—while Bill knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Bill Gothard, who himself has been accused of sexually harassing multiple young women.
He bound us up in legalism. He taught us to accept spiritual abuse as part of who God is. Meanwhile, the only principle that Gothard ever really lived by was his idea of absolute authority, which he used—among other ways—to blame women for their own sexual harassment and assault.
Anyone else is welcome to pick out the good parts of Gothard’s teachings from the bad—you’ll have to dig through a lot of nasty bones to find the meat. As far as I’m concerned, he and his theology are indefensible.
**
It was a long and burdensome journey to get know Gothard’s god. It’s been a difficult and painful journey away from him. Parents are grieving that they exposed their children to years of false teachings. We former students struggle with confusion and anger. Many seek real grace and the real God, while many have walked away from faith altogether.
Dear Bill: I can’t speak on behalf of all who once followed you. But I can speak for myself and many others who know the spiritual and emotional devastation you wreaked. Consider this our “crying out” — to the real God, not the angry graceless being you created. We cry out to the God of abounding grace, the defender of the weak and the oppressed.
And he has heard us.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES
An ATI Education: Introduction
An ATI Education, Chapter 1: Under the Umbrella
An ATI Education, Chapter 2: Is It Just Me?
An ATI Education, Chapter 3: Thou Shalt Not Trap the Eye
An ATI Education, Chapter 4: The Law of Grace
An ATI Education, Chapter 5: We the People Under Authority
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
Sara Roberts Jones spent six years under the teachings of Bill Gothard, and fifteen years unlearning those teachings. She and her husband homeschool their four children with a strong emphasis on grace and cultivating their individual giftings.
More posts by Sara Jones
I agree 100% with both. Trolling usually does invo ...
May 29, 2023 Rob, you said: "There are some people and I thi ...
May 29, 2023 And who is being absurd here David? Bill Gothard a ...
May 28, 2023 As every satirist knows, the best way to expose ab ...
May 28, 2023 David, do you really want to compare companions ...
May 28, 2023 David said: "Exactly! To overcome the presumpti ...
May 27, 2023 Exactly! To overcome the presumption of consent, w ...
May 27, 2023 "I also believe Bill came up with this was to cove ...
May 27, 2023 There you go again, as Ronald Reagan might say. ...
May 27, 2023 Let’s not add hominem. Let’s subtract it. Beware a ...
May 27, 2023 I also believe Bill came up with this was to cover ...
May 27, 2023 Another thing to keep in mind is that a young girl ...
May 26, 2023 David, No, my outrage is against Bill Gothard's ...
May 26, 2023 The outrage is against twisted and sick use of scr ...
May 26, 2023 Brother Kevin, Like our author Miss Jones, your ...
May 26, 2023 "This is sick and so twisted, there is no defense ...
May 26, 2023 Garbage views like this is why Bill's teachings ar ...
May 26, 2023 I just re-read this article. Things that really ju ...
May 26, 2023
I was told of stories where the girl cried out and was raped anyway. What does he do with that?
Then it is God's will that she be raped and she must accept that. That is what I remember him saying at the basic seminar I attended in the late 1970's
well put. thanks Sara.
"It was a long and burdensome journey to get know Gothard’s god. It’s been a difficult and painful journey away from him. Parents are grieving that they exposed their children to years of false teachings. We former students struggle with confusion and anger. Many seek real grace and the real God, while many have walked away from faith altogether.
Dear Bill: I can’t speak on behalf of all who once followed you. But I can speak for myself and many others who know the spiritual and emotional devastation you wreaked. Consider this our “crying out” — to the real God, not the angry graceless being you created. We cry out to the God of abounding grace, the defender of the weak and the oppressed.
And he has heard us." (End of Sara's quote.)
As an past ATI Parent (and for our children), this statement is strongly felt. We are all in recovery stage now. Each of us handling the devistation a bit differently. It takes time.
Quite honestly, I could not read all of Sara's article because it is too painful. I was a devout bg/ati/mom and ate up every word in the Wisdom Books, wanting to get the BIGGEST blessings possible from following the principles.So in my process of undoing my thinking, and establishing (ha!) my 'new way of living,' I cannot stomach reading the twisted teaching again.
Yes, the WHOLE NEEDS TO GO. Praying this will happen. Noone else needs to go through what we are going through.
God is still ALWAYS good. May we all heal and find our way to COMPLETE TRUTH.
I feel the same way, Betty. And Sara, the quote Betty copied down is so wonderful.It is beautifully written and really sums up the beginning of our ATI IBLP journey and the end - our freedom.
Again, I cannot read all through your wonderful work - the very second I see the diagram my heart rate changes. Wish I had it hooked up to a monitor - I bet you could see it change. I just cannot. read that stuff any longer and I am an adult who has walked with Jesus for nearly 35 years.
I am forever grateful to Him that He did not let go of me when I took that legalistic detour to follow a man rather than Him - the precious Son of God.
Like you, Betty, I was "in". Glad to be out and having learned a few lessons (understatement).
Thank you Sara for wading through and bringing truth.
I loved the ending of this article. It definitely parallels my own experience with ATI, which I just blogged about at http://www.aradicalforjesus.com/2016/01/03/six-years-later/. I, too, like the quote that Betty had above. God, indeed, has heard me, and has been faithfully cleansing me from the bondage of Bill's teachings.
What a mighty God we serve!
"It was a long and burdensome journey to get to know GOTHARD'S god.Its been a difficult and painful journey away from him".Many seek real grace and the real God while many walk away from {faith} [sic].altogether."Oh how we knew God or at least thought we did back in the Day,we Gothardites.Actually we had little chance.But we could know the caricature,"angry graceless being",and become a supportive automaton to the Great Suppressor.This angry graceless being stays with us far too long.I'm now worked up and angry,for Sarah Roberts Jones' eloquence reveals the line of demarcation, the dichotomy between the real,the genuine,and the "bogus",propped up by the Duggars,Gil Bates,Alfred and Co.,the yes men and the puppets.Not only was Sarah painfully descriptive in her depictions of Gothard's brutalities,[There you have it in its stark truthful reality,Alfred away from your manipulative condescending],but mentions God as the "defender of the weak and the oppressed"How dare Sarah to make the quite logical conclusion,so necessary,a voice not quite muffled by the hype and psyche of Gothard's all encompassing natural religionists.And for us who "knew God so well",a disturbing fact I would like to address, which Sarah mentioned,leaving the faith.God is not the caricature,but column writers with brilliant minds such as Vyckie Garrison who had all but one of her children taken from her,who at one time was a leader,and highly esteemed,in fundamentalist circles,is now an atheist.Thanks to BG.Libby Anne,Jerusha,and countless others now,subjected in the past to the caricature.To undo what's been done is now a great responsibility before our lives are over with.Maybe for praying,caring,searching.It absolutely must happen,"to the least of these my brethren".Please.
David Pigg----- I too mourn for those who have been so hurt, so brain-muddled, their souls so diseased from all the BG legalism that the only way they can get any peace is to chunk it all and say there is no God. It seems to be a way that their souls/minds/physical bodies can rest and heal. In the meantime, I am claiming for them that scripture about God being the author and finisher of their faith. He is not finished with them yet. Who knows what God has in store for them. There are still many chapters between the first and last.
Great word!THANKS!I'm afraid much has to be done around barriers erected to maintain protection from anything else coming from those so glibly representing "God".Based on the "fruits",how now can the Alfreds,Tim Levanduskys,Gil Bates's,fan the dying flames of this organization with any confidence,representing what?For the betterment of whom?Just get over it,don't make us look bad,and we'll maintain the.....same bondage with a slightly different image.
Actually, if you understand the INTENT of the Deuteronomy passage rightly, I believe there are some underlying principles that do apply to modern Christian life (minus the part about stoning the guilty parties).
The key to the passage is not whether or not the woman "cries out." It is whether the sex act is consensual or not.
There are some assumptions inherent in the wording - primarily, that it is unlikely for a man to rape a woman in a populated area without someone overhearing it. If you're talking about people living in tents or clay-brick huts a few feet from each other, that's a very different picture from our modern sound-insulated buildings. So the "crying out" part is no longer applicable.
I believe what it's really saying is this: "If a woman is raped against her will, she is not guilty. If she is engaged to a man and violates that promise by having consensual sex with a different man, then she has broken her promise and is guilty. As a rule of thumb in such cases, look to the situation to see whether there is evidence that she consented or did not consent." The evidence for this interpretation lies in the analogy that is provided in the passage, of a man using force to murder a neighbor. The bottom line: if the man uses force, the woman is no more guilty than a murder victim would be.
This might have been a fairly revolutionary high view of women's moral rights and responsibilities for that day. A woman does not become garbage because someone did something bad to her. A woman (not her father!) is responsible for her own moral choices, and is NOT responsible for the moral choices of others.
Even in the original Old Testament context, I believe the correct interpretation would be that a woman who was forcefully prevented from crying out is guiltless because she did not consent.
(It's also noteworthy that this passage is specifically about an engaged woman. The law was different for a single woman who was not engaged!)
Because the law was different for a single woman, this is clearly about adultery, not rape or even sexual intercourse per se. Context that is clear should not be ignored. It should give pause that the "punishment" for fornication when neither is betrothed was:
MARRIAGE
with the civil protection that the girl's father could refuse and demand compensation which would include a certificate of divorce to protect the girl from subsequent condemnation. God appeared a lot more interested in the establishment and maintenance of covenant relationships than He was in who was "guilty" of rape or 'consensual sex'.
Moreover, He refuted any idea that women were to be treated like commodities by requiring a woman's release when she was not loved as an honored wife: Deut 21:10-17, and Ex. 21:7-11. Freedom was the right of a captured or purchased woman who was not treated as a wife.
Good points. :-) I was trying to say that at the end, but you said it much better!
Don Rubottom, Thank you for this!
I believe I read somewhere that on Wed., March 29th there was to be a scheduled court 'appearance' regarding some aspect of the Gothard trial....
Feedback..??
You aren't reading well at all. This specific passage is about cases where the initial sex act was NOT reported as rape, yet evidence appears that a woman was having sex when she shouldn't be and then (in two of the three cases) claims that she was raped.
In one case, someone walks in on a married woman having sex. She claims rape, but there is no evidence that she was not fully consenting when the act was discovered, so they are both guilty of adultery.
In the second case, a betrothed girl turns up pregnant (if she was discovered in the act, this would be a version of the first case). She did not previously report a rape. If she says she was raped inside the city, that's not believable because she made no fuss at all at the time. If she says she is raped in the countryside, then she could have hidden it out of shame after coming back.
In the third case, an unmarried girl turns up pregnant, but no adultery is possible, only fornication. The blame on this case is put fully on her seducer (check the Hebrew, this is a seduction), and rather than the girl being punished, a nasty penalty is extracted from him, and he loses the ancient right of divorce. (The Father doesn't have to permit the marriage, either, so he can't get an end-around that way.) This keeps men from seeing naive girls as being able to be manipulated or exploited to avoid paying a dowry.
Look at the Hebrew, not the hash bigoted translators have made of it.
Adding to that is this passage:
"In the city" in a world of close-together tents that the law was given for, would have meant where others could hear her. (And this counted for engaged-to-someone-else women, not girls so little they do not know they should speak out, or young women who could be seduced by promises of a future with the seducer.
The "in the country" part actually say she should be believed - and the man killed - if she say it was rape and nobody would have been close enough to hear. This passage is harder on men than women -men should absolutely conduct their behaviour in such a way that they could never be accused of rape. Of course, patriarchy teachers never teaches the parts that is hard on men, to hold men to high standards.
More than that, this doesn't apply to a rape that is reported in a reasonable amount of time but, in context, concerns a case of hidden intercourse that is revealed later, meaning because of pregnancy. In the case of a rape reported immediately, that IS the outcry, whether it is in the moment or shortly after, as with Tamar. This is covered in other passages.
A kidnapping situation was also always considered a rape. Didn't matter if she was technically seduced after--she was made vulnerable by removing her from her social support.
Bill's twisted teaching here is not Christian or even Judeo-Christian at all. While to moderators at DG may say Bill is "out of step", he not only is out of step with the rest of Christianity but he has stepped into the views of Islam and Sharia law. He has taken a couple of verses out of OT law which even Torah observant Jews don't do in order to justify Steve and his own perversions. Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P. was asked a question about rape on Catholic Answers once and to summarize the question, the person was asking if rape victims has lost their moral purity and that death is preferable to rape (in reference to the St. Maria Goretti, an 11 year old girl that was stapped 14 times in refusal to be raped). Fr. Serpa replied with this:
" The Catechism define rape as the "the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person" It does state that rape can wound the "moral integrity" of the victim. But integrity here means wholeness. Rape wounds a person's wholeness. That does not mean that it make the victim sinful; rather, it means that it can shatter the victim's innocence. The Catechism then goes on to mention how evil such an act is. It then refers to the horror such a violation is to children. It does not suggest that such children - or any victims- are responsible IN ANY WAY for what has happened to them or that they are morally corrupted by having been abused. Some saints who have fended off attempted rapist, such as Maira Goretti, have been honored for their purity. This in No way implies that others who were unable to fend off their attacker were sinful. In either case, IT IS THE PERPETRATOR, not the victims, WHO HAS SINNED. Morality lies in the act of the will." Fr Sepra concluded "Anyone who treats victims of rape with anything other than profound compassion and understanding is acting against the teaching of the Church and needs to be corrected.
In other words, Bill is sick. He can have all the charts in the world in trying to convince raped victims that rape is just against their bodies and not against their soul or spirit. Bill doesn't get it and to tell victims of rape that it's all in their heads is violating them again.
I'll conclude with the actual quote from paragraph 2356 of CCC
"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom and physical and moral integrity to which EVERY PERSON has a right. It causes grace damage that can mark the victim for life. It is ALWAYS AN INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACT. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the duration of the children entrusted to them".
In paragraph 2388 "Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them. ... Incest corrupts family relationship and marks a regression toward animality. Paragraph 2389, 'Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescent entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing."
Bill's twisted teaching is immoral and sick. It isn't Christian at all but a "fig leaf" coverup of his and Steve's sins. It doesn't work and all of it needs to be condemned in the strongest manner as evil.
sorry, I mistyped grace instead of grave. The word is "grave" not grace. my error.
robwar,
The man is truly brilliant. He was able to package and sell his attempts to cover up his misdeeds.
I think it would indeed be interesting to do a survey of all the IBLP "doctrines" and teachings that relate to Bill & co's sins. They seemed so counter cultural and godly to outsiders, but it really starts to make sense how the weirdness originated.
There's the "you didn't scream when you were raped" teachings that are a covered up for the misdeeds of Steve. He knew that these poor ladies would be silenced by their own apparent complicity
There are the teachings about "not spreading a bad report" that covered for Gothard's abuses of power.
There were teachings about confessing details of sins to authorities to clear conscience. It seems like he enjoyed hearing the confessions of young women. (Does anybody else remember lines of young people calling home to repent from Gothard's office at Counseling Seminars)?
There are teachings on "Apprenticeship" and not going to college that allowed him to use bright young people to staff training centers without appropriate pay.
I think it is really helpful to think of these things in the light of "What problem was Bill trying to solve with this teaching?"
I'm not prepared to think that everything he taught was self serving, especially at the first, but I do think that there is that element strongly evident in some things. Others are just bogus stuff that he thought up because there wasn't anything "world changing" to share at Knoxville that year.
My husband and I were just talking this morning about his teachings going along with his (then) current reality.
Let's add a few more to your list. I remember him saying in Knoxville "sometimes you do not have the time to sleep or to eat... blah, blah, blah" and of course, tying it in with some will of the Lord stuff...
Along comes RG and the stories of the young people who, indeed, did not have the time to eat or sleep - especially before and during Knoxville - because they were being grossly overworked. SMH He is so narcissistic that he used and abused young people for his purposes wile teaching them that it was God's will. I am so grateful for a son who said "this is .... I am done with this." He saw.
What about telling married couples when to engage in sex? To make sure you read the Bible before feeding your body? That if you have had any promiscuity in your life you will never be the same as those who kept themselves? You must rise early and be in the Bible. You must have many children.
It reminds of Hitler - the man was out to make the perfect race. Too many parallels.
I have realized that this has caused so many of us to be constantly at work on ourselves and those around us. Change. Change. Change. You are not acceptable just yet. Nope change that. Keep trying. Give up this.... The carrot always just one inch in front and you are sure you will get it with just this one last change. Change your husband. Change your wife. Change yourself. Change your children. And then in this exhaustion, keep a bright countenance while inwardly thinking "if I could just get God to love me..."
I cannot read any of his writings. What was his motive behind writing it? Child labor? Confessing to him? Letting him touch you? Giving him every waking moment to work you to exhaustion - all 'for the Lord'?
I can say, from his life and teachings, this man does not know God. He does not know Jesus. Oh the freedom in knowing Him. Sleep. Sustenance. Gentle kindness. Grace and strength in trials. Teaching that builds and guides and lifts and assures. Knowing that He does the changing in our lives, by His gentle Spirit - we do not. We just rest and confess and remain open to change.
I am grateful that I can smell hatefulness and false teaching a mile away now. I am glad to still have life to walk with the Lord. I am glad to know that just as I cannot blame my parents but offer a hand of forgiveness for any way they may have harmed me, my children can do the same. The end of the story can be far different than the beginning.
He is quoted as saying "With God as my witness I have never inappropriately touched a girl or kissed a girl." Well that sums it all up. Either all of these brave men and women telling their stories are liars and want this negative attention or BG is a very sad, sick man. There is only one conclusion here.
I do not sit and think on this all day every day. Nor does my husband. When it does come to mind, we could not wish to be distanced further in this lifetime from this teaching.
Augustine's teachings on rape are wonderful and biblical. First bit of City of God. I disagree with a lot of his teaching, but this is totally correct. Guilt requires consent. Even physical pleasure against your will is not sin without consent.
Absolutely, Daniel! I'm pretty sure there are tons more examples, too.
Of course the whole "umbrella of authority" mess is a set-up for control, but I will add that the one about confession is standard practice for narcissists. They covertly solicit info early in the relationship when the victim's guard is down and way before she suspects he's up to anything or would ever hurt her. You know, the point when he's "getting to know her," telling her how much he admires her total honesty, challenging her to not hold anything back or keep secrets so everything can be out in the open and all wonderful and stuff. Then waaaaaaay later when she doesn't see it coming, she finds out that he cataloged all those things way back as they re-surface for any number of reasons - to blackmail, to torment, to question character, to isolate. Speaking from experience, it's as devastating a betrayal as there ever could be.
BG surely used this personally on his own victims, which has probably contributed to the many reasons we *haven't* heard more than we have. Charlotte is just one example - she poured her heart out to BG (solicited, btw) about things intimately personal. Somewhere along the line she got up the gumption to tell her story, yet BG continues even now to viciously attack her credibility on the basis of her "past." (There really could be others we've never heard of, you know.) But in addition to his personal benefit, this uber-confession to humans beyond what's appropriate or proper helped the whole Gothard-topia by giving the power-brokers (men) more power.
Also - if you've been reading over on Alfred's site, he recently challenged readers to watch session 1 of the seminar, feeling that people were talking about things they didn't really know about. He was taken up by some, and it was noted by one that at the very beginning of the seminar (before he even prays, maybe?), BG talks about the difference between Godly wisdom and human knowledge or reasoning. Now there's a wildly obvious example of his teaching being a set-up for manipulative control!
So many good and helpful comments.
So redicous and condemning! There was a rapist in my hometown in the late 70s and early 80s who jumped women and first sign to the woman was a potholder mitt held tightly against their mouth so unable to scream or call out. We only were in ATIA for three years so never got past booklet 18. Those three years of legalism and rules stole so much joy from me and our family. Always felt had to be a chamilion to fit in and look the part of ATI and I was a mom and wife!!
So thankful pulled out before our kids were teens!!!
The Old Testament makes clear that, when the sexual assaulter has dominated the victim (enclosed them in before pressing their demand), the victim is not guilty for complying with perverted demands put to them by the pervert. This includes when being within earshot of others who would certainly hear the victim crying out to God for deliverance (being in a city). Since Gothard says his god has to keep his "promise" to deliver such a one even when no human help would rescue them at their cries, it seems odd that Gothard's supernatural testimony did not play out in Judges 19 & 20; now THAT would have impressed the neighbors!!!
This victim wasn't just betrothed, she was MARRIED, as were Lot's 2 daughters whom Lot also offered to his assaulters in a similar dealing with sexual assault. In the Judges account, both victims (the murdered woman & her husband) were -each respectively- blood-avenged & saw the God-ordained destruction of their assaulters/attackers. All those who covered for the perverts were also destroyed. In Lot's case, he & his daughters both saw God Himself destroy their assaulters. But, according to Gothard, only Lot's wife WASN'T guilty; of the 4 of them she was the only one who was not made the personal object of sexual assault. Thus only she did not "fail" to "cry out to god for deliverance." I guess God made a mistake, turning her into a pillar of salt when it was really Lot & his daughters who were "guilty" of perversion along with Sodom!!! (See 2 Peter 2:7 & see if Lot's wife is included in this commendation).
Wisdom Booklet #36 confidently addresses rape victims with anti-Biblical admonitions of their "guilt"; I sense that Gothard was only confident in saying his know-it-all-what's-what about rape with regard to the victim. And oh, he did this. Boy, did he ever. This excerpt (above in the article) from wisdom booklet #36 is sick, Sick, SICK.... from a mind that totally disregards what Scripture says.
But even with all this confidence in "counseling" the victim after it happens, his acceptance of sexual misdeed as fact is only in regards to the victim (even though his chart eliminates there even being a victim). There is no after-the-fact chart (or anything else) dealing with the perpetrator. Indeed, with Gothard fixing blame on the victim, one is hardly needed. I wonder how much of the Old Testament Gothard really DOES understand........ and has twisted Scripture to avoid. He totally avoids any after-the-fact advice to the attacker.
It's apparently so easy for him to summarize rape for the victim. The guilt of the victim. The consequences for this victim's guilt (damage to her soul by her own guilt/bitterness). And the consequences if, by impossibly-extra-Levitical-Law-standards, the victim is somehow NOT as guilty as her attacker!!! (In this case, "only her body" was harmed). This is the most brazen lie ever. Yet, even with all this muddying-up & reversal of what the Bible says about God's will in bringing an assaulter to justice, there's no chart to explain to the assaulter how to cleanse their self from the guilt of perversion.
That a person going through these booklets (& each one's neighbor) could indeed be guilty of rape is assumed. Those in the program reading #36 could indeed be guilty of rape, or their neighbor could be; whom does Gothard thereby "counsel" if this isn't the assumption? But, "guilty" only if they were the one who didn't cry out at the perversion. By condemning these, & omitting any statements regarding the guilt of the pervert whose actions were to have elicited this crying out, Gothard denied the existence of any perverts within IBLP & ATI.
(Q): HOW COULD HE BANK (literally) ON THERE BEING ALL THESE "GUILTY" SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS WITHIN A PROGRAM IN WHICH WERE NO PERPETRATORS?!?!?!?!?!?
(A): Gothard's denial-by-omission wasn't because he DIDN'T believe that sexually exploitative people like himself & his brother (& anyone like them) were in IBLP/ATI. This denial-by-omission was because he knew rape was in the program. And this is why he omitted guilt of rapists in it while going against the Bible in condemning victims. Hence.... sexual assault went from being IN the program...... to being THE PROGRAM in his implementation of his heresy.
And then to add insult to injury, he expects the victim to apologize to the perp for being "bitter" over the assault. It reminds me of the words from the Moody Blues, "...red is gray and yellow is white. And we decide which is right and which is an illusion."
And btw, Alf, I have attended the basic seminar and even the so-called pastors seminar. Both were a total waste of time (the only consolation for me was that both seminars were paid for by others who coerced me to go---- another story for another time). Just fyi.
Bill doesn't understand OT at all in actuality. He picks and chooses things to his fancy. OT law covers a number of things that our modern (somewhat post) Christian society does not allow legally such as slavery, polygamy etc. OT laws also cover authorized celebrations like Passover etc. So Bill pick out having baby boys to be circumsized but ignores celebrations like Passover. Bill picks out the no pork, no shellfish, no dairy and meat but ignores the very firm no blood in meat rule, which BTW has more references to in both OT (starting with Genesis) all the way to the first Counsel in Act with instructions not to eat strangled animals. Bill promotes following Orthodox Jewish rules of marital relationships but ignores the rules about brothers marrying their sister-in-laws if the husband dies in order to have and raise their late brother's children. OT did allow divorce, something that was brought up to Jesus. His response was that Moses allowed divorce because of the "hardness of their hearts". In other words a number of the OT laws were meant to temper and protect in the ancient middle eastern culture of that time. That is true when looking at the slavery rules of the OT which really were not designed to endorse slavery but to temper it and give slaves more of an indentured servant status with limits. The same with rules over polygamy.
So let's follow the twisted logic of Gothard and apply his evil nonsense to other sins -- if someone murders another person and that person does not cry out, then they are just as guilty. They are consenting. If someone steals from me, and I don't cry out, it implies consent. I could go on. I am very thankful that God looks at the heart and not merely at the actions. It is impossible to read many of these OT instructions and see the Truth without knowing the heart of God -- which is exactly what Jesus said, and what Jesus came to reveal. Clearly, in this matter of a woman not crying out, God is talking about the ability to do so -- but of willfully refusing to do so -- and then later bringing accusation. God would NOT condemn anyone simply because they did not follow the "formula." Behind all of this, of course, are Gothards own perversions -- if a young girl did not cry out or openly object to his touching, he is saying that it implied consent. Gothard himself says that a man's morality dictates his theology -- it certainly it true of him in this case.
It also implies that no man can get his theology from revelation, but is bound forever by his imperfect heart. Poor wretched soul.
yes. What a great quote, Don. I am writing this one down to memorize!
Yes, David - all pretty ridiculous. But if you read carefully over on Alfred's site, you can see some insight into why they put rape into another category. He doesn't exactly say it, but almost. The feeling I get from Alfred's comments on rape and crying out and Steve's abuse is that victims actually want to be seduced and are willing partners who enjoy the sex but want to evade moral responsibility by accusing their attackers. His "proof" seems to be that they didn't complain. For real. Heartbreaking and highly irresponsible.
What he doesn't mention is that these abuses occurred within a "Total Institution," meaning that those in leadership exerted almost complete control. The Gothards were able to manipulate your entire life- all the way from your job, to your friends, to your food and lodging, to your ability to be in good standing within your local religious community. That kind of control equates to chloroform, duct tape over the mouth, date rape drugs, etc.
yes, Elizabeth D. And what you have just described is the teaching (spoken or implied) of the IFB and many holiness type churches. The ones full of godly looking and sounding dirty old men who do not look out for the victim but rather the perpetrator. It is sick - especially in a church setting.
(they can be young men, too.)
^^^^^^^Daniel you (& everybody else commenting) are clarifying the truth before my eyes as I see your perspectives.
All IBLP-ers had Gothard as the head of their home. ATI-ers had him as dictator of their households. And as for the people that he used his dominance to seduce or assigned to his brother to seduce? THESE not only had Gothard as head of their house, but he was their self-proclaimed "father-figure", and/or self-proclaimed "date", and it was his own town in which he selected the houses & women that he surrounded. Not only were these people's houses completely surrounded (allegory is Genesis 19, Judges, 19 & 20) but they had no home to speak of that Gothard wasn't the head of! Or any place to go and sleep where his all-around dominance couldn't make his demands of them.
So, crying out wouldn't have done any good, even if there was any Bible-based moral obligation to do so. No wonder Gothard also ignores the fact that Tamar's rape was avenged AND he additionally pretends that she did not follow the Deuteronomy 22 law. (She never broke this law even though she was not assaulted in the house/town of her assaulter -whereas all Gothard's personal victims were in his house/town). Rather than "crying out" -Gothard's rule- she tried to compel her rapist to follow God's law in all related respects: 2 Samuel 13:12,13 and again in 13:16. Yet, Gothard- like Ammon- doesn't care about anybody doing things God's way. Even when someone does things God's way, he says they've "sinned"...... for not having done it Gothard's way instead.
"Cry out"?!?!?!?!? Yeah, sure, Bill. If total lack of disobedience to God on the part of the victims didn't stop Ammon, & Steve, & yourself....... then how on earth would the NEGLECT of just having kept themselves in obedience to God have instead effected a cease of the assaults? You (& DG) say that, if victims had rather replaced their complicity with God's Word by instead following YOUR particular rule, that this would have stopped all your/Steve's/Ammon's perversions. If God doesn't know best, how is it that you do, so much so that you know better than Him? Speaking of correcting what God has said, somebody before you already re-wrote God's Word by utilizing his position of authority to correct the Bible's "mistakes"; it's titled "Mein Kampf".
Many young women in IBLP clutches cried out to authorities about the harassment but were dismissed or ignored.
Amen to that
Dude, has anyone seen the updated lawsuit that includes Gothard (I'm sure some of the RG staff are aware of it)? I spent the last hour skimming through it. Over 100 pages. Gawker has it posted in the entirety.
I've been upset over this whole thing.
Now I'm really, really mad.
Gothard needs to go to jail. So does the IBLP Board.
How many people are witnesses to his behavior? I think those of us who witnessed this behavior in part or in whole need to make our testimony available.
I am glad they finally named B.G. in the suit. Now we may get somewhere as IBLP points the finger at him to spare itself. I've been very negative regarding the suit until now. Now I am neutral as to its potential.
Story in the Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bill-gothard-new-charges-duggars-sexual-abuse-20160107-story.html
Also, further down in the article...
----------
Although Gothard resigned, his affidavit makes clear he intends to return to the ministry he started in 1961.
"During the past seven months, God has allowed me to publish six new books that contain a powerful new message that I want to get out to all of the alumni," Gothard wrote, adding that over 2.5 million alumni have attended his seminars.
----------
If he has published books, he must be innocent. (the man is nuts)
LOL! !
I got a day pass to the Chicago Tribune & plan on spending the evening reading all else they might have in addition to this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bill-gothard-new-charges-duggars-sexual-abuse-20160107-story.html
Since he & the board have obviously been lying in their denials, & also that IBLP contradicts what the Bible says about sexual assault, this fact of Gothard & IBLP having long established themselves as enemies of the truth sure doesn't help their insistence upon their innocence.
6 books in 7 months? Even 6 books published in 2 years is a little much for an old man. Hey, he's in prison ministry, right? Then, if he does end up in jail, those books can be passed around there. Wouldn't the inmates need a "powerful new message"?
Gawker posted over 100 pages? Gotta go look. Thanks, Recovering Grace.
on gawker it stated "You can read the 114-page lawsuit in its entirety below." but when I scrolled down all the way to the bottom there was nothing there...can someone enlighten me as to how to find it?
esbee, on this link: http://gawker.com/lawsuit-ten-women-charge-duggar-homeschool-leader-with-1751507518 go to the bottom of the page where you will see the first page of the suit in a box. At the bottom of that box you will see, at the lower right, left and right arrows. Just keep clicking the right arrow and it will scroll forward right from the link you are already on.
I re-read Sarah Posner's article in the Washington Post again, also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/10/22/five-women-sue-bill-gothards-ministry-that-has-ties-to-the-duggars/
Now I'm headed over to Gawker, too; hope the website doesn't crash before I get to read it!
http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/01/06/amended-lawsuit-against-bill-gothard-text/
Entire suit.
Bill has always made a big deal about "no kissing" before marriage. In fact, he stated on his web that he over heard one of his oldest sisters complaining about being "so hurt" that some guy she liked was found kissing someone else. So good old Bill decided that he would save his first kiss is he every got married. So he goes around touting this as the "new virginity" standard for "courtship". Then we have the good old Duggars getting on TV with tears in their eyes about how much they "deeply" regret that they smooched with each other before getting married. So I guess good old Bill kept his no kissing promise but instead he can touch, feel, footsie and even rape girls but he kept his promise that he "never kissed a girl". So in his sicko mind he is still a virgin because he never kissed a girl but he never states that he never touched or did anything else because he didn't promise those things. And stupid people like the Duggars want to make a big deal about kissing. Sadly, kissing should be a basic sign of affection between people that care about each other and not every kiss is sexual at all. Since kissing is a sign of affection, then good old Bill never had any affection for all these girls that he gropped and grabbed and even raped. They didn't cry out, so they weren't raped. It happed to them, so it must be God's will. They tempted poor old working hard at late night Bill. So Bill never promised himself to stay a virgin till marriage, he just promised no kissing till marriage. So I guess he is true to his word and a good guy (in his mind)
In count 131 it says he asked Jane Doe II to come to his office alone at night after curfew. After she came to his office he took her into his private suite where there was a bed????? A BED?????
WHY IS THERE A BED IN HIS OFFICE SUITE??? We all know a 20 year old "surfer dude" who drives a van with a bed in the back has it for one reason and its not sleeping at least sleeping by himself and we tell our daughter to stay away from guys like that. A bed in Bill Gothard's office, unbelievable!!!! I don't care if he was old and liked to nap or sleep in his office his poor judgment is uncomprehendable. His management team must have been a bunch of eunuchs to not say something to warn Bill how that would look. So we have Billy Graham on one hand who won't be in a room alone with a woman and even would step of a public elevator if one enter the space, and Bill has a bed in his office!!!!
Has anyone witnessed this bed and when and where was it installed?
Now I know why Bill kept asking us if we believed "Charlotte's story". My answer was I had seen too much in my years to doubt her story and nothing surprised me. He was oblivious uncomfortable with my answer.
Now we need to know if our friends over at DG read this in it's entirety. Alfred kept challenging others to read Bill's letter about Tony as an "agent of Satan". So the challenge is now on for the DG team to read all of this. It is all pretty damning. Maybe Alfred's son who worked in Bill's office can tell his father when the bed was put in, I would think he might know. All I can think of is Luke 17:2, Matthew 18:6 and Mark 9:42 where Jesus gives one of his strongest condemnations to those that harm children. I am praying that this is the millstone that is going to hung around Bill and companies necks and thrown into the sea to end this monstrosity.
rob war,
I think Alfred has been deleting comments on his site. Before work today, I read a response to me.
Alfred was talking about how one of the accusations against Gothard was considered by the authorities to be misdemeanor battery. Alfred's point was that misdemeanor battery is nothing to worry about. When I challenged Alfred about this, he doubled down, using the words "playground infraction" to describe misdemeanor battery. Now, Alfred's and my words have mysteriously disappeared.
Perhaps he is reconsidering the optics of some of his comments, considering the amended lawsuit.
Thanks, I will look into it. I wouldn't be surprised because the allegations in the current posted charges are very serious because they include rape.
Lindsey77,
You do realize that Alfred does monitor and read this site here?
rob war,
I am sure he does.
In part, I made my comment here to let him know such deletions do not go unnoticed. They do not reflect well on him, and everything on the Internet is recoverable.
Interestingly, the "playground infraction" comment is now back.
Yes, the "play ground" infraction. That is grasping at straws and belittling some pretty serious charges here. I don't consider full fleg rape a "play ground" infraction. this falls in the excuse that good old Bill was just trying to give "affirming" touches to girls he deemed needed his help. When these excuses don't work, Alfred then falls back on the "we are all sinners" excuse which is followed by the poor old Bill, everyone is out to get him because he has such a "Godly" message. The problem with spin is that the spinner eventual spins out of excuses and wipes out.
Alfred is a serial minimzer and rationalizer. His purpose is to help his man escape from any and all accusations, truth be damned. It is a sad mission considering how unworthy his hero is.
I haven't tried to engage with Alfred on his site, mainly because it seems like it would ultimately be a fruitless endeavor at this point, would most likely fuel what is already an obvious martyr complex, and would probably just end in me getting banned for trying to direct the discussion past the surface level and to the deeper issues that keep Alfred chained to his master.
What's so disheartening about watching the comment threads over there is that it's a vicious cycle. Alfred has said, "If Bill really did have sex with a woman, that would change everything for me." But even with one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit alleging rape, another alleging molestation, and probably countless others abused who have been afraid to step forward out of fear of marginalization by the Alfreds of the world, he still finds a way to avoid the harsh reality that Bill is a serial narcissist and abuser. He draws attention to fuzzy details and tries to keep the focus there so that he can declare himself and IBLP victorious, completely oblivious to the pattern of behavior that's been established over so many years. Just look at this latest post about the number of women that have come forward and how there's apparently something wrong because the number differs between sources. It's a shame that this is what it's come to now, because even if just one woman was abused and came forward, that would still be one woman too many.
Larne, my reading of this story is that its talking about Indianapolis. He had a massive office in the lobby. His private suite was on the 6th floor on the west end of the building.
In theory, he would have gone up the stairs on the East end to the second floor (near his office) crossed the second floor to the west end, then continued up to his rooms. That would have avoided setting off alarms in the stairwells after hours.
Daniel, Thank you for putting that in perspective. Indianapolis (IND) is not so much on my radar since it was established long after my departure from Oak Brook. I do remember long before RG, searching the internet and finding troubling stories from the Indianapolis facility and the TV exposé.
I actually find this location even more troubling then HQ! This places him in a location with troubled teens who are under severe authoritarian restrictions. Bill the "great overseer and spiritual giant" is there to help, away from any oversight that the "eunuchs" of his management "might" provide. According to some of the women's stories, that led to his resignation, some talk of the long trips driving to IND while he was playing footies with them. Bill is now the kid in the candy store with no one watching the store. Was his management team so spineless they didn't raise a red flag?
Is it just me or am I missing something? But I find this reprehensible and unbelievable. This is very much in line with what happened in sending the girls to the Northwoods.
I am not a witness to any of these charges or the facts relating to the charges against him, people with a higher pay grade then me will have to make those decisions. But if half of these new charges are true it is still completely unacceptable.
I go back to comments I made to Alfred on DG. Ruth and I reconnected with Bill in 87-91 based on Ruth's cautions from observations she had seen with local families in the ATI program. These cautions regarded their young teen daughters being sent back to Oak Brook. She saw the same patterns that she experienced with Bill when she first attend a seminar at about 16 and when he called her to Oak Brook at 18. She was so concerned that she was willing to reopen a very painful chapter in her life, with him, to prevent what happened to her from ever happening again.
During those times with Bill he assured us that things had changed and that the Board had put rules in place to prevent a repeat of 1980. He told us his sister was his secretary and he had little direct contact with the staff and that it was not like it had been in "our day." But we kept seeing inconsistency in his statement from what we observed and ended our relationship in 91, and Ruth passed on to Glory in June 94.
Now it is very evident that even if you discount these new charges everything he told us was a deception (lie). I learned a new word from "Dan" in one of his great post rebuffing Alfred on DG and this has become my favorite new word in dealing with Bill. "Obfuscate": to make (something) more difficult to understand, render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. Synonyms: obscure, confuse, make unclear, blur, muddle, complicate, muddy, cloud befog.
Bill is a wordsmith in his statements both in the words and phrases he uses and in the obfuscation of their context and making half truths thus a deception. The thing we have to remember is that he will not be able to obfuscate God when he stands before Him in judgment.
Remember to pray for these women and their families that God will give them the strength and clarity for this sad battle and pray for Bill and his followers that God will take the scales off their eyes. In all things the truth is paramount.
Most of you have had more direct involvement with ATI/IBLP if not direct involvements with BG himself, so I will always defer to all of your experiences and intimate knowledge of the man and IBLP/ATI staff. I, like many others also on here, were only affected in as far as his teachings filtered down through our families from the seminars. We were catching the "outer fringes" of the IBLP hurricane, if you will (though still damaging). All that said, the latest allegation of rape committed by BG is a stunning and serious one, even to us. Though the long-standing charges of molestation and emotional abuse are believable by even those of us outside the organization, the latest allegation can't help but trigger the skeptic within me that guards against hopping aboard a runaway allegation train (if that's understandable). I'm not saying that is indeed the case here, but nonetheless I (and possibly others on here) naturally desire some further elaboration if not "proof". Perhaps that'll come as this case unfolds. Maybe many of you who have had direct ties with BG and/or ATI are not surprised based on factual experiences and events. The rest of us on the outside looking in could use a leg-up in our understanding (if that makes sense)
David, this was a stunner to me too. It is honestly hard to wrap my mind around this actually happening. Many of the stories when taken separately are a little shaky, until they are compared to the same thing happening to others.
Several parts of her story definitely show she is telling the truth at least in some areas. The Judy Gergeni/ making Gothard's bed before he showed up/ late night counseling sessions/ Nathan Ritchie are all details to confirm that she has some credibility. It fits the pattern of grooming that Gothard exhibited in so many other cases. Only those two people and God actually know what happened. On the other hand, why was Gothard so fanatical about his grooming of "at risk" young women. There is no doubt that footsie is not that satisfying. Again, go back to back to to the topic of this whole article. The point is if you didn't scream, then you are guilty. It is not "scream if you are being raped." Why is he so intent on making this point, over and over in his teachings? Maybe it makes more sense now.
It's the Chicago way, Larne!
Well at any rate it's a serial crime of his (criminal negligence) that he constantly undermined the minors that he elicited reports out of as to the incest they'd undergone at home. That he would call a girl's dad to "ask him" if he'd done incest to his daughter is right in line with his mindset that permeates the seminar. In addition to parents having final say, Bill is so important that the dad would certainly have humbled himself before Bill & admitted the truth; Bill held the keys to what's true. Yeah, right!!!!!!!!! There's no doubt that he's criminally guilty for rape; he was an accomplice to the suppression & continuation of it & the sole impetus for aggravation of abuse in addition to this incest. Plus he himself verbally & sexually assaulted those reporting to him. These things are indisputable.
I hope these women get every last dime that's coming to them (and then some), but I admit I'm very nervous for them on account of their choice of legal counsel. Even if Mr. Gibbs III guenuinely hopes to get them justice here, there seems to me to be an inevitable conflict of interest that could prejudice his judgement. I wish they could find an unconnected Christian lawyer with plenty of experience in this area willing to take the case or at least evaluate it on its merits (if they haven't already done so).
After reading for months on this website, and understanding the false gospel this man teaches, and now reading the allegations in the suit, it's my opinion no one should be trying to reconcile with him any longer. It is past time that he be handed over to Satan.
I, like David above, am likewise blessed to have never met the guy. I, too, was merely damaged by the teachings alone. And I, too, echo David's sentiments above. Most of the sins he did have as many witnesses as the resurrection of Christ. The rape charges do not; but then again, they wouldn't. He forced "Meg" into such a compromised position by obvious craftiness & premeditation. It's true he did not act on (towards her) what opportunity his manipulation designed for himself be in a position to do. But this did not seem to dampen his relish of using his rightful demands as a boss to get his personal assistants into his living quarters during hours that he knew everyone (including the women themselves) would be asleep. This guy had/has a huge thing for seeing people hemmed-in, helpless under his direct control & his wielding of dominance. In isolation, particularly. He also had a thing for trying to see women in their nightwear that continued on into the 90's, that's for sure.
He doesn't need to be handed over to Satan; he's walked in deceit & corruption for so long, there's nowhere closer to Satan to hand him over to for him to give more place to. And I say this just with my limited belief of the incontrovertible things: molestation, assigning secretaries to get raped, criminal negligence, retaliation against first-hand-witnesses for sex-abuse reporting (some of these being minors), illegal endangerment of minors, sexual harassment, sexual grooming, additional emotional abuse, withholding due wages, enslaving of minors, coerced imprisonment, heresy to cover up these abuses -also thus affording the continuation of them- running a Ponzi scheme, defamation of character, isolating by this means so as to circumvent anyone from following Matthew 18 regarding the many that he'd accused (because he knew that any such investigation of facts would reveal his own guilt), &, I'm merely skimming over his wrongs. Last but not least is pretending to listen to people when he's been lock-brained in his god-complex. Too bad his invented god isn't somewhat like the true God of the Bible (both Old & New Testament) because then maybe Bill wouldn't be so evil in imagining himself to be him.
Oh, & I forgot to mention; what he did to "Meg" on the plane? Yeah, that's what he DID do to somebody after he used his authority as a boss, while yet also used deceit to pretend it was her choice to take his orders. Not to mention what he did to her in the car & after calling her to his office on a Sunday (no one else there). All this after the personal secretary right before this one had to have her father confront him on his inappropriate touching of this secretary. And Bill mocked & slandered him to others for having done so. So, Bill definitely IS a premeditating molester- just wanted to make myself clear.
I work for politicians. We get all kinds of mail. People who have never met Presidents are convinced that they have been raped by them. I do not dismiss the allegations in the new suit. (I do wonder where they have been the past 2 years.) But I do warn that a man like this who has been held in front of millions as a (creepy) role model has surely been the object of fantasies and delusions. The worst that is said about famous men is usually worse than they have done. The allegations are plausible. They may be true, but their mere publication does NOT establish guilt beyond any doubt. Just a warning.
B.G. did not prevent such allegations and subjected himself to temptation and accusations that would not have been possible had he had more respect for the rest of us. That is the basis upon which I condemn him. If any proves anything worse, I salute their courage and forthrightness.
But I remember the allegations against Clarence Thomas. Contrived and motivated by ill-will. It does happen. Thousands of young people have strong motives to take the man down for the evil he contributed to their families. Some might be willing to imagine things. That is why we have trials. If you are offended, I only wish to offer some balance. I will pray for truth-tellers to withstand all assaults on their testimony.
In this case, the charges need not be proven beyond doubt. Civil matters (i.e., law suits) are judged on the basis of preponderance of evidence. The reasonable doubt standard applies to criminal matters.
That's a valid skepticism from that context, Don. I think I did notice, though, that the lawsuit also mentioned email correspondence and notes by Jane Doe II documenting the accusation and events to other members on staff within the year of the alleged rape. If there was an allegation at the time (that was invalidated and suppressed), this makes it more credible to me as having actually occurred essentially as alleged. It would certainly fit the m.o. of a sexual predator/narcissist (like BG) to perpetrate something this blatant only where detection is least likely and the targeted victim is most vulnerable and unlikely to fight back (as is the case where she is a minor who has has been repeatedly abused from early childhood and conditioned to expect and accept it, like this adopted woman in a hard core IBLP/ATI family apparently was). If the Indianapolis facility is as described further up in this thread, sounds like an ideal set up for this sort of perpetration. And, as I've said elsewhere, narcissists are extremely perceptive readers of other people, which is why they are such skillful manipulators. Like predatory beasts, they seek out the vulnerable prey--the one that is isolated, weak and/or wounded. (Apologies to the predatory beasts for insulting them by using this analogy--they are simply serving nature in order to survive, not committing morally heinous, soul-murdering acts in service to the demons!) Reading this part of the lawsuit was especially heartbreaking and sickening to me. I find it completely credible, given what we know about the dynamics in play with this kind of extreme religious legalism coupled with the idolatry of a leader and the institutionalized abuse of power, as is the damning history of BG and his institute.
I understand the concern here. I remember with Clarence Thomas, there was only one person making the allegations and there were a number of people that worked with both of them that could collaborate that these were bogus charges. I think the issue I have in reading all the testimonies of the plaintiffs is that Bill seemed to be much more aggressive with girls that already had been sexually abused. I think Bill could have fallen with full fledge sex with his repeated behaviors and increasing aggressiveness especially with those most vulnerable and hurting. As with pornography, repeated use does eventually lead one to Josh Duggar type of immorality. His focussing on the no kiss rule is really a deflection and a cover. One doesn't need to kiss in order to force oneself on another. One generally would assume with the no kissing that they are being pure as the fresh driven snow. But it is a false lead the throw others off the trail.
In reading all the stories, I was really upset with the adoptive girls being so abused. It made me sick to my stomach. Having adopted internationally and traveled to the countries, I can attest to the fact that in these countries there are huge concerns that children are being adopted to be abused, misused, made slaves and most shockingly body parts. So when stories of adopted children that are abused make the news, that does set back international adoptions immensely because these stories confirm the fears many hold in many of these places. So you can be in the middle of your own adoption and then everything gets put on hold because of some abuse or death story that makes the news. I've been there and it isn't funny. It makes me sick to my stomach to see such little regard for children and human life.
In the 7+ months that I have been reading Recovering Grace concerning these accusations and discoveries, to me, it is obvious that Gothard had been more aggressive with those young ladies who had already been sexually abused. The battered woman, who now alleges rape, appears to have come from the most horrific background and set of circumstances in comparison. (In no way do I wish to minimize the horror experienced by anyone at all, I am just comparing the 'revealed facts'.)
I cannot help but wonder IF Bill Gothard ever really came to know the Jesus of the bible....???? How can an individual in his 'ministry' position not only be oblivious to the indescribable emotional and physical pain of the precious individuals under his watchful eye but also be a catalyst for the cause of much of their incredible misery?!?!?!?! It is beyond comprehension to anyone who has a heart for God and the human spirit. Who can conceive of such diabolical cunning?!?!?!
Where WAS or IS the evidence of the Holy Spirit in this man's life?!?!?!?!
Exactly. No evidence of the Holy Spirit. This man is very similar to cult leaders.
I remember how BG got a laugh in the basic seminar when he told about "creeps". You know the one described in 2 Peter 3:6, "......those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." I certainly didn't expect to find out over 40 years later that he was describing himself when he warned about "creeps".
Eva, one of the reasons we recall so well is that we were taking notes in indelible ink. Thus, the reason these 'truths' are so permanently embedded in our minds. :+(
Karen, I also see Don's skepticism as valid, especially in the context he provided. What B.G. HAS publicly rendered himself guilty of, however, is what I will quote here:
"B.G. did not prevent such allegations and subjected himself to temptation and accusations that would not have been possible had he had more respect for the rest of us."
With a vulnerable girl telling his staff she'd been raped by him, & with Annette's dad confronting him for touching his daughter inappropriately, it's pretty authoritarian for B.G. to have continued his sexual harassment. Which, as we all know, is exactly what he did. And for him to have tried to get a 13 year old to come & also work directly for
him as recently as 2012. To that day, he had/has no respect for others' stated boundaries, instead pushing to cross any that crimp his style. His style is to call all the shots without respect of others.
Thanks for the clarifications, Nicole. What would seem to be abundantly clear to any professional who has studied authoritarian systems or worked with survivors of any kind of abuse, and particularly childhood abuse, is that BG's institute (reflecting the man and his m.o.) is an ideal incubator for all kinds of such abuses to occur. In terms of religious anthropologies, too, it appears to have the "blame/sacrifice the victim" motif that fits all "natural religion" models as are typically found in religious systems like Hinduism and animism (with all the human rights abuses typically found, and even institutionalized, in those systems).
This is not to say that all those involved in IBLP or ATI will be equally guilty of such abuse or equally vulnerable to such abuses--not by a long stretch--but it is to say that those close to the seat(s) of the political power in the Institute are inevitably going to be perpetrators and enablers of such abuse (and also in all likelihood blind to this reality in varying degrees) and why a lawsuit of this nature has become necessary to bring truth to light (and, I pray, vindication and healing to those victimized by it).
I correct myself: "with a vulnerable girl telling his staff she'd been raped by" Kenneth Copley. It was this staff member who was reported to IBLP within a year or so of the time that these reports thus described him having raped this victim right there, onsite.
http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/01/06/amended-lawsuit-against-bill-gothard-text/
Entire lawsuit^^^^^
I am heartbroken and angry as I read the stories from the women who were taken advantage of and manipulated by this wolf in sheep's clothing. My family joined ATI in 1992 and I will never forget how inadequate I felt as a Christian when I would attend the Knoxville conference and other events in Oakbrook, Orlando and Indianapolis. After three years I transitioned out of ATI and eventually attended and graduated Moody Bible Institute, went to law school, and began practicing law. If someone would have told me these poor girls were suffering this sexual harassment and abuse from "Godthard" back then, I would not have believed it. I too put this man on a super-spiritual pedestal. I remember wanting so badly to be holy like I thought Mr. Gothard was holy. In 1993, I spent 10 days at a training event for boys in Indianapolis and I received counseling from him and prayed with him in relation to struggles I had with lust as a 15 year old boy. I thought to myself, "if only I could be like Gothard I would not struggle with lustful temptations...." I had no clue this hypocrite was feeding his lusts in the most heinous way by grooming these unsuspecting, sweet Christian girls. I felt spiritually inadequate because I did not meet up to the standards of ATI. I worked hard to be the model ATI student, attended the activities, ministries and events,worked my way through Wisdom books, committed to courtship, but I never felt like "one of them." It was not until I attended Moody that I began to understand the legalism I was living under as taught by ATI. There was so much freedom once I began to see, understand and experience the grace of God in Christ Jesus. I was bitter at Gothard for a long time, and this was before I learned of his evil actions with the women and minors.
I am so sorry for these women who went through this nightmare. As a lawyer, I want to see justice. I pray that criminal prosecution is still on the table (although I realize the statute of limitations may present issues). I was appalled to read Gothard's response to the Washington Post journalist. He does not comprehend the gravity of his despicable acts and he has no clue that he has forever disqualified himself from any future ministry in the short time he has left on this earth. I simply cannot believe he thinks he can make this go away by confessing his fault to the victims (which he denies) and then going back to "business as usual" with IBLP. His attitude, his dishonesty, his lack of genuine brokenness and failure to realize the gravity of the consequences of his actions is abhorrent. He should have been locked up for the rest of his life. I do not know how he lives with Himself. He knows he is going to stand before the Lord very soon; I cannot fathom how he continues to deny what he did.
I realize that there were good things that came out of the ATI and IBLP organization, but I do not understand how the board of directors for these ministries did not dissolve these organizations. I do not understand how these board members (many of who knew and/or should have known of Gothard's preying habits) can simply continue this ministry as if it can be redeemed and continued as if nothing happened. These ministries were founded and created by Gothard and the twisted legalism of his teachings weaves through the material.
I wish I could do something to help these women and to bring about appropriate justice. However, I am praying: 1) for the women and their families who suffered through this horrible abuse; 2) for the women who have not yet come forward (how many more women and minors did he abuse over the years?); 3) that the board of ATI and IBLP will either dissolve these non-profits or completely revamp the material and subject matter being taught..."we are not under the law but under grace" Romans 6; 4) for the church to learn from these despicable stories and implement Scriptural safeguards which encourage and ensure Christian leaders'/ministers' accountability, honesty, humility and discipline in their day to day ministries; 5) for these women pursuing Gothard and ATI/IBLP in the civil suit. If ever there was a scriptural and just basis for Christians suing a Christian organization this is it. They must be held accountable.
The alleged "playground infractions" comment sounds like a person who has no clue about the deceptive and manipulative nature of a sexual abuser who begins the grooming process in the exact manner as gothard. If you have a close friend, spouse or family member who has been groomed and sexually harassed or abused, red flags are popping up everywhere when you read through the testimony of these girls in relation to what Gothard was doing to them. I am so tired of excuses like this and the framing of his grooming behavior as playground antics.
Someone close to me went through a similar situation and the exact same excuses and justification were made by the perpetrator and his defenders.
I hope the attorney has served gothard and the BOD of IBLP with a spoliation letter to prevent the destruction of evidence in the form of emails, letters and other evidence that may relate to gothard's explanations of what he considers minor indescretions. I hope each of the board of directors will have their deposition taken to find out how long they knew about his behavior and the extent of the information they had on Gothard's harassment and abuse of these women.
BCM,
This was the comment.
Me:"Oh, just misdemeanor battery. Who cares? :/"
Alfred: "You tell me: “Battery . . . misdemeanor, which involves delivering a knowing or intentional but improper touch — for example, purposely poking a victim in the eye.”
This sounds like a playground infraction, I am sorry. Remember, this would be the charge if proven."
I agree with your analysis.
THis current board was not close enough to know. Long time board members like Tom Hill and Sammons have not been heard from for many months. They all left at some point. They must have realized he had defrauded us all. I would be interested if BCM thinks we may have a class action fraud case. I certainly would not have paid tuition for about 10 years had I know any of these things.
Don,
a couple questions for the lawyer view. First, Alfred is making a big deal out of the situation that Bill asked G3 to represent Bill in a suit with the board in order for Bill to get back in at IBLP. This seems to have happen before this one. That seems a little questionable. Second, is it common to have the legal complaint published like it now has? I am assuming that this isn't a trial by jury but a trial by judge but I wonder if publishing this (under freedom of info act?)causes prejudice in the general public. Lastly, will the side staff (the eunichs) that served Bill closely end up being called in to testify on what the saw and knew?
To BMC, your words:
I hope each of the board of directors will have their deposition taken to find out how long they knew about his behavior and the extent of the information they had on Gothard's harassment and abuse of these women.
YES!! And the inquisition must be thorough!! NO ONE who had prior or has present knowledge of these atrocities should be found blameless!!
As I understand it, earlier IBLP Board Members resigned and others willingly left the institution once they became aware of what was taking place. (Don Veinot/Ron Henzel's book, 'A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life' is a must read.)
However, it certainly appears that many individuals have walked away over the years yet did nothing to make the necessary authorities aware of the ongoing depravity of this lecherous 'Christian leader'.
Huzandbuzz, thanks for the additional info. What really bugs me is the prior directors who walked away without raising the alarm to the police, church and Christian community. They had a duty to those girls to speak out and ensure that his abuse was exposed. The fact that they stepped down and walked away demonstrates they knew the seriousness of his actions. Hopefully the attorney for the women will depose each of these former board members. Thanks for the suggestion about the book as well. I'll check it out. God bless
To: Bcm
I so appreciate your comment to my post. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you will find the contents of the book beyond noteworthy. (Inexpensive, used copies can often be purchased via ebay. This is the source of my copies which are frequently on loan. An Amazon purchase is also another option.)
For an online review of this 2002 text:
A Matter of Basic Principles - A Review - Recovering Grace
My 7+ months quest for a complete understanding of as many facts as possible has involved hundreds of hours of reading which, in turn, resulted in an anxiety level that continually escalates. :+(
No doubt this is true of all those who have embraced these precious victims in their hearts while committing all aspects of this horrific situation to prayer.
(I have the time to research.) Prior to internet access, of course, the availability of the majority of relevant information, of which we could have used to make more informed decisions regarding Gothard's exegesis, was not at our fingertips. Back in 1975, and no doubt prior, there was at least one humble and Godly man who did openly question, then attempt to expose, the unbiblical teachings highlighted in the IBYC/IBLP 'gospel' manuals.
Pastor Tim Bayly, Pastor Joe Bayly's son, has made available an open letter to Bill Gothard, from his dad, during that time period. The total correspondence is lengthy. Perhaps you have read the text. If not, and you choose to do so, please continue all the way to the startling end result.
(In addition, you may find many of the (19) comments which follow
that presentation worth your reading time as well.)
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/06/church-celebrities-who-are-above-criticism-ii-bill-gothard
Blessings.... <
Thanks for the Baylyblog link. It was very informative. B.G. has always been vindictive, evasive and secretive. It is not surprising, therefore, that things he has hidden for years have come to light in a way that dishonors him. He taught about reaping and sowing. Too bad he never listened, apparently to anyone.
Response to Don, Robwar, and Huzzandbuz: Huzzandbuz, thank you for posting the Bayly link. He hit the nail on the head. His father reminds me a lot of my father who had to stand up to a pastor and associate pastor in a similar situation (associate pastor was "counseling" teen girls over lunch by himself). We as believers are called to speak the truth in love, and no one is above accountability in the church. Thank you for your research as well. I'm sure the attorney handling this case has benefited quite a bit from it.
Don and Robwar, I am licensed to practice law in Florida and in Federal Court in Florida, so I am not familiar with the class action requirements in Illinois. As far as a class-action is concerned, there must normally be a similarity in the class of people and a similarity in injury between all the parties. There also must be some form of fraud/negligent misrepresentation or a violation of a statute that affected the class of similarly situated people (e.g. ATI students). I don't know if there would be standing to bring a class action against Gothard's non-profits, but it is an interesting thought.
In relation to the question about Gothard suing IBLP to come back to IBLP, the non-profit by-laws generally govern the relationship between the BOD and Gothard as the CEO or President. Perhaps Gothard is claiming the BOD violated the by-laws in asking him to step down, or did not follow the proper procedures. I can't imagine he would have a valid basis considering the claims and the evidence supporting the claims against him. In relation to the question as to whether the Complaint can be published to the public: yes, it is considered a public record once it is filed with the clerk of court in that county in which it was filed. Finally, in relation to Ron's third question, yes the attorney for the women can subpoena pretty much any and everyone who worked for Bill and was involved in anyway with ATI/IBLP. However, if these individuals are out of state, and this is a state court court case, the subpoena power of an Illinois subpoena is effective in the State of Illinois, unless procedures are followed to get a court in another state to essentially give teeth to that subpoena.
What I do know about lawsuits like this is that they can take 2-5 years from inception to conclusion. The Gothard issue is really a three prong issue: 1) Gothard's sexual harassment and abuse of the women/girls; 2) Gothard's legalistic and border-line heretical teachings/doctrine and the ramifications on students over the years; 3)the former board of directors and Christian leaders who knew about his predilections for teen girls and sexual advances/harassment and allowed him to get away with it and/or excused it. The most important is what he did to these girls. He can lie and play the "I'm a victim" game all he wants, but he will ultimately not get away with this. His story is similar to some of the pastors out of Jack Hyle's church in Indiana, and Bob Gray (pastor out of Jacksonville, Florida who molested girls in the church for years). It did not end well for these men, and it will not end well for Gothard.
A million thank-yous for you answers and insight into all of this.
To BCM:
It is extremely insightful for all of us to interact with a legal professional. A sincere "thank you" for your time and judicious input.
Being mindful of the inordinate amount of time it takes for a successful conclusion of a lawsuit such as the one initiated, and considering Gothard's age, (and perhaps declining mental state),
our fervent prayers are so focused on the absolute and complete truth being revealed. If his admittance to ALL offenses was subsequently followed by a total repentance and brokenness, it will truly be a glorious day. The recovery of each one who was traumatized by his actions would benefit beyond words. Needless to say, he needs to make his own peace with God while he still has time. I am purposing to believe, that as time goes on, he will realize that the TRUTH, in all its ugliness, is the 'only way out'. <
I read the entire baylyblog link, myself.
What gets me is that it took Gothard months to figure out whether or not a wife should object to her husband killing their child. In the particular incidence that he took months to consider, the murder occurred inside of 2 & a half hours. Isn't this what he calls "speaking up late in the day"???? How was the wife supposed to have figured out how to weigh Gothard's teachings any faster than himself Gothard did, so as to interfere? Also that he repeatedly "corrected" (his own word) original account of the killer being the father by stating that the dead 3-year-old "was not the man's own child but rather, it was his foster child". Gothard's repetitive issue of this "correction" seems that, to him, the foster aspect amended the severity of the crime.
I knew Gothard saw adopted kids as less-than-worthy to be parented compared to their biological, adopted siblings. But I didn't know (until now) that this worth-less-ness included foster kid(s) without any biological sibling(s) in the home of IBLP/ATI parents.
No wonder Gothard never bothered to come through with his hints at engagements to various of his personal assistants. If he had, the ensuing marriages might have produced children. In which case, he might have felt he needed to pause in his abuse, since these would have been biological. Besides..... why raise your own kids when you can have more fun taking sexual advantage of minors/women that other people have nurtured (or not) but that whom have nonetheless blossomed into young girls or women?
What kills me more is that now Michelle Duggar wants to adopt. It makes me sick to my stomach that a woman with 19 live births and 2 still births with a son that molested his sisters and steeped in all things Gothard and his views even THINKS she should adopt so she can have the 20th kid. Pass the barf bag please.
rob war,
Can this potential adoption situation truly be factual?
Surely they are not contemplating adopting an infant?!?!
Considering the number of children they are presently 'parenting', their age, what 'appears' to be their less than truthful admission of Josh's molestation exploit and its consequences, in addition to the subsequent 'headlines' controversy that continues to follow them, how could an adoption for them come to pass?? It does not seem plausible that they would even be considered as appropriate adoptive parents.....
ABOVE ALL, bearing in mind Bill Gothard's stringent adherence to avoid those 'lowly children' and the Duggars' allegiance to him, their contemplation does not seem attainable...
(My heart desperately wants to believe the Duggar parents had the sincerest desire to share Jesus love, albeit their way, when they embarked on their TV communication with those outside their realm of isolationism. I would further be disheartened to think this newest action was a ploy to boost their 'ratings' in an attempt to renew then secure continuing TV coverage.)
I know the intended purpose for the posts on Recovering Grace. This availability is certainly a blessing and a god-send for each of us. Please forgive my digression...
They've talked on it, but I doubt it'll happen. What agency would approve them? There are so many couples who would like to adopt, who either don't have bio-kids, or only have one or two, and they stay on waiting lists. They have a reputation. Not to mention, didn't BG speak out against adoption?(though it's hard to say if that was one of his passing phases or an actual consistent thing with him) One or both of their married daughters may(but not for awhile; they're still learning of hoops they need to jump through), but Jimbob and Michelle, I highly doubt it. In the adoption process, they're gonna be asked some trapping questions.
The Duggars could do a couple of the following. Do a private domestic adoption through a lawyer with someone that is so glamorize by them. Or they could try international with their connections and mission trips to south of the border. The later was an expressed interest of Jessa and her husband. They honestly shouldn't be approved by anyone for anything. She uses her oldest girls to help raise the others, there has already been molestation in the home, there is now a live in tutor because Michelle is overwhelmed and finally this is being done just have 20 after their fertility treatments didn't work. It's selfish and not fair to those trying to adopt that have no children at all.
Nicole,
Bill Gothard has no regard for logic in his insidious behavior. No one can predict the unpredictable within his mindset. The tragic ramifications of his illogical and irrational 'spiritual discernment' are beyond heartbreaking....
There is no evidence that Gothard feels he is officially and certainly not legally bound to anyone else. I consider him to be a member of the most elitist of society's exalted, 'the mutual admiration society'.....his ego and himself.
A barf bag for me, too.
I hope a major investigative news program will pick this case and story up so this man's criminal behavior can never be hidden again, and the shackles of his false teaching will be exposed for what they are.
God bless and protect these courageous women!
We an surely pray to that end!
second that, though that could prove a double-edged sword since the same major media outlets that would do that wouldn't have a liking for Christianity at large and most likely use it as a thrust against the church as a whole.
You're right. That's always a possibility. There will always be those watching to have their anti-Christian or anti-faith bias confirmed, but I believe the true faith of Christ can withstand that--it has withstood much worse over the course of Church history. In some ways, I welcome adversity and challenge like this, especially in this culture, because I believe it purifies the Church of nominal and sub-Christian belief and forces professing believers to examine the foundations of their faith--whether they are building their claims to a relationship with God on a real, life-transforming encounter with Him in Truth or on some version of Christian apologetic that isn't really worthy of the name.
David, I agree. Certainly that is more than likely to happen. However, let us purpose to view that potential scenario via Karen's lens.
I believe in resilience in the face of adversity. Purification of any 'muddy waters' concerning the gospel of Christ will ultimately prevail!! <
Amen
Karen, I believe we all desire that 'no stone be un-turned' regarding the relentless quest for uncovering all truths. Thousands upon thousands need to be enlightened here and abroad. The involvement of a major investigative news program could be a phenomenal answer!!
Sadly the ramifications of his learned 'spiritual principles' and erroneous exegesis will linger.....
I have viewed an internet photo of the results of the eldest Duggar daughters having passed along alarming Gothard literature to young children (via their mission trips.) The group of young people is shown standing, proudly holding their large booklets in front of them. (The title of that particular pamphlet escapes my old brain for the moment....)
:+)
Photos of children displaying Gothard's 'truth' pamphlets:
'The lies that we believe causing stress and disease'.
http://a34.636.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/photo-4-5.jpg
Certainly prolonged stress can be a major contributing factor to disease.
However, Gothard's propaganda is much different....
:+(
Yes, spreading our American-born heresies overseas grieves me, too! I felt this way about the WoF "prosperity gospel" teaching which had taken root in Africa, too (specifically, it was in the church a Nigerian student I met while doing short-term mission work in Europe in the 1980's had come from). Such heresies take a little bit of truth from Scripture and/or modern research findings in the world and mix and twist them up with a big fat theological lie.
Having been in both WoF and attended Bill's seminars, the similarities between the two is uncanny. Yet, Alfred cannot even admit the connection on his blog even with a Calvinist and and Catholic telling him otherwise. He deleted all the comments to shut down the conversation.
To: rob war,
Even after spending years steeped in an elitist way of life as they mindlessly followed 'the consummate man of God', now becoming aware of numerous scathing reports, I personally cannot conceive of anyone not investigating a single accusation of nefarious actions while pondering........"What if?"
How can the Alfreds, Duggars, Bates and others of that ilk continue with the status quo??
Regardless of how it appears OR what is at stake, Gothard's authoritative counsel to "always give a good report", takes precedence.
Gothard purposed to 'have it covered' lest you find a way out.
To: rob war
Several months ago, after viewing numerous comments placed by Alfred on Recovering Grace, I became aware of a bit of information regarding his large family as well as his continual devotion to Gothard. I have never read nor am I familiar with his blog.
Aspects of Word of Faith and Gothard doctrine do run parallel.
I find that meditating on James 1:5 is the most helpful for me. (Gothard's 'Wisdom Booklets' certainly were not influenced by this Word from God.) ^i^
huzbanbuz,
sometimes the hardest person to forgive is oneself. Don't beat yourself up but realize that you are now free and walking in truth and that it will take some time to undo and unlearn things. Allow yourself that time. It's one step at a time. Try to understand that you were probably young or younger when you got involved, you probably didn't have anything in your Church environment to give hesitations or warnings, you didn't have life experience to see through some of it at the time and it sounded all "Biblical" when you first started out. The best thing to do is realize that this was a very imperfect stepping stone to better things and you to your credit have stepped of this crumbling rock onto stable ground.
@rob war - Thank you for your comment to huzanbuz: the entry starting "sometimes the hardest person to forgive is oneself." That whole comment has really helped me - I'm dealing with some issues that involve self-forgiveness, and you are speaking truth there! :-) Thanks.
To rob war:
Forgiving yourself....Yes, easier said than done. Everything is a process...
I am a mom and a very 'seasoned' senior citizen in this day. (We all have a story to tell.)
Thank you for your comments and encouragement.
Accepting Jesus as Savior was the FIRST and MOST PERFECT STEP all those years ago. Yes, then a brief time later, following Gothard was surely 'an imperfect stepping stone'.
I have been on 'more stable ground' for many years, however, the 'process of unlearning can take a lifetime'. Some serious family issues linger. I continue to pray for wisdom and for God to 'soften an adult son's heart' in my never ending attempt to encourage understanding and peace.
We are all in 'this' together in one way or another. The growing camaraderie via Recovering Grace is, needless to say, a blessing.
FYI: I happened upon Recovering Grace in May 2014. I had been somewhat familiar with the Duggar family having viewed some TV segments over time. I recognized that they were 'affiliated' with Bill Gothard. Initially I did not give that connection much reflection. (Many years ago I had heard that Gothard was involved in a cover up of his brother's 'sexual escapades'. I was startled!! As I had moved on, I never attempted to discover any validity to what may have just been rumors.) When Josh Duggar's 'issues' involving his sisters made headlines, I was indeed shocked!! Immediately I began a concentrated search to determine how involved the Duggars were in Gothardism. This relentless undertaking has lead me to Recovering Grace in addition to hundreds of hours of book and on-line reading. My shock turned to horror!!!!
(This is the 'short' of it.)
Hi all, I have heard from a few whom I have spoken to about the harmful medical practices taught by Gothard and even publicly broadcasted at conferences. I know Gothard has also written manuals on medical topics and even established the Medical Training Institute of America based off of scriptural directives, and IBLP has been known to neglect medical issues among the staff and attendees of conferences and getaways. Has anyone else had firsthand experience with these scripturally based medical practiced and a shunning of modern medical science? Any information of stories about this topic we be much appreciated! Thanks!
Hannah L.,
I have never attended a conference but I know Gothard had at least one of his personal assistant's teeth pulled out. He also pressured both "Annette" & "Meg" to undergo epidermic procedures for the cosmetic reasons of his (and his alone!) aesthetic preferences. He took initiative to have already selected those whom would perform these procedures by the time he brought these young women to their appointments. In "Meg's" case, she refused to agree to an appointment for an epidermic procedure which Gothard had specified for her.
It appears he also retained an unlicensed dentist on the grounds of one of his campuses.
This may not be the kind of medical info you're looking for, however, cosmetic procedures are legally supposed to be performed only at the patient's discretion. Not at the insistence of another, or by means of another taking charge of the patient's body in determining such action. Gothard did not have any legal right (being that his were cosmetic reasons) to thus order his subordinates so that they become patients. Even such imperative procedure as, say, an appendectomy would need to be stated for it's importance to the subordinate/patient by licensed medical professionals. Gothard had no legal right in having determined surgical procedures as necessary; and he had no right in treating anyone like a patient in causing them to actually become a patient, let alone as a patient subjected to HIS direct orders.
But I don't know if this was medical malpractice or not.
I correct my statement that "Annette" was one of these; it's a different girl, not Annette. But "Meg" IS the other one. There are so many that I can barely keep their names straight.
Hannah and Nicole, Following up on Nicole's great insight, this was yet another area in which Gothard was skating on this ice. Instead of encouraging students to pursue medicine or law through the normal route of obtaining a bachelor's degree and then attending medical or law school, he pushed ATI students to train through apprenticeships. The problem is no matter how long one apprenticed under a doctor or lawyer, there was not a state in the union that would give an ATI apprentice a license to practice medicine or law unless you had the required degrees and certifications (with the exception of an arrangement ATI made with Illisnois I believe). I did a lot of research relating to law because I wanted to become a lawyer while in ATI. Fortunately I did my research early on and did not rely on what ATI was telling me at the time and I went to college and then law school. It does not surprise me BG had an unlicensed dentist on site. I'm surprised he didn't try to hold himself out as a doctor for the purpose of getting even more access to teen girls.
Bill seem to use the apprentice model which maybe worked in the 1700's but is a totally inadequate way to learn in the 21st Century. There is no way for degrees like law and medicine etc that a person can learn just by following someone else around. There is just too much to learn, information is now too complex and much broader than that. But, he did a great job of conning people to believe this at the expense of their own common sense. Only in a craftsman base agrarian society like 1700s does an apprentice model of learning work and internships work only after the person has had strong basis in the classroom of the basics. For becoming a physician, they do internships and residencies only after 2 years of hard core class work and internships and residencies are not just following and learning from one Dr. ATI just seem to feed into his ministries, he wasn't offering them in a real business world. Did big name businesses like Hobby Lobby offer education internships to ATI to further their education and make them employable. It is education fraud at it's finest.
"Education fraud" is a great way to put it. In the end, I think he was just trying to find ways to convince parents to let their kids work for him for free.
He sort of did; he has an "honorary" doctorate, I think- although it's not in medicine. Maybe he counts that! Because he certainly thought he was qualified. Or, maybe he thinks the "doctor" in "doctorate" qualified him to be a female body inspector.
At any rate, BCM, I really appreciate your insight here. I know of a girl who went through ATI & "graduated" high school but when she went to apply for jobs most places told her her graduation certificate wasn't sufficient. She was stunned, & played, since she worked so hard to get this.
Everyone who did the apprenticeships should be reimbursed according to the rate of inflation. And given back-pay for all the work they did that was for nothing in return.
With regard my reply to Hannah L., Gothard's seeming medical "referrals"
could not have been medical malpractice, now that I think of it; he wasn't licensed. Hence, no practice. Thus, no malpractice. But I have no doubt that the doctor who did do the cosmetic procedure (removal of a skin tag) would have called the cops if he knew his patient was coerced into the procedure.
It's called practicing medicine without a license. I work in a Blood Bank. A long time ago I took a call from a concerned mom to be about her upcoming delivery. She stated to me that she was type O and her husband was type A and she was convinced that her baby would have hemolytic disease of the newborn. HDN is where the mother has an antibody like anti-D and the baby is D positive (RH positive) and the mom's anti-bodies attack the developing baby's blood causing serious problems for the developing baby. Now someone who is O has natural anti-A and anti-B and that can cause a very mild jaundice in newborns that are either A or B and that is very common but not really serious and lights take care of it. I tried to explain this to this woman using my background and training and she has herself so convinced that her baby was going to be born with HDN, she didn't hear me. She had a little medical knowledge but she drew the wrong conclusions from it. That is Bill's medical teachings, it has a little bit of truth here and there but he draws the wrong conclusions from it and no matter what one says that does have real background and training, he won't hear it.
To Rob War:
"I would like to see more articles and testimonies from those pastors, the ones that supported and promoted the seminars and now regret their involvement."
*Extracted from 'Waiting on Theological Clarification from IBLP*
To me, this is at least half of the continuing problem of what was 'once the dynasty' of Bill Gothard!! Where were the many pastors who should have discredited the volumes of 'Gothard's doctrine'?!?!?!
To be continued......
Husandbuz
You raise a great question. I can speak from my experience. There were pastors from the onset that wanted to expose the false teachings and the false teacher. I could not do it in an open forum for concerns of being removed from seminary. When I approached the dean of the seminary over BG and IBYC And the legalism, I got rebuked for it. And things came to a head when a couple of school board members had it in for me because I disagreed with BG' s stance on rock music. (I still think that there was something deeper than that as I theorize that my dad as an attorney went against one of the relatives of the gothardite board members on a civil or whatever suit and we're taking it out on me. I have had a hard time believing that anyone, even a gothardite could be blank blank enough to be mean and cruel---- until I read many accounts on RG and I am actually being persuaded that yes, they can be blank blanks. I came razor thin close to taking the board, or at least some members of it to court for slander until another wise older pastor intervened. I did graduate and was ordained but I have learned the hard way that many gothardites will try to ruin you if you don' t agree with them. Man, I didn't realize that anyone hated hippie types worse than cops! LOL! During seminary days and into the early days some of s clergy had to operate like the French or Norwegian underground resistance movement to expose the false teachings. Thankfully because of RG and the Internet, the truth ( Which we knew all along) can be brought out. And people wonder why I want to travel to Quartzite, Arizona to hang out with the (Jesus People type) hippies------LOL! That's why I could not be as verbose about the rigid legalism. Blessings!
To Todd:
Thank you for your reply. WoW!! I am sorry you experienced this situation.
I can certainly understand that taking place. Many of us recognize that Gothard was a powerful man!! My reply to BCM above on 1/10 includes a link:
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/06/church-celebrities-who-are-above-criticism-ii-bill-gothard
(After Pastor Joe Bayly's, (March 1975-77) open letter to Bill Gothard, he was later replaced at Dallas Theological Seminary as their pre-arranged speaker for a chapel service.)
BUT, there were established pastors, who later attended Gothard's 'Pastor Seminars', who, in turn, never made any attempt to warn their parishioners or dispel any of Bill's teachings. Some churches in my area held small congregations initially, but, in those earlier years (late 1970s early-mid 1980s) their attendance increased significantly as the 'newly converted attendees of the IBYC seminars' began to take part in the services.
Some older members, 'second and third generation Christians', were no longer openly 'on fire' for Christ. Along comes a few 'new converts' who, in turn, within a short period of time, encouraged friends and 'passersby via gospel tracts' to attend the church, and subsequently, the IBYC seminars. Was it due to the significant attendance impact on the church with 'enthusiastic tithers' that the subject of doctrinal errors (and more) was not broached?? (We were a 'blazing trail' determined to make the SON shine!!) :+)
I never heard of IBLP- let alone ATI- encouraging evangelism of any kind; just Gothardism. That's the "secret knowledge" of the Scriptures, not the gospel, according to IBLP. And it's all about being admired & stirring up envy (or fancying oneself to be doing this) so that people will ask you how it is you're different. And then the answer is, come to the IBLP seminar; not the gospel. The gospel isn't enough, even if it was the main message- this is the Gothardite business model.
To Nicole:
Yes, yes, yes!! I agree. NO 'purposed' evangelism via IBYC.
All of your comments echo my sentiments. (Now, that is.)
The years leading back to full coherence of the 'logical brain God gave us'....
More later.... <
To Nicole:
....and those ensuing years were long and arduous.
I cannot state, even at this time in my life that 'I have arrived safely back' on the other side of Gothardism. There are still times when I find myself sifting Bill's dogma from the true meaning of the scriptures.
Until the Lord takes us home, perhaps in every way, we will continue to be 'a work in progress'...... :+)
And I don't mean that it was ever the "main message"- it never was, I just meant, "if it had been, it still wasn't enough." According to IBLP.
But when a businessman without the fear of the One true God in him peddles to conservative Christians as his target market, he has to sound a gospel to resonate with us types. But, what has HIM going is building his business & making a buck; first priority is the bottom line. Profit is what he always really considered the gauge of success to actually be. He just had way, way less fear of God & respect for the Bible than it normally takes to market to the conservative demographic. It worked because his marketing age range was (by majority) to kids. People just thought he was dumbing-down Scripture to be aide the parenting process. This masked his utter twisting of it.
Where's the millstone?!?!?!?
Nicole, you hit the nail on the head. Rarely was evangelism encouraged. "Godthardism" was the message. Scary!
Believe me I am not judging even though it will seem I am in this post. My husband and I went to one of his seminars in Des Moines, Iowa USA., we just about walked out after a few hours but my husband said we should stay for the whole thing as otherwise who would listen when we try to warn them. Well we stayed and no one listened anyway. That was the first and last for us. Where are the Berean Christians, where are the discerners? I know I will be scorned for this post but I see this going on all the time. People love to be in a movement. Big seams to mean great! Like sheep to the slaughter but when we tried to warn people even when the movement first started they looked at us like we had 2 heads. Will people ever learn? Doubt it.
Oops seems, not seams. I'm a seamstress and didn't read my post as when I do I end up not sending.
Over at homeschooler's anonymous they are posting screen shots of complete Wisdom booklets in case anyone is needing them for research of any kind. The site contains stories of those homeschooled, many under ATI, how the system produced many with stories of mental and emotional abuse. My comment was not allowed because I mentioned, as a former public school teacher, how public school system is very flawed, especially the testing, which the pressure causes both teachers and students mental and emotional distress. My point was that no system is perfect and today, with the leaders we have in govt and corporate agencies, that the most stupid, time and money wasting and cruel, bullying policies will be implemented resulting in unhappiness and discontent, all the way to broken lives, with only the top few getting any benefits from the laboring of the minions that work in the system.
To esbee,
So Sad. May I ask what grade/subjects you taught...and in what state you reside?
Thank you for the info.
Blessings... <
I taught 27 yrs in Texas, elementary and middle school -- art, higher order thinking skills, remedial reading for those who failed the state test, drama. I saw the school system degrade over those many years as teachers' hands were tied as new state laws were implemented that specified how to discipline kids and the emphasis on the state test. What kept me from going completely crazy is that the school district was made up of a lot of church-goers, school board, principals, teachers, etc, so it kept an already crazy system a little more sane. But just like Gothard who had his favorites and treated them special and all the rest were merely minions that had better toe the line, our district did the same. More than one time, good employees were let go on trumped up charges because they did not fit the agenda.
To esbee:
Thank you for sharing a few of your thoughts and experiences. Though my sons are grown men now, and I do not have grandchildren, via other family member's children, 'I do see the handwriting on the wall' with regard to the overall decline of the education system. It is all so horrific!! (My daughter-in-law teaches high school students who are autistic. My eldest son, her husband, is employed in the capacity of counseling students who, among other issues, have alcohol and/or drug addictions. These teaching positions have their own issues as well. They have been 'parents' to many of their students. Due to their devotion, I believe this is the reason they chose not to rear biological children. There was just not enough time....)
I have been reading Recovering Grace since I happened upon it in late May 2015. I often come across your previous posts. (I believe you have commented on my prior statements.) Earlier today, I found something you shared profoundly humorous....lol. 'A former pastor was reprimanding your husband as a result of you riding your horse to church!!' OMG!! lol
I hope this comment is found in that I think it is important subject matter. I hope I make myself understandable and if I do, please comment and/or add what you know of this... I would love to start a family conversation in our family and yours - especially with young people 10 and up who can understand this "feeling" of guilt. It is so oppressive.
I think I see something. Finally. It has been here for a while in myself and close to home but I did not know how to express it in words. Not rocket science and I am no psychologist and you may have seen it a long time ago.
Here goes: After the experience of living lives FULL (did I say that strongly enough?) of guilt, (I mean from our waking moment to the time our head hit the pillow and then probably in our dreams) we say "enough".
Now, that "enough" can be a very healthy one - the kind where the truth sets us free and we embark on the path to health and conscience and listening to His Spirit and His word do their gentle work - trusting in God so that even if "our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things."
That is scenario One. and in this scenario, health is on it's way but tons of sorting needs to be done on a conscious level "Is this really something to feel guilt for?" "Is this a learned response?" "Is this the sweet Spirit of God I hear?" Answers need to come to these questions. It is important to stay open and listening to good and gentle and true voices in our lives. People and print and audio.
In scenario Two, we respond to the years and years and years of guilt by saying "hang it". "Hang it" is very different than "enough". It is not to be despised by any means because God often uses our "hang it" resolves to work His great work in our lives. The answers to "hang it" are the same as "enough" but with a word of caution.
Hang it can lead to years of addiction (oh so many forms from drugs to checking out in many ways, alcohol, sex, abusing others and running right over them...). It often produces a c'est la vie attitude where we sin rampantly not caring any more because the guilt is just too heavy. We cast it off having felt it for so long for no real reason. We do not want to feel it EVER AGAIN - real reason or not. And who can blame us?
False guilt is crippling. It is a mirage and needs to be walked through.
True guilt is crippling if we leave it unheeded and try to stuff it.
There is a difference between them and it is huge. WE see this in two of the definitions given of the word guilt.
~ the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.
~ make (someone) feel guilty, especially in order to induce them to do something.
True guilt is initiated in truth and small enough to carry - for a while. It wants to be tended to. It comes in the form of being shown or convicted of a wrong we have done. This is such a good thing. Without it, we would be a society of narcissistic, pathological liars stuffing wrongs and placing the blame on all of the other narcissistic liars around us. When we are wrong - we are wrong. As my mother would say "This is not the end of the world" serious, maybe. We can go and do what is right, involving those who should be involved and begin the process of health for all and walking forward. Whether it is a stolen candy bar or a stolen life the ramifications will differ greatly but there is one way to walk forward.
False guilt is just that - false. It is not to be accepted. It is to be assessed and not acted upon since it is false. It can even be "card cataloged" (shows MY age!) to be referenced again the next time it rears itself by the same person or on the same subject.
I am of the opinion that those of us who have lived under this in cults or the IFB or cult like organizations need to take a personal assessment. We need to assess whether or not our guilt maker works. Really. Does it work in "small things"? Does it work in "big things"? Is it far too sensitive - in case you crush an ant on the sidewalk? Is it so hard to push the button that we have turned into 'blamers', not taking responsibility, on the road to true and full narcissism? That is the outcome when we just refuse to see the real wrongs we commit due to avoiding that awful and all too familiar feeling of g.u.i.l.t. (sometimes even the word itself is a trigger.)
I want to say here that I was an adept guilt dispenser. I do take the blame - when honestly I am not sure I should. I, too, lived under guilt all those years in the same way. I want our family set free to know the one true God who is so very full of love and grace that He set in our hearts and minds a little button that understands conviction and produces a feeling called guilt or unrest. Unrest so that we know we are out of the fence at that time and turn back to the One who gave this to us as a beautiful alarm system for safety.
The alarm went of so frequently (almost all day every day) that we tired of the sound and it grated us to the point we have turned from it, in some cases. The Creator it will help us reset it.
The "enough" process is about 2 years young in my life. I will not allow myself guilt unless it is real, and then I really do want to know I have done wrong and how to right the situation. I know I will not get this right all the time but the outcome is so worth it, I am willing to try and, at times, fail.
What this process looks like in my life is those around me cannot guilt me. They are more than welcome to point something out and I will, as honestly as I can, assess it and go to them if there is fault on my end. Otherwise it falls to the ground. Any insinuations, blaming, etc... do not "stick" like they once did. Your problems are yours until I see that they truly intersect with me in some way. This is freeing. So freeing. Not nasty toward people but freeing. I think it frees them as well when they can see and even feel that there is no guilt trip to be had here. God be praised!
More rules are not needed. More guilt is not the answer.It was the answer in ATI and is in many (most?) "religious" circles (talk to an ex-scientologist or IFB or some holiness sects). More love to God will take care of things. Not more guilt and rules.
I hope this opens thoughts and conversation around the table for health. I would absolutely love to hear if you have gone through any of this as well. It always helps to know when others see the same thing.
I want to highly and strongly recommend Mike Reeves as someone to listen to on the subject of Christ and who He really is. And God the Trinity. I am n.o.t. espousing a denomination (I don't know or care what his is). God will use him greatly in your heart. I promise. This is just an encouragement toward health and away from a wrong view of Who God is and how He works.
rats. typos. arghhh. It should read "We see this in two of the definitions given of the word guilt" and "The alarm went off so frequently".
Good stuff. But, what "fence"?
Thanks for asking Don. question. The boundary we cross when we step into sin. A boundary crossed that SHOULD lead us to unrest.
Make sense?
Hey my comment to DG from over 48 hours ago is still locked up in Moderation so I am re-posting it here. I'm re-posting some of what HAS gotten through, too, to put it in context. Moderator over there is saying that he's not satisfied with my claims that Bill Gothard's victims feel grief over having been sexually exploited by him. Although I've never met any of his victims, I believe I relate to them better than DG Moderator does; certainly I would never discredit what they have said. As he is prone to do & has done prolifically over the past week.
Me to DG Moderator:
"What they say or don’t say is supposedly your only indication of what happened. So one might think to accept what they’ve said. The fact that you claim it as invalid seems to lend even more gravity to things as they are. What they say DOES carry weight; hence you would that they be silent- silent about incidences that are very morally heavy. On your end it may well be: “May a weight rendered of expected silence match the weight of the offense”. And myself & probably a lot of other people out here likely see that this in converse is just as true: “May a weight rendered for the offense match the weight of the expectation of silence.”
Me to DG Moderator on December 3rd:
"At least one of the girls (I think more than one but am specifically thinking of a Chicago Magazine article) said that in reading one other girl’s account “it was like a dam broke” & she was absolved in grief over HER OWN experience. That doesn’t happen unless there’s something to grieve over that’s still seriously raw even after time has passed.
Also I myself have shared that myself & some other ladies underwent sexual misdemeanors that we were each accosted with. In calling the cops years afterward, the officers’ questions & honest answers led them to say that prompt arrival at the precinct was in order. And “misdemeanor” is what at least one report was classified as. Even though a few of us (myself included) resorted to aggressive physical defense, many did not, opting instead for avoidance/escape tactics such as practiced by the plaintiffs & others who have shared their testimonies on RG. Regarding the pervert I speak of, NONE of the 26 of us concluded our attacker’s misdemeanors against us by verbal objection. I, for one, was utterly speechless after I initially yelled “What are you doing?!?!?” As a matter of fact, he had scared & intimidated me so badly in the attack that, in the immediate aftermath, as he gushed on & on about how he had turned me into a fine young woman by all his “life-coaching” because I was “just like a daughter” to him & we were all like a family, yada-yada-yada, I consciously AGREED with everything he said. I knew he was spouting hogwash, but that’s how scared I was. In the next 2 times I saw him, he made a point of coming up to me in referring to “you know what happened back there” & blaming me for my dress & that “God has mercy on loose women”- all to pin it on me. Which my previous indoctrination in the Umbrella, “no rights”, “bitterness”, & “give only a good report” doctrines had already done. (These 4 are all IBLP dogmas). So, I kept associating with my friends on a weekly basis even though we were all under his ultimate headship. When one such friend started getting “discipled” for quite a few hours per week by someone else who couldn’t keep any job, had divorced their spouse -To Marry Their First Cousin!- & had been diagnosed by a doctor as having schizophrenia, I became so concerned that I told this guy: “Why don’t you get discipled by the ‘life-coach’ [a.k.a., the pervert] He’s trustworthy.” I meant, ‘MORE trustworthy’ but didn’t want to deflect negatively on the previous mentor my friend had in case that presented a wall. It wasn’t long before I began to see daylight about the fact that my friend was better off with what councilor he already had. I also NEVER would have suggested such a thing if my friend had been female instead of male!!!! So, when I confronted the pervert 2 & a half years after he attacked me, he at one point said to me in front of 2 pastors & another representative they had there: “You told __________ last summer that he should come council with me. You told him I was trustworthy.” The pastors turned from him to just stare at me with raised eyebrows, asking me: “Did you say that?” He had effectively manipulated them with this one statement. Also there were the cards. I had signed all the pervert’s birthday & anniversary cards post-attack just as I had prior-to. I had even MADE a thank-you card out of poster-board for the guys who had cooked dinner for all us ladies at the pervert’s bidding. I had designed it like a flow-chart with the pervert’s name at the top part of the triangle. I used words like “super” & “terrific” & “GENTLEMEN”- yes, g-e-n-t-l-e-m-e-n to describe them all, inclusively. Not to mention I kept quiet for over 2 years about the shame of what “I” had somehow caused to happen. I went months without remembering. When I occasionally did, I became so anxious & ill I could barely function. Unbeknownst to me, at the point in time that God would not even let me sleep until I made known what had been done to me, the pervert accosted another girl in front of over a dozen people. I was later told that what he did was exactly what “Rachel” in the RG accounts described Bill Gothard doing to her in the car when he grabbed her long hair in both hands & yanked her head backwards. Our Perv. said nothing about “I love your hair” but nonetheless several people shouted “What are you doing??”, & “What are you doing to her?” & one girl broke the silence that lasted over a minute afterwards with the observation: “Perv, that was very inappropriate.” (No one in the room was younger than 26 & many were in their mid-30’s. Hence, the boldness.) So, at this same time God is giving me insomnia without my even knowing what has just happened to this girl. At the confrontation, one of the pastors opened it up by saying to the Perv. “Perv., Incredulous here has called this meeting to address an incidence of inappropriate touching.” And you know what the Perv. said? He said: “Oh, you mean about ______________.” [Though I had not been among those present when he had accosted ___________.] And went on to gush about he & ___________ had a relationship that was like daughter/father. I was stunned to hear another name mentioned, & so were the pastors along with their representative they had brought in. Even so, the pervert was able to manipulate them all with the fact that I had showed appreciation over the years for what I had come to believe the pervert had done for me as well as what I believed he meant to me, him supposedly being a Christian person. That meeting to confront him was one of the worst ideas I’ve ever had. It ushered in bullying via the Umbrella dogma that you would not believe. Or then again, maybe you could/should. The amount of sin that only one of those pastors & the pervert [the other pastor was/is godly & good] that the Perv. started against me in that meeting racked-up to be more than I would ever want to reckon with at the White Throne. Moderator, your cohorts are LUCKY that only 2 confrontations by any victim of Bill Gothard for specific incidences of his inappropriate touching seem to have occurred. Because it’s those being confronted, & not the confronters, that really seem to make a bad situation worse. As was in the case of Bill towards Robyn & her father. Him ridiculing them in talking to other people? Oh yeah, I relate to that having happened to me, too. And then some.
Like I hinted at in my right-above-this-one-comment, there are absolutes that should lend sanity to human governance regardless of how effective manipulation was/still is."
UNPUBLISHED COMMENT by Me to DG Moderator December 6th:
"Well the insomnia that I came down with didn’t need to pass your inspection, either; only God could have allowed me to suffer that. And the timing of it coincided with (totally unknown to me) The Perv grabbing the hair of some other girl that I have never- to this day- laid eyes on or heard speak. It seems that God Himself didn’t want a woman to walk this road alone. Even though quite a few of the over 12 people who saw him doing doing that to this other gal immediately yelled at him at the time (one calling it ‘very inappropriate’), NONE of THEM reported it. And, even though the Perv said nothing verbal about any aspect of her body or his personal feeling about it, he nonetheless commenced to lay hold of her the way that many rapists do. So, Moderator, in a world where over a dozen people in unison express that something is unacceptable but continue on in their submission under the same leader, I’m not sure why you expect a single individual who has undergone abuse to revolt so as to put a stop to it. Usually the ones that perverts single-out to assault are not lawyers or criminologists or psychiatrists so as to be able to identify abuse verbatim.
And it’s not manipulation by lawyers: After he attacked me, I was physically ill for over a week after it happened as I had to go on with life- work, college, volunteer responsibilities, friends, dating offers- so that after that week I had to push it back from wherever it kept cropping up in my thoughts. Otherwise how would I get everything done? Or even get ANYTHING done? My performance really suffered that initial week & I couldn’t afford to have that. Just because you think this is just manipulation doesn’t take away me having hardly been able to eat for a week, to cry intermittently at work & in walking up the hill with my backpack to class, & walking though the wooded path at night to get home with the distant realization that I was way safer out there than I was at the organization I attended every week. That was no dance by lawyers; it was my life.
I ask you to take a little longer to note what I wrote. You seem to have brushed right on past some rather weighty testimony I gave. Since my previous indoctrination in IBLP dogma heavily affected my judgement during & after the time that I was attacked, & since the Umbrella ended up being thrown in my face by one of the Pastors in his blaming me for it happening, I ask you to pay closer attention. I’ll give you a version that will likely be more palatable for you:
Donald Duck has gone to his & my pastors to report to them the objective, specific, behavioral actions of my having done something unbecoming & lewd to him. I am called to a confrontational session. One of the pastors opens with: “Incredulous, Donald Duck here would like to address with you an incident of unbecoming lewdness.” Pause. Me: “Oh, you mean about Mickey Mouse.” Pastor: “What?” Me: “Mickey Mouse & I-” Pastor interjects: “DONALD DUCK, who is sitting RIGHT HERE, would like to address an incident in which he says YOU acted with unbecoming lewdness towards HIM. There’s no one else involved. Donald, you may proceed to address Incredulous with your account of what you say she did to you.”
Moderator, do you recall having read in the Bible: “Do not receive a report against an elder but by 2 or more witnesses”? I ask you: within the 1st minute of the confrontational meeting I describe, how many witnesses had identified Incredulous as having acted -specifically- in unbecoming lewdness? Were any MORE witnesses/objects of her having done so named? If so………. by whom? If the additional witness/object of Incredulous’ lewdness had been included in an investigation, whom was it that referred the pastors to him by name?!?
Please answer these above questions. Please also realize that, as was the case with Robyn & her father, many times individual women address perversion on a case-by-case basis……… & it gets thrown back in their own face (as Bill Gothard did to Robyn) as if what happened is due to HER moral failure. Many times, the initially confronted individual gets their slate wiped clean by his blaming of the one accusing him, which, if you’ll recall what the Bible says about sexual assault, is the antithesis to God’s judicial record as recorded in Scripture. Each time each girl/woman gets blamed & sent away each in her turn because she is only “one” witness. Even though there were -how many testifying?!?- witnesses to The Perv’s “inappropriate touching” in at least 2 instances against 2 different victims, the Umbrella was afterward thrown in MY face. Supposedly the Umbrella amounted to me being not only at fault for what the Perv did, but also afforded chastisement of me for my “disrespect of authority” & “selfishness” as proven by my not having just “let it go.” Talk about a dance by lawyers!!!!!! How about all those dances?
Oh, and one more thing: not only was there my statement of The Perv being “trustworthy” even after he blatantly assaulted me, & the cards I wrote sentiments in &/or made, but there’s one more thing: After I confronted the Perv, he snorted in amusement & said: “So, you think I’m a pervert, huh?!?”, looking rather sheepish & cocky at the same time. Tears filled my eyes. “No, you’re not a pervert.” I said. Both pastors just turned & looked at me in bewilderment. The meeting had started with the Perv’s immediate identification of himself in a specific instance of having committed “Inappropriate Touching”- an instance that none of us was familiar with, including any familiarity with his victim. It ended with him having nonetheless having convinced both Pastors that I thought he was categorically above reproach, including a strong indication of this that he elicited from me in the meeting itself. Manipulation goes a long way, Moderator. No one knows this better than a pervert who has made an art out of manipulating women in order to exploit them for their own gratification.
You telling me that the abused is required to see past the abuse?!?!?!? How about when 2 leaders with bachelor’s degrees sit and hear about 2 of their subordinates getting “inappropriately touched”, one of them by the pervert having volunteered this info himself, and the pervert is such a great manipulator that one of them insists for the next year that NO ABUSE has taken place?!?!?
A meeting by someone whose trust has been exploited confronting their abuser is, for this reason, a horrible idea. Others besides the abused just get sucked right on into the pervert’s manipulation. It takes objective, BIBLE-HONORING experts with an objective view of both the manipulated & the manipulator to assess how much of this has occurred, & to what degree of abuse as purposed by the abuser."
Moderator may not want to publish this one. He doesn't seem to like 1st-hand witnesses having a voice. My point in this is that a victim's confrontation of their abuser is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Even when the abuser openly admits that he has "Inappropriately Touched" someone, he can still blame it all on this person that he did it to. And even convince the mutual superiors of both him & his victim that it's not such a big deal. And twist the victim's loyalty to him so that it looks like he's above reproach. Bill Gothard is not the moron that The Perv. was/is, so he didn't admit anything when confronted a couple times by Robyn & her dad. Furthermore, Bill Gothard never even had superiors. So, if a dumb underling like The Perv. who never even collected a paycheck could admit to being an "inappropriate touch"-er & still have things his way, how could more meetings with Bill Gothard have brought the truth to light?!?!?
No mention of what I understand to be a court date of today, April 7, 2017...Is Gothard still scheduled to appear..??
I just re-read this article. Things that really jumped out at me:
"In Wisdom Booklet 36, Gothard discusses the legal penalties for kidnapping, assault, battery, and rape. He writes: “God has established some very strict guidelines of responsibility for a woman who is attacked. She is to cry out for help. The victim who fails to do this is equally guilty with the attacker.” (pg. 1839, first edition)
The Wisdom Booklets were revised and re-released as a second edition in the early 2000s. This particular passage was reworded to say: “God has established guidelines of responsibility for one who is attacked. When a woman is attacked, she is to cry out for help. The victim who fails to do this is considered guilty, even as the attacker is guilty.” (pg. 48, second edition)
Even when given the opportunity to revise his previous statement, Gothard merely restated it."
It's worth going back and reading that a couple times. Yes, it was taught that the victims who did not cry out when attacked was equally guilty. Unbelievable. And to think that some people still defend this man and believe him worthy to be restored to power.
Also:
"It was a long and burdensome journey to get know Gothard’s god. It’s been a difficult and painful journey away from him. Parents are grieving that they exposed their children to years of false teachings."
Yes, some parents are certainly grieving that they exposed their children to these false teachings for years. Sadly,some have too much pride to accept this fact. The reality is that most parents really were doing what they thought was best for their kids. Just like the children, the parents, too, are victims of false teaching.
Garbage views like this is why Bill's teachings are a broken clock that needs to be tossed. This is sick and so twisted, there is no defense whatsoever. Likewise, this man as well as any man that holds these sorts of views should never be counseling women and girls. Stuff like this is what give the term "patriarchy" a bad reputation. God did not establish any sort of "strict" guidelines for rape and kidnapping victims, and one cannot twist a couple of OT laws aimed at the times they were written to state this. This should make anyone want to throw-up.
"This is sick and so twisted, there is no defense whatsoever. Likewise, this man as well as any man that holds these sorts of views should never be counseling women and girls."
This is exactly right Rob. And yet, the man who taught these victim blaming views was counseling young women, some of whom were victims of previous abuse. Imagine the harm that was done by such counseling.
Brother Kevin,
Like our author Miss Jones, your outrage is against ancient law. Supposedly the Latin rendering was, "qui tacet consentire videtur." Silence gave consent. He who remained silent was presumed to consent. Bill Gothard may have agreed with ancient law, but he was not original. Consent is the difference between fornication and rape. Both are sin, but rape is more heinous. So the distinction is important.
Miss Jones complained against difficulty, but Jesus commanded us to embark on the “long and burdensome journey” which she shunned. "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeeth unto life." Is easy grace also fake grace? Hadn't we better make certain? Salvation and damnation are at stake.
The outrage is against twisted and sick use of scripture David, not against ancient laws in it of itself. Your total lack of empathy and compassion is very telling. Trying to mix in Latin on top of it and telling others that silence gives consent, too bad so sad attitude just seals how twisted teachings results in twisted thinking and minds.
David,
No, my outrage is against Bill Gothard's teaching. Any sensible person would be outraged against it. It is only a small handful who would not be outraged.
The idea that a rape victim who was silent must have consented is sick. This teaching is indefensible- that is, to suggest that a rape victim who did not cry out is equally guilty. There are all kinds of reasons why a victim might not cry out. Perhaps fear has them paralyzed. Perhaps they are in shock. It would not surprise me if more than half don't "cry out". It does not mean there was consent and that is not how the old testament law reads, but a twisted interpretation. Regardless, Christians are not under old testament law and even Jews do not follow those particular laws anymore.
You said:
"Silence gave consent. He who remained silent was presumed to consent. Bill Gothard may have agreed with ancient law, but he was not original. Consent is the difference between fornication and rape. Both are sin, but rape is more heinous. So the distinction is important."
You're actually defending the teaching and claiming that silence is equivalent to consent. This would make you a monster. Do you really believe this? Do you have daughters? I wonder what they would think if you told them that you believed that a rape victim who did not cry out was giving consent.
Please clarify if this is not what you believe, as you have left it murky and you make it sound very much like you believe this.
Let’s not add hominem. Let’s subtract it. Beware also of begging the question. If we want to prove whether a man is a victim, we cannot begin by presuming him a victim.
The old natural law needs no defense. Axioms defend themselves. So we defend no man, but yield to natural law. As Jordan Peterson might say, natural law is an antidote to chaos.
Is there a difference between companionship and kidnapping? between trade and theft? between lovemaking and rape? Doesn’t the difference depend upon consent? Who wants a grim world where consent cannot be presumed? We must begin somewhere. Natural law begins at silence.
There you go again, as Ronald Reagan might say.
You keep wanting this to be about consent and nonconsensual. However, that is not what this is about, as can clearly be seen above in the diagram, from the IBLP material.
Read the heading of the diagram David.
"Counseling Sexual Abuse"
It is not talkng about fornication. The issue of whether the victim cried out or not is within the context of sexual abuse. So, enough about these word games that you like to play, trying to claim that this is about making the distinction between consensual and nonconsensual, this business about crying out. The context here is in a situation of sexual abuse. If a victim does not cry out while being raped, it does not mean that it was consensual. And it does not mean that she is sinning or is in any way at fault.
So, answer the question David, the one you keep trying to play word gymnastics with. If a victim of a rape does not cry out, is she equally guilty?
Another thing to keep in mind is that a young girl can be confused when she is being touched inappropriately and might not even realize until years later than it was wrong the way an older many was touching her.
This teaching has the effect of causing her to blame herself for sexual abuse and perhaps not go to the authorities. I believe there is a reason why Gothard taught this.
When Josh Duggar touched his younger sisters sexually, they did not cry out. Are they equally guilty? They were victims. The victims have zero guilt in these situations. Zero! It is amazing to me that anyone could possibly believe that sexual assault victims are guilty if they don't cry out. Really, anyone who believes this needs therapy.
I also believe Bill came up with this was to cover for his brother and his sexual exploitation of 7 female staff members, the first sex scandal of IBYC. This excused his brother and put the women involved at equal fault which is not true, they are all victims.
"I also believe Bill came up with this was to cover for his brother and his sexual exploitation of 7 female staff members, the first sex scandal of IBYC. This excused his brother and put the women involved at equal fault which is not true, they are all victims."
Excellent point Rob.
Yes, this teaching was very convenient when it came to covering up the 1970s/ 1980 scandal and making the victims feel shame and blame.
Exactly! To overcome the presumption of consent, we have to resist! That's the point. Our essay title was "Guilty Silence." So resist the devil and he will flee from you! We either resist Satan or we yield to him. Passivity invites disaster.
David said:
"Exactly! To overcome the presumption of consent, we have to resist! That's the point. Our essay title was "Guilty Silence." So resist the devil and he will flee from you! We either resist Satan or we yield to him. Passivity invites disaster."
David,
Please clarify. Who are you agreeing with here? This seems to be a confirmation that you are of the opinion that victims of rape/abuse are equally guilty if they don't "resist" or "cry out".
Who are you agreeing with here and what is your positions sir?
David,
do you really want to compare companionship with kidnapping and make the only difference between the two is consent? There are some people and I think that you might be one of them, that they like to say or write truly outrageous things only to get a reaction out of others. Somehow that gives people like this a secret sort of thrill inside. Whether or not you really believe this and some of the other things you write or not, you are not making any case for Bill Gothard but making the case for yourself as a disturbed man. As Kevin asked you and I second it, get some real help and therapy and that is away from Bill Gothard and his teachings which are not helping you whatsoever.
As every satirist knows, the best way to expose absurdity is with more absurdity. Did Gulliver really travel? But Jonathan Swift created Gulliver to mock the absurdities and outrages of his day. It worked, didn't it? Shall we posthumously counsel Swift? Who pays for the counseling? Counseling corpses can be done at low cost. But those who do it need their own counseling, which is pretty expensive.
If you need a disclaimer, Bill Gothard did not approve this message. On the contrary, he might disapprove.
And who is being absurd here David? Bill Gothard and his teachings? People that have been hurt by his teachings or you?
This isn’t working for you and satire which is a form of mocking isn’t funny when it is at the expense of those that have been hurt by Bill Gothard. Your total lack of empathy towards others is very telling.
Rob, you said:
"There are some people and I think that you might be one of them, that they like to say or write truly outrageous things only to get a reaction out of others. Somehow that gives people like this a secret sort of thrill inside."
I would call that trolling. I have wondered the same thing about David, as he seems to fit the pattern.
On the other hand, never underestimate how screwed up a person's critical thinking skills, logic and compassion can become after years under Bill Gothard's teachings, especially if their pride does not allow them to re-evaluate and seek healing.
I agree 100% with both. Trolling usually does involve staying anomalous. I think both are involved here, screwed up thinking and the secret pleasure of trolling.