Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Gothard
Dear Recovering Grace Reader,
There has been a rather large development in the legal proceedings surrounding Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP). This past Wednesday, January 6, 2016, Attorney David Gibbs III filed an amended complaint on behalf of ten women who allege Bill Gothard sexually abused and/or harassed them, along with a conspiracy by Mr. Gothard and the IBLP organization to cover up the behavior.
This amended complaint is altered both in approach and content to the one filed back in October. The original suit alleged negligence by the IBLP corporation and the IBLP board, naming each member of the board as a defendant.
Most notably, the complaint now names Bill Gothard himself as a defendant, which is a change many of our readers speculated about following the first filing. The complaint drops the allegations against the individual members of the board, while the lawsuit against the IBLP corporation remains. The primary allegations in this new complaint now focus primarily on infliction of emotional distress caused by IBLP’s and Gothard’s 2014 public statements that denied anything of an illegal or criminal nature.
Another notable change is the addition of five new plaintiffs (and we are told that even more women will be joining). This new filing adds a detailed description of what the women experienced. 
In fact, the amended complaint provides much more information detailing what is being alleged.
Blogger Libby Anne has done a thorough job summarizing the allegations here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/a-summary-of-allegations-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp.html. Of particular note is that two of the plaintiffs (Melody Fedoriw and Jane Doe III) allege sexual abuse and harassment as recently as within the past five years, and another plaintiff (Jane Doe II) alleges that Bill Gothard went so far as to have non-consensual sexual intercourse with her.
Two other articles that provide in-depth overviews of the amended suit can be found at the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/06/new-charges-allege-religious-leader-who-has-ties-to-the-duggars-sexually-abused-women/) and The Investigative Fund (http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/blog/2196/new_charges_allege_rape_by_prominent_religious_leader/)
As our team has individually processed the events of this week, we have found ourselves experiencing a wide range of emotions. First, and perhaps foremost, we are saddened that things have come to this. Several of the allegations made public this week have been known by us for quite some time. In fact, we made the decision in 2014 to publish the articles that led to the resignation of Bill Gothard from IBLP because of the stories several of these women told us. Not all of them chose to publish at that time, but the sheer volume and sameness of their experiences, along with their individual timelines, informed us that the behavior was ongoing. We agreed as a team that, if we were in a position to influence a change, we wanted to help. We had hoped that these women would never have to be so publicly vulnerable as they were this week. This is why time and time again we pleaded with Bill Gothard and the IBLP board to handle things in a straightforward and appropriate manner.
In the midst of all of this, we feel proud of these women and are in awe of their courage. We know that, for these women, this suit is not about any potential financial gain, even though the financial and emotional costs of this kind of recovery can be great. Several of them have stated to us multiple times that they simply want to make sure that the truth is told so that these crimes can’t happen to anyone else. They understand that there will be friends, strangers, and even family members who don’t understand their motives and who will attempt to discount their efforts. We know that they have not entered into this lawsuit lightly. These women are well aware that Bill Gothard is trying to return to IBLP (as Bill himself stated in a signed affidavit that is included in the lawsuit), and that is something they do not believe should ever happen. The effect of this publicity forces these brave women to relive painful moments from their past, while those same moments are evaluated and dissected by individuals whose reactions may very well cause fresh pain. But to them, the cost is worth it, and we applaud their bravery.
Finally, we are disappointed — even angered — at the board of IBLP for their failure to stand up publicly and be counted as men of God at this pivotal time. These men could have shown even the slightest interest in uncovering the truth. They could have responded to our many requests to meet with them to share what we know. They could have hired a real internal investigator who wasn’t also on the speaking schedule for their next homeschool conference. Those who have followed Bill Gothard and his IBLP ministry over the past 40 years have waited without satisfaction for the board to step forward and publicly decry the behavior of its founder, as well as many of its damaging teachings. Those left at the helm of Gothard’s diminished ministry have uttered scarcely a word to their alumni, to Recovering Grace, to the mainstream media, or even on their own website, that would indicate that they grieve for those who have been damaged, much less that they consider it their role or responsibility to see those wrongs made right.
Our outrage at the lack of action by the IBLP board is tempered by the knowledge that Bill Gothard has always carefully selected his board members. The IBLP board has traditionally been made up of prominent spiritual leaders, public motivational speakers, and successful businessmen, all men who have been respected in their fields of work or ministry, who support Gothard or his goals, regardless of their ability to govern a corporate entity and provide an avenue of accountability to its leader. They were chosen for their ability to influence and for their devotion to Bill Gothard.
We have seen over the years that once a quorum of the board rises up against Bill’s behavior or direction, it then dissipates. Time and again, once the members realized they had no real authority to steer the ministry, they had to decide whether they could morally remain on board. And if they didn’t quickly resign on their own, Bill found a way to encourage them to leave. The board turnover at IBLP from its heyday in the ’70s to the present is remarkable. This dismal reality, however, does not absolve the current board of their legal responsibility as fiduciaries or of their higher responsibility to their sisters in Christ whom their organization has damaged physically, spiritually, and emotionally. There may be no other physical entity that could have a greater effect in healing, yet the board has remained mostly silent.
At least four board members resigned in the past year, and while we can only speculate as to their motives, it continues a pattern observed in IBLP board governance over the decades. It appears, from the investigation and the current board resignations, that the focus has been on protecting the organization as well as the personal interests of those still running it. The damage suffered by these brave women and their families remains the responsibility of the current and former IBLP board members for turning a blind eye to behavior that they knew was inappropriate. Yet not one of these leaders has stepped forward publicly to advocate for those who were wronged and to be held accountable. These women should never have had to put their names and families in the public spotlight, with the details of their stories fully available for the tabloids to use in selling their publications.
We hope that you will join with us in petitioning our Father in Heaven for the truth to prevail. Recovering Grace is not a party to the lawsuit, but we do love these women as our dear friends and as our sisters in Christ, and we feel fiercely protective of their personal stories. When we first started publishing their accounts, some of our readers (and our critics) assumed that if we knew more or if we had “worse” to tell, we would have done so. The fact is that we published the stories that the women who shared them were ready to tell. And we withheld the stories they wanted us to know but were not ready to share with the world. Our intention always has been to facilitate healing, and to stop the abuse from happening again, if we could. Each woman who has shared her experience with us is at a different place in her personal recovery, and we respect those who have chosen to litigate, as well as those who are remaining silent. We want these women to be healthy on their own terms, and we support their process. We do not know how this will all end, but our prayer is simply for the truth to be made known, for justice to prevail, and for God to be glorified.
The RG Leadership Team
"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you"
amen and amen
Prayers and love to these courageous women.
"...waited without satisfaction for the board to step forward and publicly decry the behavior of its founder, as well as many of its damaging teachings." How much good might be done by the retraction of even just the worst errors! How many people, who believed it initially because IBLP said so, might then change their minds (and their own teaching) if IBLP now said differently. Many of the alumni from the 70s and 80s are grandparents now, some with no internet access, fewer with facebook accounts, and little or no knowledge of any of this.
"...for the truth to be made known, for justice to prevail, and for God to be glorified." Amen.
God bless these incredibly courageous women. And God bless all of you at RG for taking flak by retaining confidentiality so as to be worthy of this formerly private confidence of some of these & many more.
Thank you,this made me cry.
"It appears, from the investigation and the current board resignations, that the focus has been on protecting the organization as well as the personal interests of those still running it."
My husband and I pleaded with one board member (as he presented the iblp response to the bg girls' testimonies to the ALERT staff in 4/2014) to require a 3rd party investigater, in lieu of a bg friend.
As ALERT staff, we were told by ALERT leadership, that the bg girls' testimonies were a 'sham.' (Interestingly the iblp faulty investigation is called by the same name in the lawsuit!)
My husband took time with almost, if not all, ALERT staff husbands to try to persuade them to READ THE BG GIRLS'TESTIMONIES, instead of blindly believing what ALERT/IBLP leadership told them! And to please speak up to this same group of leaders to employ a 3rd party investigator. Dead silence from the staff. Nothing.
Then, my husband and I resigned as ALERT staff, so saddened by their lack of response. Their silence was not innocent. Their silence only traumatized the victims (bg girls) all over again. And we grieved for the girls. We still do. I was, and still am, angered at the iblp/alert silence.
The quoted rg statement above is the reason, I believe, that the iblp board and alert staff remain silent. They argued that they were disconnecting from bg while allowing the 'ministry' to continue. They actually thought bg would not return. We tried desperately to persuade them to read rg articles to learn the history - and how it was about to repeat itself: ie., bg returns! But to no avail.
So, we agree wholeheartedly with rg: justice through the TRUTH made known via this lawsuit. May the victims continue to come forward, and may each one find healing - at least partially - through this process. And may total healing come in God's Time, and in God's Way.
And, as the bg girls have stated themselves, may this lawsuit alert (no pun intended) others who might otherwise become victims via new ati families with vulnerable youth.
Betty, I know it couldn't have been easy for you and your husband to walk away from your position at Alert. Your actions are to be commended. So glad you recognized that something wasn't right and didn't just believe the lies that were being told you. Thank you for your bravery to stand up and walk away.
Thanks, Tammy.
Bravo to the courageous women who willingly subjected themselves to even more ridicule from those still held captive by the erroneous teachings and persona of this cultic leader. I am grateful to see the prayerful discretion shown by RG in what to reveal when. May the legal action be resolved quickly and serve as a strong warning to all who would take advantage of others or attempt to silence justice. “You is kind. You is smart. You is important.”
May the God of all Comfort be with these women and, apparently, at least one still young girl if I read the dates right. Bill Gothard and his brother Steve are sociopathic sexual predators that could only have achieved as much success in their career pursuits as they did, all the while engaged in evil, because good men did NOTHING! Shame on every single adult ATI/IBLP employee through the decades that knew what was going on and did not do everything they could to stop this hypocritical evil in its tracks. They had absolute responsibility to protect these children and very young women. We all hate that the Catholic Church covered up sexual abuse by priests and this is the very same thing. Christians have to be very diligent in not making ANYONE an idol. Only Jesus is Jesus. Everyone else is merely human and is subject to all flaws, mistakes, and sins. Bill Gothard had unquestioning followers who accepted, still accept, all his teaching as God's word. He is a narcissistic and oppressive deceiver. We must always discern between a standard of God and a human preference. Christians started following his formula instead of just adhering to and obeying scripture. I will pray for all these women. I know some have had success in marriage and life after leaving this ministry. My heart breaks for the ones who had abusive families as well. Will be praying diligently for them. Thank you RG for your ministry to these women.
The stories I've read say the abuse was never to the point of actual intercourse by BG. If I understand correctly, there are women who now say that indeed it actually has happened? I have always expected that there was actual sex involved. So much for him never having kissed a girl... The sad part is how many Gothard-worshippers will STILL not open their eyes.
Yes, it is detailed in the text of the lawsuit, I believe it is the allegations brought by Jane Doe II.
"Finally, we are disappointed-even angered-at the Board of IBLP for their failure to stand up publicly and be counted as men of God at this pivotal time.These men could have shown even the slightest interest in uncovering the truth.They could have responded to our many requests to meet with them to share what we know....Those who have followed Bill Gothard and his IBLP ministry over the past 40 years have waited without satisfaction for the Board to step forward and publicly decry the behavior of its founder,as well as many of its damaging teachings".Those left at the helm of Gothard's diminished ministry have uttered scarcely a word to their alumni, to Recovering Grace,to the mainstream media,or even on their own websight that would indicate that they grieve for those who have been damaged,much less that they consider it their role or responsibility to see those wrongs made right.Our outrage at the lack of action by the IBLP Board is tempered by the knowledge that Bill has always carefully selected his Board members"....In the Spirit Realm a great explosion has taken place;an explosion caused by sin compacting,smoldering,putrefying,desperately having attempts made to cover up it's obviously reprehensible contents.Horrors went on,covered up,lids put on,eventually blown off by the tremendous concussional impact of the diabolical energy.Young girls encapsulated in their own loneliness carefully led out back entrances,having been totally exploited for any potential,to be replaced by another,dysfunctionally influenced,naive,trusting,innocent,vulnerable,now spiritually raped,emotionally raped,perhaps literally raped.Abused by abusive authority;misused by all encompassing insatiable desire to put another hapless victim on the alter.Can't you see that compassion for the innocent,and vulnerable,{from Heaven,},{Jesus},dare we use that name?, would eventually result in the eloquence of their cause,the eloquence of their cries?In the spectrum they thought they knew of knowing God,making Him "available",came this smear in the darkness.To His Name.The church has in this case a solemn commitment,against the almost justifiable position of the atheist,to echo the cry of the shepherd.And what of justice?No longer perhaps just a word.Possibly an action to replace the mesmerized entrenched attitude Gothard for far too many years inflicted upon the church.
A little vomit in my mouth... No one wants to believe people can do this, but it happens. After getting away from the Bill Gothardism , not Christianity, I found that what he taught was so twisted and wrought with error, I couldn't believe adult Christians fell for it. This is not even some basic doctrinal differences in theology! The blatant twist and additions to the story of Dinah was horrific.
I too was raised under the '' Meek And Quiet'' BG doctrine. Women were to be seen and not heard. It makes it perfect to cover up sexual abuse. To blame women for defrauding men is a total coverup and contrary to all the warnings to men in Proverbs.
I am so sorry these women went and are going through this. I have my own story coming from the abuse I suffered because of his teachings. God has restored me. He is a good God, and there are bad men who play Him and their time is coming. They have a greater judgement. Hugs to all these precious and beautiful women. YOu are not what he has done to you. I will be praying for you to have strength to do what is right in the face of doubters. It took me a long time to be that strong.
One of the reasons we fell for it is because we weren't encouraged to bring our Bibles to the seminar. The first night we took ours and they sat on the floor under our chair because otherwise we wouldn't have had time to do all that writing. If it had just been printed in the book then we could have given a little more thought to what was being said but by making us write it all down we came home exhausted every night and in our case my husband had to go to work the next morning, some of our kids had to go to school and some were still at home - too young for school. I had clothes to wash, meals to prepare, dishes to wash, etc. It was all designed I think with this in mind. Keep us from thinking clearly about what the errors were. But I know better now and see my children still suffering from going to the seminars laster on.
BG sticks scripture references EVERYWHERE like every other sentence it seems. He even does it when writing a letter.
I remember laboriously and conscientiously filling in the blanks in my Basic Seminar workbook at age 16. Indeed, there was no time for note-taking or Bible-reading beyond what I did with my workbook.
Then, Friday night rolled around, and they handed out the textbooks. Imagine my chagrin when I paged through the textbook and discovered that all the blanks in my workbook were filled in in the textbook! All that note-taking for NO reason! Except, of course, to keep me from reading my Bible.
Somebody please explain to me what other course you take where you get your textbook towards the END instead of the beginning?
"Uh, sorry, professor, I don't have my textbook. I'll buy it a couple weeks before graduation."
It was clearly manipulation to prevent independent thought and "searching the Scriptures to see whether these things were so". Pitiful that we fell for it.
Does anybody have access to the bylaws of IBLP to see if there is a way to remove current board members?
I think there should be a petition that could be signed by former students, staff, and families that would call for the removal of the current board and allow new board members from respected corners of the Christian community to be placed in their stead.
I think a headline like "10,000 former students request replacement of board" would provide significant leverage to have the current board step down. Then there could be a new board appointed that would be tasked with finding out the truth and turning the assets of IBLP towards furthering the Gospel and healing the harms they have caused.
Here is something along the lines of what I would suggest:
1. Request that the current board members step down without prejudice to their own former actions. Even those that fall into the "more supportive" category can see that the current board members are mired in the controversy. Moving the IBLP organization forward is going to be weighed down by their personalities. The lawsuit can focus on them rather than continue to hold the IBLP organization down.
2. Request that a referendum of former students, staff, and families be held 6 months in the future at Oak Brook to establish new leadership for the organization. Voting would be based on time within the organization e.g. if you were a student for 4 years, you would get four votes or something along those lines.
I think that, if the IBLP board members had any sense, they would have closed down the whole business long ago. It's like pulling up a weed--if you don't get the root, it will always grow back. Gothard will have to be dead before he ever gives up his "ministry." He is that obsessed with it.
Considering the content of the "wisdom" being sold by this Institute (many of the booklets contents highlighted at this site), why would we believe anything can or should be salvaged of this organization? An IBLP board with any real Christian integrity and Spirit-directed theological acumen would shut the whole thing down. You can't build something of integrity on a faulty foundation, and it seems to me if we are looking realistically at this organization and how it functions, it hardly needs to be said BG (not Christ) is this organization's foundation. God forbid anyone should pick up that toxic "mantle!"
Somewhere else in the threads here, a commenter referred to BG's "near" heretical teaching (or words to that effect). There is no question in my mind that BG's teaching (in many or most of its parts and especially taken as a whole system) is heretical through and through. Just because BG holds to the orthodox Christian claims "Jesus Christ is God and Savior of the world" and that "the Bible is the word of God" doesn't mean that the nature of the "God" as he is described and depicted as behaving in BG's teaching genuinely resembles the God Who revealed Himself to the Apostles in Jesus Christ, or that BG has any idea of what the Scriptures really mean, taken in their full apostolic Spirit-inspired sense and context!
As the Russians say, "A fish rots from the head down." Similarly, to pick up Linn's plant and root analogy, if the root is rotten, the plant and its fruit are doomed.
I'm thinking primarily of the assets. I'd guess $150 - $200 Million in property. I'd love to influence the disposal of those assets rather than see it get eaten up in salaries and legal fees for a dying organization.
I'm thinking a lot would go to scholarships for former and current students. I'd set up an endowment and a scholarship committee. Maybe some folks could finally get some of the Advanced Training they were promised.
That makes sense. Good thoughts, Daniel.
Daniel, in the first place, a corporation is not an organization owned by its customers or former fans. As a Walmart shopper, I have no right to assert any authority by petition, voting or any other means. I can ask for change. We have asked IBLP for change. But the corporation is run by its own by-laws and Articles of Incorporation which, in case of a non-profit like IBLP, usually is run by a board who alone can choose their own successors. The only exception is when the corporation is put into receivership or bankruptcy due to some temporary or permanent disability (such as monetary claims exceeding its capacity to pay its debts).
To get where you want to get, some group of alumni and former ATI tuition payers would need to file an action for fraud and demand full refunds of all sums paid. If you will research this site and the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), you will find that IBLP had assets of about 70 million and lost 10 million in 2014.
http://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=5453
If 10,000 families sued to get back 10 years of tuition that would be in excess of 60 million in claims and could justify putting IBLP in involuntary bankruptcy, or temporary receivership to protect assets pending a determination in the lawsuit. The ground for fraud are the concealment of the lack of accountability, hypocrisy respecting purity and parental authority, and false promises of success, wisdom, educational superiority, etc. (Basically every express or implied promise made by Bill Gothard over the years.) Unlike mere contract claims, fraud usually enjoys a suspension of any statute of limitations until the discovery of the fraud.
Don't try to imagine a new way to govern a non-profit corporation that you think should change. Also don't try to invent what you imagine to be an equitable resolution of harms (your suggestion of "scholarships"). Shine the light of truth, demand any compensation that you think you personally should receive based on wrongs done to you, and call on those responsible to take ownership of the problems based on truth. And Pray.
Creative solutions are limitless if the Board would ever acknowledge the fraudulent and abusive nature of the operation under B.G.'s leadership and enter into settlement negotiations with those wronged (all of us). Unfortunately, that does not seem likely. Thus a total consumption of assets in litigation and payouts for sexual abuses appear to be the end result here, with no resolution of the false teaching problems that underlay every single problem exposed to date.
Both Gibbs are likely to profit. But the truth will not be acknowledged or repented of.
Don, the assets are listed on their filings at "book value" not market value. I think the market value is 2-3 times greater than book value.
Regardless, my main point is that the IBLP leadership have their heads in the sand. I think they believe that the RG movement is a fairly small group of upset people. I don't think there is a huge chance of a "petition" being successful, as it has no real force other than making a significant statement. I do believe that statement needs to be made on a big stage... to wit, a huge majority of former students have found freedom and truth in Christ as they left the chains of Gothard. Nobody wants to go back.
It would be a message to the current families that something big is wrong. It sounds like there are still a couple thousand families involved. They need to hear from those that have gone before. Would it accomplish much? Probably not, but it might be what those on the fence need to hear.
There is nothing that should be salvaged from this Institution it is satanic. A bad tree does does not bear good fruit. Mt. 7:18. Let God take this evil false teacher and his institution down. Get out of the way I say.
Lisa, some parts of me just don't want it to die that way. Like it or not, we all had history with this organization. We all have the tattoo on our neck. I'm not into slight modifications, but I would like to see something good done with it, whether it is donating it to a quality ministry so that they can use the facilities or something like that.
That would be an excellent idea. Supporting a genuine Christian ministry. I was referring to this current institution remaining in any way, shape, or form. As a Christian, Daniel, you have the seal of the Holy Spirit not a BG tattoo. The Lord brought you into His Kingdom by the blood of Christ. The One who brought you to Him was the Holy Spirit not Bill Gothard. All false teaching and its teachers will eventually be fully destroyed.
Thanks for your encouragement, Lisa. I agree with you that we need to find our identity in Christ.
It's just that I find myself turning slightly red and speaking in rather vague terms when somebody says. "So why were you in ___________?" Now I feel like my time with the Institute should almost be listed as "unemployed" on my resume. I'm not super bitter about it, its just hard to immediately shake off something that was such a big part of my formative years.
Daniel your time walking with Christ is never wasted. You are not responsible for BG's actions. If you were consistently growing in your spiritual maturity, progressing from milk to solid food, then you were and are on the sanctification road. You were as you say in your formidable years, God is not going to punish you for that. I was raised a Catholic and did not hear or understand the Gospel message until I was an adult. In my first years as a Christian I even watched several TBN personalities, rather false teachers, on a regular basis. LOL!!! In Our Lord's grace He always has placed in my heart the desire to read His word every single day. I can tell you since I have been saved not one day goes by that I don't read His Word every morning. I say that not as a boast but that is how I came to learn that what I was hearing was not His truth. In other words, my continuing sanctification. If you were walking with Christ in those years count them joy. The Lord can use that for your continued spiritual discernment. You now have a much more sensitive radar to false teaching I am sure. This is a tool to benefit your household and others. God bless you as you serve Him.
Very well said, Lisa. I have so many regrets when I think back to my years in ATI and the time lost/wasted. And yet nothing is wasted with the Lord. He let me experience spiritual starvation so I was ready to embrace His lavish, abundant grace when the time came. I don't think the Lord is ashamed of my past, and I am learning to not be ashamed, too. Do I wish it had been different? Yes. But shame is different from regret. If nothing else, many of us who are coming out of this background are finding ourselves with a desire to go into counseling (either professionally or as lay-counselors) so we will be able to help others coming out of spiritually abusive backgrounds too. Nothing is wasted.
That is true Beverly. The Holy Spirit uses our testimony and trials to minister to others.
God is faithful and wants us to glorify His faithfulness.
I have heard Dr. Murphy mentioned in a positive light on this site, and note his name and role in Bill's statement at the end. Is this an 11th hour, 59th minute attempt at mediation?
I didn't see Dr. Murphy mentioned in this article, but I can tell you he's a great man. I've been to him for counseling. He's compassionate, non-judgmental, and doesn't employ the blame-the-victim tactic. He took counseling training from John Regier, a separate ministry.
Kristen, thanks. Go to the link in this article titled "amended complaint." The last pages contain an affidavit and further statement by Bill Gothard. He mentions Dr. Murphy in the statement titled "Exhibit B."
Thanks, Joe and Kristen. Kristen Exhibit B was written after Gothard signed Exhibit A. Therefore it was written on or after November 25, 2015.
Hence, it is a recent note. That is why, among a couple other observations (Bill saying he disagreed with the board, etc.), I was wondering if he was trying to get Dr. Murphy to take the whole thing back to mediation, claiming he had no idea of matters that were kept from him, or so he alleges.
Dr. Murphy was a director at one of Bill's "training centers" and was rigorous in enforcing the letter of the law as sent from headquarters.
I don't doubt that, Joe, but he had a change of heart later on. As I remember the timeline, after leaving the training center in Russia, he himself went through the same counseling he now gives and it made him a changed man. He told us about it personally. Part of the story is that he went to the seminar xx years and "forgave" his father every. year. Until he learned how to deal with his pain in a TRUE Biblical manner! Praise God for new endings to old chapters!
I like hearing this. Thanks for sharing.
OK, just followed the link. Don't know what the date of that is, plus it was written by Gothard himself, so I don't necessarily believe it. See the RG article Failure to Repent: Tell it to the Church. It's an open letter to BG basically saying, "We tried to get you to repent, but you won't, so we wash our hands of you." In the comments, one of the authors of the letter (Larne Gabriel) states:
"Thank you, they are kind words, but they really need to go to a host of others we worked with and couldn't do without. There were five of us plus Bill Gothard in the Denver meeting, Bill & Joy Wood, Gary & Norma Smalley and me. We were supported in prayer and emotional support by the staff of RG, Tony, some of the abused women, former staff and family. This has been a team effort not just by us but others running in parallel with our effort, Dr. Doty Murphy, Tony and others."
I took this to mean Murphy was also "on our side".
Whoops, I hit the wrong reply link, in my comment to Joe and Kristen. See my comment above.
Daniel, I think a petition is a great idea. I'm not sure what the laws are governing non-profits in Illinois (I practice law in Florida), but they are somewhat uniform state by state. If you are a not a board member, you cannot usually move to dissolve the board itself. There are scenarios where a Court or State can do it as a matter of law when there are crimes committed or there are other illegal activities taking place. One would have to review the bylaws to see whether there are grounds within the bylaws to dissolve the non-profit. If former students want to make a statement and put pressure on IBLP and ATI, a petition is probably the way to go. After obtaining hundreds and possibly thousands of signatures, you could then forward it to the IBLP/ATI board as well as the media. I am of the opinion that IBLP should have been dissolved a long time ago. From what I understand, there are moving the corporate headquarters from Illinois to Texas, in all likelihood to avoid future lawsuits brought against IBLP for Gothard's outrageous behavior. Texas is more business/corporate friendly than Illinois and provides more protection to corporations and non-profits being sued.
As a Texan I will pray that won't be allowed to happen. The other homeschool leader who turned out to be to be a perverted fake had to close his headquarters in San Antonio.
Daniel - on another note, here's the link for the corporate filing info of IBLP - http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController. It does not appear the bylaws are filed in Illinois. In certain states the non-profit will file the by-laws and/or purpose statement with the department of State. The attorney for the women can get it through a request for production or subpoena.
Good info, BCM. I was hoping that the bylaws would be available to see if there is a way to remove board members. I probably knew 200 families that were part of the organization at one point or another. Even the most ardent supporters in days of yore are no longer fans.
There is probably no direct way to remove them, but I think they may be able to be convinced to step down. There is no real reason for them to continue running this thing. I think it would be good for the world (and them) to know just how many former students are angry.
The most glaring problem is the stunning cowardice of the current board members. I actually hoped they would do the right thing once BG was out of the way. Their dishonesty in dealing with the situation was painfully obvious.
On the other hand, a lot of us have legacy wrapped up in the institute. Blood, sweat, tears, relationships, school, memories, friends, etc that we're not completely ready to throw away.
If the Board could be replaced, perhaps the organization's resources could be turned to something good.
By my calculations, HQ could be sold and 213,675 hungry children could be fed for a year.
In 2000 or 2001, I can't remember which, I paid a reluctant visit to Indy for a couple weeks of unnecessary indoctrination (i.e. seminars and counseling). I have a burning curiosity that I hope someone else with more extensive exposure to Indy/BG than I can shed light on.
I recall BG's office in the lobby having clear walls, at least on a couple sides. Thinking this was bizarre for client confidentiality reasons, I made a remark about it to another student who was a resident there. I don't remember her exact response, other than vague mutterings and a mumble about potential false accusations.
Is anyone willing to disclose when and how the clear walls came about?
Gothard's office in Indianapolis was a huge, multi desk office with several cushy chairs and a sofa or two (go figure). There was a private restroom and a refrigerator stocked with icecream and other favorite Gothard treats. This office was by far the largest in the entire place and he only used it a few weeks a year when in town. It was used from time to time for other things, but it was pretty infrequent.
There were a couple of large windows in the front (to the lobby) and the side (to the exterior), but the chairs and ubiquitous ficus trees kind of obscured the view of what was going on in there. I don't think the statement is saying that the sexual incident happened in there. Also, there were always a couple of staff members at the front desk at all hours... especially when Gothard was in town. His private suite was on the 6th floor. . The suite was nothing fancy... just slightly larger than the normal room.
Was this office designed with windows from the beginning?
I think so. In later years, Gothard paraded around with young male assistants. These bright young fellas would usually go to bed before he did, though. Often they would work until 9:00 or so and Bill would keep going until midnight. Late night counseling sessions were kind of a thing around the Institute, so Bill's late night sessions didn't seem to be all that odd.
Thank you for the link to Libby Anne's summary of the Amended Complaint. After reading parts of the summary as well as Gothard's affidavit, I am even more livid that current board would not even sit down with the women and their attorney to hear them out before they filed the lawsuit. I am dumbfounded Gothard provided the Plaintiffs with an affidavit (good move on the attorney's part pitting Gothard against the Board). Gothard's admissions will be his downfall in this lawsuit. I simply cannot believe he signed this affidavit and does not have an attorney. I think this shows his arrogance and lack of remorse. How can one "counsel" teen girls, hear about the sexual abuse they are suffering at the hands of their own fathers, and then take advantage of their trust and openness for his own predatory purposes. I am sickened by this man and his wickedness and lack of repentance. I pray the statute of limitations for criminal charges has not run as relates to the 13 year old he was grooming in 2012. He needs to be charged. IBLP assets should be liquidated and set aside to pay for the claims filed by these women and others in the future. The IBLP Board should be setting aside a "claim fund" for these women and future women who come forward (no doubt there are more). This rises to the level of what the Catholic priests were doing to the children in the Catholic church. I would have some sympathy for the current Board if they had at least met with the women and their attorney prior to the lawsuit being filed since these board members are new. They now have a responsibility to recognize and act on the overwhelming amount of evidence against Bill Gothard. Their attorney will have a field day deposing Gothard.
"I simply cannot believe he signed this affidavit and does not have an attorney. I think this shows his arrogance and lack of remorse."
Bingo! BG does not live in the real world, but in one of his own creation, and this will be his undoing when he is forced to face the real world in a court of law. I expect to see him hang himself the way Jack Nicholas' character did in "A Few Good Men."
Where did you read BG's signed affidavit?
Nevermind, I found it. Some real gems in there for sure...
--------------------------
6. I have attempted to contact as many plaintiffs as possible in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17
7. 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 to all of the [2.5 million] alumni
8. I personally appointed the Board of Directors. They were selected for their loyalty to the ministry and MY teaching
10. I temporarily resigned from the Board of IBLP to follow the instruction of Matthew 5:23-24. The Scripture itself AFFIRMS a return to the ministry once I had fulfilled as far as possible its instructions. The IBLP Board members made public my reasons for resigning that also affirmed my 100% intention to return.
11. I have submitted to the spiritual authority of my pastor and local church, Rev. David Shoaf and the Bolingbrook Baptist Church. Pastor Shoaf agrees that it is time for me to be reinstated to the IBLP Board.
-------------------------
There's more obviously, but those little pieces stuck out to me. #10 for sure. This is the passage in question that "affirms" BGs return to the ministry once he has "fulfilled" it...
Matt. 5:23-24 (ESV)
"So if you are offering your gift at the alter and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the alter and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come offer your gift."
David, do you have that link to the affidavit?
Larne - it's included with the amended complaint, link above. It's Exhibit A, pages 114-116 of the .pdf file.
I hope this makes a whole lot more than me angry.And even though I was never in close contact with BG,both his teachings and his distant "faint voice thru the fog" helplessness to understand our totally erroneous perceptions of his motives,[we're so far away from his sincerity],convince me he's guilty of everything including rape.He can barely see us or understand us with his"perfected wisdom".Anger.Absolutely.Sorry but that's it.Alfred can't comment here,but this may be about the final act in the splitting apart of so called kindred spirits.
Amen. Thank you for faithfully walking this path, RG Leaders. I am so grateful for you and continue to pray.
When we first started publishing their accounts, some of our readers (and our critics) assumed that if we knew more or if we had “worse” to tell, we would have done so. The fact is that we published the stories that the women who shared them were ready to tell. And we withheld the stories they wanted us to know but were not ready to share with the world. Our intention always has been to facilitate healing, and to stop the abuse from happening again, if we could.
Thank you, RG team, for keeping your intentions pure and refraining from seeking to publicize the "juiciest" information. One of the most frightening thoughts through this whole process over the past several years has been that there are even more women out there with more terrible stories who haven't yet stepped forward. This was a sobering reminder of that.
We pray that every young girl or women with 'a story to tell' will be given the courage from Our Lord and Savior to come forward to reveal the details of her pain. With the loving support that is provided by the Recovering Grace collaboration, this step will be the beginning of her healing process....... ^i^ ^i^ ^i^
We also pray for all others who have been 'betrayed' but are clueless to the fact that help is available. Many may not have internet access. (I only became aware of Recovering Grace in May 2014 because I began researching the extent of the Duggar family's involvement with Gothard.) I, too, am grateful for this opportunity to read the comments of others and have the ability to share my own thoughts. Thank YOU!!
Larne, here's the link to the article on patheos.com. She has a link within the article containing the amended complaint and the affidavit is at the end of the amended complaint (attached as exhibit a)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/a-summary-of-allegations-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp.html
http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/01/06/amended-lawsuit-against-bill-gothard-text/
Entire suit. Gothard's affidavit is at the end.
Karen, Great points. IBLP was built on a faulty foundation and it cannot be salvaged at this point. I have been racking my brain trying to understand how Gothard can casually and continually lie about sexually abusing and harassing these women while attempting to justify that he is now qualified to return to this ministry He has no fear of a holy and righteous God and he's taught alleged Biblical principles most of his life. I would have the fear of God in me if I was 81 and in his shoes. How does this not bother him knowing he does not have much time left on earth?
1. Reading through Libby Anne's overview, I felt so sorry again for not having/finding a voice to speak up about ATI abuses. I left in 1994 as a broken 20 year-old. (That was just because of ATI's ordinary 'Apprenticeship Student' junk. I didn't know anything about Bill's creepy sex stuff.) I was a jumbled up mess of being relieved to be away from ATI and wishing I could prove to ATI people that I was a good person even with my fashionable clothes and rock'n'roll music. I spent a few years getting myself sorted out and got on with my life without thinking about all the people still trapped in the Pit of Bill – until Recovering Grace came along.
To everyone who was in ATI from 1994 onwards, I'm so sorry for not speaking up. I'm so sorry for forgetting you when I found my freedom.
-----
2. On one hand, the charges in the lawsuit are a whole new level of sickening. On the other, they are not surprising – and so all the more damning of those who could have helped but didn't – Bill did exactly what men like him do when they get power.
-----
3. My goodness! Alfred is LOVING his little Covering Disgrace kingdom. I wish he could discovered a passion for model trains or a sportsball team or any similarly innocuous hobby instead.
Remember that sports was a world activity in Gothardland.
I'll sure miss their Tae Kwon Do team (LOL)!
Hahaha!! Oh my goodness, Todd! That made me laugh so hard!!! Lol!!
I certainly see why it was necessary to expose all of this garbage and the internet is the best way to do it. However, I sure wish Recovering Grace hadn't chosen to promote an atheist's blog in doing so. Libby Anne may have covered the story well, but she knows nothing of what recovering grace is all about—God's grace and it's power to heal and transform all this brokenness. Her website in general shows her bitterness towards God, I hope she sees someday that just because some blaspheme His Name doesn't mean God isn't able to work wonders in the lives of those who are truly captivated by His love and grace.
I read her blog from time to time. I obviously don't agree with her atheism or her views on morality but I also after reading enough of her things is that deep down inside of her, I thing she is searching for God. I don't see bitterness but searching. While it may be hard, we sometimes forget that many of those that have been raised like her totally leave belief in God. We should always try to leave the door open for conversation with such people and pray for them. She really did a great job summarizing out all of the legalese. That took a lot of time. She does talk about the family dynamics of large ATI and being raised that way which gives insight into such families for those of us looking on the outside. I know she still have contact with her parents and siblings because she writes about it. Pray for her because I believe no one is beyond hope.
Bless your soul for writing this.Hit the nail on the head;however its still one of the so called "triumphs" of Gothardism and seeming defeats from the pure loving holy perspective of the real Kingdom ....."After all is said and done Libby Anne has bitterness because she's a "rebel".Baloney.I heard that one of the most rapidly growing atheistic areas is Arkansas,after the burnout from Gothard's implemented programs thru Huckaby's endorsements.I'm so angry at the fundies for the caricature that makes controlling spirits go crazy.The flesh may have won a temporary victory thru natural religion,but then the Advent comes to the desperate.
I'm finding that calvinism. Is another thing turning Christians athiest too. It happened with our best friends. That very interesting to hear about atheism in Arkansas. Where did you get that information?
This is for Lisa Blake...I wish I could remember whether it was in relation to an article from a blogger concerning Midwest Christian Outreaches'" Basic Matter of Principles",[Don Veinot],an excellent book,where the Backlash that "wasn't published" came out from Arkansas thru a skeptical blogger.All of the promotions Huckabee implemented concerning Gothard's Programs were not so rabidly imbraced by every"Bible Believing Conservative Family".The caricature was not so dormantly lying below the surface.Not too long ago for sure you could get a" Gothard Zombies For Huckabee"bumper sticker though.
Reply to Lisa Blake,
I'm not a Reformed or Calvinist and I don't want to start a fight here with them but what I think you might be referring to is the new hyper-Calvinism that is popular is some circles and is embodied in people like John Piper in that it takes God's sovereignty to an extreme and God then becomes the author of disasters and suffering and when people experience these things, God caused it with the express purpose to punish or the teach a lesson etc. This is like the double predestination with God purposely making people that are going to hell. It makes God the author of good and evil. So when Haiti had a terrible earthquake a few years ago, people like Pat Robertson gets on TV and claim it was punishment for things that happen 200 years ago as an example. When people follow this theology, eventual they can spin out of faith because who really want to follow a god like this. John Piper said similar things about 9/11. Bill Gothard in a number of ways believe and taught these things in his design and rights teaching. People like Libby on patheos that have had this kind of god taught to them and shoved down their throat do eventually leave any belief in God behind, who can blame them. This is probably what you saw in your friends that left the faith. I bet they were too deep into hyper or new Calvinism and it eventually burned out their belief in God. Despite what Alfred says over at DG, there is a lot of this hyper-Calvinism in Bill's teaching. It makes God out to be cruel, mean monster that no one with a shred of humanity want to follow. That's what I see in Libby, does she really not believe in God or does she not believe in the false god she was raised with and deep inside still seeking the real God. That is why sometimes when dealing with atheists, care and compassion on them is the best witness instead of arguments.
Lisa Blake do you have an article reference for the Calvinist example or is it just been your observation. Asking to learn not be contentious.
Thanks
Agree.
Oops! Excuse me, but my 'agree' (above) was misplaced. I was meaning to respond to Rob War (above) regarding our athiest friend and her blog response to the bg victim vs bg/iblp law suit.
In IBLP/ATI bitterness is almost seen as the unforgivable sin. I think in a lot of cases being unbearably hurt can make someone angry, unforgiving and/or numb. Sometimes the pendulum needs to swing the other way before balance is achieved. I still get very angry about what ILBP did to my daughter SIL and 8 children. I think we can learn from each other no matter where we are in our stages of healing. I know that Gid will meet everyone exactly where they are at.
there are some people who have been so wounded by legalism that they are crippled mentally and emotionally. Becoming an atheist is a way for them to rest and heal. It is like they were given a teddy bear filled with razor blades and nails. Other kids can hug their teddy bears and they feel soft and cuddly but the they tried to hug only gave hurt. I have read her column and find lots of useful wisdom in it. I may not agree with it all but her insight into religious matters runs deep. And remember God is not finished with her yet. He still has a plan for her life.
What's seethingly outrageous is BG's desire to once more ascend to the throne as if all this is now "water under the bridge". I suppose that should be expected, given his level of arrogance and narcissism. My question is, putting aside the visual outrage this would naturally trigger in those he's victimized or negatively impacted, would his ascension back to his former position of power and authority be very much "power" or "authority" by this point? His "ministry" and himself are mired in controversy visible to all. The voice of opposition both inside and outside the church has only grown (by several orders of magnitude just within the past year). Even 10 years ago, his seminars could barely fill a school gymnasium. Now, if restarted, I don't imagine they could barely fill a classroom. He often boasts of 2.5 million "alumni", but I imagine most of that number have joined the voice of opposition (if they haven't passed away already). In his mind, does he think he's going to reassemble his empire with this "powerful new message" he supposedly wants to get out to us "alumni"?
I suppose the bottom line concern is, can he still inflict further injury to individuals and damage to the church at large if he once more rises to "power"?
This is my reply to Alfred on his latest article which is waiting moderation. I am not sure if he will publish it but wanted it out there in case he doesn't or edits it:
You must be really desperate for you to try and call differences in number form different time period of women who have come to them in privacy to tell their stories as not adding. up. These easily could have been 30 more come to them between the March quote of 34 to the June quote of 60. The later quote does not negate the earlier number. Likewise RG does not publish any story unless they have permission and the women are ready to go public. But whether there are 30, 34 or up to 60, the number that counts right now is the 10 that are in the law suite and those are pretty damning as well as the statement on RG that there are going to be more women going in this. The credibility isn't on RG, it's on Bill and IBLP. You are blowing smoke and trying to make something out of nothing in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible. Since you have access to your friend Bill, you need to ask him if he is still a virgin, not if he ever kissed someone. You can rape without kissing and his related build statements to news media that he never "kissed" is a cover up of immorality on his part.
This is actually what I wrote to Alfred from my print screen. See what he does with it.
I was very tempted to tell him to stop quibbling about numbers. On that comment thread he had the nerve to respond to Larne that Bill's touching of the women or young girlswas merely affirming taps. What I wanted to say, but refrained, was that if Alfred said the truth, then Bill Gothard lied in Exhibit B, because Gothard came out and said he put himself in the place of God in these young people's lives, by trying to make them be bound to him not God. Gothard said the touching he did was evil, not affirming. Both Exhibit B and Alfred's claims of affirming touching cannot both be true.
Let's walk through the logic of the footsie, shall we?
1. It is common knowledge that playing footsie with someone under the table is romantic in nature. It is traditionally practiced by members of the opposite gender and communicates that there is a SECRET bond of affection going on between the people involved.
2. Gothard knew that it was not acceptable, because he always did it in scenarios wherein others would not see it. He always did it with young, attractive, single women. We don't have stories of Jim Sammons getting footsied.
3. The women who alleged this behavior have been validated by his own "confession." The girls said it happened, Gothard said it happened- HE DID IT.
4. It was affirming of something secret between him and the girl, at least he hoped so. Couple that with his comments. He was hitting on them. I still think there are girls out there that went all the way with him who have been afraid to say so. Some of them are probably married.
Here's just a thought... Didn't Gothard arrange some marriages for his favorites? I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone, but it seems like a likely way to cover his wrongdoings...
Jim Sammons getting footsied! LOL! Sorry. But having been in this yuck for so long, it is good to laugh!
On a more serious note - I finally see why Gothard spoke SO much about rape and crying out. Whoa. He kind of camped on that and now I am sad and shocked I did not see it. He also spoke and had others speak on sex WAY too much (I am not Victorian in this regard). Now as I look back, it was in excess. And to mixed company. We went to Knoxville for YEARS and I am just seeing this. I wish - oh how I wish - the men around him had shut him down. And that Dumbrella teaching HAS to go. There is nothing between my soul and the Savior - even a husband. (and I have a good one!)
If you google "playing footsie" all kinds of things on flirting come up. Here is the wiki page on playing footsie;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footsie_(flirting)
Julia, so you can't imagine Jim Sammons getting footsied. Why not? Think about it. Why didn't he footsie adult women "affirmatively?"
He has flatly denied sexual touching.
It's more along the lines of "Gorsh, I got a little too friendly and fatherly with some of those girls. Sorry, didn't mean to send the wrong message."
That's a steaming pile of you know what.
He was devilishly sly and cunning, not buffoonish, or touchy feely. He wants his sins to be seen as those of a Labrador puppy that knocked over the kiddos. He was cold, calculating, manipulative, used his charisma, power, influence, spiritual position, etc to get what he wanted for himself. He's like a spider lurking for prey, not an untrained puppy.
You are absolutely right rob. The overstating of their " innocence",I.e. " I have never even kissed a girl." This is a common tactic used by sociopathic liars. They exaggerate their innocence to distance themselves from their actions. Why does he not say I have never had sexual intercourse or forced myself on someone or deny any other specific charges? This is a common manifestation of the personality of sociopaths.
Roger Olson on Pathos evangelical blog wrote a very insightful article Jan 10th called "Reflections on the Bill Gothard Phenomenon and Scandal". He is a seminar professor and his observations and rejection of Gothard are very insightful of the rise and influence of Bill and Roger's objections and concerns at the time (70-80). It is very good.
Would it be possible to supply the link? Thx.
Here it is:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/01/reflections-on-the-bill-gothard-phenomenom-and-scandal/
Thx.
Thank you very much for that link.
Alfred mentioned on DG last month that, regarding the rape of the Levite's concubine in Judges 19 & 20: "Bill always refers to this story as the people needing to fast & pray more; that only then would God grant them success." He stressed that, because Gothard limited his interpretation to this, that that's all there is to be gleaned from that Biblical history. Alfred also stressed that these were not qualified to bring about justice. That they needed to take time out from pursuing justice to become qualified, that this was the only moral lesson from the story. It's an awful lot like the 1-to-10 scale of how much a person loves God.
Now that we're seeing that a girl at the time reported Kenneth Copley raping her, I wonder if this is another one of Gothard's teachings that he invented to silence one making a report.
After all, the only fault with anyone that he points out in this Judges account is a supposed fault on the part of those already commanded by God to go up against a rapist's stronghold. The Bible doesn't say what Gothard says, though; in this passage it says the rapist was indeed to be gone up against.
Gothard ignores what God says in his Word about penalizing rapists while inventing nonexistent substance in it that he claims is proof that those seeking justice for rape need to pause. For this reason alone, I believe that Gothard himself knows he has the guilt of rape on his own head.
I have been interested in Exhibit B for the past couple days. Over on the DG site moderator Alfred (I presume) said he helped Bill write that statement.
Don't forget that BG re-defines words when he defends himself. I mentioned this to Alfred a long time ago on here - how does BG define "girl" as well as some other words? Charlotte says that BG kissed her deeply on the lips. He could have kissed and/or mauled and/or raped others, depending on definitions, and still be "truthful" about it in his own eyes.
He's never kissed a GIRL? Does a female cease to be a "girl" when they turn 13 or 16 or so? Or when they're "impure"? (Please forgive me for using this term - it's his, not mine!)
Or as Alfred's claiming over at DG now, he's never seen or touched the "private parts" of a woman? Do private parts cease to be "private" when someone has been there before you have? It's worth noting that BG's targets disturbingly seem to be those that have been abused already. There are multiple reports of him asking intimate, detailed questions about girls' sexual experiences. Perverted jollies? Selection process? Both?
There are all kinds of ways liars get around statements. This is one of the most crazy-making, speaking from experience.
Alfred's now saying that he has too much "respect" for the old man to ask him indelicate questions. If it's so important to find out for himself, he may need to define where BG's OWN body parts have been rather than describing his alleged targets in any way. Sorry to be crass, but it's what he's made it come down to.
God forbid that love of the Truth should interfere with Alfred's sense of "delicacy" with this white-washed sepulcher of a false god he has made out of Gothard and the twisted alternate spiritual universe Gothard insists on living in. On the other hand, perhaps this is a clue Alfred is more aware of the possibility of coming into real contact with the stench and corruption of dead men's bones in Gothard than he lets on (even to himself). Who wants to try again to break it to Alfred that it's impossible to avoid infection with that soul-destroying corruption while constantly immersed in and playing with it?
Of course, Bill was just trying to show "fatherly" affection so when he laid one on poor Charlotte's lips, he was just showing reassuring affection that any father would do in saying good-by to Charlotte. (following Alfred's defense here).
Oh, how very Bill Clinton of him!
Depends on the meaning of is is. Lol - too much
Those same thoughts definitely crossed my mind.
I never kissed a "girl." Maybe "woman" is different?
Yeah. When a manipulator tells you something, it's helpful to listen very literally, and try to think in their terms instead of interpreting their words in your own terms, which is what they expect you to do. Also, when something is stated - and especially repeated - in an odd way, such as Bill's strange "private parts" statement (when most people would just say they're a virgin or have never had sexual relations), it's worth picking apart to see what they might really be saying or not saying.
My experience is that a liar will first try to manipulate words so that what he says can be true at least in his own head. Then when that fails, they'll just flat-out lie, of course, but it's not typically their first choice.
So IF Bill said now that he's a virgin and/or has never had sexual relations (notice - I wouldn't even define "sexual relations WITH ___"), he still can't be taken at his word.
Its all in your interpretation of words and their meaning to you and your true intention to be truthful or obfuscate. Similar to Billy Clinton and his words. The other thing to ask is to change the gender and restate the question which expands the possibilities. What is the meaning of sex? Old Testament does not always indicate a formal ceremony or "license". Genesis 16:3 Sarai(Sarah), Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram (Abraham) her husband as a wife. Bill lives in the OT law and see himself as David, the king who took Bathsheba. Who knows what in Bill's mind?
Elizabeth D,
I always appreciate your insights into the narcissistic mind. It is educational and very helpful.
Thanks, Lindsey. Girl, the stories I could tell would curl your toenails.
On the subject of playing footsies:
http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/01/13/it-only-takes-a-wink-or-a-glance-to-abuse/
Also, can you imagine Jim Sammons ever playing footsies with a girl or woman? I never knew him personally, but I highly doubt it.
What is it with those Gothard boys? How were they really raised that all this evil is in their hearts? Another Gothard brother is being sued for bilking the elderly out of millions (ala Madoff) With Steve Gothard and his sexplots and now this guy, that makes 3 for 3.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/state-sues-naples-businessman-saying-he-bilked-elderly-people-out-of-millions-ep-840749414-332494442.html
A few months ago I was looking for some genealogical information about Bill Gothard online. I found his family with his name, his father, mother, siblings and then links to Mr. Gothard Sr.'s father and mother and Mrs. Gothard's father and mother. I wish now I had saved it (it might be on my computer but I'm on my iPad now). Anyway, here's what I saw. BIll Gothard's maternal grandfather was an immigrant from Mexico in something like 1902 and his name was Manuel Torres. He married the daughter of immigrants from one of the Scandinavian countries. Their daugher was Carmen Torres who became the wife of William Gothard Sr. BG's paternal grandfather was born in England and apparently lived with the Gothard family for a time during one of the census times (seems like maybe it was 1940). Now that I write this I don't remember anything about his paternal grandmother.
I don't know if any of this could explain your question about "what is with these Gothard boys" or not but for some reason I just keep thinking that BG didn't like having a Mexican grandfather. I remember him talking in the seminars about his father and mother. They even attended some of the ones I went to in Kansas City. But I don't think he ever referred to his grandparents. I'm probably way off in this but these things can affect our lives adn might answer your question.
It think that has been mentioned before that Bill's mother had a father from Mexico. But I'm not sure pointing this out has anything to do with the problems with all three boys. I don't think you meant this as all, but this could have racial implications. It seems like maybe Bill's mother had nothing to do with the rich Mexican heritage. But that is another story. I think it has been has been pointed out that Bill's father worked long hours and seemed like he wasn't around much do to working. Now, if he was gone a lot do to work, he probably didn't spend much time with his sons. That would be a more reasonable explanation for their woes and adult choices than Bill having a Grandfather from Mexico that he never mentioned. From the snippets we have of Bill's father, he seemed like a rigid, hard man, steeped in fundamentalism and his mother overwhelmed with raising 6 kids often alone. If Bill's mother was raised Catholic, do to her father being from Mexico and left it to become a fundamentalist Christian and married Bill's dad (this is all guessing and speculation on my part), she could have broken with her family and that is why her parents are not mention. Again, I'm just guessing here and we would need someone from the family to shed light on all of this.
Eva, I agree with rob war about speculating about a person's ethnic heritage here. rob war, I also think we don't need to look that far back at their upbringing. Bill's father was around and involved with IBYC during the 1970s to 1980s. If I were looking into this I would look no farther than how Gothard Sr. conducted himself back then with respect to his sons. I tend to believe there are demonic influences at play as well, which we cannot see but must pray against.
But they were all well into adulthood at this point, and responsible, so I just evaluate their own teaching and conduct with no regard for their upbringing. Back in the 1980s, news traveled much slower, so I knew nothing of the 1980 scandal. Bill and his associates could not have foreseen the internet and social media, along with all the adults who were hurt as children having no qualms about broadcasting not only about the scandal, but also their experiences in ATI for all to see. If I did have access to all this information, I would have not given one thin dime of money for seminars and materials.
Rob, I was not intending to make this have racial overtones as Mexicans (as we usually think of them being Latino) are caucasian as am I. So no, I didn't intend any racial thing at all. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it and your comments about long hours etc. could be at play but many people of that generation worked long hours. They had to to keep the family going. So while that could play a little role I think there must be something else. But I have no idea what. My grandpa was a farmer and sometimes they worked from sun-up to sun down. But not every day of course. We will probably never know. But thanks for your comments to give another perspective.
No problem at all Eva! I honestly didn't think you meant anything racial or that you hold such views yourself. I am just thinking out loud and of course it is all speculations about Bill's home life and childhood. A father that was working long hours and gone could have played a role but is pretty typical of the depression time.
Thank-you Lynn. There have been a number of people here that have wondered about Bill's upbringing. What I mean about Bill Sr not being around due to working all the time as the children were being raised. That is not too untypical for families in the 1920-30s. That doesn't mean that Bill Sr was not involved with the ministry later on because he was. Bill's childhood and upbringing probably have influenced his views and teaching that is why a number of people have speculated about it. If someone is working all the time and long hours does mean that they are not around and involved at home with their children.
Whatever happened to Steve Gothard? Is he still alive? I know Bill's sister and niece's family really well, but did not know he had a third brother.
If Steve Gothard is no longer alive, that would doubtlessly be because the defense has had him knocked-off; he was a plaintiff in the last suit. I can only speculate why, as he could have turned himself in to a psychiatric hospital for his compulsive sex-plotting; relying only on his admittance of some of these to his brother got him no help but he instead was assigned additional victims. Maybe Bill figured that if Steve raped enough women, he'd find one to settle down with; just like Bill's own toned-down version of the exact same sport.
I believe Larne has stated that he is alive and is living a repentant life. I asked Alfred on DG if Bill still has contact with Steve, and according to Alfred, Bill and Steve still talk regularly.
Maybe Steve is encouraging Bill to repent. I hope it works.
Bill is the ongoing problem not his brother. Bill was in charge and failed to protect his employees.
According to a tweet by @DefendTheSheep (Julie Anne) and spiritualsoundingboard.com today (Wed)the lawsuit was amended to 14? Half way to 28! Where there's smoke there's fire. Is this the beginning of a wild fire?
Yes, the lawsuit has been expanded to 14 and anyone that wishes to join has till Feb 17th to do so per spiritual sounding board.
I wish I could put into words, as a parent, how rotten I feel about all of this. Yes, we went in with good intentions. Yes, we thought we were following Jesus. What does that matter when I see the ruin and hurt it has caused in my children, my marriage, and the lives of the young people we met or saw at different functions who were being hurt and even abused?
I guess to say, I feel like a criminal who has received mercy from Jesus and now lives with the scars. The only difference is motive - we parents never meant to hurt anyone. I am sure our perfect Lord could point out to us "Ah, but underneath there was lurking a pride that helped you to enter this domain". Yes. I am sure and will willingly confess that some sin(s) made me open to such strange fire and rotten teaching.
Girls, I thought you were happy. I thought you enjoyed your "training". I saw how you were helping others. I just saw the smiles and saw you as the lovely girls you are. I wish I had known and helped. I certainly understand your 'keeping up appearances'. Who would believe you?! And when you did tell, they didn't believe you so you were affirmed in your state of secrecy.
1980 board and in-the-knowers: You missed it. We followed. (1993-2004) I am sure you have valid or semi valid reasons for not shouting from the house-tops. It looks like I am trying to find someone to blame in bringing you up. I only wish to find the chinks that let these girls down.
Girls (I know you are women now), most of the parents on here would have ripped into or ripped apart the man/men/women complicit to these acts. You are the precious gifts God gave us, your parents.
All of the young men, also. From those in families, to those in programs, to those working at HQ - I am sorry for this mess. As a parent, I did not see. I wish I had. You are worth more than gold to us and we would not see you used, abused, or misled. You have endured one, two, or all of these.
May we all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
He is the one we wanted you to see and know.
(I hate to but need to add one comment - our marriage suffered due to the dumbrella teaching. It is fine now.)
Correction to above comment:
I should have said "I am sure you think you have valid or semi-valid reasons for not shouting from the housetops". There are none. If any of this type of behavior was known (which it was) it should have been shouted. period.
Julia Fetters, I was an ATIA student for several years; our family was enrolled from about 1988 thru 2007, or so. (I don't know when my younger siblings actually quit the program.) Yes, there has been SO much damage in so many ways in our family and literally every other ATI family we know (maybe one or two exceptions). I will not go into details-- people just get very messed up when they have been raised on BG's interpretation of the Bible and his rules for other peoples' life. However, just to hear a parent say the words you have just expressed (and my dear Mama, my one living parent, has expressed the same thing; my dad, before he died, said many of the same things, too) is very healing in itself. You parents were just trying to do the best you could because of your great love for your children! Now, as a parent myself, I see that more clearly than ever. Yes, there has been terrible hurt and confusion, and yes, we 'children' have struggles, but there is healing happening too, and parents admitting their ignorance and blindness and failing is a BIG part of that healing for us 'children' who had no say in being in ATI.
Please, I beg parents: if your eyes are being opened to the damage that has been done to your children, to your marriage, to your relationships, to your walk with God or your childrens walk with God because of your involvement with BG and ATI, please humble yourself, tell your family that you were wrong, and begin the healing process. Your honesty and brokenness can be the turning point in many lives. And maybe your children will need to see you walk in humility and repentance for awhile before they are ready to accept your apology-- give them that space and time. Pray for healing, but don't try to force it. There have been so many years of damage-- but God is bigger than that! And God is bigger than BG-- He wants to bring beauty out of these ashes. It can be the beginning of learning about true grace.
Praying that this hideous situation will be the beginning of healing for many families who have lived in hurt for so long. . .
I have just reread this, Rachel. Thank you so very much. God is good and there is hope.
Julia, thank you for expressing your feelings so well. There are so many of us parents who relate to what you said, and as Rachel said, for a former student to read what you wrote is healing as well.
Julia, So much truth in what you shared! While many of us parents had different reason for getting into ATI, I think most of us only wanted and hoped for better for our kids than what we had.
I grew up in a home where both of my parents had been married before and each had children from their previous marriage. I was the result of their marriage and their only child together. From my earliest days I remember feeling unloved and unwanted from my half-sisters which as you can imagine caused deep hurt which to this day I have to deal with as the memories rear their ugly head. Because I was not close to my sisters and my childhood with them was hurtful, I wanted so much more for my kids.
As a new Christian, I was introduced to BG and his seminar from a family that seemed to be so close-knit and godly. I wanted so desperately for my children to have what I didn't growing up. When I would attend the seminars or go to one of the training centers I would see the bright smiley faces on many of you thinking how wonderfully happy you must be, but not having any idea what was really happening to you. It has been so heart-breaking and sad to learn the truth.
My family got a glimpse that all wasn't well while volunteering at the OKC training center. This began our questioning things along with reading the book, "A Matter of Basic Principles." We've been out of ATI for well over 10 years now, but it hasn't been an easy process deprogramming and learning "what is the truth?" regarding Scripture, BG's teachings, etc. Even after all this time, we are still healing. Regrets? We have many!!
I know that some of you still have parents caught up in Bill's legalistic, unscriptural teachings and refuse to believe otherwise. My heart hurts for you. I pray that the truth will come out in this lawsuit and that their eyes will be opened and that they will have a repentant heart. However, it all turns out, I applaud the bravery of each person who has been willing to come forward and share their story!
I'm still angry after reading the 114 page manuscript.Jane Doe upon the very day she was sent away by her adopted parents was struck over 100 times.That is there for all Gothard adherrants to see and deny,struck over 100 times!With the quiet affirmation of the Great Suppressor,teachings bend and twist the human psyche,to conform them ultimately with the character of the teacher.So as we move on to Jane Doe 2,Gothard asks Doe's father publicly over an intercom if the allegations of his raping Jane Doe are true.Gothard then threatens a 16 year old who was subjected to multiple incidents of rape, beatings,belittling interrogations,hair pulling,to obey her father across the board,categorically.[Of course he denied the allegations].Who out there upon reading account after account would say that theses stories are contrived,and not have to ultimately face the inevitable conclusion that Gothard did rape this girl, based on his teachings,attitude,triumph of lust and power.And from these teachings,and attitudes built into them, come a crystallizing of all the esteemed values of life, to a callousness,hardness,legalism ;void of all compassion for those needing it the most.Gothard must for the public influence he has long had,for a rare event he can no longer control,come to grips with victims for years he discarded,let out back entrances,probably without even a blink at their abuse.He must actually give an account.And now wants to get back into the ministry.Some things involve the emotions tried to numbness.This has got to be one of them.
David, I'm angry too! It's ludicrous to send a person back into an abusive situation unless, of course, you are also guilty of abusing.
And seriously.... asking a father over an intercom if the allegations of rape were true. If he had said yes, what difference would it have made? From other testimonies, it wouldn't have. The young lady would have been instructed to "obey her parents." How utterly ridiculous!!
David, you might be asking for and wanting something that may never happen. In my layperson's experience and research Bill Gothard is a narcissistic sociopath and possibly also borderline personality disorder. Both can be easily, superficially albeit, online. A great resource if you google it is the Mayo clinic website. But there are many out there and blogs also. The MAIN characteristic one has to keep in mind when dealing with this personality profile is that have NO CONSCIENCE.
They are unable or unwilling, I don't know, to have any empathy or sympathy for others. They have no qualms about what their actions are doing to others. The lying, the grandiose ego, etc. are all also features, they are listed on many sites. But foremost is no conscience.
Meant to say researched online... And
They have no conscience
Lisa,now its come to the point that to speak out against Bill Gothard is to speak for the affirmation of human dignity,and worth;atleast from my conclusion of connecting the dots in the 114 page court indictment.To not acknowledge fathomless depths of evil done thru the guise of natural religion by this man is to denigrate human value to slavery/sex objects in a caste system.Thanks about the no conscience statement.Its all too believable.
I am sure his victims appreciate expressions of righteous anger on your part and others on this sight. It reafirms their dignity and sense of worth. It may be the only justice they see on this side of eternity. Only God knows. But they will know people cared and are praying for them. May the Lord use this to continue to bring healing to them.
You see Gothard wanted robots;automatons,and when at last he didn't get the proper response to his programming, its our fault.The Libby Annes,Jerushas,Vyckie Garrisons are no more than natural acts of "rebellion" and are of minor consequence.The IBLP was in the end nothing more than a programmed machine.
I am still concerned about the statute of limitations for the women who were abused by Bill more than 20 years ago. I'm concerned the court will knock their claim out on a summary judgment motion. Hopefully a few of the 14 claimants can survive the statute of limitations challenge.
The rape allegation is more recent (within the last 13 years or so). There's hope. Now 4 more plaintiffs have joined and we don't know their allegations yet.
BCM - read the lawsuit and you will note the primary allegations of tortious conduct is infliction of emotional distress from statements Gothard and IBLP issued in 2014 denying anything illegal occurred. I'm an attorney also and I think it is unlikely this gets knocked down in an SJ motion based on statute of limitations passing because the events that took place 20 years ago are mere background for the infliction of emotional distress.
Larne,
what is the "gut brain" nonsense all about and Bill's new insight that he must share with all the alumni? Does Bill really think some stomach cells are equal to brain cells?
That's it! your reins/kidney, intestines and heart are your second brain. I believe he has taken a Bible metaphor about emotions and with his special insight and the first one in 2000 years has a revelation direct from God. Just another way to find gullible followers to fleece them of their money and undying loyalty. Sorry I'm a little sarcastic today. If I recall there is an example of a good person who got a heart transplant from a thief and they turned into one also, something that bazar and the foundation for new theology. Bad heart juju I guess! Don't quote me but I don't have the reins/stomach to look it up.
Thanks, if you dug further into it, your reins/stomach would throw up for sure. Sounds like he will end up in the JW camp with no blood transfusions and no organ transplants because you will become a bad person if you receive from a bad person. What a nut.
My heart wasn't into it either!
Daniel said he was buying the book on the inner brain. I have asked him about it, and he has yet to respond. Perhaps he will, or perhaps he's changed his mind. I would be interested in hearing Daniel's take on the book, as I have read about the gut microbiome from Dr. Leo Galland, and Dr. David Perlmutter, and some from Dr. William Davis.
Sorry I haven't had a chance to dig into the book much yet. It does look as bad as I feared though. It's just such a mess that it is hard to even follow the logic in the book. He definitely is trying to make the case that there is some kind of cognitive function in the "bowels" "reins" "heart" etc. They are the controlling force within the body, even more so than the brain. He is pulling his normal tricks of "discovering ancient/new truth" packaging it and selling it as if he has some kind of direct pathway to the God.
The book has a lot of random stuff stuck into it. Here's something kind of sickening...
“The Power of Deep-Rooted Love” published by Life Purpose Power Teams.
7 Woes of Beautiful Women (pg.15)
Sensual love is a particular problem for beautiful women. They tend to have internal preassures (sic) which cause them to marry unqualified, sensual men:
• They are obviously aware that men are paying attention to them because of their outward appearance.
• They resent that men are more interested in their outward features than in who they really are on the inside.
• They compare themselves to other women and feel threatened when they see someone they think is more attractive.
• They experience verbal attacks from other women who envy their attractiveness and look for any character flaws.
• They fear that the one whom they marry will lose interest in them when their physical appearance will change with age and child bearing.
• They often feel that they are unattractive and want to correct “unchangeables” in themselves.
• Because of these factors they are very vulnerable to the flattery of sensual men and often marry one.
At the top of the page are a few glamor shots of women in their 20's or 30's. I can just imagine him scrolling through images on Shutterstock to find the perfect gals for his book.
I was just floored reading that after what he's done. Apparently he's an expert on the woes of hot women.
Uhhhhh.... wow. It sounds like Gothard is projecting his own issues onto what beautiful women might be thinking/feeling. I can run down this list and see direct parallels to personal stories I've heard shared from friends where Gothard has done each one of these: He's paid more attention to their outer appearances and has not cared about their inner person; He has compared women with each other and told girls "You should be more like ___, who styles her hair this way"; He has spread lies among women telling them not to trust other women and trying to divide their friendships; He hinted to one young lady that he did not want to marry because he doesn't want to have a wife who grows old and looks ugly--and the fact that he prefers young women over women his own age would seem to confirm this; He has taken girls in to get elective surgery done on their faces for their appearances; And he has flattered them to gain their love and loyalty, and often dissuaded them from courting or developing relationships with other men, especially if they were his "favorites."
I call B.S. If he speaks with authority on this subject, it's only because he's done each one of these things to women and he assumes their minds are just as depraved as his. As a beautiful woman made in the image of God (aren't we all beautiful because we're made in God's image?!), this list just makes me feel angry.
Daniel - on the woes of beautiful women. I guess that should be called "Exhibit C." Those are totally his own notions. Thanks for the response, btw, I did not intend to put pressure on you.
Thank goodness ugly women don't have these problems.
Beverly, you are right. All women are made beautifully by God. Bill's particular tastes in beauty don't determine fate for a particular woman any more than the lines in your hand or the bumps on your noggin predict the future.
It's interesting how its always "blame the woman" for Bill.
Instead of saying shallow men go for beautiful women (duh) its beautiful women go for shallow men.
I'm kind of weirded out by the whole concept of the "sensual men." God made men to be attracted to women. That attraction is one of the strongest emotional forces on earth. If a guy doesn't think his wife/ girlfriend is super hot that would be a bad thing. If your guy is more excited about your apple pie, or your Ph.D., than he is the wedding night, run away!
Can we say NO MORE RELATIONSHIP ADVICE from the octogenarian bachelor? He doesn't know what he's talking about.
"Gut Brain" is a biological idea. There are multiple connections between the real brain and what happens in the digestive systems. Many of the internal organs release their own hormones and control processes without input from the physical brain.
Wow - absolutely no words. Over on his own site, Alfred has referred to the victims as turning on Bill, "who frankly selflessly laid down his life for them."
Lord, have mercy.
Elizabeth, I may go there and comment. After all.
Here is my comment which is in moderation:
[start]“. . . who frankly selflessly laid down his life for them, to see them prosper.”
Alfred, I presume you wrote that, and it was referring to Bill. I think you need to be much more careful, and here’s why:
This claim about Bill laying down his life for the young ladies contradicts Exhibit B, which I thought you helped Bill to write. In Exhibit B, Bill says this:
“Rather than appreciating people as Jesus did, and bonding their spirits to Him, I evaluated them by my criteria and bonded their spirits to me.” He goes on to state the method of the bondage he caused . . . “I was very wrong in holding hands, giving hugs, and touching their hair or feet. I was also wrong in making statements that caused emotional turmoil and confusion. My guilt is compounded by my hypocrisy of requiring standards for others but not following them myself. All of this can only be described as ungodly and sinful.” . . . He goes on to state the general consequence: “I have caused great destruction in the lives of many individuals and families.”
I am NOT talking about the suit here. I don’t want to hear about whether you think it is right, or wrong for them to sue. Any response to this effect will deflect from my point in this one comment.
You have put Bill Gothard on par with Jesus Christ when you said he laid down his life for the ladies who claimed he abused them.
Bill himself admits what he did, he did for selfish reasons, and that what he did was ungodly and sinful. He said he pointed them away from pursuing Christ, and wanted them to be bound to him.
What you said about Bill laying down his life in selflessness does not comport with his statements in Exhibit B. Be very, very careful in making the claim that Bill was being Christlike toward those who were subject to what Bill himself calls “ungodly and sinful’ acts.[end]
Wow, well said. Thank you.
Bill did a great job of laying down his life for Ruth when she ask to be emotional(spirit)released from him and he sent her to the wolf in the Northwoods(via a couple lousy choices)When she told him she was under moral pressure there he did nothing. In his mind he was probably saying "next". I am tiring of the misinformation presented in Discouraging Grace. It appears he has dropped a couple of my post too, but they could have gotten lost in the mess but I don't think so.
I thought deep down inside of Alfred, there was a glimmer of hope. But he really has dug his heals in, he plays games with people's responses to him, we can't even interact with each other, he is always in the middle, he shuts down conversations with "move on" when he starts losing the debate, he is putting out info that isn't accurate, he is being used by Bill in doing this and can't see that. He just accused me of "making it up". To Alfred, I don't make it up at all neither is anyone else but you can't keep defending this sick old perverted man no matter how much he may have meant to you in the past. He is using you Alfred and for all your efforts and devotion and defense of Bill, he will screw you in the end as he has done to everyone else.
Alfred's reply to my point -- that he is idolizing Bill Gothard and putting him in the place of Christ, Who laid down His life for us sinners -- was another tangent. Namely, Alfred said that Bill did not approve of his own words in Exhibit B. So I looked at billgothard.com, and sure enough, Bill has walked back the words of not only Exhibit B, but Bill's original statement which hit the internet, that his physical affection with the young women, which included foot touching, crossed a boundary, and was wrong.
I know Exhibit B is more forcefully worded than Bill's original statement. But if you read billgothard.com now it is a flat out denial of any impropriety, and a denial of his original statement, and of Exhibit B. It's obvious Bill has had help getting that website up.
Don Veinot said it well - those who are assisting Bill to deny the seriousness of what he originally confessed to are keeping Bill from doing what he most needs to do, and that is to repent.
Not only that, but they are idolizing Bill, claiming Bill laid down his life so that those he harmed could prosper.
I thank Elizabeth for pointing that comment out. Idolatry is a horrible thing, and that is why I broke my silence over there. But I'm done.
Wow, Lynn. It's frightening what being in bondage to an idol can do--how it warps one's mind--and how deeply entrenched a delusion can become. I was really relieved when Alfred got banned from posting here because reading his twisted reasoning and continual obfuscation at RG (mirroring that of his idol, no doubt) was crazy-making. It is deeply unjust to BG's victims to have to be subjected to such mental torture.
At a certain point, God who is long-suffering in his mercy, gives such a reprobate mind over to reap the natural consequence of living such a lie. I fear at this point arguing with BG and his puppet(s) merely gives them the impression they may still be able to win the game--it does nothing to move them from their folly. Still, if it serves as a validation to only one other victimized soul to enable them to move toward freedom from the lies, it's worth it to keep exposing the red herrings, knocking down the straw men, and challenging outright boldfaced lies going on over there. Those who can--keep shining the light in this darkness.
rob war and Larne,
I agree with all you say regarding Alfred. I had take a break myself.
Lynn, Alfred denies that he helped Bill write that confession. Did he lead you to believe that? You have a great response, it is thoughtful and well written.
rob war, thanks, but I misconstrued something Alfred said about Exhibit B. It may be that Alfred helped Bill get his responses up on billgothard.com, and that's what he referred to, but don't quote me on that. See my comment to Larne.
My scruple is to stay out of commenting on the suit, because I wasn't a witness to anything, but Alfred heartily disapproves of Exhibit B, and did not help Bill write it. I take back what I said.
Frankly, I felt hopeful when I read "B," but it appears that was a false hope.
PS - about my scruple about commenting on the suit. I wasn't a witness to anything, and neither was Alfred. I'm quite sure most of the plaintiffs are not talking to him. They haven't spoken to me, either.
So picture me starting a site like DG. It would not be my business at all to do so. NONE.OF.MY.BUSINESS. We are only getting third and fourth hand "information" over there. No statements from Gothard, directly. Just rumors. Unlike over here, where there are published accounts of people who were involved.
That said, Bill has said enough in his original internet confession to make me believe the women who have come forward.
Frankly, I was so hopeful when I read the end of the amended suit, because I read it as a plea to go back to binding arbitration, or whatever the term is. But apparently, it is not, and I'm very confused at this point, simply because I don't have all the details. But neither am I asking questions.
I apologize again for thinking Alfred had something to do with Exhibit B.
I think this is important, so I will say it again.
“. . . who frankly selflessly laid down his life for them, to see them prosper.”
Alfred, by his own words, is committing idolatry.
Larne,
Did Ruth let Bill know she was "under moral pressure" after Bill sent her up to Northwoods & she became a hit-on target of his brother?!?!?!?
I trust your statement's veracity; I'm just making sure I understand it correctly.
I could not give you the exact dates but that is what she told me.
Those of you who have been regularly engaged over on Covering Disgrace... Have there been ANY other voices of continuing support chiming in? Or has it been almost exclusively this Alfred character versus "the world"?
There have only been a couple. I have some interaction with a David K who seems to be a friend of Alfred. 98% of the interactions are with Alfred. He claims that there is a team of 5 with 3 of them kicked off of here (RG). But, either they are behind the scenes or Alfred is just dominating and control the site. The supporters are very few in number and I think that Alfred might have expected and outpouring of love for Bill when he set it up as an alternative to RG. However, there is no love for Bill outside the very small diehard circle around Bill and Alfred.
Hello sister Rob, I just found you over here. I have never met Alfred, so he and I are not friends in the usual sense. But you can call me a Gothard admirer. I think Alfred does a pretty good job balancing the content over here at RG. I do not know whether there are many or few middle-aged Gothard admirers like me who browse both RG and DG. Of course we are the people described by BCM in a 1/15 post here. Your term (diehard) may also be a good description of us, hopefully in the spirit of "love suffereth long," etc.
Peace,
David K
Hi David, While we are not going to agree, I appreciate your response, clarification and wish for peace and I return that to you and yours
peace
David,
I agree with rob war's estimates.
CJ, I hope you are correct. However, I am also concerned about the basis of the Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IED") claim being Bill's misrepresentations about illegality as opposed to the actual incidents of 20 years ago. To me that raises an issue with causation. It seems like he is saying the basis of this particular cause of action is not the harassment itself but the misrepresentation of the illegal conduct. I do not know that this rises to the level of outrageousness or recklessness that is normally required in an IED claim. However, I am not familiar with case law in Illinois which tends to be more liberal than Florida.
Oh My Goodness!! My friend just posted this on fb.
It is from belief net.com. 9 signs you are in an abusive relationship.
This list is incredibly similar to all the girls testimonies. For instance:
1. They isolate you. 2. Not only jealousy of other people in your life but you own goals and dreams. They want control of all areas of your life. 3.you are nervous around them because of their domineering threats over you. 4. You do all you can to make them happy. 5. You feel trapped and helpless. 6. You start thinking you are the problem.
They listed a couple more things but these stuck out to me from their stories.
WOW!!!
In Alfred's defense, I can see where he is coming from to some extent as relates to maybe one or two of the girls who may have questionable stories and statements. I can understand why he would be quick to defend bill as to doubts about certain claims. The tendency though is for someone like Alfred to latch on to one person who may not be telling the truth and lump all the other victims in with that one person. However, I think the testimony of all the girls and the chronology as set forth by RG as well as some of the other witness testimony weighs heavily against Bill. I think Bill replaced Christ as the center of his theology and practical Christian life a long time ago with "Gothardism". I think he enjoyed the attention and "Gothard worship" he received over the years, especially from young, attractive girls. Additionally, I think Alfred is probably upset that the affidavit he helped Bill prepare may have been obtained by the plaintiffs' attorneys under the guise that it would be used against the Board of IBLP and not against Bill in the lawsuit. I am not saying this is the case, but I am trying to understand why he defends Bill to the degree he does. I think there are a lot of "Alfreds" out there(especially the older generation who have been going to Gothard conferences since the 1970s) who will not accept the testimony against Gothard, even if there are 100 women who come forward, unless Bill himself makes an admission as to a sexual sin and/or it's on video. I think Alfred knows that the "footsie" admission was sexual, but at this point if he admits this, I think he knows he will not be able to continue defending Bill with intellectual honesty. Alfred seems like a person who loves Christ but has chosen to stick with Bill until the end. There is no sense in trying to convince him otherwise.
I think Bill became the father or father figure that Alfred never had. I think his devotion to Bill is some deep seated emotional need that Bill has met in Alfred. This is gathered from reading what he posted here and on his own blog. I also think that Alfred devotion has given his access to Bill and this makes Alfred feel important.
Exactly. Alfred has said before that he lost his father when he was 8 years old, and Bill has been like a second father to him. Not sure how close they actually are, but Alfred has definitely attached to BG emotionally as a father figure. Alfred's lack of logic and seeing the obvious as well as defending BG makes sense when you see that this is more of his own attempt to avoid the trauma of losing a father figure all over again--inside he's an 8 year old boy again unwilling to part with his "Dad." It has become not just sad but tragic because this "father" he is holding onto is a liar, a thief, and most likely, to quote our Savior, "of his father the devil""--proved by his doing his father's work. And Alfred is now trying to lead others down this tragic path. So, so very sad and twisted.
Alfred, if you're reading, I encourage you to carefully consider Christ's words: "Call no man Father (bio dads exempt!), except your Father who is in heaven." Is Bill in Christ's rightful place in your heart? Jesus is the only one who will never fail, never leave you or forsake you. You really can take Bill off of his pedestal in your heart and throw the whole weight of your soul and all of its needs into the arms of our living, loving, reigning Christ.
Yes, that kind of loss can be very traumatic for anyone. I do pray for Alfred. I think Bill takes advantage of Alfred's devotion and I am sure it is very one sided. He doesn't betray Bill by taking an honest look at him and realize many of the things Bill has done to others is evil. Alfred needs to be free from Bill.
For Alfred to even consider that Gothard could be guilty, or that Gothard could be a teacher of error, I'm sure, to him, this is too terrible to contemplate. It would mean that his entire concept of God is wrong. It would mean his entire Christian walk is in error. It would mean that his assumption that God led him to Gothard and has been teaching him from out of Gothard is WRONG. In short, his faith is in Gothard -- and if Gothard is wrong, then his faith is wrong. Where would he go from there?
The fact is, all of the above is the Truth. It is that bad. But the good news is that if Alfred would actually see the Truth and embrace it, God would mercifully bring him into a true relationship with Christ. He has done that with others. It is his will for Alfred.
BCM... you are hitting on a very important part of this issue. There have been false claims in the past against the Institute. The IBLP leadership love to stick their heads in that sand to avoid these issues.
I'd be willing to bet that A FEW of the claims that have been aired are false, imagined, or stretched due to anger. Some people may be trying to piggyback and make some money. It is hard to tell in every case.
I think some of IBLP's smugness relates to knowing that a few claims are false. They will try to focus on those claims to discredit the real claims.
I hope the law team is very selective in the process of adding claimants.
I am one of those 1970's IBYC/IBLP folks. As much as many of the first crop might resist that their "sacred head" has fallen , it is difficult when presented with all the facts to not at least have pause. I know it is hard to be willing to see the naked truth, yet, when one allows the Truth really does heal and set one free. How the mighty have fallen. For us, it was a gradual awakening to having been deceived. We began to break away in the mid-to-late 80's when the advanced seminars just started getting weird and the problems with Steve were "exposed" ... I say that tongue-in-cheek since little was really exposed. Rather in true Gothard style, events were managed (mangled) to preserve the dynasty. We never applied for ATI though we homeschooled. I have to trust that those who are the Lord's, when presented with the truth will "eventually" ...hopefully sooner than later... respond as Aquilla and Priscilla did when Paul took them aside and told them of the way of God more perfectly! We certainly should pray to that end. I long for THE TRUTH to be revealed and know JUSTICE will prevail. How long, O Lord?
What were the Advance Seminars like? My parents (mostly my dad) took us through the Basic more than a few times growing up, but only him and my mom went through the "Advance" seminars, and more than once. Was that where you got your super-elite powers and cape?
We went to the advanced in the 80s. We were in our early to mid 40s by then. I would say from my perspective it was similar to the basic except that it really seemed to put a spotlight on SEX. When you could have sex, where, how often, get that vasectomy reversed, etc!!!! I got rid of my books so I can't go back and recollect but it seemed that each thing was more weird than the last. We never went back to an advanced. And I think we scaled back then on our alumni attendance at the basic. Here's this man who said he had never touched a woman's private parts, or kissed a girl trying to tell us not to have sex on this day or that one. I have always wondered if he lays in bed at night getting his kicks out of thinking of all the people who followed his advice and were wishing they could have sex that night. We never followed his advice, thankfully.
To: eva
"who said he had never touched a woman's private parts"..... Hmmmm.....
In his twisted, perverted logic, maybe he didn't.....
Since it appears that the majority of the young ladies had already been sexually abused prior to reaching the institute and him, perhaps he felt 'their parts were no longer private'.....
(This is not meant to be humorous.) :+(
My mind is scarred from attending Advanced when I was 14. I had no idea that sex and periods were going to be discussed, and I was still quite ignorant about both topics anyways. How confused and distressed I was that week! Even then, as uninformed as I was prior to hearing BG's ideas, I thought to myself how strange it was that something (sex) that was supposed to be "ok" after marriage, was still not ok! Mixed signals here, people, mixed signals.
My husband and I attended in 1986 and we were newly married. Like others have stated much of the focus was on the marital relationship and roles and what a husband needs and what a wife needs. He further pushed his home schooling program because and according to Bill, it is the parents sole responsibility to educate their children and parents who send their children to any kind of school, public or private were abdicating their parental responsibility.
Another area of focus was spiritual gifts especially the "motivational" gifts and their characteristics. The Charismatic Church I had just attended was very big into this list and our small groups went over it as if all of it was gospel truth.
As a final comment when I saw your question, what I remember about the advance seminar what that on our way to it, we were in a car accident. I turned in front of someone quickly and they rear ended me. I also got a ticket from the turn so the first night we were late and I think we were both so upset and traumatized by the accident (no one hurt, thank God) that the seminar for the most part was one big blur. It was my first accident and ticket and it was very upsetting. Now looking back on it, the accident probably did us good in the long run because both of us couldn't focus on anything and any time I think about the advance, I think about this accident not about the content of the seminar.
They only allowed men to attend the advanced in the beginning - then they let women come with their husband in 1977...
Larne,
Thank-you for answering my query.
If I went to my boss's district manager & told her:
"I am a Christian & I have been resisting temptation to become sexually active for all these years. This is who I am, & who I am trying to continue to be." And then I state "I am under pressure to undergo a moral compromise", my district manager would respond by saying: "Hasn't your boss helped you to be all you can be? When you told him of this, did he let you know the resources made available to you through your store's HR department?" If I replied by saying "Well, I've come to you because he already knows this about me; it's obvious he knows because he's the one who's been systematically pressuring me to let him compromise me."
My district manager would hit the fan at this point in the conversation. Of course, I guess it went differently in Ruth's talking to Bill; after all- he was the one who had started the grooming.
So illegal, unethical, unjust, unChristlike........ downright evil.
In getting what he wanted Bill ripped open carefully woven tapestries;delicate fabrics of girls hearts,for a short time interval,very calculated,very hedged against the odds of discovery by any party other than himself.He would go on to tbe next one and the next,oblivious to their heart's inevitable cry;exacerbated by their naiveness,vulnerability,and helplessness.At last a chance for justice to be served for girls who passed out from the trauma of sexual exploitation,who suffered temporal paralyses on one side of their body,who shook uncontrollably.And what of the teachings so taught by this conscience seared,immoral,no holds barred,master manipulator;the infraction you suffered only affects your body,not your spirit;minimal importance.No beautifully woven tapestries,delicate fabrics knowingly violated,and covered up far too many years by yes men and puppets.
I just want to add: not only has every place I've ever worked considered a "safety zone" from being preyed upon sexually (with training to this effect), but, where I'm at now the HR department & security department also have open-door policy & counsel (or referred council) for any issues we have in our personal lives. If my personal autonomy is encroached upon by someone entirely unconnected to my place of work, they still offer support because I'm their employee. My safety is important, even off the job. If this person WAS connected at work- let alone my direct supervisor- they'd be dealing with it, & FAST, with no repercussions to me. It kills me that my secular workplace, even in a field that isn't at all connected to counseling, does better shepherding than the leader of Christian organization that touts himself as the most adept personal councilor.
I know it is tempting to TRY to reason on Covering Disgrace but really, I believe it is time to move on. Just raises blood pressure and frustrates those who know the truth.
Those who want to know the truth can find it on the net. Alfred may think he is a movie star with all this attention. Just mho.
I think Alfred truly believes in Bill's innocence due to some of the reasons I stated in a prior post (concerns about the veracity of a couple of the female claimants, etc). Ultimately, at the end of the day, Bill is entitled to a fair trial. Don't get me wrong, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly against him. However, if I was representing Bill or if I was close to Bill and was hearing information from him, I could see how it would be difficult to not want to defend and believe him, especially if he is a father figure and mentor. However, this is no way serves as an excuse to dismiss every allegation from each of the women. Many girls/women in this situation do not speak out because they are afraid no one will believe them. However, there are those who may have a personal vendetta against Bill and/or are after a pay day, and so they will embellish or lie about their story. What strikes me is the number of women that came forward and the details of their stories that add up and correlate with the stories from the other women. It took a lot for these women to come forward and go public with this information, and it takes a whole heck of a lot to bring a sexual harassment lawsuit, knowing your personal life will be sifted through and you will be made into a public spectacle. This to me adds a lot of credibility to their stories. Emotionally my tendency is to want to jump on Bill, but I am trying to think through the allegations as well as his response. HIs admissions in the affidavit really do not help his case though. I am praying that the Lord will sift through the lies and that the truth will come forward as clear as day, either through the court process or another means.
Huh, just like another "fatherly" Bill is the news of late for the same reasons.
Thank you, may the truth become known indeed!
I am glad for the courage of these girls in filing the lawsuit. I believe Gothard is guilty of these charges, maybe even more. But I do have to say, at the risk of sounding like I am minimizing the abuse, scars, and hurts -- that if Bill Gothard were completely innocent of all charges and is as pure as he claims, that he is nevertheless a heretic and a false teacher of, "another gospel." His teachings, especially his Satanic teaching on authority, is what gave him his power, and thus, made possible all of these abuses. Twenty years from now, when Gothard is gone, and all of these events pass, there are still going to be those, like Alfred, who promote these destructive heresies, and shipwreck spiritual lives. That is the real issue -- the teachings. I would submit that had it not been for these revelations of sexual abuse that there be would significantly fewer people who care about the heresies of Bill Gothard and IBLP. I think it amazing what God has to expose to get the attention of Christian people. Back in the 1970's, there were some of us crying out against his teaching, and we were branded rebellious, stupid, and without reverence for God. And there was almost NO ONE in a highly visible ministry speaking out -- many of them, like Charles Stanley, actually supported Gothard. Where is Charles Stanley today? Does he continue to support Gothard's teaching? What a coward. Where is honesty and the desire to clear God's name? Well, here we are today. I would think, at the very least, that this evil that was allowed to continue ought to give those who should have known pause to ask as to why such false teaching was able to find a place in the body of Christ and hurt the lives of so many. Ignorance is one thing. That is excusable. But not all can make such a claim. Many did know and many others could have known -- and I'm talking, not so much about the immorality, but about the false teachings.
David January,
Until about six months ago, I did not know that Dr. Charles Stanley ever supported Gothard!!
(I read here, via a comment from someone who was employed at the institute during the 1980's 'scandal', that Dr. Stanley, without investigating first, was extremely rude to the non-supportive staff(wagging his finger at them) as he defended Bill.
I also read somewhere that Gothard counseled the Stanleys regarding their troubled marriage!! I do not know if this is correct. They divorced. Mrs. Stanley has passed away. Does anyone know what the relationship between Gothard and Stanley is now??? (Until a few months back, I enjoyed viewing his Sunday sermon. Unless I discover that Dr. Stanley is now one of those who understands the crisis and realizes Gothard urgently needs to repent, I am not interested in his ministry. :+(
"I also read somewhere that Gothard counseled the Stanleys about their troubled marriage!!"
If that's true, it's a classic case of the blind leading the blind, and it's sad to think if they had gotten truly sound counseling from a qualified therapist, they may have found healing. My parents and in-laws love Stanley, but for me he's just another man who has made an idol of being that guy up in the pulpit with the admiring audience. You can only truly "preach the gospel" if: a) you really know what the content of the gospel is, and b) your life doesn't undercut the message you preach.
To Karen:
I always believed that Dr. Stanley was a sincere and dedicated man of God. I began listening to his sermons soon after my conversion in 2/79. I read his bio and was heartsick when I learned that his wife made several attempts to divorce him. He stated that he did everything he could to prevent the dissolution of the marriage. Ultimately, it was granted to her.
In my relentless attempt to discover why Mrs. Stanley was so unhappy with him, I read everything I could find regarding their union. My intensity may come across as odd, but I felt so sorry for THEM, as a couple, especially considering his prominent ministry. I do feel certain of his sincerity desiring every person on earth to 'hear and understand the gospel message'.
The following may not be true:
When asked what the problem was from her point of view, supposedly she replied, "Charles left the marriage a long time ago". I determined that to mean emotionally he was not there for her or at least she did not believe he was.
His dad died when he was a baby. Years later, his mom married a cruel man who was deliberately mean to him. Not having an appropriate 'role model' to follow, perhaps he truly had difficulty staying 'connected' to his wife. But maybe....after he became involved with Bill Gothard....something changed in his relationship to his wife....
However, to my listening ears, none of Dr. Stanley's sermons ever reflected any signs of Gothardism. I just wish I knew what Dr. Stanley's feelings are regarding 'his old friend now'.....
(I am sorry this text is lengthy.)
husbandbuz,
Your account pretty much accords with what I have read as well. Though I haven't followed him much, when I have heard him I haven't found Stanley to be preaching Gothardism from the pulpit either. In fact, I liked him when I was an Evangelical (and when I had no idea of what was going on behind the scenes with Gothard, etc.). I have no animosity toward the man and I'm sure he has some noble intentions, but I believe he has erred if he has indeed put "preaching the gospel" (from the pulpit of a church) ahead of his family commitments to live the gospel out relationally (which is the only way any of us can truly effectively preach the gospel in its fullness to anyone). I believe there is a huge temptation in modern Evangelical culture for believers to derive our sense of worth and significance from what we apparently *do for* God and to delude ourselves we are indispensable in some "ministry" and that if we fail, the Holy Spirit can't get the job done. We are often explicitly taught things that reinforce this--e.g., how many of us have heard preachers tell stories about how someone died before he had the chance to hear about Jesus, though some believer had, had the chance to tell him, but didn't? How many of us has heard the only reason God leaves individual believers here on earth after they "get saved" is that God wants to "use us" to reach the rest of the world?
The focus on "winning souls" for God and other seemingly great deeds of faith serves to displace the gospel understanding of Church as most essentially the *communion* of the saints established by Christ alone and into which we are incorporated by faith through the action of the Holy Spirit working in the Church. This gospel of the communion of saints instituted by Christ is replaced by the American utilitarian gospel of the individual believer as indispensable tool in God's hand, which only serves to inflame the desires and fears of our ego-centric selves--desires and fears which can only rest when our needs are met by abiding in Christ (which we never really learn to do). Thus the utilitarian gospel produces "believers" whose primary motivation in their relationships with others and for attending church is the need to prove their significance and worth in the eyes of others and of God. Whereas the version of the gospel that truly enables the one who believes on Christ to experience Christ's love in the communion of the saints enables our transformation so that we are motivated in relationships to "love because He first loved us." In my experience, when we abide in the love of Christ, we can't help but share Him with others (with words if necessary). But in this case it is God, not us, doing the preaching of the gospel and convicting others of its truth, and we don't need a pulpit and a large congregation to validate our sense of significance. We know Christ is the Savior of the world, not us!
It's not hard to see how you don't have to subscribe to an all-out heresy like Gothard's system to allow this Evangelical fallacy to subtly tempt you to enthrone the needs of the insecure ego and destroy loving relationship in the process. It's also easy to see how this utilitarian concept of God and His Church can be the seed of a full-blown Gothard system.
Karen,
This was very helpful to me.
Did Anna Stanley just die recently? The latest I saw on Charles Stanley is that he and son Andy are working on reconciling.(they were estranged for a long time and he openly stated he felt safer with his mom than his dad) And that was 2014. All else I know is that, unlike BG, Charles Stanley actually made an appearance on 19 Kids and Counting. I've also been encouraged by his snippet-sermons on my Christian radio station, but didn't hear full sermons or know much on his life besides what the Internet provides. But hopefully this is one step closer to him confessing his part in enabling what's been happening with IBLP/BG.
Anna Johnson Stanley, of Alpharetta, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta), passed away November 10, 2014. She was the mother of Andy Stanley and Becky Stanley Brodersen.
To JPU:
She went to be with Jesus on 11/10/14
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/newsobserver/obituary-preview.aspx?n=anna-j-stanley&pid=173134671&referrer=1878
She was dearly loved by her daughter-in-law Sandra -
http://sandrastanley.com/2014/11/my-sweet-mother-in-law/
Dr. Charles' son Andy is an amazing man as well. It appears that they are now and have been for quite some time, at peace with each other. (Their ministry styles differ.)
While listening intently to hundreds of Dr. Stanley's sermons over many years, I was able to glean 'tidbits' of information regarding his 'formative years'. He had a deep love, appreciation and respect for his mother and credited her for much of his abounding faith.
I do feel great compassion for him as he made little references regarding the pain he experienced in his childhood. The inability to be reared by his biological father, created such a deep void in his life that he, curiously, for many years, could not embrace God as his Father in the way he needed to. Eventually, with the help of devoted friends, that was resolved. The heartache of living with a cruel step-father took its toll. I recall, during a sermon, he made a brief comment concerning 'a woman remarrying just because she was lonely'. That statement spoke volumes.
Yet, he mentioned how he, in later years, approached his step-father apologizing for 'whatever he, Dr. Charles, had done to cause dissension between them. (Probably nothing. He was a child. Perhaps the step-father was jealous.) I believe it was this initiation of love by Dr. Charles that encouraged his step-father to seek Jesus. (My tears....)
Only God knows why the Stanley's marriage could not endure. As a result, I am certain that thousands felt profound sadness. I truly feel that 'something was missing' in the marriage that Mrs. Stanley could not live without. Sad.
Because the pain I feel runs so deep for all of those woman abused by Gothard, I just cannot abide with anyone who does not understand the severity of what has taken place. In addition, the individuals must agree that nothing short of a Godly resolution is acceptable. Yes, this includes Dr. Charles confessing his part in enabling any IBLP cover up. I truly desire to know the relationship that now exists between Dr. Charles Stanley and Bill Gothard. ^i^
I don't want to come off as insensitive, but Charles Stanley needs to do more than just confess his unfortunately support of Bill Gothard. There is a REASON why he supported Gothard, and that reason is that he agrees with what Bill teaches. He many not directly teach what Gothard teaches but he agrees with him or otherwise he would not have stood up and affirmed Gothard publicly. Unless he sees the error in these teachings and personally comes to terms with God about them, he isn't going to get far. Again, we come back to the teaching.
This is my reply to Alfred who finally got the courage to ask Bill directly if he was a virgin and Bill's reply which was just "absolutely" per Alfred.
Absolutely what? Is that all he said? So either he absolutely is or he absolutely is not. You, as a faithful follower will think he is affirming the first, me a no longer faithful follower interpret the later. Either he fully assaulted Jane Doe II which makes himself "not a virgin" by any means or she is lying. Considering the preponderance of all the testimonies plus 4 more added, it doesn't really look good for Bill to "still be a virgin" and he is skirting around the issue with his defense of himself as "never kissing', not touching with intent etc etc. He doesn't come forward with "I believe that God's perfect plan is to reserve sex for marriage and I have promised myself this and have always behaved in such a manner to save my body and sex for my marriage partner if I ever get married". He never has said that about himself. So again, absolutely what?
I don't think I know of any ministry, or leader of a ministry, who is so obsessed with sex -- especially obsessed with his own personal purity, to the point where he announces it. When is the last time you even heard any minister make public his own purity? If a person really were pure, they would not feel the need to announce it. And from the stories I've read on this site about the atmosphere at headquarters, and personal dealings with Bill, this is an obsession that was everywhere -- right down to often forbidding members of the opposite sex to be alone in the same room with each other. I think all Christians agree that sex is for marriage. That is a given. But it is the continual focus on this matter that, to me, seems like a over-compensation. When you feel the need to police every thought, every move, and every action with LAW -- and much of it having to do with, "eye traps," etc. -- this is often a reflection of something about yourself that you are trying to control or suppress. And we don't need to guess about that, do we? There was a huge problem. And in the end, all of the laws Gothard could muster up were not able to turn him from his sin, nor were those laws able to stop the abuses by his brother. Law can never control sin. Only faith in the Living Christ can -- not control sin -- but deliver us from sin.
I agree with you 100%
To David:
You certainly do not come across as insensitive. We are to 'speak our mind' and to share. Are we not? We learn from one another as we 'enlighten' and are 'enlightened' in return. We also encourage and support whenever possible. This is how I understand our purpose here.
As Stanley obviously supported Gothard with much intensity during the time of the cover up, there has to be an explanation. (Apparently, at that time, Dr. Charles never attempted to investigate any allegations. He just believed Bill.) Does he really align himself to any degree with Bill's dogma?? Unless it is determined otherwise, it certainly appears that he did and perhaps continues to do so regardless of the fact that his sermons do not exhibit any hints of 'Gothardism'.
The possibility of a continued camaraderie between the two of them is perplexing. If Dr. Charles Stanley agrees with what Gothard teaches, wouldn't there be some evidence reflected in his sermons?? What am I missing here.....??
I sent Stanley, Swindoll and MacArthur a copy of our June 24,2015 "Failure to Repent, Tell it to the church" letter and I'm still sitting on the edge of my chair waiting for their response. It must be the slow mail service!
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/?s=failure+to+repent&search=Search
From what you have just stated, these verses from Titus 1:15,16 come to mind. Quoting from the King James "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure: but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God: but in works they deny [Him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."
David,
Interesting to me that you outright say that gothard's teaching on authority is satanic. Those are powerful words. I'm not disagreeing, but would you clarify that statement? It would be helpful. Thanks
Satan is the author of all lies, according to Jesus, and certainly, THE deceiver, so at least in general, it is of Satan. But more specifically, Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man. Gothard's authority teaching -- and this is even seen right from the pictures he draws of it -- interjects authority as a mediator between the believer and God. It essentially denies that each believer has a personal, one on one access to God through Christ, and demands that we can only walk with God through an authority -- because that is how God works. That is not only what is taught -- it is how it is practiced, and those who have been involved with it know that. Horrible error. In addition, the damage done by this teaching is nothing short of Satanic. It is not of the Holy Spirit and this makes it of another spirit. If we read Galatians 1 we find what Paul has to say about such teachings. But I think in the church today we think these things are merely a matter of getting Bible verses straight or finding a sound theology. But God reveals that they are more: They are matters of walking in darkness or light. Many who years ago rolled their eyes and scoffed at any criticism of Gothard are now realizing that his is another gospel and right out of the pit.
Amen! ^^^ thank you!
I feel the same way about the Calvinistic (satanic) idea that God purposely creates some people to send them to hell without a choice for his "glory" so popular today. But many would call that non-essential doctrine or interpretation.
To: Lisa Blake
"But many would call that non-essential doctrine or interpretation".
I agree that this is hardly non-essential doctrine or interpretation!
If an individual believes that Jesus 'only died for the elect', there is no incentive to witness for Him. I believe this encourages a live for yourself mentality as one of God's 'chosen'. :+(
I do not understand the inferiority of believing God made people for punishment compared to God purposely allowing them chose punishment when He is wise and powerful enough to stop it. Killing by neglect and killing on purpose are both culpable. That we don't understand God's ways does not make them satanic.
@husandbuz, I am Calvinist and I do not believe Jesus died ONLY for the elect. But I believe that only the elect will receive the benefit. Do you read "elect" out of your Bible? If not, what do you do with the word?
To: Don Rubottom
With all due respect Don, I do not comprehend Calvinism. I am always open, however, to learn from others whose knowledge far exceeds my own.
I believe everyone has a story to tell regarding the conclusions they have delineated and those gray areas that remain ambiguous.
No, I do not 'read ELECT out of my bible'. But, that POWERFUL word, to mean 'chosen or singled out', combined with the elitist Gothard mindset, nearly destroyed me years ago. (Beset with this confusion, one son eventually walked away from the faith.)
At this late date in my life, I have more questions than answers. I desire to put a larger portion of my story here for you to better understand my thinking, but it may be too lengthy. In addition, you may not be interested which is understandable. Ultimately, my story is not what matters.
I do believe that only those who accept Jesus Christ as Savior will have any hope for an eternity with Jesus. Yet, I ponder if anyone can really be certain that they have eternal security. I also believe that Jesus died for every individual that ever lived.
I do believe that the Holy Spirit 'must draw' an individual to Christ. But, I also believe that 'whosoever will may come'. I believe that these are truths that run parallel and God alone has the answer.
I do believe that no one person has or ever will have the comprehensive understanding in every aspect of the Word of God. I believe we must continually study the scriptures. I believe that if any one person is convinced and professes to know it all from God's Word, he or she can cease reading the Word of God, and just 'worship the Book'.
Lastly, I believe that many are aligned with much of the above.
I think that way too many Christians try to "overthink" The Bible. I did that myself fir the 20 years I was in Bible Study and Bible College. You can keep it simple or you can make it hard. For me the simpler it is the closer to God I am.
I am currently reading a good book by Roger Olson, "Against Calvinism", I am in the middle of it. He is very careful in his research and points out in the chapters that I have read so far that Reform Theology is far from being a monolithic theology and that the TULIP schema which is what most people may think of when they think of Reformed theology or Calvinism was actually a later development at the counsel of Dort, it wasn't part of the original scheme of Calvin even though it incorporates his thinking. Not all reformed accept TULIP and even those that do, not all accept the L of TULIP and those reformed are called four point Calvinist. The L of TULIP is the idea of double predestination that essentially makes God the author of evil and disasters when one follows it to it's logical conclusion. Most people think or equate reformed and Calvinism solely with TULIP due to popular reformed teachers like John Piper, Josh MacDonald and the grand-daddy to them Lorraine Boettner. Roger in his book is raising his concerns about the later group and not reformed theology in general that don't subscribe to TULIP.
I think that you are searching here and I would encourage you to do so. There are certainly other theological models than what you see in TULIP and reformed. I would start looking at early Church authors and fathers and there a number of good resources for this. I wouldn't give up your search and keep in mind that Christianity didn't start with the reformation in the 1500's.
We cannot dissect "elect" and "whosoever" from their context. The standard for the "elect" is faith in Jesus Christ. The standard for the "whosoever" is faith in Jesus Chirist. All in Him, the Elect One, are the election.
Wise words there, I think, Lisa.
On point :)
To: David January
Though we NOW know and recognize these truths from God's Word, it is so encouraging to be reminded of our true relationship to our Creator, Lord and Savior. Thank you. ^i^
Has anyone suggested that he could take a polygraph exam? Or have any of the plAintiffs or accusers offered to do so?
Despite what TV and movies portray, polygraph tests are very unreliable. Many people pass lie detector tests while lying, and many people fail lie detector tests while telling the truth.
To Helga:
Years ago, a family member accused her sister's husband of stealing an (accidentally misplaced) item. He was beyond outraged!! He insisted that he be given a polygraph test 'to prove his innocence'. He failed it!!
By this time, the sister-in-law was convinced, by his actions, that he must not be guilty. BUT, the fellow was so livid, he was not going to feel vindicated until he passed the polygraph. Certain that he failed the first time because he was so upset, he paid several hundred dollars to have the test repeated. He was retested weeks later when he had 'calmed down'. He failed again!! They found the misplaced item. The two have not spoken in years.
This machine is designed to detect & record changes in physiological characteristics such as an individual's pulse and breathing rates. It has its merits, but it is not faultless.....
Agree. But that wasn't my question.
I think a polygraph is a great idea. I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned before
A polygraph would be a good starting place to weed out deception.
Lie detector tests are not admissible in civil court due to their unreliability.
Nevertheless it would be interesting to see who would submit to one.
I believe I have read sociopaths typically pass lie detector tests because lying produces no cognitive dissonance for them. Gothard has demonstrated enough sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies, I wonder about this.
To Karen:
Hmmmmm.....I wonder what scripture verse he would render to give credence to his opposition??
I was a Calvinist when I was part of the Presbyterian church of America but I've sensed shifted back to being more of a traditonal dispensationalist as I saw myself trying to make scriptures fit into my Calvinist theology instead of letting scripture define my theology. My views on salvation and evangelism in relation to Gods sovereignty and election were really impacted by JI Packers book Evangelism and the sovereignty of God. I'd encourage anyone who has questions about this topic to read that book
Back to Bill, the more I think about this case the more I am realizing the women's case may have issues. If Mr Gibbs was helping bill against the IBLP Board
And got him to sign an affidavit under the auspices that it would be used to help bill against the board then Gibbs has conflicted himself out of this case. This will not be good for the women. This looks to me like a conflict of interest.
You have to realize that the info for this is from Alfred and DG and Alfred gets his info from Bill himself. Bill could be floating this out there to make G III look bad and the suit questionable. I wouldn't be trusting info from Bill via Alfred. This is what Bill would want the public to think. Now did Bill sign this for G 3 hoping to use it against the board at some point or to get back at them? Bill sign that thinking one thing even though G 3 might have told him the actual purpose and because this is what Bill thinks or hopes for, therefore must be true and he uses Alfred's blind devotion as an opportunity to float this out there.
Yes. Alfred also said Bill dealt with the issues leading to the the sex scandal of 1980 in a timely fashion. This effectively means Alfred thinks Ed Martin, Gary Smalley, and Ken Nair lied.
Exactly, rob. Alfred is certainly being manipulated, to put it lightly. So everything he says must be taken with a grain of salt. He has no idea that he's being used, so he repeats things in all earnestness. He "knows" many things, and isn't shy to stand anyone down about them. Doesn't make them true when you consider the source of his "knowledge."
I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but it looks to me like Gibbs III has executed a brilliant legal strategy, and I'm pretty sure he is clever and knowledgeable enough to do it without disqualifying himself.
If Gibbs III had ever presented himself (to Bill or to the world) as Bill's attorney, then yes, there would be a conflict of interest and a violation attorney-client privilege. But there is no way Bill ever could have thought Gibbs III was representing him. He gave his affidavit as a witness, but not as a party to the suit. The brilliance of Gibbs III's strategy is that he set up the initial lawsuit in such a way that Bill was neither a plaintiff or a defendant. I think Gibbs was counting on leveraging Bill's anger against the board for ousting him as a way to get him to make a statement that would ultimately incriminate himself. While it would not be ok for the police to do that in a criminal case, the rules are different for a lawyer in a civil case.
If I had to guess, I would say that Gibbs III planned from the very beginning to amend the suit as he did, and that he set it up that way in the first place to draw Bill out. It was never about going after the individual board members; the organization and Bill were his real targets. Very clever.
Won't they have to get Bill on the stand in order to make any case of Gibbs having gotten him to do the affidavit under such auspice? Gibbs would never say such a thing about this possibility. Even though he's slick, Bill is/was obviously oblivious to the credence it gives to the girls' reports; he probably thinks the main issue at hand is him getting even with the board for finally worming their way out of his pocket. I. Would. Love. It. If. Bill. Got. Cross-examined. Would LOVE it. I have an idea that judges don't much care for a narcissist who doesn't much care what's being asked of him & is so used to having the floor that he just thinks being on the stand is his god's-given opportunity to get a message out to all his alumna.
To Nicole:
I agree with your thoughts above.
Of course Gothard is responsible for this lawsuit now in place. He had his opportunities. I certainly do not feel that it is cruel or malicious to want to see him not only be obligated to be present in court but to be cross-examined as well.
These abused women NEED for this to happen. It is all about them!!
I know that their attitude would not be one of vindictiveness as he 'sits in the hot seat'. Real remorse from Bill would be the 'ultimate' outcome regarding the continued healing process of those so horrifically offended. The fact that he would be confronted by these women and his own sin, would at least aide in restoring them psychologically.
In absolute earnestness that the victim's horrific denigration may be seen through a non manipulated judicial system.There's a lot at stake;nearly cruelly suppressed by the heresies of one never in my mind having to face what he's done to the innocent,vulnerable,naive,and trusting.
I agree; the confrontation of him by his victims is paramount; whether he chooses to benefit from it by repenting is his to receive for his own good or else deny. I used to think, before I became aware of Bill's conduct, that the only way a person could awcknowledge sin was by asking forgiveness. But I've learned there are other ways to pinpoint one's own guilt. Blowing people off, maligning them, back-stabbing them, belittling, obfusticating, decoys, getting other(s) to do all these things & more.......
To Nicole:
My involvement with IBYC began in the spring of 1979 and continued thru the early 80s. Slowly, via various means, I began the long journey back to sanity. After all of these years, I have not yet 'arrived'. I do not expect to at my age. (As with multitudes, hurt and pain remain throughout my family.)
It was mid 1980s when my sister phoned stating she heard rumors regarding 'sexual cover ups'. In fact, her baptist church was split apart due to 'opposing sides'. At that time, just the fact that Gothard was 'reported to having covered for his brother' was enough to shock me!! I had NO idea until May 2014 (when I began researching the Duggar family's affiliation with Bill Gothard, his institutes & programs etc.) what he is actually guilty of!! My investigation lead me here, to Recovering Grace. I am so grateful to finally realize that it was Bill's cunning and not my slow-wittedness.....that allowed me to be deceived.
It has been nearly (8) months since the reality began to sink in.....The shock has not lessened for me since day one. In fact, the more than is revealed regarding his immorality and overall lack of integrity, the more I question, "Where IS the Holy Spirit in this man's life? Why isn't he being tortured from within?? Or is he??"
I am quite surprised that you did not know about the 1980's scandal. It was very much discussed at the Church I attended at the time. It was always framed that the problem was his brother Steve and that Bill was aware of this for a while but ignored it. The discussion was always framed with a sigh of relief that it "wasn't Bill" but his brother and that Steve was at the Northwood retreat where he and others had rented x-rated movies. Bill also got on his knees in his seminars asking for forgiveness. I also knew that former employees tried to sue Bill and the reason given was that he didn't follow his own teaching. I never found out what happen with the suit at the time. Only now do I have the real reasons. I do think the effect of this on this particular Church was a slow backing away from Bill's teaching and I think that was across the board and this pulling away was the impetus of forming ATI program. Now all of this was the pre-internet days of course and if you didn't have a TV or pay much attention to news, it could have been missed. I know the law suit was frowned upon when discussed. His ministry should have ended then and sadly too many pastors just didn't stop and re-evaluate his teaching. Don't beat yourself up over it in that you didn't know. I am just surprised but if the Church you attended at the time deemed all of this as "gossip" and an "attack" on such a Godly man and teaching, then that might explain how you missed this.
To rob war:
We became involved w/another baptist church, ten miles away, a couple of years PRIOR TO the 'scandal leakage'.
Because of my own unrest as my once happy children, esp. my middle son, began to show signs of discouragement, I knew that something had to change. The 'Gothardites' at the present church were increasing in 'numbers & intensity'. By that time, my very insightful 15 yr. old eldest son had attended an IBYC seminar w/me. ('Saved' at age 6, an academically gifted child, he began reading the bible in earnest right after his conversion.) At the conclusion of that week's seminar, he requested an immediate chat with me.
He began to make me aware of many biblical errors and agreed there were additional inconsistencies w/Gothard's teaching.)
At the 'new' baptist church, there was no indication of anyone being involved w/anything Gothard related. We worshiped there for several years (until that church was involved in a split re: a youth pastor.)
Interestingly, last month, I happened to speak to a former member of that latter baptist church. Not believing she had any knowledge of Bill Gothard, I mentioned my discoveries. To my surprise, she stated there had been a small group of dedicated Bill Gothard followers prior to my family's attendance there. And that even the pastor had been aligned w/the teaching!! No clue!! During the time we attended, more than half the congregation were age 50+ w/grown children & grandchildren. Apparently Gothard worship was contained within a few younger families. :+)
I am assuming this is the son that left the Christian faith then? He sounded very astute to see through Bill at age 15, that is very impressive. I wouldn't ever give up praying for him. I am wondering if he would be open to reading "Summa Theologica" by St. Thomas Aquinas because it sets up intellectually proofs for the existence of God. If your son is very intellectual it might speak to him. I have it on my kindle and is on my do to read list. In the early 1980's Tim LaHay wrote a book called "Battle for the mind" which bashes the intellect, thinking and Thomas Aquinas. The lead elder pushed this book when I was attending that Church. Tim LaHay couldn't have been more wrong as I learned years later. It fits with the anti-intellect of Bill Gothard as well and I wonder if your son being very astute at such a young age saw through all of this and said "no thanks" and walked off. I'll pray for him.
To rob war:
No. The middle son of (3) children drifted.
The eldest, mentioned, graduated HS in 1984. He spent a year at WOL Bible Institute, NY. Less than (2) years later, he rec'd a BA in Interdisciplinary Studies from LBC, VA (now LU). The following year he accepted a Master's in Counseling Psychology.
This year he & his wife will celebrate 27 years of marriage. He works within the school district w/troubled youth. Many are in foster care. Whenever they need him, he oversees the drug & alcohol rehab in a local prison. His wife teaches HS autistic children. (They do not have biological children; these are their children.) They reside in FL. I live in NJ.
Bless you for your concern. I covet your prayers for my 'drifter'. I have not seen him in nearly 14 years. (He experienced a serious injury at age 17. He 'hung on' for several years before walking away.)
To huzandbuz,
I just felt compelled comment on your teen-aged son having the spiritual maturity to see the errors in BG's teachings. A true Berean, may he serve as an example for us all!
To Lisa:
How kind of you...Such a nice compliment...I so appreciate it. :+)
I wish I had asked him to attend that first IBYC seminar with me in 1979 (before I was manipulated by Gothard's dogma.) I was 32, (a single mom), BUT recently 'saved' and high on life!! However, within a few months, I became easily influenced with regard to 'the conditions of God's continuing grace'. Over many months, my son watched my easy going personality slip away as I 'clung to rules out of fear'. He was concerned about his brothers.....the spirited one, three years his junior, who could not understand why he couldn't go fishing after church on Sunday or learn to play the drums.....As a matter of fact, neither could I.....
Just think it is instructive to lay these two communications side by side. One is an e-mail from Bill, and one is part of the affidavit.
"May 2, 2015 5:54PM
Dear Tony,
Regarding your letter, I am sure that you are aware that I have resigned as the president of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. I have no plans or desires to return to those administrative responsibilities. In fact, if the Board asked me to return as president, I would decline. I am also not a member of the Board and have no decision making authority with its members.
I am praying for you.
Bill"
And later that year, in November of 2015 . . .
"10. I temporarily resigned from the Board of IBLP to follow the instruction of Matthew 5:23-24. The Scripture itself affirms a return to the ministry once I had fulfilled as far as possible its instruction. The IBLP Board members made public my reasons for resigning that also affirmed my 100% intention to return."
"I have no plans or desires to return." " . . . my 100% intention to return."
Since the affidavit was said under oath, then I presume he lied to Tony Guhr. Either way, one of those statements is a lie.
A liar is not fit for ministry.
You rock girl! great side by side analysis.
Good catch! I missed that. He told us the same thing in Denver 2014. On the third day of our meetings and discussions of what repentance should like. I asked him how he viewed the future for himself with this massive burden of repentance ahead of him. For the first time in three days he got excited and smiled. He had a plan but it was different then what we had talked about or what he had agreed to. His plan to return to the ministry, involved how to save Chicago and stop its violence plus he already had a billionaire backer lined up.
After about 5 minutes of listening we all looked at each other in total disbelief realizing repentance was never his intension. Finally Bill Wood stopped him, and brought him back to reality of the real problem, Gothard's need to repent. We knew it was a long rough road ahead we just didn't know that he never intended on driving it in the first place. His future ministry plans changed but he still took a different road that did not involve what God calls each of us to do.
Last night on DG I told Alfred: "Bill’s pattern of behavior goes back at least 47 years, the stories are the same, unrepentant sin, lies and cover ups all to protect his empire, his name and his money! Christ has become his marketing tool."
My summation of Bill Gothard is that he is just a sexual predator who built a very profitable institution with slave labor he used to feed the "beast" and covered the whole thing in a Jesus fish bumper sticker
It's worth pointing out how a sexual predator operates:
They put themselves in positions of power (often building organizations around themselves, or rising to positions of power and influence in the organization), rid themselves of accountability, and ensure they have full access to their targets. They MUST maintain a good reputation with the adults around them (who are NOT their targets) in order to keep their predatory system going, but will be quick to question the motives or accuracy of info of any adult who questions them, making people doubt that what they saw was really happening, or that there was a perfectly legitimate reason for the actions they witnessed. Once in a position of power, there's a deliberate grooming process of targets (an internet search on the term "grooming" gives more info), and once again they rely on their reputation and usually pass themselves off as having a paternal or grandfatherly interest in the target if asked about it.
This is just one type of sexual predatory behavior. Sadly, most people assume predators are the crazy people off the street who kidnap their victims, but that is such a low percentage of likelihood. Most sexual abuse happens by adults (often in trusted positions of authority) who personally know their victims. Predators are patient. Grooming is a practiced art--it doesn't just happen accidentally.
All of the above can be found through an Internet search or reading a book on how sexual predators operate. I wasn't describing Gothard specifically, but a sexual predator in general. But if the shoe fits... reasonable assumptions can be made.
While eroding away the consciences of any potential protester;through ad hominem attacks,elevating his authority to those already emotionally,financially,or in deceptive teachings based on "umbrella protection."Not a soul with an open mind could read the accounts of these women,see the decades involved of coverup,and mentally grasp the extent,the ultimate shockingly dehumanizing realization of casting a blind eye,looking the other way,quietly leading the vanquished,once naive,vulnerable,traumatized girls out the rear entrance,while new victims are lead with enticing flattering gestures of hospitality in the front.The spectrum,ranging from rape to overwhelming sexual advances.If ever there was a time to speak up, now is the time;silence.!?
He had a billionaire backer? Would that be the Hobby Lobby guy? I don't get if he thought he was going to return, why did he go ahead and start the Power teams? Makes no sense. Does he even know how to tell the truth? Then he signs this affidavit that is legal and then leaks through his lap dog Alfred that he meant this affidavit to sue the board to get his position? It is almost like he has lost touch with truth and reality. His affidavit is an indictment of himself. Does he know what he admitted here?
He did not say who.
Signs of a classic sociopathic liar. In a church I attended many years ago, a charismatic man who had carried on a long-running affair (finally left his wife after his mistress was pregnant with her third child with him) was lobbying to become an adult Sunday school teacher. I told him I felt he wasn't qualified ("forgiveness is free; trust has to be earned"). He said he felt he wasn't qualified to be a pastor - or even a Bible study leader (since that post would be akin to pastoring), but teaching Sunday school would be okay. Within a month, this guy was leading a Bible study. It became apparent to me that he'd say anything to get people out of his way. He soon left our church and became very heavily involved in a much larger body. He caused a major church split within a year. He left a trail of destruction behind him everywhere he went.
I never heard of church splits or major divisions in families as the result of Billy Graham message of repentance and salvation (not that he is perfect). With Gothard its all to common of a occurrence. I am reminded of three scriptures that speaks to all of us to seek to be holy like He in holy.
Matthew 7:15-17 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit."
Galatians 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,"
James 3:17 "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere."
I read the bio of Wm. Gothard Sr. He and his wife had (6) children. All (3) of his sons were 'wayward'. OMG! What happened??
To Larne:
When one holds to the patriarchal extremist view, those husbands already searching for an excuse to abuse have no qualms about becoming a bully. Under the umbrella of protection guise, that is.
I would like to believe that Billy Graham expressed genuine love to his wife and children even when no one was watching.....
Just what kind of influence WAS Gothard Sr. on his family?!?!
And, Billy Graham purposed never to be alone with a woman other than his wife.....
I think about the cunning and deviant behavior of Gothard, alone with a young lady, after he has 'groomed her', stating, "I just don't know what God has planned for us".....
Imagine!!!!!
huzandbuz:
I always got along with him. His finance office was next to our office upstairs from Bill's office. He was not a chatty man that one could get to "know" and every conversation seem to focus around something spiritual. My impression was he was defiantly the patriarch of the family. Bill and he ran the "show" and made the big decisions, followed by Steve. My impression again, and some of this comes from comments from Ruth, was that everyone in the family was trying to meet his approval. Mrs. Gothard was different and very well respected by everyone and was not afraid to speak her mind, not that he men listened. On the night of the May 17, 1980 confessional Ruth stated she was the only one in the family who showed compassion for the women and apologized. I know Ruth always held a very special place in her heart for her.
huzandbuz - you brought up Billy Graham and his wife Ruth.
No patriarchy there. Read the books It's My Turn and Prodigals And Those Who Love Them by Ruth Bell Graham. I enjoy those books so much I own them. She was a real. Christian. woman. She knew who she was and Who her Savior was. Oh yes. Read about the lipstick. So not ATI IBLP. She was just who Billy Graham needed and who her children needed. A strong, godly woman. I love reading her quotes. Such a zest for life and a go getter. I think she would have lasted in BG's garble about .3 seconds.
She never changed her church affiliation.
"She was a devout and lifelong Presbyterian, declining to undergo baptism by immersion even though she was married to a famous Baptist preacher."
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/billy.graham.she.was.a.wonderful.woman/11168.htm
I know this may seem a tad off-topic but it is not if you were a woman in ATI IBLP. We need excellent role models like Ruth Graham, Elizabeth George, Ann Ortland. Excellent women not under patriarchy who spur us on toward Jesus and not toward a false view of a humble woman who is gentle and quiet in a way that is not attainable (and that 'gentle quiet' is defined by your husband or the men around you. ummm. no. It is defined in the Greek and we do well to ask God to make us who He wants us to be). They are/were great women in the personalities God gave them. And, I might add, the personalities that won them to their husband's heart in the first place! (grumbling under my breath "bg, how could I have been so stupid, grumble, mumble..." )
AND, I might add one more thing while we are on the subject... Patriarchal men - you keep your eyes on God and yourselves and quit trying to crush your wives and daughters into some box of your making and not His. You will be called to account and until then you will have an unhealthy marriage and unhealthy daughters - not knowing how to rely on God on their own and not look to Papa for their kudos and acceptance. Oh man I could write an article! And I have a wonderful husband. Long stories. The yuck I have seen and known closely over and over.
Julia Fetters, please do write an article about your thoughts on patriarchy versus balanced Christian womanhood. There are many of us who could benefit from your experience and honesty and the things you are learning!
Julia Fetters, I second it and yes, please do write an article about patriarchy versus balanced Christian womanhood.
I recently read a website called the 10 commandments (or is it more than 10) for Christian men and women. One of the commandments is that if you get married you are to have children. Another commandment is that if a woman is married she will stay home to raise those children. Only an unmarried or widowed woman can work outside the home.
And I was told by the man writing this website that if I did different I was disobeying God's commandments for women. I wrote back and asked if it was a sin for a woman with children to work outside the home, then why wasn't it a sin for single or widows to work outside the home. It was still a woman working outside the home in the “evil wicked world”. Kinda like if eating pork is sin then why would you make imitation pork products to eat (turkey bacon or turkey ham)?
On that same website a man wrote in asking how to discipline his wife for when she disobeyed him ---like she was a kid to raise instead of an equal. There is just too much of that nonsense going around and hurting the true cause of Christ.
I was not sure where to hit the reply button to Rachel and esbee so I hope this is ok...
Rachel and esbee - I have not responded since we have been moving and I have been thinking...
You would do well to read the writings of the women I mentioned. Ann Ortland and Ruth Graham are 2 favorites. Your eyes will be lifted to Jesus. There is so much great truth in their writings and in the recounting of things they have gone through in life. You will find a total absence of Patriarchy. They were married to men who loved God and were not afraid of or threatened by women. I also love the writings of Catherine Marshall. Timeless.
As to me writing something - I will remain open to it.
It would be great to have a forum of women who are on our Facebook page - ATI Parent Recovery. So many have seen so much and have come out of it with the wisdom of having gone through something like this. What help this would be for our younger women friends - a forum to encourage and answer questions.
Just a thought. Keep looking to Jesus. Not the BG kind - the real Lord of all.
To Vanessa:
OMG!! Where was the 'Board of Elders'??.....
I guess the same place they were at IBLP.....blinded.
Regarding the local baptist church, (at least in the early 1980s) an individual could NOT teach Sunday School within that fellowship IF they had ever been divorced. I know as that is where I initially attended (and experienced my conversion.) They felt that was scriptural. There was really no controversy regarding it.
The young pastor, who was in his first pastorate, defended the adulterer saying that "husband of one wife" was better translated "one-woman man", adding that the adulterer was completely devoted to his new wife (of less than a year). Therefore, he was qualified to teach. I left the church.
Of course, when you read such statements by Bill Gothard, you have to realize that you are dealing with a liar who is an expert in crafting his statements so that he can have it both ways. You will note that he said he did not want to return to "administrative duties." But in the other statement, he mentioned a return only to, "ministry." I can promise you this wording is not an accident. In fact, Gothard has already completely side-stepped the entire issue and started a new ministry.
Very good observation, David.
David, I see your point except for one word. "Temporarily." He temporarily resigned from the board. There is no way to construe what follows as a return to another ministry. He wants to be reinstated on the board. He could tack "emeritus" on the label. It still counts as deceiving Tony, which is the same thing as lying.
I echo that LynnCD made a very good catch as presented in that side-by-side! I'll bet there are others still to be caught.
This particular lie was definitely premeditated. And for the purpose of tricking/manipulating everyone. Like his getting fired in 1980, he may have thought this time it would incite people's forgiveness, this paving the way for him to insist on coming back.
Liars with manipulative intent set a lie-trap to effect a change in the other party's course of decision-making. They only count their own lying as successful if it thus effectively fools others as evidenced by these others' playing right into their hands out of belief in their strategic lie(s). The 2014 resignation was one such lie. Thank-you, LynnCD & Larne, for illuminating this as obvious!
Molesters do this kind of premeditated lying. By the time they're strategizing a cover-up, (of what they've done by thus fooling/betraying their victims), these types have had lots of practice setting up a chain-of-causation hinged on a big whopping starter-lie. Like the one called out above. This time, he's not getting away with a cover-up; just don't see how he can do his avowed re-emergence without the deception he used last time. Just look at some of the molestation- 32 years worth- set in motion by his fake resignation in '80. The truth is finally more public than he is, this time around.
Thanks rob, nicole, and Larne. It is important to note that the affidavit does not reveal a change of mind from the note to Tony. The affidavit states FROM THE BEGINNING Gothard's intention to return to ministry. He wrote the note to Tony while operating under a 100% intention to return. It can't therefore be a change of mind from what he said in the e mail. This is kind of critical because it is a documentation of dishonesty.
You did a fantastic,wonderful,on the ball job of pulling back the facade off Bill's Lie Machine.Thanks for all your comments.
i thought believers were not to sue other believers. am i mistaken? I suppose the argument can be made that one side or the other is perhaps not a believer (or believers). The whole thing seems rather ridiculous to me
People seeking justice is never ridiculous. God is a God of justice. Bringing accountability for wrong and bad immoral behaviors should be done.
Grateful, it is exactly your kind of isolated-verse response that has allowed BGs scheme to fester and flourish all these decades. Consider the ENTIRE counsel of God when making decisions. He is a God of justice and righteousness. His exortation in the OT and NT is to seek out a matter and find the truth to bring about justice as far as humanly possible.
To grateful:
Ridiculous to sue?? Are you aware of the facts??
I thought people who fear God and respect His counsel were supposed to settle with their accusers before they get to court, knowing that if they do not take that last chance to make peace based on the truth, they will be judged by the courts, if even a wicked judge based on the importunity of the victim. There would be no lawsuit if Bill Gothard acknowledged the truth and confessed his sins as widely as they have impacted the church of Jesus Christ. His denials and delusions are the reason that truth may be established in court.
Who told you Christians should never sue? Bill Gothard told us that, but according to Tony Guhr, he threatened to sue his accusers for his legal fees 35 years ago. So Bill taught what he did not practice. Moreover, what if an accuser is not a Christian? Why can't she get justice for being harassed and abused? Should non-Christians submit passively to being fondled by Christian leaders?
Rules only apply to the peons. The elite get special treatment, except in James 3:1 "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." Bill might have Hell to pay when he stands in front of his Maker. Literally!
"All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." ~ George Orwell
@grateful:
Say that, on a 1-to-10 scale of ridiculousness, a professing Christian suing another professing Christian rates somewhere on it. You pick which number. And then, please humor me & pick a number for the conduct of ANY professing Christian who has done everything in the RG account of Ruth, (including all Larne's testimony on her behalf) along with the accounts of Robin, Meg, Annette, Grace, Lizzie, Rachel, & Marcus.
Before gauging this, please take careful note of the ignoring of Ruth's informing this person that she felt her faith was jeopardized by her supervisor prior to the attack it sustained, also note this person's mockery of Robin & her father for directly calling out inappropriate touching of Robin, this person then replacing her with a girl from another country who had no family to speak of stateside, & this person's lie that pretended that she voluntarily opted to sit next to him on the plane (knowing full well this was obeying a work order) because this person's plan to also have her get a blanket by which he planned on covering her after she fell asleep seemed better to him to carry out in the context of this particular lie, which blanket was better afforded by it so that this blanket could then afford the ultimate plan of sexual battery which, with every other stratagem finally in place, is what this person did. And orchestrated again. Along with other sexual touching that was much more grab-&-go than what multiple-step-formula this scheme required. Please also note the demands upon Robin & Meg that they undergo epidermal procedures to suit this person's personal taste for how he likes skin. Along with cosmetic demands about everything else about them. Also note: this person long maintained themself to be misunderstood & not at all guilty of having done any of these things but nonetheless wanted to be forgiven for everyone else's misunderstanding of his always-right motives.
Grateful, after you have assessed such a person, please rate this person on the scale-of-ridiculous along with a believer who sues another believer.
Grateful, while I have not sign on to the lawsuit myself I support it for many reasons. Matthew 18:15-17 is very clear what we are to do. In verse 17 it says if the person will not listen (i.e. unrepentant) we are to tell it to the church and if he still fails to listen treat him as a “gentile and a tax collector” (ESV) or “heathen man and a publican” (KJV) that pretty much interpreted as an unrepentant unbeliever. Who is the church? That is a difficult answer with Para-church organizations. In 1981 Bill’s home and commissioning church failed to do anything because there were in a building project and failed again to deal with in 2014 because he was no longer a member or attendee. He is not a member of his current fellowship. His former board in spineless, and is out to preserve the cash. According to his spokesman on Discovering Grace Bill should not have to be accountable to them anyway.
The next in line is the civil court system and their authority to deal with abuse of employees of a state controlled non profit. That is the basis of this lawsuit. No different then a workers comp claim or unemployment insurance dispute. The IBYC/IBLP Board failed to protect its employees! Since this is not a spiritual matter before the court, according to Bill’s chain of command civil authority/court system is the next in line. The Institute has exercised this themselves. In the 80s they sued the State of Illinois over an eminent domain issue regarding property adjacent to SR 83 and Ogden Ave. This is no different.
Lastly and more important Titus 1:10-16 (ESV) Paul talks about false teachers in verse 11; “They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.”
In verse 13 Paul tells us to rebuke them; 13”…Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,”
In verse 16 Paul tells us they are unfit: 16; “They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.”
Bill and the Institute failed to live up to their God given responsibilities to be Holy and state required laws to protect employees. They have failed to listen to the claims against them and have shown their action as heathens and publicans. (Unrepentant sinners) Galatians 6:7 says it all: “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” Bill and IBYC/IBLP have brought this on themselves and they could have fixed it 36 or more years ago. But Pride, Power and Money was more important then living a Holy life unto God and becoming more like Jesus. They now are reaping what they sowed!
GOD BLESS THESE BRAVE WOMEN AND PRAY FOR THEM TOO!
Regarding grateful's comment, were you around when Bill Gothard threatened to sue MCOI, the Christian apologetic organization?
Did what MCOI do at the time warrant being threatened with a suit? (The IBLP claims were over libel).
Now, at the time, approx. 15 years ago, MCOI sought legal advice as to publishing the threats, which they did, and IBLP backed down. There was no libel going on. It was just an attempt by IBLP to bully MCOI with a threat of a lawsuit.
Was IBLP acting unscripturally in their threat to sue MCOI? As far as anyone knows, Don and Joy Veinot, and Ron Henzel are all strong believers in Jesus Christ. So this was a threat against believers.
I repeat my main question - was Bill Gothard and IBLP right to threaten other believers with a lawsuit?
Possible answers:
1) "Yes, this godly leader was right in threatening to sue people who were attacking a minister of God for claims of libel! I mean, think of Paul, who appealed to the civil authorities!"
OK. Then why isn't it write for women to sue over claims of sexual harassment and other abuses? Why can't they go to the civil authorities?
2) "No, he had no right biblically to do that!"
OK. Why then do you try to defend someone who is known for acting unbiblically himself, both in threatening to sue, and in his admission of being physically affectionate with employees/workers of a Christian ministry.
I may have missed something when I checked with some people at MCOI, but I do not recall Bill Gothard making a private appeal to the Veinots over this matter first . . . you know, like this latest round with the Woods, and Larne Gabriel, and others with Gothard.
For anyone still following "duck poop alerts," I just found a guy by the name of D Helbling over at Alfred's site unmistakably waddling in it.
He's terribly obvious, and it's telling that he thinks:
(1) BG probably went overboard, interjecting personal preferences into some of the stricter teachings [this looks like it's actually his biggest regret - sad],
(2) BG was lonely and should've gotten married [gag],
(3) the victims are to blame for not "reconciling" with BG,
(4) RG has a "bad spirit,"
(5) RG's basic problem is with BG's teachings, and
(6) "all those ladies'" stories are apparently not completely true.
"D" echoes BG's known stance of claiming it's unreasonable to admit stories are accurate before BG will meet with victims. He personifies a website and considers it his greatest enemy. He's laser-focused on young ladies' credibility, but must've missed all the RG stories and comments of severe and widespread collateral damage on the lives of individuals and families beyond the "young ladies."
Just one more of the man's many attempts to sway opinions, as if it would even help him at this point. Beyond sad.
It's under the Exhibit B: Tua Culpa topic at discovering grace/ covering disgrace site for those who haven't seen it yet.
Thank you to the brave 10 women who are showing their courage in filing this suit. This must never be allowed to happen again. Those who have committed these crimes, those who have enabled and those who have turned a blind eye should be brought to justice. There must be a consequence for those who have perpetrated these crimes and allowed them for 40+ years. Stepping down with a non-apology, apology, then going on to author 6 books and start a new and exciting ministry for the truly devoted is far from the consequence that justice demands. All will face eternal judgement when that day comes. Until such time, may everything be done within the law to see that those who have harmed innocent, trusting young souls are brought to account and not be permitted to ever lay a hand on another child again.
A comment on the follow excerpt from David Gibbs III letter.
"Melody Fedoriw – the Amended Complaint states: she was sexually molested by Bill Gothard at IBLP headquarters in 2012 at the age of 15. She made a report to the Hinsdale, Illinois Police Department. The conduct was classified as a misdemeanor and was not prosecuted, because the criminal statute of limitations had passed by the time the report was made and the matter was investigated. An associate of Bill Gothard’s had made a FOIA request for the police report back in 2014. (See paragraphs 166 through 180.)"
Gee, I wonder who that associate of Bill Gothard's could be who made the Freedom of Information Act request in 2014? I can think of only one individual who has doggedly sought to obtain any and all such information. It would be truly ironic if this "friend" of Bill's ultimately plays a role in causing the suit to substantially succeed through his prying curiosity. No doubt, this individual was seeking information that they might try to discredit the accuser- poke holes in her story, as he has tried to do with the other women. A defendant who had knowledge of the information that would have been obtained by this FOIA request and then went on to publicly claim that there was no evidence of any crime, could have a big problem. There are many angles to this, and the case certainly does not rest on this information, but it could ultimately play a role in part of the suit prevailing.
Agree with 100%
Let it be known, I have not and do not give Alfred permission to use any part of my actual name.
I also think that the woman posters have generally been treated demeaning and poorly as compared to men on DG. I think that goes hand and hand in how women are viewed by those that follow Bill's teaching.
Boy, I can sure second what you've just said there, Rob.
DG MO: A persistent refusal to acknowledge main points made by women (no matter how oft repeated) while being super chatty about the supporting points or calling attention to my sometimes poor gramatic structure. I gave up 'cause of these decoys after I had stated my main point straight from Scripture about 6 different times.
It's a case in point for how females have absolutely no option to be heard in speaking the truth. Thus no option for mediation with a party who's wronged them. Even when we do speak for ourselves, in our own name, we get......... that.
If it weren't for RG, I'd be muted, just like BG's victims would have remained so. "Theology" that twists the Bible to mean that women are to be condescended to as 2nd class beings is definitely what the deal is with that other camp. For the very purpose of muting our gender. Because speaking truth to those who don't even get it usurps the superiority notions these hold over those telling it to them. At least, it does when felt superiority includes silencing, along with all the condescension that goes along with assuming women's communication realm is not above animals. IBLP cronies are right; they've GOT to keep us mute to "prove" this presumption. DG's suppression of the truth stems from this fear of actually hearing it every bit as much from it's categorical denial of what IBLP has done to ruin itself. A ruin happening because of this same exact fear. Fear out of which evolved ever more suppression of the truth. DG might want to take a lesson from IBLP.
Jesus interacted and treated women as equally as men. This whole patriarchal emphasis is more in line with Islam which openly treats women as inferior to men. An example, a woman's testimony is 1/2 equal to a man's testimony in Sharia law and court. Of course when that was pointed out to Alfred, his response was that he didn't want to talk about it so "move on" because all he wanted to talk about is the Bible. However, his views which are really Bill's views are not in the Bible. They must see their wives as thoughtless idiots and Bill's new ministry which just focuses on men getting together only reinforces these ideas. St. Paul said that women are "joint heirs in Christ" and that in Christ "there is neither male or female". Jesus talked with women, He healed women, He let women touch him, He had women supporters that followed Him. In summation of Bill's teaching, he rarely really every focuses on Jesus Himself and how Jesus interacted and treated people. Bill side steps Jesus very much so. That's why I think an atheist country like Russia invited him to come in because his character teaching is void of Christ. Of course Bill was too full of himself to realize this and stop and ask himself "why would an atheist country be asking me to come when I claim to be a Christian ministry?". Well the answer is your Christian ministry is missing Christ.
I am thankful there are not 500 Alfred's out there defending, denying and deluding themselves and others.
Amen to that. People defending BG on Covering Disgrace are pretty sparse.
A good reason to be against cloning
To rob war:
Thank you for your comments.
Gothard's 'Christian' ministry certainly is, first and foremost, missing Christ!!
OMG!! And, so much more.....Women play a central role as eyewitnesses at Jesus' death as well as the discovery of the empty tomb. The Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke clearly present women as such. The risen Savior then commissioned women to proclaim to men.....did He not?? The Bible exalts women and pays homage to them. Their roles in society and family are ennobled. The importance of their influence was acknowledged. The virtues of the women who were particularly Godly examples were elevated.....were they not??
If Bill included Christ in His rightful place in his own ministry and teaching, then Bill would have to follow through with everything Jesus stood for and taught.....Then where would Gothard's rightful place be?? Hmmmmm.....
It makes me wonder why Bill Gothard and IBLP/ATI are so afraid of women.
Leslie---It is for the same reason that they fear public and private dedication, rock music (even Christian Rock)' hippies, TV, pork, modern clothing (especially on women's), secular movies, small families (vs. barrel full or quiver full approach), intellectualism, non- gothardites, and anything different from their teachings. In one word---- drumroll--- insecure.
The patriarchy movement is based on the misinterpretation of Genesis 3 where God tells the woman that women will be ruled by men. This was a change from how their relationship was. No matter how wonderfully the church tries to paint patriarchy, mans rule over women is a result of the fall. Many 'biblical manhood' teaching is based on getting their identity on how well they can subdue a woman and keep her under control. I grew up with this teaching and saw it played out so I know what I speak. The purity and modesty movement is focused on women. There is much out their that exposes the hypocrisy of these teachings. One area that men feel threatened by women and can't control is in the fact that men are sexually attracted to women. They can't do without them and so they feel weak. And weakness is not a masculine character in the patriarchy movement. That is why there is so much shaming of women and women's sexuality is deemed evil.
More precisely, the rule of husband's over wives is a CURSE, not merely the result of the fall. Jesus clearly came to break the curse and this is why he pointed to Genesis 1 and 2 rather than Genesis 3 when discussing marriage. While wives are advised to "submit" as all Christians are to each other, not once are they instructed in the NT to "obey". And husbands are never instructed to "rule their wives" well or otherwise, but rather to treat them as co-heirs. The curse is broken.
Good word Don
Don, I'm with ya! Yet along with that in Genesis 3:18-19 tells us that work is a curse! LOL! Of course what comment would you expect coming from a product of the 60's and 70's? Keep up the good work!
Todd: Just noticed this: work is NOT a curse. Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden told to tend it and to have dominion. Work became cursed (sweat of brow, thorns and thistles) or the medium of work (soil, weather and plant life) became cursed. But work was joyful and Godlike. Remember God rested from his "work" of creation. It is creative endeavor. Adam did not sit idly and eat manna before the fall. He tended the Garden, named animals, etc.
Of course, Don it would depend upon how you would define "work." Where I come from, we have an expression, "A lousy day of fishing sure beats a great day of work!" Blessings!
Oops, or as my Norwegian grandma would have said,"Uph Dahl!" It should be public and private education', not dedication. I don't think baptism is an issue with them, or is it? "Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?" Taken from Chicago--- the band.
Because, you know, Jesus practiced the Essene religion as an ascetic (NOT), successfully muted His wife by which He begat as many children as her body would allow since such use is any woman's only real productivity (NOT)........... disowned John the Baptist from being His forerunner (since John was the 1st New Testament hippie), stoned the adulteress as He was expected to, made a shunning example of the former whore who had the alabaster oil as the men in the room expected him to- never having make her an example of honor- made SURE His resurrection had men as it's 1st witnesses (after all, the salvation of the world depends on these reports; they better not have been sounded out by women 1st), shouted & threw things at the worshipers at the Temple for allowing their temple offerings to be exploited by the money-changers, stated that little children & young believers whose trust has been betrayed have incurred a self-ruin worse than drowning, touted a might-makes-right religion & railroaded everyone He could. Yup. That was Jesus! N-O-T.
Renea,
What you said is really insightful. I would like to hear more from you.
At the Patriarchal church that a former boyfriend once insisted I attend for the 3 months that I could stand to date him, the pastor had another congregational member give me a message after I had finally walked away from this church in my forth & at-long-last successful break-up with my guy over his heavy pressuring of me for sex. (All four of these attempts were because of this boyfriend's sexual pressure). The pastor's message to me, that he had this woman call me repeatedly to get me to come over to her house so she could give it to me, consisted of 2 parts:
Number 1: No woman can be saved without submitting to the man in her life, even if this man demands that she sin. Sarai was the example, how she was godly because she called Abram her brother (he biologically was), & would have been disobedient to GOD HIMSELF if she had admitted he was also her husband & was therefore not free to join another man's harem. "A woman needs to obey the man God has put over her even if the man is telling her to sin. Because, if that is the case, then it's no different than if God is the One telling her to sin. And we have to obey whatever God says."
Number 2: All sexual sin is the result of the man listening to the woman's proposition. Since Eve ate of the fruit & gave it to Adam, & the curse was spread to all mankind through her original sin, therefore all sexual sin is a carry-forward of this with women as the instigators of it since we, not men, are daughters of Eve. Whereas men are merely sons of Adam. [This is in total disregard of what 1 Cor. 11:8 thru verse 12 actually says that ALL human origins are].
So: It was my godly duty to go ahead & submit to my boyfriend's pressure. And, doing so would have been, in all cases, my fault in that I was the one enticing the guy to sin. Please hear me when I say I HAD DECENT BOUNDARIES THAT DID NOT ALLOW FOR MY GOING EVEN PART-WAY & THEN DOING THE "OOPPS, SORRY!" CUT-OFF GAME. That kind of game-playing was NOT it AT ALL!! My boundaries were fair to us both. And he would always compliment me on them, promise to respect them/me. A lot of the pressure was him refusing to stop messaging & fondling me, grabbing me & kissing me, not letting me get up from the couch by grabbing at my clothes when I tried to, shutting the front door & blocking it as I was grabbing my purse & keys in all seriousness in getting out of his apartment (because a series of these behaviors was not letting-up), sending me on "go-get-this" errands to his room where he would suddenly appear right behind me & start spooning me, pitiful lamentations as to why I didn't trust him enough to spend the night "on the couch", groping me in the car while I was text-messaging so that I had to hit him several times while he was driving down the highway. It got to be so our dates had gotten really short because I kept having to leave & run away because of all this. (Yes, I know I should have dumped him SUCCESSFULLY the 1st 3 times). It made me realize he didn't want to spend time with me- he would rather get what he could even though that always meant me having to get away from him; thus, he wasn't really into ME. Once I saw absolute sheer anger on his face as I slid out the door with him trying to close it on me before I got out.
After we were done, I told the assistant pastor's wife about my multiple attempts to dump this guy over the sexual pressure this guy put on me. (She looked me up to ask if I was okay after the guy was spouting off in the church about me finally leaving). I do trust that she or her husband went to the senior pastor with this. And the response was what I've stated above. Just think: I could be the wife of this particular member of this church if I'd been submissive enough to entice him even more with my Eve's-daughter-monopoly of the phenomenon of becoming one-flesh. But I failed to obey God in submitting enough to this guy over which I alone held seductive power. Because, you know, it's always the required-to-be-submissive person who exercises all the power & carries all the responsibility by thus submitting.
Huh?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
This pastor direct-quoted Gothard from the pulpit (I told my boyfriend we needed to get a different church when I heard this, he went ape on me until he actually looked into Gothard), many congregants were still devout IBLP-ers, the church's membership still requires mothers to not be employed outside the home (according to their website). It's still a prairie-dress church. I was told that this is what woman wear if they're tired of being ogled. I'm not going to deny this as a solution to a real problem, as it's self-effacing & deferential-to-others ("be the change you want to see in the world"), but it's simply not an option for 99% of employed women.
Like Mel Gibson: "FREE-DOM!!!!!!"
Renea,
Your input is greatly valued here by me & no doubt many others based on your duration of 1st-hand experience with Patriarchy. I would like to hear more about the Patriarchal view that ALL instances of sexual sin (between adults, at least) is because the man succumbs to pressure put to him directly by the woman (rather than internal desire pegged in James 1:14). All immorality is the fault of Eve's daughters because Eve set, as a permanent status quo, womankind as always initiating any wrongdoing committed by both genders. According to patriarchy, this "sin originated with the woman" was/is re-enacted throughout all generations; it wasn't a one-time, impactful event. It set a precedent that has never since been deviated from in all successive male-female relationships. I've had this doctrine given to me straight from a Patriarchal pastor. From this same pastor, in the same sitting, I was given the interpretation that Sarai would have been disobeying God Himself if she had told Abimelech not to touch her, or told him she was Abram's wife. "Women are to submit to their husbands, even if their husbands are telling them to sin, because it's not sin for them if they do this; it's the only way to obey God in an instance like that."
So: Sin isn't sin if the husband is the one demanding that it be committed. The wife's submission to him earns divine rescue of them both from it's natural consequence. But, other than husband-directed immorality, all sexual sin is the instigated sin of the woman involved. Thus, it is required that a woman has to be raped by a stranger in order to be properly submissive to her husband. This is a catch-twenty-two in light of her having been required from the day she 1st met any & every man she's ever known to have only maintained her dominance over them (as deeded to her by Eve) without her ever offering what is evil. (Sarai was ordered by Abram to do the "Eve thing" to Abimelech, was she not?) Women are evil replicas of Eve in causing men to sin. Thus, the only sexual sin that could possibly exist is that which a woman originates...... the husband/man's involvement in it is either not a sin to be objected to by the woman thus ordered to subject herself to it, or, if it actually is a sin, it's one that does not originate with him but rather with her.
This is how a patriarchal pastor defined culpability for sexual sin to me. Do you have any familiarity with this?
Actually I do have some experience in this. I dated a guy right after high school who was a bit older than I. He was not a Christian which I knew was a mistake. However all the false teaching that I had about mans rule over women left me in the catch 22 as you say. If I listened to my boyfriends demands for sex I was sinning against God, but I was also sinning by not submitting to a male. This belief that mans word is equal to God's stems from the verse where woman are to submit to their husbands as to the lord. The implication is that man is as Christ to her. Which then means man is now equal as Christ. This is heresy and must be rejected as such. It has taken me along time to come to the understanding that just because something is preached from the pulpit does not make it true. That I can actually hear from God and it's OK to believe the BIBLE over mans word. One of my favorite verses that God has given to me is in 2 CORINTHIANS 2:11 where we are told that we are not unaware of satans schemes. One of his schemes is to twist a verse in the bible to mean something other than intended. He did this to Jesus when he was tempted in the wilderness. Satan also has done this with the above mentioned verse that men are as Christ to their wives creating a disastrous theology. But we have the mind of Christ and are told to take every thought captive unto the obedience of Christ and every argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. 2 cor 10:5. Yet patriarchy sets itself up against the knowledge of God by making a created being, mere man, as an equal to God. It does this by glorifying man and reducing the glory of Christ, even though God says that he is sovereign and has no equal and will not give his glory to another! As women we must obey God rather than man. We must give to God what belongs to him and him alone. Christ is our mediator to the father and we have no obligation to put anyone else in that position. One of the reasons I made the above statements concerning my thoughts as to why gothard and the institution are so afraid of women is from a book I read quite a while ago. I think it was called Raising Cain. It is a secular book but I was interested in the male view of raising sons. It was actually quite insightful. One thing it did was talk about the real fears of boys and men. (So as you can tell not written by a patriarch!!). The author mentions the extreme fear boys can have by being rejected by a girl that they like. That the 'power' they feel like girls have over them in this area (sexual too) is overwhelming. The author doesn't blame women but just acknowledges this fear and ways parents can help their sons so that they DONT turn on women because of their fear. Patriarchy condones the turning on women for their perceived fears. I checked to see if I still have the book but I don't. Maybe someone out there has the book and can shed more light on this. Hang in there Nicole and know that you have the right to think Gods thoughts.
Another thing that you might find interesting, Nicole , concerning the account of Adam and Eve and the culpability of sin. I was taught that eve 'told' Adam to eat the forbidden fruit , therefore, that is why men should never take a 'command from a woman'. However, that is another of satans schemes, the proof texting of those verses. The bible says that eve gave some fruit to her husband and he ate. It doesn't say that she said anything. However , we know she said something because God says to Adam that she listened to the voice of his wife. Just exactly what she said we don't know. So we can't say that she gave him a 'command' to eat. In fact, upon careful examination of the whole account, the serpent NEVER EVEN TELLS EVE TO EAT OF THE FRUIT. He only tries to portray God as someone who cannot be trusted and is holding out on them. The bible says that after Satan talks to eve that she looks at the fruit and sees it as good to eat and takes some (my paraphrase). Then she gives some to her husband and the rest is history! Just as the serpent never tells eve to eat, it is also possible that eve never tells Adam to eat. She may have just repeated the exact words the serpent said to her. Just as she made her OWN decision to eat , SO DID ADAM. Then he blames eve and God for his sin. Patriarchy continues to 'blame the woman.' I'm not saying that blaming the woman is now an inherent trait of all males now, no more than I believe it is inherent for all women to be deceived because of eve. I am saying that shifting the blame is a trait of the sin nature and it is not limited to any specific gender. The same can be true of any sin. My suggestion would be to constantly pray for truth and the ability and COURAGE to receive what God tells you. I know it can be scary because under false patriarchal teaching we are frightened into believing that questioning what we are told is sin and coming against God himself. However, God says to pour out our complaints to him. Psalm 144:2. We can ask him if what we hear is truth. We are told to compare what we hear with scriptures. (Paul commends the beareans for this) , and we are not to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14). Remember, satans ultimate goal is to be worshipped as God and to keep as many persons from coming to the saving truth that is in Christ. Patriarchy has been one of his choice tools as it keeps men and women from being one. He knows that 'a cord of three strands is not easily broken' Ecclesiastes 4:12. Jesus, man and woman together and united ,sharing the gospel would be a force so powerful it would change the world. Patriarchy blinds men, enslaves women , and turns off the world to the gospel. If we are ever to have a true lasting revival in our world , PATRIARCHY HAS GO TO GO! As you say, it is crap....
I forgot to add that when God says to Adam that he listened to the voice of his wife, that doesn't mean it's wrong for men to listen to woman. I know that is taught and you've probably heard that line of reasoning. The comparison is that Adam chose a voice over God (that which I've commanded you) . God was showing his right to be in charge of his creation and his sovereignty. It wasn't a lesson in gender superiority. Remember, God tells Abraham to listen to the voice of his wife. Check that out. Sin is when we listen to any voice that contradicts God, be it our own , the worlds or satans.
Interestingly, the only time a man is told to reject his wife in any way is when she says "let's go and serve other gods". Deut. 13:6. Jesus never talks about dividing husbands and wives as he does other relations. Paul instructs clearly to live with an unbeliever as long as they are willing. Thus, what these patriarchs ignore is the massive instructions for men to love their wives with their lives and never, never, turn to another. These men do not give their lives for their wives, but demand their wives to give their lives for them. "as unto Christ" works just fine as long as the man loves like Christ loves, sacrificially, sanctifyingly. Directing a wife to sin, blaming a wife for your own sin is as far from that as one can be. The depravity that invades our relationships proves for me just how holy God designed marriage to be: fully, freely, fruitfully, faithfully, covenantal as the relationship it was designed to image: the Trinity.
You preach it Don! I think they are in the wrong religion to begin with.
I thought my long, long comment was nixed. Hence the 2nd one. Sorry I went overboard. I don't hate the ex-boyfriend for treating me like I was attractive to him; I'm still mad at Patriarchy for condemning me as being responsible for what all this guy did but also still simultaniously condemning me for not being more submissive. It's crap.
And you should be mad at the patriarchy for not teaching him self-control and supporting your efforts at a sanctifying relationship. Thanks for sharing those trials. It is helpful to us all.
Before I was married I read a lot of books on relationships. I never read one that was not based on a hierarchical structure. Everyone taught that God designed the men to be leaders not only in marriage but even while dating. One such book then contradicted that notion by stating in the area of sexual purity that woman needed to take the lead as that men could not control themselves. This is problematic on many levels. For one, this is an area to which God did not equipped men to lead. It also contradicts the scripture where God promises us a way of escape for every temptation. It also puts women in the role of leadership which patriarchy says God never designed a women to be able to do!!! How one can embrace patriarchy and not be utterly confused is beyond me. There are constant contradictions, and amendments to try to make it all sound logical. It causes double mindedness which causes instability (the book of James) God says that he is NOT the author of confusion so patriarchy has to be the scheme of Satan as he is the author of confusion. When men are told that they get a pass because of how strong their sexual urges are compared to women,(that's a whole other discussion!!) it's no wonder that Nicole got an earful of how it was her fault and she was responsible for her boyfriends actions.
I meant to say "For one thing, this would then be an area to which God did not equipped men to lead.
Equip!! I'm tired and my brain is fried! Lol
Quick question for Larne,
If Bill stated to you and Tony G and Bill Wood that he was going to be under the "authority" of Dr. Murphy, then why is Alfred turning around and stating the "B" letter of apology was not writing by Bill but Dr. Murphy and that Bill didn't approve of "B" or the apology. If Bill is under Dr. Murphy's spiritual guidance and authority and this is what Dr. Murphy helped Bill write or on behalf of Bill, then Bill should be submitting to what this letter states if he is under Dr. Murphy's authority. Did I get that right? In actuality, it looks like Bill is under no one no matter what Church he supposedly attends or not attends and is still out there doing his own thing like he always has. This holds true for Dr. Shoaf as well.
In light of Exhibit "B" is a legal matter with a disputed history I think it would be best if I did not comment. Regarding what Bill told us, just to be clear our conference calls were between Bill Wood, me and Bill Gothard, while Tony was part of our advisory team he chose to remain at arms length due to Bill's distain for him. In the summer of 2014 Dr. Murphy was part of the "team" Bill stated was mentoring him. However, by the fall of 2014 Bill stopped mentioning Dr. Murphy. Bill has not been under anyone's spiritual authority his whole career. Those who disagree with him or question his teachings are quickly shown the door and quickly find themselves on the outside. They also find themselves recipients of negative innuendos. We have experienced both of these. Both when Ruth and I were engaged then again when married we heard comments Bill had share with others that Ruth was not obtaining God's best in her engagement then marriage to me. While I'm no great catch those type of comments are only meant to cast doubt on someone or something. Other experience the same type of behavior. In some cases Bill sought out churches where his dissenters attended, as evidenced in his "Agent of Satan" letter to Tony's church.
I am guessing Alfred's comments about Bill not being under authority of anyone but God while the head of IBLP are from Bill directly. Bill's pride has always puts him a position above the rest of us, as part of the umbrella between man and God.
thank-you again Larne for your response. I think Ruth married a winner in you as evidence by your continued push for justice for her and everyone else who was involved. Bill's comments are just infuriating, demeaning and good old fashion gossip. What an empty suite he is.
Renea,
THANK-YOU SO MUCH! I had honestly never before noticed at least 50% of the things you brought out of the Scriptures. I still get angry about Patriarchy, but I can feel the sound-mindedness of chaos getting ordered aright in reading what you wrote. I wonder what the guilt-level is when an equal- let alone a superior- actually tells the other person to take the sin that they're handing to them....... I guess we would already know the answer to this if bg had a conscience.........
Am going to read all what you shared again because it is so helpful.
^^^^^^^Larne bg was trying to discredit you because he was only boy enough to try to trap Ruth, not man enough to earn her trust....... & you showed him up. He was feeling whiny about his favorite object getting put on display in a wedding dress. Held up as a PERSON who deserved such recognition & opportunity. When all he'd ever done was keep her in a little boxed showcase except for when he would unlock it from time-to-time to take her out on selfish whims. It is to Ruth's well-earned credit that we here on RG get to still see even today what a beautiful soul she is. She accomplished this for all of us in marrying Mr. Right.
A question for the lawyers among us. I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the information that Bill seems to be passing on to Alfred to post on the internet concerning the impending law suit which include possible identities of the Jane Doe's of the case and their situations and about some of the attached documents with the case. I can't believe for the life of me that some lawyer of Bill's would stand by and let this happen and not be advising him to keep his mouth shut. It seems so inappropriate, unwise and plain old stupid. Would or could a gag order on Bill be appropriate? Am I seeing this situation correctly? DG is becoming increasingly pathological and disturbing. Don't you as lawyers advise your own clients not to talk about impending cases with others in order to post it on the internet?
Seeing that he is NOT a man under authority...
Yes, good point. I would think Bill is going to be a trip for any lawyer. I could almost think that he is so full of himself that he bypasses any lawyer thinking that God is going to tell him what to say in his own defense using some of the verses out of Acts and Jesus final discourse with the disciples that the Holy Spirit is going to speak through you in your defense.
Still finishing my rant on Patriarchy:
One reason I had no church support in getting the boyfriend to respect my "no"s was because he said his church was more Biblical than mine so I had to start going to his a month after we met. A huge red flag was that he wouldn't then come to Sunday night service at mine (his had no night service). When I told him my church was a good one because they had 267 people receive Christ there the year before & almost 200 baptisms he said that was a bad thing, not a good thing, because that meant it must be "full of fake Christians". He said his church was all about quality, not quantity, & his pastor would say that he would rather preach a sermon that only 5 mature believers could understand than one that was dumbed-down enough to not be going right over the rest of the people's heads. This made me think that this guy had being a "mature Christian" as a personal goal, let alone finding it unacceptable to be a "fake Christian". He was adamant about not working on Sunday. As I argued with him about his "no-work-on-Sunday" insistence (a month into dating him) I thought to myself: "wow, this guy will surely never expect me to sleep with him before marriage if he's so against breaking God's ideal standard regarding Sabbath (a non-essential)." Based on my trust that he was very serious about obeying God, I submitted to him in applying for other jobs that would no longer have me working Sunday afternoons, as well as having completely switched over to his church. Now, his pastor had had my boyfriend over to his house the 2nd Sunday he ever visited, for a homemade hot lunch. He'd also met with him in his office to make sure he was saved. Every Sunday that I was there, this pastor would come talk with him a bit, moving on to talk with other men. I did shake hands with me twice, asking my name both times. I had started tithing by check by then. I went around trying to find women to talk to, since it was obvious that men talked to men & there were not mixed-group conversations. As stated on the website & in the church brochures, there were no Bible studies or any other kind of groups exclusively for females; only whole families could be signed up for a group by the man of the house. These were to supplement his spiritual leading of his family. All other Bible studies & life-groups were either all-male (there were 3 different weekly groups for men only). There were no women available to talk with on Sundays. There was no childcare to speak of there (no Sunday School) but of course there was a cry-room & a separate nursery (together as big as the sanctuary) where the mothers would each tend to their own quiver-full broods just as if it was any other day of the week at home. (So much for a day of rest from the work by which you have your livelihood, huh? Seems like, if my boyfriend was right that it was a day "set-apart", than maybe the women should have been in the service & the dads do the childcare........?) Anyway, 2 of the pastors daughters (he had 13 kids at that point in time) were 20 & 21 & so they worked at the church. They were very adept at being friendly with all the females & initiated conversations with me on many occasions in spite of being spread so thin. One even offered to go for coffee with me "to chat". I just didn't know how to tell her the pressures I was already dealing with. Especially since some of it involved my boyfriend telling me I was negative-minded in pointing out to him some of the Gothard-quoting that I was hearing. Also that he'd caught me several times trying to sign up for one of the life-groups on an evening that we both always had off & told me that I couldn't because "those are for families" & also I didn't know for sure that I could attend every single time. I went ahead & asked the girls if I could volunteer by cleaning the church since there was no childcare/Sunday school to volunteer with. I was told that would be fine & what day & time the cleaning occurred. I gave my phone # to the head of the cleaning committee and said I could start in 3 weeks due to scheduling conflicts. I touched base with these young women in the coming weeks, especially since there was a spiritual gifts series going on that emphasized that all true Christians serve the church body, saying I would be there as soon as I could. They repeated the day, time, & said "see you here" with smiles. That Thursday night, I pulled up, grabbed my rubber gloves off the passenger seat and went to the church door. I was greeted cordially when the door was unlocked & was told to stay in the foyer because the head of the cleaning committee would come there. I waited quite a while. The head of the cleaning committee appeared; it was the same 20-year daughter-of-one-of-the-elders who had told me which day & time to be there. I held up my gloves & joked "I hope nobody's scrubbed the toilets yet, I've come prepared!" Eyeing my gloves, she ruefully said that the bathrooms had yet to be done. I told her, as I had told her before, that I had volunteered with 4 others for a year-&-a-half at my old church, cleaning to save the church custodial costs. She told me that she had just informed her father of my expected involvement the day before & that he had replied to her that the commitment standard for Christian service was way too high to have anyone not solemnly committed to those standards do any serving. I told her I was free on Thursday nights from now on & would transfer my cleaning-allegiance from my old church to this one. She said that her dad had told her that he was very, very, convicted regarding there being a very high vision for commitment to accountability in service there at the church. She said that the personal holiness of all who served was required. She went on to say, no less than 7 times total, that I needed to not only commit to every Thursday night, but that her dad had told her to tell me that I needed to become a member so that I could be held accountable to such a commitment. She said he'd made clear that I could do no cleaning whatsoever until I had called or emailed the pastor to make an appointment with him, & that, after he'd gotten to know me, I would then fill out an application for membership. Once it was accepted, I would be made a member, & then I could clean. She stressed membership 7 times. In a way, I was glad; here was something practical I could hold up to by boyfriend & say "see? you've GOT to get back to respecting my moral boundaries; this is your church, after all". When I told him, he said, "wow; I'm not a member & I've been taking offering for almost a month now. I'm probably allowed to be an usher because pastor knows me, though; he doesn't know you." To this church's credit, my boyfriend was told that following Sunday that he wasn't actually supposed to be ushering since he was not a member. BUT, they told him to go ahead & do it to finish out his month of having done so. I had been begging him to have us both go meet with leadership about our relationship; he already often said he knew he was going to marry me. He would say, "What goes on between us is nobody else's business." Which meant, I presume, that he never bothered to bring this subject up with anyone in his all-male weekly leadership-training group, either. I wanted to go tell the pastors that we both needed accountability. But I knew that my boyfriend would feel terribly betrayed. He discouraged me from my required membership interview as well as from the "coffee chat" and, I later found out, turned down a lunch invitation that the Pastor had given him that had also included me. But, the leadership of that outfit responded the way they did when the assistant pastor's wife was told by me that I'd had to leave the whole situation due to being pressured for sex; if they'd known sooner I can't imagine that would have altered the catch-22 that they tracked me down to put on me even after I'd left that fellowship. I've gone on way too long, need to stop..... I know that many churches function to foster warm fuzzies to cater mostly to women. This is wrong, & also insults womens' intellectual capacity. But Patriarchy is just as wrong.
And your ex-boyfriend was worried about being around "fake Christians" while pressuring you for sex because you were suppose to submit to him. OMG, talk about twisted reasoning here. He ought to write a book about lines guys can use to get sex out of their girlfriends because he is quite the original thinker here.
and if you really want to uber rant and rave, check out what this guy is teaching, and yes he openly calls it patriarchy on his site...it is all based on scripture of course...and there is no debating the facts of scripture... http://biblicalgenderroles.com/ --I wonder if he has any connection to gothard as a lot of what he teaches seems to be gothardic.
"gothardic"
Sounds like medical dictionary term, haha
Actually it is a new virus which has the effect of melting one's brain and common sense and turning the poor individual infected with it into little Bills. I believe once so infected to the point of a melting brain, there is no hope.
I just checked that out and felt like my brain would explode after only five minutes. I would not recommend for anyone whose wounds from patriarchy are still open and bleeding to check this out until they have had significant healing. Any truth that God may have brought into their lives ,Satan will use that site to try to bring them back into bondage. Until they have renewed their minds enough with the word, (Romans 12:2) and are determined Not to be brought under a yoke of bondage again (Galatians 5:1) I would say don't torture yourself. Even those who know the truth would do well to pray for the lords protection of their minds. There is no way that a person who is truly asking for Gods direction and understanding of the word can come up with what is taught on those sights. This shows to me that they are just repeating what they are taught without submitting it first to God.
Read through some of the page the link directed to, it was eye-rolling at first, then irritating, then offensive before proceeding to downright OUTRAGEOUS! I seriously wanna punch this "man" in the throat now! Very condescending and finger-pointing at women. He even goes as far to say in several places how a husband is the "master" and is NOT accountable to his wife for his actions and/or decisions.
And he doesn't even use his real name, he has no credentials in theology or therapy and brags about it. pretty sick stuff.
Esbee, that site is allegedly owned by a troll: Someone who tries to get laughs from offending people.
He seems to be a non-Christian Bible scholar trying to collect data by trolling.
http://unsettledchristianity.com/a-word-of-caution-on-biblical-gender-roles/
thank-you for this link. I kinda wondered because the person was open not using his real name. What is disturbing is that too many believe this garbage as well as that it can be mimic by non-believers as a joke. Kinda curious why someone has gone to great lengths to do this and why there are not more blog posts about this being a phony site. All of this shows how false these views of men and women are which are promoted by Bill Gothard as well as others as heretical teaching.
I understand your need to rant. I can tell by your stories that you and I have a lot in common. I'm guessing I'm probably somewhat older than you are ( soon to be 50), but the situations you describe I can relate to. I don't want to see you carry the baggage around that I have all these years that I have from things that happened to me 30 years ago. As much as we want to believe that churches are a safe haven, they are not. Ephesians tells us that we fight against spiritual forces and church walls do not keep them out. The apostle Paul warns the young churches that Satan will infiltrate the churches with his own 'members'. He will also do his best to keep true believers in deception. That is what you've experienced. Your mind needs to be renewed. ( Romans 12:2.) A stronghold has been built up with this former boyfriend who was obviously very controlling. I understand as I had one of those too. Anytime we are in bondage (stronghold) , there is a lie operating there. You are already able to see that patriarchy is a lie and can see how devastating its consequences are. But ask God for wisdom as to where you still need to be set free. (James 1:5) ,(John 8:32). I have spent the last three years away from any church influence and have been reading my bible like never before. Cover to cover. My mind HAD to be renewed from all the false teachings that I experienced. Each time I opened my bible I prayed that the lord would have the Holy Spirit open my mind to see the truths of the word. (1 John 2:27. Look this one up. I don't think most people actually see what this says). I have grown more in the past three years than in all my years as a believer. Even though I have grown exponentially, I still am not where I need to be and still have areas where I need healing. The lord has shown me this just over the past couple of days and even more so as I've heard you pour out your own heart. Patriarchy has hardened my heart to people loving me. Especially Jesus. That is probably the most tragic result of all. So even though I've received a lot of ' knowledge' I'm lacking in love. I'm in a stronghold of fear. The lie is that I can't trust Gods love for me. See the devastation brought on by patriarchy?? There is a disconnect between what I know the word says, GOD IS LOVE, and what the old tapes are playing in my mind. But I'm asking God to show me how (and have the courage to) put on the full armor of God because this is a spiritual battle that can only be fought with spiritual weapons. I'm still learning too. I'm hoping and praying that soon God would open the doors for me to mentor young women who are walking where I once walked. And that I can comfort those with the same comport I have received. (2Corinthians 1:4). Would give you a big hug if I could !! Will be praying for you my sister in Christ.
That was for Nicole. I did not realize that I did not hit reply under your comments
Renee, Jesus loves you and gave himself up for you, that he might sanctify you, having cleansed you by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present you to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that you might be holy and without blemish. He nurtures and cherishes you.
Let God be true and every man (and our own delusions) a liar.
Thank you. I need to read this again and again......
Rob, your wry wit is a boon to my life- yes, this guy probly could flesh-out an entire book on "Best Play-Lines To Use About Church". I've also wondered; since he obviously relied on a lot on deception, maybe the pastor(s) questioned him as to whether he pressured me for sex. And maybe got lied to. (That would have been quite the lie). Because something caused me to be tracked-down (that woman did not have my phone # from me personally) & my getting told the catch-22. Even though the only connection with anyone while there was about needing to become a member.
Don R., you are a real man right up there with Larne. I'll bet both your guys' sons turned out to be real men, too. And I'll bet any & all daughters don't put up with disrespect from their male peers while on dates with them. They only have to compare such creeps with there dads to realize that the creeps are a couple of Corinthians short of a Bible.
Renea, you always bring it back to the real issue- people's relationship with God, Bible as the authority on that. I'm really helped by you & would like to be mentored by you whenever you have a time to get that going. I read all your stuff multiple times.
Thanks all. Think I'm finally done ranting........ about this, anyway. I will never be done insisting that bg needs to publicly repent, though. Not until he does. What he did to so many was so much more lecherous, obscene, pedophilic, an abuse of not just his de facto authority, but actual authority, & under a much, much more deceptive guise of false pretenses, predatory molesting (versus just predatory in a context that affords a limited such), & downright false-prophetish than any of what happened to me was. And there's no getting around that this ex-boyfriend WAS abusive. Just gross to contemplate what's actually worse.
I could give you my email but I dint know if RG allows that. This way any thing really personal would be kept private. Your comments towards me were healing too 😊
2 Corinthians short of a Bible hahahaha.... I love how that is becoming a thing.
Nicole, I only wish my daughters will all be so strong. Sadly, I raised them to fear boys so Gothardly that they have been slow to develop relationships. But so far so good, two married well to loving guys, the others clearly know they can say 'no' to jerks. Pray that non-jerks would show up in their lives.
To the website master,
For some reason, posts in the comments section of this article bleed off the right side of my screen, and I can't read the entirety of the comments. I can read the article fine. I've tried different settings and can't get it to reformat on my screen. Perhaps this is an issue on your end? Comments under other articles don't do this.
My 2 computer are fine but my iPhone6 does that
same issue on my iPhone browser
With respect Melody Fedoriw, it is puzzling that the statute of limitations would come into effect in just 2 years. I quote:
"In March 2014, after Gothard stepped down from his position, Melody reported Gothard’s conduct to the local police department. The police department classified Gothard’s actions as criminal but did not prosecute because the statute of limitations had passed. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/a-summary-of-allegations-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp.html#sthash.gnn7UQKi.dpuf"
It's puzzling, until one reads the information provided by the moderator at Discovering Grace. I believe they have a copy of the complaint via a Freedom of Information Request. It turns out that the assistant DA in Hinsdale decided that the charges were nothing more than misdemeanor battery. Molestation of a 15 year old girl by a grown man would be just a misdemeanor? Why did the assistant DA decide not to classify this as molestation? This appears to be a very favorable decision for Bill Gothard. Often there are a number of criminal charges that can be made in such cases. It is as if the fact that she was a minor was totally ignored, as well as the nature of the contact. It makes me wonder about the assistant DA. "Friend of IBLP" ?
I hope that pressure can be brought against the district attorney to reconsider the way that this crime was categorized by the assistant DA, perhaps with public pressure and media attention. When a DA waters down such crimes it plays very poorly in the court of public opinion and the DA is an elected office. If the public in his district learns that his office categorized the molestation of a 15 year old as a misdemeanor, I would expect there could be a lot of pressure to reexamine the charges made.
If the Bill Cosby case is any precedent, a DA can reevaluate a decision of whether to bring criminal charges. 12 years after the previous DA failed to charge Bill Cosby with a sexual crime, the new DA filed charges and he will now face trial.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/bill-cosby-sexual-assault-investigation-pennsylvania/
I hope that the decision of the DA’s office can be brought to the attention of local women’s right’s groups in Dupage County and Illinois. I think they need to answer some questions why these allegations were taken so lightly and classified as they were.
What's the Assistant DA's name? Who is he married to or related to? Where does he go to church? Does the Institute do business with a family member?
Larne,
I don't have any of that information, but perhaps someone else does.
Yesterday I tried and was unable to find Alfred's original DG post regarding going to the Hinsdale PD, actually I think there were a couple of posts. I felt it was important to see what he actually said. I seemed to recall he stated he talked to the Hinsdale Assistant DA, but he might have done some checking in DuPage County. I then did a search of the Village of Hinsdale's website and PD and could not find that Hinsdale had any form of DA. There is a DA for DuPage County, Robert Berlin, if Alfred got the two confused or I might be remembering the post wrong. I was going to call the Hinsdale PD this AM but forgot, maybe tomorrow in the AM too late now. (There was not a list of the assistant DAs on the DuPage County's website.)
Larne - I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for, but here are 5 instances of Alfred speaking about the Hinsdale PD report.
Did He Do It? History and Scandal 10/17/15, article:
Gretchen indicated she had given a report to the Hinsdale Police Department about a week previously [per Washington Post 2/28/14 article]. We made inquiry with the HPD for that general time frame three different times under the “Freedom of Information Act” and were told emphatically no such report exists.
Shepherd of the Hills 12/8/15, in response to Incredulous:
At the urging of RG one young lady filed a report with the Hinsdale Police Department last year alleging multiple instances of “boundary” violations against Bill along the lines of the public stories. In the official record the only charge the Assistant State Attorney was even willing to consider was “misdemeanor battery”, that with statute of limitations in Illinois of 2 years. Sexual Harassment was not considered and did not apply.
Shepherd of the Hills 12/9/15, in response to Helga:
As to the police report, RG apparently told her to file a report – Dr. Cornish told us emphatically that she had. She told the newspaper she filed a report. Yet after multiple requests, in person, we have a firm statement from the police department administration that there was no contact with Gretchen.
Your Questions 1/7/16, in response to Sandy:
One of these women has already given her story to the Hinsdale PD who got an opinion from the State of Illinois that it was not sexual harassment, sexual abuse. Obviously she might bring more details to the table in the lawsuit. But what she did allege pretty much everything that has been in the accounts on RG, besides Gretchen. From the officer who took the report: “On 03-18-14 I presented this case to DuPage ASA _______ . I was told the case was a misdemeanor battery, and was outside the statue of limitations.” Misdemeanor battery means, “You touched me against my will.” That is not a conviction of “misdemeanor battery” even if within the statutes of limitations, just the appropriate charge for the tale that was told.
New Math 1/13/16, in response to BCM:
The most recent and youngest participant has already filed a report with the Hinsdale PD alleging all kinds of uncomfortable touching. The SOL on “misdemeanor battery”, which was deemed the appropriate charge for those allegations, is 2 years and had already passed, hence the HPD filed no charges.
Hope you find what you're looking for ~
Larne,
It does appear that Robert Berlin is the State's Attorney for DuPage County. I, too, found no listing for the Assistant State's Attorney, but I imagine that Mr. Berlin's office could be helpful in determining who made the decision to classify the charges as a misdemeanor and why.
I wonder what Mr. Berlin's view is regarding the molestation of a 15 year old being classified as a misdemeanor by his office?
https://www.dupageco.org/States_Attorney/1960/
Kevin,
So how did the Bill Crosby case from being outside the SOL to multiple incitements? Was it political pressure? It looks like the Patheos statement is different from Alfreds (Thank you Elizabeth D) so the question is where does the truth lie? Alfred might have done his best researching the issue but would the police even take a complaint if it was outside the SOL or just trashed it once the complainant left, thus there would be no record. I was able to find that there are 80 Assistant DA in the DuPage DA office but no listing of names other then State DA Berlin. Should there be pressure put on DA Berlin office to investigate the whole IBLP issue not just Bill. Was there cover-up of outside or internal sexual abuse that was not reported and was someone's civil rights violated?
Unfortunately politics plays into all facets of our lives. President Nixon was pardoned by President Ford "in order to put the tragic and disruptive scandal behind all concerned." During the 1980 IBYC scandal one of Bill's prominent supporters stated that the scandal could cost Regan the election and the "rebellious" staff needed to capitulate, they did not but were fired or resigned. We have all seen famous people in sports, entertainment, politics, corporate and religion not get the justice that us common folks would. Bill and the minions at IBLP will ultimately get God's Holy Justice along with the rest of us. But the question at hand is what is our responsibility today.
Proverbs 29:27(NIV), “The righteous detest the dishonest;
the wicked detest the upright.”.”
Psalms 9:16 (KJV), “The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands.”
“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Larne,
The DA in the Bill Cosby case filed charges just before the SOL expired. His predecessor had neglected to file charges, but the new DA elected to do so. I believe that he probably was pressured to do so, as there was a lot of public attention being paid to the numerous reports of rape against Cosby that were flooding forth.
Statutes of Limitations vary from state to state. For the state of Illinois, there are currently broad protections offered to victims of sexual assault, when the victim is a minor. In January of 2000, a law was passed which allowed for sexual assault charges to remain viable until the victim turns 28, if they were a minor at the time of the abuse. The SOL was further extended in July of 2003 so that charges remain viable until the victim turns 38. It should be noted that if the statute of limitations had already expired at the time those laws were passed, it would not extend the viability date for such cases. I am linking below the booklet from the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault. It has a simple flow chart to use to determine if a case is still prosecutable. With some exceptions, basically any sexual assault crime that occurred against a minor after January 1, 2000 can still be prosecuted.
I would imagine that the opinion of an assistant state’s attorney that a criminal charge only constitutes misdemeanor criminal battery would in no way be a binding opinion. I would imagine that a state’s attorney’s office is free at any time to reexamine how they view and classify a criminal complaint.
Here is a link to the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault handbook.
http://www.icasa.org/docs/statute%20of%20limitations.pdf
They appear to be an excellent resource. Here is their website:
http://www.icasa.org/home.aspx?PageID=500&
Per your question:
“would the police even take a complaint if it was outside the SOL or just trashed it once the complainant left, thus there would be no record? “
I believe that the complaint would still be on file. I do not think that a criminal complaint can be destroyed unless it is expunged by court order, and I see no reason why that would have happened in this case.
Thanks Kevin
That makes me wonder about the courts and police in dealing with Bill and it sometimes seems like they were looking the other way. Even with the so called positive story with Bettina, why in the world is a judge assigning an abandon teenager to a single man, not related and running an international Christian ministry for custody? Why were so many troubled kids funneled to his ministries by the court and with the court handing over kids to Bill and his ministries are they and the police going to take seriously any young lady that comes forward with molestation allegations against Bill and others working there?
Good points and good questions Rob. In reading about the Josh Duggar case, it appeared that the organization had some very IBLP friendly law enforcement treatment, which allowed Josh Duggar to avoid criminal charges and get treated within the organization. Some good stuff they must have filled his head with there in that treatment program, right?
It reminds me of the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They report the strange behavior of things going on in the town to the police, not realizing that they police to whom they are reporting to have already been snatched and are not one of them. There are IBLP loyalists all over the place, and you can't tell just by looking at someone if they have already been snatched by the organization.
The misdemeanor classification also makes me wonder how many times this sort of thing has happened before with Bill Gothard. This case is getting noticed because of the media attention and ease of access in obtaining information via the internet and social media. There could have been many reports to the police over the years that were watered down and went nowhere that no one has heard about. Also, I doubt very much that it is mere coincidence that Bill Gothard has been besties with David Gibbs Jr for 40 years, a man who makes his living protecting Christian organizations from sexual abuse charges. What other tangles has Gibbs Jr gotten Gothard out of over the years?
Now you speculate. BG and IBLP had plenty of local enemies. If you want to know about all the reports ever filed, just do a Freedom of Information Act request on all complaints against Gothard and IBLP. No one files a police report on 80% of this stuff. It offends us because of the man's hypocrisy, but truth be told, women put up with such "inappropriateness" every day. There is now a rape allegation and there was Charolotte's molestation allegation that is 20 years old and was never reported to police. There is no police coverup here. Only a "Christian" cover up.
And I am NOT saying women should put up with harassment, but that harassment is not something that police are in the business of controlling. To blame the police is to redirect outrage away from the perpetrator of all the misery discussed on this page: Bill. Gothard. Fraud. False Teacher. Lecher. Groomer. Liar. False witness. Slanderer. Unrepentant. Unreconciled. Misuer of Scripture. Misrepresenter of the Holy Spirit. Pretender. Self-righteous. Narcissist.
Don,
It is not speculation to suggest that there has been gentle treatment by law enforcement to charges of molestation by those affiliated with IBLP. There are two cases that were reported to the police that I am aware of involving IBLP, or those affiliated with IBLP. The 2014 charges against Bill Gothard and the case of Josh Duggar in 2003. Both appear to have been handled in a way that was very kind to the alleged perpetrators.
The Gothard charges were categorized as a misdemeanor, apparently by the Assistant State's Attorney, per the DG moderator. The Josh Duggar report was taken by State Trooper,Joseph T. Hutchens, who just gave him a stern talk, rather than file a report. It does not mean that there is a conspiracy or that the police are to blame. I am a big supporter of law enforcement and DAs and I think that in the vast majority of cases they do an outstanding job of upholding the law in a fair and balanced way. But, in these two cases, there has been some very favorable treatment in my view. Questions have been asked and answered regarding the state trooper and why he handled it the way he did. I think that it is appropriate that the State's Attorney's office should answer questions as to why they categorized the molestation of a 15 year old as a misdemeanor. Perhaps there is a very good explanation. Perhaps not.
To: rob war
Whenever she would anticipate some illegal cooperation taking place, my mom would state, "They are all in cahoots!"
For certain, Gothard and the 'authorities' were conspiring together. The more I realize Bill's atrocities, it becomes increasingly clear that he was a very powerful man with a multitude of deceptive cronies. :+(
State's Attorney for DuPage County,
Robert Berlin
Phone: 630-407-8000
TDD: 630-510-3611
Fax: 630-407-8151
Email: [email protected]
Address:
DuPage County Judicial Office Facility - Annex
503 N. County Farm Road
Wheaton, IL 60187
They also have to deal with the realities of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in any he said, she said criminal matter. It is easy to criticize law enforcement, but they are never engaged except after all our private controls fail, and the can only successfully prosecute a small minority of cases (many go free lest one innocent be punished). A case like this is worthy of review, to ensure that no favoritism was involved. But it is never a slam dunk to prosecute a 'respected leader' on one accusation.
Criminal statutes of limitations are to protect the accused from stale charges. In the civil arena, the period usually does not run until the victim turns 18, to protect the rights of victims. (victims have almost no rights in criminal proceedings: those are the king versus the subject).
I agree that it is never easy to prosecute in a " he said, she said". But in the case of Gothard, as with Cosby, we have "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said....." on and on up to 50 times. Even if the statute of limitations has expired on the other victims in terms of those crimes being prosecutable, they can still be allowed to testify and confirm accusations that he has a history and pattern of molestation and harassment.
Agreed, but that is not the criminal case that was presented to the Hinsdale Police in the March 2014 report.
Don,anytime I go back to read the stories of the harassed girls,its difficult to entirely comprehend the extent of Gothard's evil.All your comments describing Bill,as good as they are,fall short in tying in the motive,utterly masked from the public with his supramoralism;with a depravity so difficult for even a grown adult to comprehend.The girls had in their naiveness,a buffer against the shock;only comprehending the extent of the horror much later,though some may have somehow known past a dread they'd rather forget.Hats off to you in venting a justifiable anger.May the probing of the cases bring forth the power of eloquence to expose the travesty for all that it is.Forty years...blatant hypocrisy.
I'm having same problem
This is probably my final post to Alfred at DG, I'm not sure if he will publish it:
Pointing out the total of NT references to how Jesus earthly family played a part with Jesus and His ministry is human reasoning? If one looks at the totality of your blog and all the comments, the disagreements are with you and Bill and not myself Alfred. Throwing out insults at others that have tried in good faith to participate really is more of a reflection on you and who you support than me. When I read your reasoning, logic and use of scripture, all i can think to myself is TGIC and my time here a waste because it appears that I am only "throwing pearls before swine" and the Bible tells us not to do that.
Alfred really counterbalances his devotion with his snarky attitude and his win-at-any-cost style.
Instead of leading anybody back to the fold, he further reinforces the worst stereotypes of what it means to be a Gothardite. There are a lot of folks even still in the Institute that are truly nice, misled people. They would be much better mouthpieces than Alfred for this type of thing. In their blind ambition to keep Bill unsullied, they show their disconnect from reality. People respond well to straight shooters. Even if they are not able to articulate it or win the argument with a character like Alfred, the slimy feeling isn't a great recruiting or retention tool.
His site is more about feeding his own love for attention than it really is about even defending Gothard. He probably doesn't even know that himself, but it's pretty clear.
I agree. I've wondered for some time now how his blog would continue if we didn't respond to him.
I feel like, as sincere a follower of BG as he is, he's had as many chances as any to face the truth that has confronted him, and yet he refuses.
Something that might be found interesting. There's a series of articles being written at skywatch tv about Internet trolls. One can just google For whom the baals troll. Even if it doesn't totally fit ones world view, it has a lot of good points.
It's more like, "Whom the baal trolls"- speaking of people whose points bg's PR agent Alfred are always trying to bong.
I have not commented on Alfred's site. I do not want to encourage him. It looks like about 97% of the posts are against supporting BG and Alfred. For a very long time Alfred has been trying to make his point for BG. As far as I am concerned, the arguments should be done, the case closed. Only God can reach his heart.. I would recommend no more responses on his website, if he has nothing to defend and respond to, maybe his heart and mind will be clear to hear God.
agree 100%
I have no idea how big of a staff G3 has to be able to divert to research on this case, but it would be interesting if a FOI could be done on all the records of who all was sent to the Little Rock "rehab" or other IBLP "rehabs". And then, to FOI all the police dept.s in the home counties of these for police reports on any of these same "rehab" recipients. If there are none, or if there are ones like the Melody Fedoriw one that was mis-classified as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, this would seem to clearly indicate a deal made by IBLP with civil authorities. After all, if it took 5 criminal offenses in the IBLP-ruled Duggar household to finally get that boy off to bg's "rehab"........... what all other criminal offenses were mis-classified or never even reported according to the law? IBLP's "rehab" records likely hold the secrets of a lot of criminal negligence; that's what the failure to report a sex crime against a minor is. Criminal negligence. Obviously, bg is guilty of this in failing to report ongoing abuse of minors made known to him by victims themselves. And, bg isn't "clergy", so, "clergy-penitent privilege" wouldn't apply. (That only applies to minors in WA state & VA, anyway). Although he may be classified as a psychologist. Now THAT would be a real irony- "Physician, heal thyself"...... FOR REALS, MAN!!!!! And, go back & get a phd in predicting pedophilia while he's at it, so maybe he can warn all relevant groups ahead of time of which one among them he grooms next. I want to see a 7-step formula called "Am I My Sister's Keeper?" in which bg outlines tell-tale signs surrounding his having isolated one of his victims. Now THAT would be teaching practical Christianity for all people under his dumbrella.
So ... over on DG, Alfred says this to rob -
"Which suggests that Bill seeking to minimize some of what he perhaps saw as impediments by the corporate authority structure created by the government perhaps primarily so said government could get all the taxes they are due MIGHT not be as nefarious as has been often suggested."
I'll admit I can't tell what in the world the whole sentence is supposed to mean (not the brightest bulb in the pack here - somebody's welcome to explain), but part of it stands out. Did he really just say that Bill tried to "minimize" the "impediments" of a government-created corporate authority structure? How, exactly, I wonder??
Seems to be admitting that BG's above the law (correct me if I'm wrong), and apparently doesn't mind saying it in spite of also being asked earlier about the wisdom of speaking for Bill in spite of a pending lawsuit.
Just wondering if anybody else noticed.
It's Alfred trying to "cover disgrace" and he has had a number of meaningless sentences like this that make no sense whatsoever. I think what Alfred was trying to say is that having a board or over type of structural oversize was a government imposition designed to get money in the end. That is way Alfred is arguing so hard now about the para-church and that they are justified in not being under anyone's authority. It also shows the arrogance of Bill in that he leaks info to Alfred to put on the internet despite a pending lawsuits against himself. You did a great job summerizing a number of Alfred's comments about police reports etc. To the current point about para-church type ministries. There is a big different between groups like Salvation Army which started out in the Methodist Church and whose main aim is not teaching but service and ministry and eventually became it's own Church organization and IBLP. IBLP sole purpose is teaching and spreading that around. Groups like Salvation Army, World Vision etc. are true service based organizations and they have oversight and a clear purpose of service not teaching. The para-church groups that are based on teaching ministries and a particular leader or teacher is what IBLP is and that is where problems lie with these "ministries"
Dear Rob,
Your paraphrase of Alfred's statement about minimizing State hassles in Christian ministry seems fair. But I think you are partly mistaken in your Salvation Army example. Yes, they started out as 19th Century Methodists. But they were out to proclaim the Resurrection to a target audience of slum-dwellers. Their modern "service" emphasis evolved in more modern times. I am pretty sure that Gothard's ministry grew out of a college project on how to evangelize teenagers. Another examples of niche para-church ministries would be the Navigators and Officers Christian Fellowship, both of whom target military people. Niche ministries like these have weaknesses, but what works of men do not?
Your point about ministries having oversight is well-taken, but the oversight will always come from allies. I do not know who supplies oversight to Pope Francis, but the overseer is probably not a Southern Baptist or a Presbyterian.
Brother David K
present Methodist and former beneficiary of Gothard, Navigators, and OCF
Brother David K,
I, too, as well as many others, have benefited from some of the true and correct things Bill Gothard has taught. It is true that most of us would not have gone to seminars if there had not been some good ideas given we could apply to our lives.
My difficulty on the DG site with Alfred's take on authority is at one point he (not Bill) made parents the supreme authority: "Not ANY authority, Dan, but that associated with the “first commandment with promise”, obedience and reverence for parents. When has he stated that the government, the employer, or even the church are the channels of God’s direction like parents and grandparents are?"
Skipping past that Gothard disobeyed his father about marriage, the problem with Alfred's claim is two-fold. One, Gothard expressly teaches in the Basic Seminar about several different realms of authority. Secondly, I have heard time and time again from friends who were in ATI as students that parental authority was undercut by Bill. I also clearly remember a pamphlet cira 1970s where these youth were pictured who proclaimed Bill was not opposed to them getting married - he only wanted to make sure it was the right one. IOW - even at that time he was trying to forbid marriage, just as he did to his brother, and just as he disobeyed his father.
Bill, it seems has wound up "doing what is right in his own eyes," and there is a Scripture about "men who forbid marriage."
What a great blessing IBLP would have had to the world if Bill had listened to his own authorities, and had submitted to good counsel of those schooled in the Scriptures!
Thank-you for your comments and thoughts. Usually when I think of para church groups, I am thinking of those that focus on teaching as opposed to those that focus on service. And yes there are those as you pointed out that focus on a particular target group such as college ministries etc. But bill along with WOF type teaching ministries are what at least for me what I think of as I say para church groups and there often is no control over what is being taught and claimed as Biblical. You did make references to Catholic church and who is watching the pope. The answer and explanation is probably beyond the scope of this blog and there are many fine forums and blogs that discuss how authority works in the catholic church. I would simply say that pope is part of what is called the magisterium of the catholic church which includes all bishops, church counsel past and present etc. Dispute of what you may think, the pope does have others in the church review his own work and his office is not a top down dictatorship and they even go to confession, JP II went everyday. It is the collective magisterium that is the checks and balance. Bill did not have that at all. He did not use others to balance his work,he was a dictator with his ministry, his views were always right and called Biblical and true. That is the difference here
I think Bill's M.O. is to try and pivot away from the allegations and history of sexual abuse when he is talking with those who are genuinely listening to him and considering whether his side of the story is true. I think Bill will try to overwhelm the listener and convince the listener early in the conversation that there is no way the allegations made by the women could be true because of all the ministry he is involved in and all the words the Lord is giving him. He will hold himself out as if he cannot understand why these women are saying these things about him. I think he does this by talking about all the new ministry and books he is involved in implementing and writing, and all the new "words and ideas" the Lord is giving him since being asked to step down from IBLP. I think he has his response to people who inquire prepared quite well, and he knows what he needs to say to cause other believers who are not as familiar with the allegations to see him favorably as a victim in this whole process. I think he has developed a method to emphasize all the "work of the Lord" he is involved in so that the person(s) he is communicating with/to will struggle in their mind with how this purported "man of God" whom the Lord is speaking to on a daily basis could have possibly engaged in the conduct he is being accused of. I think Bill is good at disarming those who listen to him by pitching the "I'm an old Godly man walking with God as Enoch walked with God and I can't believe these accusations and lies that have been hurled against me in my later years". I get the impression he will try to beat these allegations by convincing people there's no way he is capable of committing these acts because he is a "man of God" involved in the Lord's work. I think he can be very convincing as he has used this pattern over the years to distract from the core issues of his sin. I think this helps explain why Alfred is such a big defender of Bill. I think Alfred has known Bill all these years, constantly heard from Bill about Bill's ministry, observed over the years all the "successes" of the ministry, and he cannot accept that Bill could ever be capable of committing the acts the women accused him of. Alfred is one of the few Christians (other than family) that has as much detail and still stands by Bill. While Alfred may be willfully ignoring some of the evidence, because he is such a die hard Bill supporter, I think he will always ere on the side of attempting to discredit any woman who accuses Bill of these things. Most of the others who support Bill are automatically "disarmed" with all the books and ministry talk that has come from Bill over the years. I myself wonder if anyone has ever sat down with Bill and asked him face to face about each allegation he is accused of. I'm sure he's been asked about the allegations in general, but what I am referring to is a believer sitting down with Bill and point blank asking him "did you touch ....'s breast....did you rub up the back of ....'s leg with your foot while wearing only a sock....", etc. I pray this will happen in the context of confronting Bill for the purposes of Biblical repentance. It will likely happen in the legal context during his deposition, but I pray it will happen in the spiritual context for the sake of his soul, and not let him change the conversation or distract from it by talking about the latest book he is writing or the newest ministry he is contemplating. Perhaps the Lord would use this to bring a time of confession, repentance and healing. Maybe I'm hoping for the impossible.
I also think Bill has literally convinced himself in the deep recesses of his mind that he did not commit the allegations made against him by the girls.
So perceptive. The first thing Gothard does in his motion is to trumpet the millions who benefitted from his ministry, including exhibits of packed-out conference centers.
Pathological liars do seem to believe their own stories, although it is reported that they have guilty responses on polygraphs, so I think it's definitely a complex situation. There appears to be debate about how they actually process their lies (and not a lot of research, apparently).
That said, I believe they do know the truth deep down, but due to their blatant disregard for the truth, they CHOOSE to overwrite their memories with their preferred version of reality. Even to the point of filling in details and assigning false motives to other people, so that they can believe their version of the "facts" more logically. Just my unprofessional guess, but it may be like someone that witnesses an event that involved a brown car, but hears someone else talk convincingly about the same event involving a blue car to the point that their own memory is revised. I just think a pathological liar can provide that convincing false version *to himself* to the point that the real story becomes blurred in his memory, but not that the real version isn't there somewhere deeper down.
I am/was married to a habitual liar (our counselor's diagnosis was pathological liar). It was a HUGE step when I finally got the nerve to confront him, and it didn't go at all like you would expect a normal person to respond. I picked just four lies that were recent and that I had absolute proof about. He flatly denied all four, in spite of my refuting him with facts and testimony. One of the lies was about having watched porn via our satellite service. There were seven viewings on the bill. When the service was installed, HE had set the passcode for the account (it was in my name, so rest assured I reset it as soon as I saw the bill). Most of the times were around 1-2 am, when I and my children were sleeping. I had a debit card receipt from a store 30 miles away at the time of one of the viewings, and my children and I were about 3-4 hours away from home during another one. Yet he still continued to deny all four of the lies I brought up.
Side bar - After the confrontation, life was hard ... he was over-the-top angry with ME. Please don't EVER second-guess what an abused woman should do. What makes perfect sense in an unaffected environment rarely works in hers. In a non-abusive marriage, if you catch your husband in a lie, you're justified to be extremely angry and confront him, and he'll crumble and admit it and beg your forgiveness and might even do something really nice to make it up to you after he stays in the dog house for a while. Not so in the world of abuse. First of all, you have to brace yourself for the anger (for some, it's physical, and even if it hasn't been before, you can never be sure that it won't be this time), then you have to deal with the insanity of differing versions of truth. Then you can expect to be in the dog house because you falsely accused him. It took me a couple of decades to get to the point of being that willing.
I will say that over a period of time, having brought up the porn-watching issue twice with staunch denials, he did walk back in the room shortly after the second confrontation and said, "Okay, I admit it, I did watch the porn." He didn't apologize, but for some strange reason, he did finally crack and admit it. I said (calmly), "See, you DO lie. That's what I've been saying. I can't trust you." He refused to admit anything further and that was the end of that. The only other lie he ever admitted was when I was on the phone with someone who could verify the truth; this was after at least twice that I'd questioned him before, and he flatly denied he'd done something. He was listening to the phone conversation, and at the point I was about to ask a question, he apparently knew both what I was going to ask and how they were about to answer, and he broke in with, "Yes, I ____!" so that he wouldn't have to hear me get the actual truth from the other person.
A liar prefers to lie about things you can't check or prove, or if it's something that another person would contradict, they will try to isolate you from them, sometimes by telling you something unpleasant about that person to the point that it's awkward to talk to them. I finally figured that out, too, and got over it. Of course, I'll never know who all he isolated from me by telling them God-knows-what. I think there are tons of similarities in BG's methods.
As much as we'd love to see it, I'm sure a sit-down item-by-item confrontation will never happen. I'm just adding that if it ever did, there still wouldn't be a lot of truth-finding in it.
I should add that a disincentive to perjure oneself would yield a different result than an ordinary sit-down conversation. Not entirely, but hopefully to some degree.
Elizabeth D,and BCM,Forgive my ramblings,but I've got to reinforce the feeling of anger and present helplessness that your comments elicit from me,and I've only been exposed to his teachings.Now try to imagine what his victims are going through upon each denial,and any future denials knowing good and well he's got away with it ;discrediting the victims,already helplessly demoralized by his "system".And even wants to go back into the ministry,should he find the faintest loophole to do so.I so remember in 1987, at the Twin Cities IBLP Seminar Bill making one of his many blatant preposterous lies,stating that the the only person he knew who was unjustifiably persecuted was a 14 year old girl he was counseling.Imagine it!Seven years after stonewalling all previous acts,some of which he himself perpetrated;[what victim was he on then,17;maybe 18?]And he had the audacity to say he only knew of one 14 year old girl wrongly persecuted.Any of these calculated denials and ad hominem attacks,breeds incredulous anger,helplessness,and a certain desire to see right made rectified permanently[]from whatever channel?] it may come.IBLP in its intrinsic core had no conscience,puppet strings from the Master,and hypocrisy to look the other way from the battered being thrown out the back door,oppressed by a self invented,self appointed caricature of patriarchal darkness.They passively consented in the denigration of some of the most helpless of Christ's lambs;for temporal perverted gratification.How can one say that the organization deserves to stay intact,much much less its author?
I'm sorry for all that you have gone through, Elizabeth. There needs to be an organization/support group like alcoholics anonymous for women who are married to manipulative husbands.
I'm sorry for what you went through with him, too, Elizabeth! That is just craziness. I see parallels to your (ex?)husband & bg. And I, too, wonder what all bg will end up speaking perjury about. Versus what all he'll end up finally admitting in attempts to cut back on his perjure. Because, after assessing his own risk of having continued to lie, he is going to have to go ahead & admit some of what he's lied about. Then again, there are some lies he will likely stick with; he will have a hard time dividing all his previous lies into one these 2 camps. Hard to pick which ones to come clean on & then remember which ones these will be. In remaining staunch on the rest, he'll probably get caught as a perjurer, in at least a few of them.
Long time reader and prayer warrior on behalf of RG - but infrequent poster. A question to those who are wondering about Police Reports being release/found given FOIA requests, isn't it likely because this is a minor child who reported the abuse, that the report is going to be held back or even denied? If prior juvenile criminal offenses are withheld in court hearings of adults, why would Alfred be thinking that he or anyone off the street can demand the police report of a minor child stating she has been molested or abused???
I"m guessing that just because it hasn't been identified or released publicly, doesn't mean that an official report doesn't exist. Now, whatever reasons behind it not being prosecuted could be many, sadly.
Yes, excellent point and something that Alfred would ignore and then turn around and state that there is no report on his blog. That is also the reason the Duggars used when they stated that Josh's problems were not suppose to be released to the public, that he was a minor and minor reports were suppose to the sealed. I understand Don's points and concerns here but what I am curious about and question is that in the "positive" testimony that Bill and Alfred have on their blogs is that in Bettina's case, a judge did assign her to custody of Bill himself. In benefit of the doubt, the judge most likely didn't know about all the issues Bill had with teenage/young women and I want to think that if the judge did know all the things we have now, he wouldn't have given Bill custody. But Bill's ministry already did have a public sex scandal even though Steve was the focus of this scandal, the fact that Bill ignored Steve's behavior with staff girls should have raised a red flag for the judge in assigning anyone custody of vulnerable minor children to Bill. Obviously, this was ignored. Why are courts assigning any girls to Bill? Why did he have such access with a judge to such children? Did his character programs with municipals give such favorable views and the usual hoops people have in getting custody of vulnerable children ignored? Even if there isn't a real coverup by district attorney's of complaints about Bill and girls, I can see that if girls did come go and attempt to make such complaints and reports, they would be reassigned to lesser charges and ignored as reported in the current law suit. The fact that there was even a staff member as reported in the suite that raped more than one girl should alone be the reason to shut down the whole thing until proper review of all the staff is done. All of IBLP programs should be shut down until they can prove staff are safe to be with children. The whole thing is corrupted and sorry but I feel that they have been given a pass by the powers that be with governments
Consider that the most outrageous claims are made by the most troubled girls. If all allegations are true, Bill was very selective in who and how he groomed. Those who were less troubled really passed through the relationship believing he was honorable, only wising up later. Those alleging he actually molested them were girls who would have little credibility if they did complain: "She said the same thing about her father and both father and mother swear it was fantasy".
Check out The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. Somewhat similar
shows a corrupted sick mind and his utter disregard for anyone's well being but his own and that all these girls were objects to him and the one's that have already been violated he felt even more free to abuse and violate since it was their fault to begin with (according to his sick teaching).
Actually, the minor may not have the same protection as complainant as they would as a juvenile offender. The purpose of public access to closed law enforcement investigations is to shine the light on the official acts of public officials. Even if the minor's identification has to be redacted under Illinois law, there is no reason to expect the report is not otherwise publically accessible. The same holds to sex assault claims in general, any required protection of individuals is done by redaction, not by suppression of the public record. It is plausible that they tracked down the record of the complaint in a closed matter like that.
While anything is possible and the State Atty could be in cahoots with Bill and/or IBLP, I think the State Atty should be given the benefit of the doubt. They prosecute far more powerful cronies and criminals and are not swayed by talk that easy. I do not think IBLP has that much power to wield in the first place. We have to remember that the State has to prove these crimes "beyond a reasonable doubt". Sexual harassment which may qualify as a misdemeanor since it is, in the eyes of the law, a lesser crime, is not as difficult to prove as sexual battery or statutory rape. In most of these cases the State is dealing with alleged crimes that occured 20 years ago. Unless there is solid evidence the crime was committed, it will be very difficult for the State to prove the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". The civil standard is usually "greater weight of the evidence" which means even if the perpetrator is 51% likely to be liable, he is liable. The civil standard is a lot easier to pursue. The State has limited resources as well. If they can get a plea bargain on a lesser crime and save the time and money and emotional state of the victim, then a lot of times they will opt for this route after talking with the victim. Sometimes the best route to take is in civil court which is what is takign place right now.
Harassment is most often not a crime but a civil violation of labor laws and regulations, or a tort in civil court. It is more like a violation of contract than a battery. Asking someone on a date is not criminal but it can be sexual harassment in the workplace.
BCM it is super helpful to get your viewpoint on all this process of due process.
The part about if an alleged perp is likely to be 51% liable is especially encouraging. I think this one is 99.99% likely to be liable of inappropriate "grooming"-based touching of single every one of these girls. But I don't think it's possible for any unbiased jury to have the time to hear but a fraction of the evidence of this guy's fetish for doing this. Not unless they can see the whole 40+ year career of grooming that he's carved out of figure-heading on so many levels. So, the 51% thing is encouraging.
Law enforcement may want to try to partner with ministries & so-called ministries to try to fight the war on crime & corruption. Most churches are an ally in this area, getting drug-addicts rehabilitated, helping to reduce the welfare rolls, etc. So, maybe since the Little Rock "training center" took some of the load off the State, authorities thought IBLP was just doing the work of the church. Which it most certainly was not. But, I guess, how were the cops & other reporting officials to know this. I know that I sure didn't. But I do now!
In the end, it's not going to appease his guilt in my eyes, even if a jury "finds" him innocent. And I'm certain this could only be done if it weren't for him personally selecting staff based on gender & looks, pulling these out of their communities into his own insular communes, the religious, whole-life control mascot-making as his advertising- his main answer to his own demand for profit (versus a productivity-driven work contract), shutting down all complaints about sexual abuse as they were brought to him, subsequently maligning all complainants................. oh, great, I can sense myself starting to go down the BG rabbit-hole again. I better stop while I can. It's just that, the sexual harassment itself is overwhelming. And this is easier to prove that the sexual battery. And, the circumstances were SO bizarre compared to most other sexual harassment scenarios. Scenarios that bg alone set up & controlled, layer-upon-layer of viability & primed defenselessness.
Just read Libby Ann's blog on Patheos, Jan 28th called Bill Gothard's disturbing slavery apology. She reviewed an article posted on Bill's new Power Team ministry that basically excuses slavery and in summation, Bill's theory is that the Civil War would have been avoided if people just meditated and had Rhemas on God's word and taught their slaves to do the same. Bill's so called new teaching and ministry has become so disturbing that I honestly don't know what to say but shame on the so called Christian leaders that supported and promoted Bill all these years. This is sick and it is equally embarrassing that someone that is an atheist points it out. Where is the outrage with other Christians and their publications. I shudder to think what other sick ideas Bill is teaching. It makes me want to throw-up.
I'll hand ya the barf bucket- as soon as I'm done with it :P
I searched for a long time on Patheos for that but my computer kept shutting down windows & sliding Libby Ann's site off of the screen.
Regarding what you eluded too, though: I've always wondered why IBLP began condemning all forms of resistance to authority just a few years after the NAACP's illegal lunch counter sit-ins had begun. Those sitting-in were peaceful; it was those harassing them, trying to make them obey the law, that were combative. This violence against these Rosa Parks-types who were doing good in their resistance of authority, contrasted with the rioting that other "rights" groups were doing, makes it seem odd that Gothard didn't simply condemn VIOLENT opposition to authority along with violence put up against anyone. But no; his main message was against the CAUSE of Rosa Parks & her fellow NAACP-ers, lumping his condemnation of these right in with that against the beating of campus security guards & setting cities on fire. 1961 was right at the outset of the social revolutions of the sixties. Blacks had virtually no citizen's rights whatsoever. Since Gothard debuted his false teaching right at that point in time it seems he fancied his main message to appeal to anyone desiring to keep African Americans enslaved by segregation. Remember his partnership with Bob Jones. It would be no wonder to me that he thinks any & all slaves should have stayed (or should still stay) enslaved. It's totally in keeping with the Umbrella application of the "authority" one of the "7 Non-Optional Principles" that he trotted-out to make a name for himself 54 years ago. Thank-God that His will won-out, prevailing over IBLP interpretation of God's will in that blacks did successfully win the right to have rights. MLK's position trumping Gothard's opposing one was by the grace of God. No wonder BG's definition of grace severely limits grace.
I'm not good at links but it is www.patheos.com under atheist channel/love, joy feminism and the date is Jan 28th 2016. The link she has to the actual article gives a 404 error for me which means that someone at power teams web site pulled the article. They must have gotten pretty severe backlash. She does quote it and break it down and answers Bill's 5 points. It is pretty sick twisted quoting of the Bible and even history. The reasons for the Civil War are rather complex because it wasn't just about slavery even though that was the underlining reason but to make some blanket excuse that the Ciivil War would have been prevented if southern slave owners just memorized and meditated on Rhemas and even taught their slaves to do the same (ignoring the fact that reading was illegal for slaves to do). Then because slave owners did their rhema meditations, they and their slaves would have been successful and they would have had genuine love. I wish I could make this up because this is really out in outer space. This ought to be condemned in the strongest sense of the word in Christendom and not just pointed out by someone that is an atheist.
Rob War,Nicole Gardner,Elizabeth D..That no normal person could ever wrap their minds around all the contrived denials,calculated discrediting of the victims,I can't have a clue to his humanity. He himself subsequently despised in attitudes,and actions,all his most overtly violated victims,before ushering them out the back door,...Heather's story,Charlotte's story,Jane Doe 2,...dehumanizing.Just a few thoughts for sanity and justice.He was endorsed publicly,he must be denounced publicly.If not what could evolve from this heretical disease will suppress any potential future expression of love.You're trapped in a monstrous religious machine.No individuality,no creativity,no expression of the Great Gift of Life.
Link to blog post about Bill Gothard's slavery apology: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/bill-gothards-disturbing-slavery-apology.html
It didn't post as a link, but it does work if you copy and paste into your browser. I'll try one more time for the link.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/bill-gothards-disturbing-slavery-apology.html
What was bg's point??!! I did not know whether to laugh out loud or scream "What an arrogant and pathetic notion this is!" For bg to declare that if everyone during the pre-Civil War era would have practiced his meditation thingy that there would not have been a Civil War. Ah...that is like saying "If pigs could fly, look out and put a helmet on otherwise something could drop on your head." Maybe this was a revisionist dream. "Woulda Coulda, Shoulda" (would of, could of, should of)and other guilt trips---so typical of bg's approach. This would be my proposition: Have bg go into a time machine and try to sell those "principles" and if it works, I'm all ears.
Maybe there are really "Days of Future Passed!"
Using bg's logic and thought process, I want to propose this: Let's all be hippies. Seriously. If everybody would wear tye-dyed shirts, bell bottom pants, choker beads---guys grow long hair and beards (oh,how I miss that era),wear red, white and blue headbands, wear sandals, sing folk songs around the campfire,and drop out of society--if that could have been applied before the Civil War, then there would not have been a Civil War. If anyone knows where a time machine can be found....
Todd, we will have to find someone like Dr. Emmett Brown and instead of a DeLorean, we will fix up Bill's blue Olds powered by plutonium stolen from ISIS instead of Libyan terrorists who will come to shoot him up and then Bill will activate the wrong buttons and then he will be shot into pre-civil war times where he can tell slave owners how to mediate on the Bible which in return will prevent the Civil War. Likewise, Bill can tell slaves how lucky they are that they are slaves because they are under an umbrella of protection with their slave owners.
I just realized that Bill already had a "scientist" working for him. He'll have math wiz Alfred calculate how to get Bill back to the future.
ToddK,
Remember, this is the same guy who posited that Mt. Vesuvius buried Pompeii because the residents chowed down on Roman Wonder Bread. Equal Logic Fail on analyzing the complex events leading up to the Civil War, and explaining a geological occurrence as retribution of white flour consumption. Consider the source.
Whew!!
Have been reading, for the first time, this site. I am a born again Christian. I read, study and teach
Bible. Having read MANY, MANY entries here, two things stand out:
1. Bill Gothard is still innocent until proven guilty. (and...he may be!)
2. Seems like nearly 100% of these posts JUDGE--- careful, everyone--you know the Sermon on the Mount.
Having attended 7 times (!!--some got it the first time--!) and having taken many groups to the Basic Seminar, I, too, had to gain some freedom. I was not a "Bill groupy". In the seventies, a common book recommended for business leaders, which I was, (now 76 and retired) was "The 5-Minute Manager". In this book, the author encouraged counsel with employees followed by a brief touch of reassurance. That, now, is considered inappropriate behavior!! The times--how they change....
The same Sermon on the Mount in just a few verses later after the "judge not ..." talks about knowing someone by their fruits. Looking at Bill's fruits which include the results of his teaching and how it has affected others as well as his questionable behavior which has gone on for decades with numerous people approaching him about it is not judging. If you really read some of the article here, not just people's responses to them, you would have read how many people through the years have tried to approach Bill and document his behaviors. If Bill was so innocent, then why wouldn't have his own hand picked board brought him back since that appears to be the understanding Bill had with the board when he left in 2014. Trying to use some legal term "innocent until proven guilty" is a bogus argument. Looking at fruit and knowing someone by the fruit is a judgement and Jesus didn't tell us that we should consider someone innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Using some defunct book "The 5 minute manager" which encouraged so called brief touches for reassurance is likewise a bogus argument. The consistent testimonies which include those even not in the law suit was more that "brief touches" and Bill's behavior should have been above reproach and he shouldn't have been touching anyone, brief or not. Someone like yourself who has been to the basic 7 times and brought and encouraged groups and others to go is a pretty die-hard follower. In the end God will be the final judge of Bill as with all of us. But to misuse this "judge not" in order to protect heretical teaching and bad behavior is only covering sin which has gone on too long to begin with.
Does anybody remember the publication of an IBLP article on Hernando Cortez, assigning him some character quality that put him in a positive light for destroying the Aztec Empire? I remember e mailing IBLP at the time, I was so surprised at their positive portrayal of Cortez. This was probably in 2002. In the case of the Civil War, it is very easy to say if everybody acted the way Jesus wanted them to act, the Civil War would have not occurred. I am not a historian, and I could have told you that!
I remember it better now. BG praised HC for destroying his fleet so his men could not turn back. I forget what the character quality was. Cortez, btw, often disobeyed his authorities and lived most of his life accountable to no one.
jgfrank,Just a suggestion....Try reading the Scandal of 1980;then Ruth's story,Then Heather's story.If there ever was a case where the feigned righteous posturing was given absolute credibility over 34 women's testimony,it was in the investigation over 2 years ago.It was what the diehard Gothardites wanted to hear.Recovering Grace is a growing group,that at first was handled the same way any dissenting voice was handled by Bill Gothard et. al.,discrediting the accounts,then ad hominem attacks against the accuser.Then there's always our own sins and shortcomings,very much a tool in Gothard's bag of tricks.How dare we point the finger against established endorsed ministry.What right do we have to speak up for those denied credibility thru Bill's authoritarianism?It doesn't matter what was denied,obfuscated,stonewalled.We have no "rights";we shouldn't speak out against what was superficially beyond reproach in a hyped up religious order.I had to say something about my experiences,take risks in making comments,chance being vilified for the downtrodden the hapless,the suppressed.And maybe for myself as well.Recovering Grace took me in,,and I was encouraged to know from others comments,a God that just might have been falsely represented.A God you may well need to know yourself:a God that is Glorified more by what's inside than religious momentum caused by a hypocritical machine casting a blind eye as Gothard's victims were led out the back entrance.Each one of these,to Bill, were worth being sacrifeced for a cause much worthier than them.It doesn't matter what comes up;allegations of as many as 2 rapes,humility over dehumanizing sexual molestations.Threats of repercussions against families hinging upon Gothard blackmailing a girl for"service".For 40 years,there was too much "ministry to lose",too much invested in the props to see what's finally propped up.Now comes the afterward,when inventory should have been taken,not of money,but of hearts and lives spent.On what looked good but never really was.
Amen!
If there was no shoeless footsie, no footsie in darkened vans, no lap sitting, no hair stroking, no thigh to thigh private prayer times, no one on one counseling, no beauty directives, orthodontia, dermatology, no serial selection of young secretaries for removal from home and isolation from others, no deep gazes into young girls' eyes, no discussions of marriage and of "energy giving" and "specialness", but only a tap on the elbow or shoulder, the Five Minute Manager might be a defense. But as you suggest it, it appears as an excuse, misdirecting the discussion away from the allegations to presumed actions and reasons that are not in evidence on this site.
We have judged Bill Gothard by his own teaching and his own admissions. We have also confessed our sinful propagation of his false teachings and oppressive authoritarianism. So you see, we do not inveigh self-righteously, but only plead with him to meet us at the Cross, confess his sins and be reconciled to God. Like a brand out of the fire along with the rest of the redeemed.
"We have judged Bill Gothard by his own teaching and his own admissions. We have also confessed our sinful propagation of his false teachings and oppressive authoritarianism. So you see, we do not inveigh self-righteously, but only plead with him to meet us at the Cross, confess his sins and be reconciled to God. Like a brand out of the fire along with the rest of the redeemed."
Yes and amen! Not a day or part of a day goes by when I do not turn to the Lord and acknowledge some sinful train of thought.
A couple nights ago I watched "War Room" for the third time, in the privacy of my home. It ended with the verse from 2 Chronicles 7:14 -- "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
I welled up a bit. Much prayer and repentance took place in a fictional movie, but how much is going on in the real lives of God's people all over the earth?
To Frank - as Don pointed out, the time spent with the young women was often alone, for hours, and Bill has already admitted to giving them much more than a quick squeeze on the elbow. On another site, Alfred already has tried to make the footsie games out to be "taps of affirmation." Like that insane defense, the 5 minute manager idea just will not fly.
And I have no comment on the suit. Many of the allegations are true, because Bill has admitted to such on the internet, and that's as far as I can comment on it.
jgfrank you have no spiritual discernment skills if you supported BGs propaganda ,as an adult, that much over the years. This lack of spiritual discernment has, apparently, stifled any practical ability to discern in other areas of life as well. Stick to only reading and studying the Bible only, not teaching it.
:::cough:::cough:::
It was The One Minute Manager, and it wasn't even published in the 70's. It came out in late 1982, just sayin'.
Normalizing behavior ... smells a little fishy (or ducky) to me.
But the 59 Second Employee was more useful.
jgfrank, I think you are confusing the American legal system with the Biblical legal system, and you are taking the teaching on judgment out of context. I'll take the first one first.
The American legal system says, innocent until proven guilty. That is true. However, this is a CIVIL lawsuit, and a civil lawsuit is judged based on "the preponderance of evidence". That means, is it pretty likely that it happened.
But Biblically, a judgment could be obtained with TWO witnesses whose stories corroborate each other. If you read the trial of Jesus carefully, they go through witness after witness trying to find two witnesses whose lies match enough to convict Jesus. When they finally find two that are kinda sorta close, then they try to force Jesus to answer the accusation. Two witnesses is enough to put someone to death. Now, if you've read the stories, it's not just two people, but many many people whose accounts are eerily similar. Perhaps they worked together to get their stories straight, but there's a lot of documentation that suggests otherwise.
Now, onto judgment. You say you are a Bible teacher. How do you understand the Sermon on the Mount in light of 1 Cor 5:9-13 "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."
So, if Jesus says we can never judge and Paul says we are to judge, either the Bible is inconsistent, or maybe one of these passages doesn't really say what we think it says. I'm going to propose that "judge not lest you be judged" is not an absolute prohibition against judging. In fact, it's in keeping with a passage like James 3:1 - "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." So, perhaps James clarifies Jesus. Instead of a prohibition against judging, it is a warning. Those who judge others will be held to a higher standard. In fact, that is what the next verse in the Sermon on the Mount says... "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."
Great comments, Mark.
I'm right there with ya, David P. And, bg's the one who REALLY has no clue to his own humanity- nor the Humanity of God.
Thanks for the link, Rob, I'll try again
Have folks here visited http://www.lifepurposepowerteams.com lately? There's still no About Us page or explicit statement who is behind it (it's my understanding that Bill Gothard is). There's now a Contact page, which wasn't there before.
This shows just how far Bill's new website's view on slavery differs from that of Christian thought:
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/12312
Yes, thank-you for that link. A couple of other quotes: "not the Christian religion only, but nature herself, cries out against the state of slavery" Pope Leo X and from Pope Francis, Dec 2, 2014, "Therefore, we declare on each and everyone of our creeds that modern slavery, in terms of human trafficking, forced labor and prostitution, and organ trafficking, is a crime against humanity. Its victims are from all walks of life, but are most frequently among the poorest and most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters. On behalf of all of them, our communities of faith are called to react, without exception, any systematic deprivation of individual freedom for the purposes of personal or commercial exploitation; in their name, we make this declaration".
Slavery in the US was brought about by Dutch traders, that traded with Muslim Barbary pirates who were very active in capturing and selling Africans. Slavery is still legal in many Muslim countries even if they deny its existence and state otherwise. Again it's Sharia Bill here. Back to Pope Francis, "Every human being, man, woman, boy and girl, is made in God's image. God is the love and freedom that is given in interpersonal relationship, and every human being is a free person destined to live for the good of others in equality and fraternity. Every person, and all people, are equal and must be accorded the same freedom and the same dignity. Any discriminatory relationship that does not respect the fundamental conviction that others are equal is a crime and frequently an aberrant crime"
That is the basic view of Catholic, Protestant and even Orthodox teaching. Bill again is so off base here. Since Bill loves traditional hymns, I think he ought to mediate on "Amazing Grace" written by a former slave trader that had an amazing conversion and then fought to end slavery in England. Real Christianity has always been an abolitionist movement.
NO, rob!! Amazing Grace is in 3/4 time!!!
My bad, good catch! :)
Thank-you, ^horse^, for this link! I repeat it here. Copy & paste into your browser to see Bill's new website's twisted take on American slavery of African Americans:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/bill-gothards-disturbing-slavery-apology.html
Then compare it with this:
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/12312
When I go to that patheos.com page, and click on the “how the Civil War could have been avoided” hyperlink, I get a page at this site: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?842370 saying, "404 — Fancy meeting you here!"
Does anyone else get the same thing, or can you see the slavery article?
Thus far I haven't seen the original slavery article referenced on the patheos.com site.
Yes, I did mention that. I think it means that power teams removed it probably due to the negative reaction they probably received so instead of either stating that they have retracted it or made a mistake, they are giving the impression that it was never there which I highly doubt.
Rob war, speaking of Bill's blue olds, type in "Bill Gothard's car" into YouTube. First video that came up is classic. Bouncing blue Olds. Must have been a "rebel" having some fun unless Bill's Olds truly has hydraulics
As for bills new powerteams website, it looks like a repackaging of the wisdom book material. The fund raising pitch using the women's prison and military as potential targets for the powerteams material was really strange. It did not sit right with me. It looks more like am attempt by Bill to stay relevant by repackaging him self. He pitches the potential use of this material to reach women in prison and the military as a way to solicit donations for this new material.
Yes, I've seen the video, it's funny
As a veteran when I saw Billy attempt to solicit funds on the backs of PTSD and the all to common associated suicides I was deeply offended. I thought it was just me, but I glad BCM was also offended. When Billy has a program in place that has saved hundreds of lives from suicide and helped thousands with a life changing program then he can advertise. We know Christ can change us, but dealing with PTSD and the emotional trauma these men and women have endured it a whole different arena that Billy is completely unqualified in. Until then its just his pie in the sky "Inner Brain" mumbo jumbo to get sympathetic donations under a false pretense. In reality Billy wants to deal with teens not battle harden and scared veterans of the never ending war.
Does anyone know how he avoided the Vietnam draft? Because, virtually every single American male was drafted. (btw I think drafting is abhorrent). But you know he's the expert on obeying authority. He wouldn't have burnt his draft card, or........ did he?
There were all kinds of exemptions for the draft including college, theological, medical and farmer deferments for the years Billy would have been eligible for the draft ages 19-26. So his eligibility would have been from 1953-1960 during the cold war and prior to Vietnam. Billy is just two months older then Elvis Presley who was drafted in 1957. The possibility of Billy being drafted with Elvis and Army bunk mates bring up another whole range of historical permutations.
I believe no more than a third of any class was drafted for Vietnam. Gothard was actually too old to be drafted for that war. Before the Johnson build up, the draft was minimal between Korea and 'Nam. Reagan raised pay and made a peacetime draft unnecessary.
If I remember right, Elvis went ahead & let himself be drafted. So, I guess- according to IBLP teaching- Elvis was more blessed than Bill since he served their mutual authorities as he was commissioned to do.
And, additionally, the US government might not have wanted Bill. It's one thing to gyrate one's hips to rock'n'roll. It'a another thing all together to creep on other people; especially minors. Of the 2 of them, I personally would have felt a lot better having Elvis as bunk-mate than if Bill was. What people do with themself is one thing. What they do to a bunch of everybody else-s is entirely another matter altogether.
Regardless, we can rest assured that Bill would have expressed his deep felt concern for Elvis' spiritual well-being & would have asked him if he had any younger sisters so he could be put in contact with them to mentor- after he had seen pictures to make sure they were of the attractive sort that he had already been specifically called to "minister to."
Bill is claiming on the power team site that 26 Vets commit suicide every day. So 26 X 365 + 9490 per year? Where is he getting his figures from? Likewise with the prison program, where was this so called prison that he supposedly did this program at? He also stated that it was several years ago but then he claims that prisons are urgently requesting his program. So if this happen "several" years ago and was so successful, then why didn't prisons request it then instead of now? Again, vulnerable populations are being used to fund himself. This just seems so fraudulent. What prison is going to let Bill in? There is no outreach for vets and they shouldn't be going to him for help in the first place. All of this is very disturbing.
Tragically, the rate is about 22 veteran suicides per day.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-veteran-suicide-20150115-story.html
To add to my comment far above this one on Patriarchy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJsOlLqBEyo
She is so gracious. Listen to her quotes such as her father (Jack Hyles) telling her "pleasing him (dad) is the best way to please God" (sick and not true. taken wrong) and her father "living one way and preaching another". This video defines, in a truthful, gracious way, hypocrisy. "You are only as sick as your secrets" Great quote.
Thanks. This led me to study the Hyles/Schaap cult. Who shows up as "investigator"? David Gibbs II! I Googled for final invetigation report and found nothing. After what was promised to be a "comprehensive" investigation. No wonder BG/IBLP got Gibbs to investigate. He knows how to do the Sgt. Schultz--finding "nothing"!
This FBC Hammond neglect of victims is as bad as IBLP's. And there is clearly much connecting the organizations' common style of management, cover up, guilty victims/forgiven perpetrators. Evil. My Bible says it is better to have a mill stone tied to your neck and be thrown into the sea. KJV must have omitted that verse...
Julia, I listened to her, and was very impressed by her graciousness and her quest for the TRUTH. I was again sickened. Sickened by so much of the evangelical and homeschool movement where this kind of abuse proliferated. (To be fair, I am fully aware of other sectors where these sorts of things happen.) Sickened at my choices of those I listened to for "spiritual" teaching.
Don, thanks for investigating this further. Very interesting that Gibbs II covered up for Hyles.
I find it so interesting and just like God to use the one thing in her life she had told her self to give up - her voice. She was taught to be quiet and keep all this insane behavior to herself and not tell anyone. At the right time God told her "It is time to talk." He is certainly our glory and the lifter up of our head. I appreciate Him so much and how He works. He makes the blind to see and the dumb to speak.
I looked up some of the sites out there on veteran suicides, too, & they say an active duty vet commits suicide every 65 minutes. This IS tragically unacceptable. And it would take a genuine, integrity-bound Christian to be able to find ways to minister the One [Jesus] authentic Answer [the power of the gospel] to the hurts of such compromised people. God bless our vets. We owe them gratitude & loyalty nearly as much as we owe these to Christ.
Over on DG (or, Covering Disgrace), Bill's defender has ardently claimed that Bill did not default to his parent's authority so as to avoid church authority &/or board of director's authority. Rather, it was supposedly a Bible mandate that he be under his parent's authority & no other. This makes me wonder; did Bill ever let those in his organization know that the board was just a prop to fulfill governmental regulations? Did the board even know that's all that they were? They know it now, for sure. Also, when Ruth & Robin & Robin's dad made multiple appeals to Bill to please realize that he had been physically inappropriate, did he refer either party to his father? It would seem that his lie of stating to Ruth that he no longer worked with young women anymore was to bypass his father's being presented with the truth. He dismissed Ruth's concern with this lie, never sending her to his father with it, although there was no way his father could have heard the truth unless Ruth had aired to him her personal experience as Bill's personal assistant. (With Bill lying about his close proximity with young women his father would have had to have heard the truth from another source). How could Bill's parents discipline him appropriately if (A): none of the people making complaints were aware (until now) that he was "Biblically" obligated to live in obedience to them. And,(B): Any action on these complaints was circumvented by Bill's telling complainants that he hadn't gotten enough negative signals in doing his inappropriate touching for him to have any incentive to stop it. So, according to what Bill told the complainants, any taking "up the chain" to his parents would have been nothing other than a confession of his victim's "failure." "Failure" for not making HIM stop HIS inappropriate touching. Robin's being lectured to this effect amounted to her & her dad, as well as Ruth & Larne, all being lied to. Why were they not instead referred by Bill to his father? After all, if such lies protective of Bill were deemed necessary to protect him, why was his umbrella of protection (parent) cheated out of these opportunities to tell the lies? (And thus be the entity protecting him in so doing? The umbrella is to be stayed under to get protection, not?!?) One would think Bill would have relied on his umbrella for protection. Rather than direct lying of his own. He must have really doubted that his parent(s) would have likewise banked on such dishonesty to protect him. In contemplating the what-ifs of instead leaving it up to them, he may have feared being challenged by them regarding his behavior; & why risk this when you can immediately rely on lies of your own?!?!? Hence, this was it; to keep this info from ever reaching them in the 1st place as well as blame-shifting guilt for his own conduct. Which means, he DID view them as authority of some sort, in thus bypassing their authority. He feared his parents, sure enough; his lies indicate this as yet another motive in his deception. But not fear enough to subject himself to them.
Agree for a minute with DG that adult Bill had to have his parents as his authority, not in an avoidance of any other accountability, but as a Bible standard. If this was the case, then he failed miserably in the area of sexual expression, which is what reference DG uses to say he was thus obligated: Genesis 28:1,2,3,4,5,6,7. This one of the 2 passages referenced by DG. The other is Leviticus 19:3 "Every one of you shall reverence his mother & his father, & you shall keep my sabbaths; I am the LORD your God." This at the very least means to honor one's parents. It sure doesn't seem very respectful of Bill's parents that DG claims that he was under their direct supervision the whole time he carried on his inappropriate touching. Plus Bill's deceitful wrecking of at least several successful deliveries of information which his parents could have utilized to give him direction in this area. Which, had they had this necessary info, could have resulted in orders to change his behavior which he then could have followed.
Alfred deserved an award for best spin. The same Alfred also stated that Bill's parents wanted him married and Bill didn't marry in disobedience to the wishes of his parents. You can't have it both ways. Bill's father left the ministry in 1980 after the sex scandal blew up in their faces. He passed away in 1994. Alfred can't have it both ways and all of this shows how he is just grasping at straws and the hope that people won't see through his spin and excuses. There is a huge difference between honoring parents and obey parents. Jesus made is pretty clear in a number of statements to his disciples that following and obey God supersedes that of obeying parents. Jesus stated that following Him trumps one's family. This is just another excuse by Alfred the great, master of spin. It's sad because blind following of Bill has corrupted thinking, reasoning, logic and even honesty. I'm not sure when the Robin story happen but if it was around the time Bill's father passed away, I'm sure Bill Sr was in no health condition to appeal to to be involved, he wasn't apart of the ministry at that point and Alfred's appeal that Bill only had to "obey" his dad is so bogus, it doesn't even deserve the time of day or even night.
Nicole Gardner and Rob War,Bless you both.Thank you so much for your thoughts,hearts,and comments.With Gothardism,[here I go again],the heart of [his] authoritarianism is a complete diabolical narcissism.Gothard has"rights",ours can be "maneuvered,"by his.His options for keeping us silenced;used before with brilliant calculation always gave him the emotional upper hand according to his contrived established attainment.I had to read the accounts of such girls as Heather,Ruth,and if that's not enough,Jane Doe 2,Jamie Deering.Blatantly dehumanizing,causing my or anyone else's anger against blackmail,degradation,indignity of the human soul,disregard to the vulnerability of the naive.No matter.As a slap in the face,he confessed in 1987,at the Twin Cities Seminar,that there was only one 14 year old girl suffering "for righteousness sake".What that could possibly mean at that time was a straw man invented to keep any "other"from speaking out.Gothard was there first and he established the spectrum of rationale,he defined it, based on his own wickedness and moral insanity.What is now,and was subliminally taught is for us to keep our mouths shut;to "suffer for Jesus",We'll be rewarded for it some day,but not now.Justice will be ministered some day, but not now.Give up your rights,[for they were already taken from you.]Infact they were taken from us all.Important ministry coming from his worthy attainment has been interrupted,and he needs to get back to it as soon as possible.You are in the way,I'm in the way,and if he never repents,that and that alone is the extent of his desperation.
David: "he established the spectrum of rationale,he defined it"
Hallmark of a covert narcissist. I lived it, as have many others. And many still do, although only a fraction recognize it for what it is. It's the missing piece when outsiders look in to a situation and shake their heads wondering, "why does she put up with that?" or "why doesn't she do so and so?" They really can't imagine what her world is like.
BG has established and defined the spectrum of rationale on a magnanimous scale, to a corresponding degree of detriment.
Thanks Elizabeth D.and Nicole Gardner;all you gals hung in there with Alfred;something I couldn't do,and that's along with Rob War.At that website over there.Another thing about Gothard's narcissism was the "world" he created.He was his own god,or should I say he was god in the "world"he "gave"to us so we could live and have our "being"in his "better" world.His world in exchange for the Kingdom;for his creation was superior to the world we could not quite understand.So he broke it down for us to understand;he reduced it;for life was so much more dangerous outside his"world";we exchanged our freedoms for the "guarantee" of protection.The thing is no one could protect us ultimately from the potential abuse of both his masked but unbridled flesh,and what he did with all accountability removed towards any he was exclusively entitled to abuse.We couldn't quite bring ourselves to protest against one who had our own best interests in mind as well as the burgeoning amount of young girls needed to mentor,I.E.spend on his lusts.The problem was all of us may not have been totally pliable enough to be shaped,molded,and ultimately turned into automatons.Always reserving the self appointed right to throw us out when new life was needed,We found ourselves expendable.We were expendable he was not;but now,his conjured kingdom comes to this;and after the trial,?None may find it possible to take one sober look,one serious moral appraisal at what transpired over all the years.
"Give up your rights.... they were already taken from you."
So accurate of his schemes of selfish pragmatism. This is actually a contradiction: Saying one has to never fight back when their rights are taken from them in order to be laying down one's rights. There is no laying down of one's rights in such instance!!! It's like saying that if someone tries to abduct & beat you, you must die to self, that this situation requires this dying to self. You don't have to determine to die when you're already being beat within an inch of your life! Bill banks on this feeding pride so that it morphs into a martyr complex so there's claims of: "I died to self" in place of: "Someone hurt me." It's a ruse to trick people into not defending themselves. I believe he's fully aware of this pragmatism in what he's taught. His business interest has benefited more than enough from it. Seeing him in the very best light possible has him, at the very least, as Satan's emissary for indoctrinating by this heresy.
btw, Rob & David, everything else you said is no less true, it's just this is what most stood out to me.
Elizabeth D: ^WORD^
And very well put.
Dear LynnCD,
Thank you for your February 9 comment. There was no reply button, so I am replying here. My own opinion is that authority is difficult to get right. If Bill Gothard got it wrong, he is only one among many. Most of us probably err about authority. I think my libertarian political opinions are Christian, but my church friends think their conservative opinions are Christian. Our views are different enough that we cannot both be correct. The situation calls for love, not war. So I have an indulgent attitude toward Bill Gothard's opinions. When I was in ATI, I led my family as I thought best. The ATI unit studies seemed petty good, so I used them. But I may yet get busted. Perhaps one of my adult children are lurking here on RG and will pounce upon me with a vengeance.
Even the Lord's apostles seem to straddle the authority topic. Consider 1 Peter 5:5, where Peter begins by telling younger Christians to submit to their elders (natural authorities?). Then he takes the opposite side. He turns around and calls for mutual submission in humility.
David K
p.s. If you remember Gothard publications from the 1970s, you must be a sister from my generation. Long live the generation of eight-tracks and pet rocks!
David K, yes, pet rocks, but all I had was a small battery operated am/fm radio and some record albums.
My husband and I attended Basic Seminars, Anger Resolution Seminars, and our children went to a couple Children's Institutes. We did not get involved with ATI. I have seen the inner workings of the TC at Indianapolis. We did homeschooling for elementary education.
As far as authority goes, I agree none of us get things right all the time. I believe Bill's evasion of accountability is much more serious than a difference of opinion. He has vilified honest critics of some of his teaching, and has vilified those who tried to deal with the original sex scandal. He has spent hours alone, sometimes late at night, with many young women, and he has admitted to inappropriate physical affection with them. I wish for his sake, for the sake of the women who were hurt, and all of us who followed some of the unbiblical teachings, that he would have shown himself to be a man under authority.
There are men who have been involved in trying to confront Bill. A frequent commenter here is Bill's former pilot, Larne Gabriel, who has been involved in these endeavors. Larne, Bill Wood, and others who have been around from the beginning currently stand by their assessment that Bill is not repentant. I am persuaded by their testimony and their arguments. I do not wish anything bad for Bill Gothard. I pray and hope for his repentance.
David k, LynnCD,
"Birds of a feather, flock together!" Yes, those Pet Rocks and 8 tracks....You can't beat that era. David, it is nice to know that there is another libertarian in the crowd. I also am, uh, a "conspiratorialist," so I don't know who really runs the country,. All I know is that it is not me (LOL)!. I have also been anti-establishment (Remember "Question authority". Now I want to shout out "question bg's authority"----to which he has none in either direction). I know that when clergy (or quasi types like bg) harp on certain issues with hammer (and chisel?) fists, they more than likely have trouble with that area. This is apparent with BG not wanting to submit (I, too, hate that word in a gothardian context) to his board---at least it appears that way. In America, we do have our rights, our ancestors fought for them. We the people ARE the "authority". So where did BG come up with the notion of unquestioning obedience to authority as if we were living in some totalitarian nation? Uph dah! I think I will give up reading the Covering Disgrace site for Lent! Peace! Tk
Hello, fellow son of the 70s. If you are a family man like me, we probably agree on a distinction between libertarian and libertine.
I submit that there really is a principle of authority which applies in natural and legitimate ways. I may justly rule the members of my household, but I had better do a good job or they may secede. The businessman may rule his business, but his employees can secede if he rules poorly, etc. Where there is free association there is authority but no real coercion. If we leaders are loving and just, then "love will keep us together," as our generation used to hear from Toni Tennille.
But don't be unfair to Gothard, brother. I saw some of his material just yesterday. For all his deference to authority, we really cannot call it unquestioning. He may be mystical about God speaking through bosses, politicians, and wives, but he puts a fair amount of weight upon appeals, obeying God first, suffering for righteous disobedience, etc.
Have a holy Lent,
David K
David S K
Thank you for your comments and insights. At the "Basic Seminar" back in the early '80's. BG stated that you submit to the authorities whether they were wrong or right. BG, at least it appeared to me was just the opposite of what I learned, "Don't question authority." At that time, I knew I was right when the old 60's-70's slogan stated, "Never trust anyone over 30." Now that I am over 55 (AARP age), my new slogan is "Never trust anyone UNDER 30" LOL! Whatever, my slogan in the now is "Do not trust anything BG!" I do trust in God's Word, but not BG's interpretation of it. Peace, Love and Blessings!
Tk
To David Knecht:
I am responding to your comment of 2/12.
Youthful agility...chuckle; for me, it seems like a lifetime ago...
You & your family appear to be well & happy. PTL!!!
FYI:
1n 1937, inventor Walter F. Morrison flips a popcorn lid to friends at a Thanksgiving gathering.
In 1946, Walter F. Morrison sketches a design for the world's first flying disc and names it Whirlo-Way.
In 1955, Walter F. Morrison's company PIPCO manufactured and sold the PLUTO PLATTER flying disc.
In 1957, Walter F. Morrison signs all rights to the PLUTO PLATTER over to Wham-O.
**Later in 1957, Wham-O changes the name to FRISBEE.
David and Todd, I think you both need to try to separate your political theories from your theology. Ideas such as secession really do not apply to Christians. We have ONE Lord. And we have no place else to go. Lincoln equated secession with divorce, equating the constitution to a marriage covenant. You can't secede from a covenant. It is a death pact. You have to die to get out of it. That might advise against being "unequally yoked" in business, political connection or otherwise. But if you think like a secessionist, you will never comprehend covenant: the foundation of God's full and faithful relationship with us.
BTW, I am not my children's or my wife's "lord". I am my minor children's temporary guardian and my wife's partner, joint heir, co-regent of whatever piece of the creation the Lord has called us to cultivate.
Don
I appreciate your comments, and I know that we are on the same side with BG and the IBLP. But I don't quite understand what you were trying to get across with succession or what the deal is. I do believe in covenants (biblical). Unless you grew up in the hippie era, or was one ( to whatever degree) or both, It is hard to understand what our ( " forever young" ) gen is talking about or what we are made of. But fear not, we still love ya! As far as "submitting" ( I hate that word in a BG context), I still raise the question , " Who really runs the country? Are things really as they appear? For example, IMHO, I believe the last real president we had was JFK, and they ambushed him. Ever since then....Anyway, so I don' t get to far off the rabbit trail or down the rabbit hole, and back to the RG--- BG did emphasize total submission to authorities, which was so uncool. It is like the Bible ( yes, Bible thumping hippies were one of the best witnesses for Jesus, in fact the youth revivals of the 60'sand 70' s could not be beat ) says, "we must obey God rather than man." I believe that in the near future we will have our faith tested as the "government" is becoming more and more anti Christian. I'm not sure if you are are getting my drift or not, but regardless, I wish you faith, hope, and love. Tk
To Todd K:
I found your comment to David amusing:
"It is nice to know that there is another libertarian in the crowd. I also am, uh, a "conspiratorialist," so I don't know who really runs the country"... (chuckle)
I, too, consider myself a Libertarian & often a 'conspiratorialist'. Who IS really running our country??? Our ancestors surely fought for our rights!!! (Regardless, I continue to 'Stand with Rand'!!!)
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." (The Preamble to Our Constitution)
WE ARE TO BE THE AUTHORITY!!!
BTW, I am from the (Pluto Platters) generation. lol If you enjoyed playing 'Frisbee' at age 10, you were part of the 'in crowd'. Though we were economically poor...those were the days. :+)
Amen!
Blessings! Tk
And in all these things, and in light of the Covering Disgrace" website, I have to wonder what life was like before BG, IBYC/ATI and all that stuff. Man o man! One would think that the whole nation (world) was going to you know where in a hand basket. That every follower of Jesus Christ was going down the wayward path and needed BG to be some type of proto messiah. Uph dah! (That is the Norwegian equivalent for "Oh no!"---kind of like Oi is in the Yiddish). Jesus said, "On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it." But we needed IBYC. Ah, well we needed it like a drowning person needs to have an anchor tossed to him or her instead of a life jacket. Mercy me, we have local congregations, we did not need that "basic" or "advanced" whatever. Jesus said, "The Kingdom of God is within you." Going to the basic and pastor's seminars, i felt insulted, patronized and condescended towards. The only silver lining in all that junk was that someone else paid for my way there (when I was coerced to attend such boring time wasters). I still am looking for the answer of the question, "What was the point of these seminars" outside of being put into bondage)? Peace, love and music to all of you! Tk
What fun! It appears that we have a spontaneous and nostalgic graybeard fellowship forming here. Brethren Todd and huz, you may be correct about the Gothard authority teaching more than thirty years ago. I attended the Basic Seminar back then, but I was in the military at the time, so I was pretty comfortable with a yessir attitude toward life. Over the next thirty years, Gothard may have softened from authoritarianism to more emphasis on godly appeals and courageous suffering.
Or maybe the change was more in me. You know, middle age, discovering Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, etc.
Anyway brethren, fatherhood is making this graybeard an optimist. Some of my children are in those lofty thirties, others in twenties and teens. And they are all more trustworthy than their father was at their ages. Jesus gets all the credit for this, but they probably wouldn't exist if it weren't also for Gothard. Their mom and I attended the seminar together in summer of 1981. Engagement and marriage followed, then the children. I guess we could qualify as gothardites to some degree back then, but God set up all the good outcomes.
Pluto Platters doesn't ring any bells, but frisbee does. Our former youthful agility is a warm memory, but we compensate by being wise and thoughtful now, right?
And thanks for the tip on Norwegian euphemism, brother Todd. I wonder when that might come in handy? It reminds me of that scene in the 1979 movie, Airplane. "I speak jive."
Maranatha,
David K
It's interesting you bring up 1 Peter 5:5 and the surrounding verses. That is the second time this week God has called my attention to that passage - and I have a pretty good idea why, but that's a story for another day. :-)
But I don't see a contrast or contradiction between the call to submit to elders and the call to mutual humility and submission. On the contrary, I think the call to submit can only be properly understood in light of Peter's instruction in the previous verses to the elders of the church. He warns them not to lord it over those in their care, and urges them to serve the flock and to be good examples. This is the kind of servant-leadership that Jesus showed with His disciples. Peter is painting a picture of the way things should work in a good, healthy church, where the elders care for the people and the people show respect and deference to the leadership of the elders. I don't believe it is intended as some kind of absolute command to submit unquestioningly to bad leadership in the church. As with many things in the Bible, if you take one sentence out of context, you get an unbalanced and distorted view of what he's saying.
It's also worth noting that Peter seems to be talking specifically about the appointed role of Elder in the church, not a general call to submit to anyone who happens to be older than you, although the Bible certainly encourages showing deference and respect to the wisdom of age in general.
Hello sister Vivian. Nice coincidence that we were both looking at that 1 Peter passage. My take is similar to yours. I see a contrast (in the rhetorical sense), but not a contradiction. Of course the epistle is directed to church officers, yet there is plenty of material for application for us "elders" in contexts other than church.
Peace,
David K
Good points, Vivian. You helped me see that I Peter 5 parallels Ephesians 5 as it discusses husband and wife. First: submit to one another; Second: love and serve; third submit to that love. These authoritarians do not teach submission to sacrificial love, but submission to lording it over. Their "authority" is the inverse of Christ's servanthood.
You know something that has bothered me for many years regarding this submission stuff? When you go to a church, if the pastor, elders, etc... believe this extreme view, you are under their authority.
Ummm... I don't even KNOW or TRUST you yet. I can leave as I wish - 1 month or 5 years later - after I have really gotten to know the leadership and people here.
If you do leave, they say "you are out from under authority". Well, what if I know you now and do not want to be under your authority? Can I say "God has other plans for my life"? Does that have to go through you? That is creepy. I did not sign up for you to be my lifelong conscience.
I have seen that over and over and have lived it.
This may seem simple and old hat to some on here but it really hit me one day when I thought "I can change this situation if I want to as long as God himself is not telling me not to. You are no more "over me" than the guy at the grocery store meat counter or a Dr. who I do not trust and leave his office for a second opinion.
This "submission" strange fire sets up 2 very, very unhealthy things in the lives of those involved:
1.It gives a power surge to the guy (and gals) teaching it. He ought to know he is no better than anyone at the church he works for and he has no more a conduit to God than they. The Old and New Testament get a bit mixed in these churches - the Moses thing and Paul.
2. It encourages the weak or new or lazy Christian to rely on the pastor for their pablum. This is no way to grow strong in Christ. We need to gut out our own answers with the help of godly people, granted. We feed ourselves with the Word of God and good teaching and in fellowship with those we trust and prayer, we grow.
No more of this nonsense in our home. We go to a healthy church where growth is encouraged and help is always available. They do not try to claim authority or live your life for you or gossip about you. Amen.
Julia,
I know how you feel about not feeling right about a pastor or church wanting me to be under their authority, when it seems like it's not something of the Lord.
I am wondering to what extent you *might* agree with my feeling that the whole system of churches with pastors in this sense, that we see today, is not really according to the Bible. I had and have that feeling. For a long time it was just a vague sense, but at a certain point, a number of years ago, I came across some books that gave a different interpretation of the Bible, on this point, that I believe is the correct interpretation.
After reading what you wrote, I got motivated to write a brief explanation of that interpretation, which as I say I agree with, as follows:
Where does it say in the Bible that there can be different churches on one street, each with a different pastor, and all of them are genuinely the "church of God"? (1 Cor. 1:2)
Actually what it says is just that, "the" church of God "which is in Corinth." The use of the definite article indicates that there is only one church (church of God) in the city of Corinth. If you look at Revelation 1 and 2, you can see this kind of phrasing repeated: "the church in Ephesus." "the church in Smyrna." "the church in Pergamos," and so on for the other four churches in Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.
Paul's other epistles refer to churches in the same way.
On the assumption that the choice of words in the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, means something, it's necessary to ask why the definite article is used. What I read in those books I referred to is that "the church" in any one city referred to "all" the genuinely saved believers in that city. In those days of course there were no denominations. All the believers in any one city met together.
I've heard it said that's it's like the moon. There is only one moon in relation to the earth. But people live on different places of the earth and see the moon from where they live, so you could say "the moon in Shanghai" or "the moon in Buenos Aires" or "the moon in Chicago." In the same way, there is only one church, one Body of Christ, on the whole earth, but since people live in different places, they have to see and participate in the church in the place where they live, so there is a need to say "the church in New York City." But since there cannot be division in the Body, you can't say the "churches" in New York City, just as the Bible never says anything like "the churches in Corinth."
It is necessary for there to be separate churches only because of geography, because it's impossible to have all the believers who form the "church," the Body of Christ, on earth, gather together in the same place. They have to gather together according to geography. And the Bible consistently makes this separation by geography according to the city, designating one church to one city.
In addition to this, it simply does not say anywhere in the Bible that any church should have a person called "the" pastor. Instead the Bible refers to elders, such as Acts 14:23: "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church...." Paul and Barnabas, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, appointed elders from among the more mature brothers in the newly formed churches in the cities mentioned in verses 20 and 21. The congregation did not choose the elders, either by voting or by any other means, and there was no one person among them who took the lead and was the "pastor." The elders, plural, who did not seek or choose their position but were appointed by the Spirit, took the responsibility corporately for leading and caring for the flock, the church in their city.
Also, the elders are charged not to lord it over the believers, but to become "patterns of the flock," (1 Pet. 5:3), leading by example.
This doesn't mean that there is no authority in the church, but that the elders are charged not to exercise authority in a "lording it over" way. If I as a believer realize within myself that the elders are right before the Lord and that the Lord's speaking is with them, it becomes incumbent on me to obey them because what they are speaking is from God. I accept the the speaking and the authority that comes from the Lord through the proper elders in the proper churches.
Anyone who takes it on himself to stand up and say "I have God's speaking and you must obey me" needs to be tested as 1 John 4:1 says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
All quotations are from the Recovery Version of the Bible, which can be read online at:
http://www.recoveryversion.org/index.html This version of the Bible was translated by and contains footnotes written by the people who put forth the interpretation I tried to summarize above.
Replying to myself to say that I accidentally put my full name in there! I usually use the username Grace M and hadn't intended to identify myself, but I did it anyway. Well, I don't know if anyone reading this is someone who knows me--I don't know of anyone. But if so, you're welcome to contact me if you'd like. The moderators have my permission to give out my email address to anyone who would like to contact me, actually, whether they know me or not.
Grace, I think a lot of us agree with a few of your assertions. I do believe you make a mistake in logic to interpet "the church in Ephesus", etc. as indicating that there CAN and SHOULD be only one "church" in any city. How large is New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago? What is the geographical area of Jacksonville or Oklahoma City? Why would the municipal boundaries of humans have anything to do with the church of God? All those references to a church in the first generation were simply references to facts, not prescriptions. Other churches are mentioned as "the church that meets in so-and-so's house"! Does that mean that the entire church must meet in that person's house or that all churches must meet in someone's house? Of course not. Even in that day, the church was already dividing into distinct groups: people left Jerusalem and established churches elsewhere. Paul and Silas divided over John Mark and went in different directions, establishing different churches. Paul had to chastise Peter. The tension between different perspectives, human frailties and the Truth of a Universal Church has always torn us apart.
Yes, there is ONE church. (Catholics use that to urge us to join them.) But that does not mean we all can or should meet in the same place at the same time. Worse, how do you know which local congregation should close down, fire their staff and join in with which other congregation? Worse, those who proof text saying it can only be called "the church of God" or only "the church of Christ" themselves reject the many variations of expression in the New Testament and do not recognize that "church" is not a biblical term but an Anglo or Germanic term. Ecclesia is the bible term and most of the strict name crowd don't even use the English translation: "assembly".
I urge you to keep studying the entirety of Scripture, respect the frailties of your brothers and sisters which keep us apart and work toward unity in the church without pointing fingers based on proof texts and narrow interpretations. There is no new dispute under the sun. Your argument is as old as Christianity. But Jesus said that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is there. That is my foundation. I pray it is yours.
good answer Don, I actually knew shepherding churches that proof text statements about meeting at different people's homes to literally mean that todays church should met in homes and not another building dedicated for believers getting together. I also point out that during NT times, the Church was very small and illegal, so those circumstance likewise added to the house church situation.
Hello Brother Don,
My first response is, oh, my. Did I come across as pointing fingers? Ouch. That hurts. Now I can look back at what I wrote and see that maybe I did take that kind of tone, so I appreciate your gentle rebuke there, and I apologize. I didn't mean to say anything at all against any individual dear believer who is my brother or sister; each one should take the way that they believe is right in the eyes of the Lord, as I'm doing and everyone who posts here is doing, and I nor anyone else have any right to say that anyone should do anything different. Each person is accountable to the Lord Jesus.
I do still have an issue with any "system" that might take advantage of any of us, and that's what I was writing about.
I was uncomfortable with the system (a typical denomination I was raised in) even when I was being raised in it; even though I am grateful to them for teaching me the Bible, and I was saved through them, something about it didn't seem right to me even when I was a young child. And when I came across this other way of seeing things, it seems far more in line with the scripture, to me.
One of the things that I appreciate about the kind of interpretation that I was trying to explain is that it "is" inclusive. The church in Corinth included "all" the dear and precious believers in Christ who were in Corinth, without excluding anyone on any nonessential point of doctrine. We know what the essential points are, that Jesus is the Son of God, our eternal salvation is only through faith in His death on the cross, He is coming again to establish His eternal kingdom for eternity, where we will dwell with Him. This isn't completely thorough, but anyway, we know what it is.
If someone doesn't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then that is not one we include in the church. But if they believe in, for example, a different method of baptism from what we believe is right, or don't want to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, that's not an essential point of doctrine and no one can be excluded from the Christian community, "the church of God," on that basis. If we are the church, we receive every believer and respect their portion of Christ and do not interfere with their private considerations about nonessential points.
You know, Paul corrected the Corinthians because they said "I am of" certain leading brothers. We all know that. Paul desired that they all be one in Christ and not take a stand that divided them in any way. Do you think there's any possibility that this might be what denominations do? The Lutherans are saying "I am of Luther," the Methodists are saying "I am of Wesley," the Baptists are saying "I am of the doctrine of baptism," and so on? Of course we all love Luther and Wesley and appreciate their priceless contribution to our Christian history by their faithful following of the Lord's move in their time. Of course we believe in and need and appreciate baptism. But if we name our church after them, are we doing anything different than the ones in Corinth who said "I am of Apollos"? Paul was not in any way criticizing Apollos by exhorting the Corinthian believers not to say that they were "of" him.
You can even see the generosity and inclusiveness of Paul's heart because after he rebuked the Corinthians for allowing the immoral brother to be among them, and after they took the proper steps to discipline him, in 2nd Corinthians he urged them to moderate their disciplining of him lest he be swallowed up by excessive sorrow. Paul desired to regain and restore even the sinning brother, not to exclude him.
I once heard a story that a man met another man, a stranger. They were both believers, and one of them asked the other "What church do you belong to?" The reply was, “I belong to the same church to which you belong, the same church to which the apostle Paul, the apostle Peter, the apostle John, and Martin Luther belonged, and the same church to which all believers belong.” The first man replied: "that would be wonderful."
Don't you agree that that would be wonderful? That's the point I'm trying to make, not to point any fingers at anybody. I can't point any fingers, as the saying goes, without having three fingers pointing back at myself. I'm not saying that I'm doing anything right and anyone else is doing anything wrong. I'm just saying I think this is the proper interpretation of the church in the Bible, and it would be awesome if it could be fully put into practice, and I do believe that that's the Lord's heart and intention for His church on the earth. If the Lord is carrying this out anywhere, His heart's desire for the church, I want to do my best to find it and be a part of it!
Your sister in Christ, Grace M
I need to add to my comment. I had referred to the immoral brother in Corinthians and that after he was properly disciplined Paul wanted to restore him. I should have added that not only was he properly disciplined, he also properly repented. I'm just adding that because I'm conscious of the primary discussion going on on this board. I had no thought of that person who is under discussion when I picked that example. I was only strictly referring to the record in Corinthians.
And I agree with all of this clarification. Thank you, Grace. Our call is to unity and we SHALL know such ONENESS as we cannot even imagine today! I suppose my solution to the problem of institutional control and abuse is maturity, confidence in Christ, and the kind of humility that Paul does demonstrate in so many ways in II Corinthians. (That's "2nd Corinthians" for you Mr. Trump!) Such humility disarms the dividers.
Humility was false in Mr. Gothard because he was more than willing to categorically condemn anything inconsistent with "his way".
Don,
I actually did not experience any abuse that I can remember in my early years in a denomination. I have only positive memories. They were kind to me, they taught me Bible stories and Bible verses, helped me receive the Lord when I was in first grade, sang songs and played games with me and let me have little friends. I was happy either to go to Sunday School or sit in "big church" and sing hymns. (That was before our family was influenced and damaged by IBYC seminars, which happened in my teen years.)
Nonetheless I can clearly remember, when I was all of seven or eight years old, having a sense of looking around me on Sunday morning and saying to myself, is this it? Is there not anything more meaningful than this? I felt vaguely uncomfortable, and the sensation stayed with me throughout my upbringing. I felt like I wasn't really receiving everything there was to receive from the Word. This feeling stayed with me after I graduated from high school and went to Bible college (not by my choice--that was my dad's choice for me.) I still felt "this is not bad, but it can't be all there is. There must be something more."
When I was in my later 20's and received the teaching that I've been speaking about in these posts was when I felt like I began to touch something of life and reality. That was when I had the sense that "I felt sure there must be something more and this is it. This is where God's heart is. Jesus Christ is building His church. This is the correct interpretation of the Bible, and something that can genuinely be put into practice according to the Lord's desire for His church." This sense has never left me, but has only grown in me.
I'm horrified by the stories of actual abuse in Christian congregations these days, and my heart aches for the people who have suffered in such a way, but that's not what happened to me and not what I got discouraged by when I was younger. (I did experience serious abuse in other areas of my life, though, so I'm not unaware of what it means.)
I always enjoy my discussions with you, Brother Don :) And I appreciate your faith that we will shall know the true oneness in Him!
I just saw Grace's question to me as there is no way but to peruse the entire thread here to find new comments/questions. Actually I am very glad Don answered before I saw this. I agree with Don, Grace, and at the same time see the beauty of the inclusiveness you were pointing out - the Church = Christians. One Body. Beautiful.
This may sound strange but one thing my husband and I have always talked about and looked forward to if we live to see real persecution of the Church is the unity it brings. If you read any accounts of real suffering and persecution, you will notice that those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus come together. Catholic, Baptist, Assembly of God, Anglican. Lines blur and what matters is Jesus and helping one another survive. In this we may finally see unity.
Grace M.,
I understand your views here as they are mine as well.
There's something terribly sad about driving down a street for 15 minutes and seeing the same number or more of different church buildings (I can't even really call them churches anymore without adding the building part as we all know what the true Church is!).
I came out of institutional church for several years while I was processing all of these new ideas (new for me but what I believe God's heart for His church really is), but am back in it now as I do have true community and sharing in the life of Christ with some of the attendees there.
It still really, really bothers me the idea of one "pastor" who does the bulk of the teaching. Or hearing someone say to him "your church" the other day. No, it is Christ's church.
No one will steal God's glory and I think that's one reason why we've seen scandal after scandal lately as men with right intentions originally were then tempted by the power and glory and honor that came to them after a period of time. But this would be much less likely to occur if no one man was held to the position of "pastor" in a specific group of believers.
Julia Fetters^^^^ And so goes the process of the truth that sets free! Amen & amen. My escape from my boyfriend's & his church's pressure on me to become entirely submissive to him by ceasing my argumentative refusals to have sex with him went much the same way. I would say "God bless you"- but it's obvious He already has.
Grace M.
I see your heart for unity among the brethren, as well as that you are a Berean in making the noble attempt to study Scripture for yourself. All of us here are better off being in this pursuit than being in the systems where we used to be. I recently read the entire url linked below. It's about one church (possibly the only one like it in America) that monopolized an entire region. It is quite the read.
http://www.washingtonian.com/2016/02/14/the-sex-abuse-scandal-that-devastated-a-suburban-megachurch-sovereign-grace-ministries/
Hi Nicole,
Thanks for the kind words. I have to say, I do study the Bible for myself, but nothing I posted is anything I came up with. I couldn't come up with it by myself if I studied for 100 years.
I took a look at the website you posted but I don't get how it's related to what I was posting about. I didn't think that group had anything at all to do with the kind of interpretation I was writing about.
I may be wrong about it's seeming relativity. It's just that: SGM was the only conglomerate of churches that I've ever heard of (outside of mainstream denominations, the locations of which are dispersed), that could be identifiable if referred to as "the church of________ (insert name of D.C. or Maryland suburb)." These/it monopolized that entire region, geographically speaking.
It may not relate to what you said about an ideal of people considering themselves to be part of only one church even as all these met in their tens of thousands of respective home-groups. The reason I think it does is that the population of each of these was grouped SGM-ers. What IS certain, though, is this: it definitely was a bad thing for this church/these home-churches (it was one Cluster of many clusters) was considered "one"- a disaster both by/for the leaders & by/for the congregants.
Size, prestige, & net worth all constituted both the growth & also the implosion lit by C.J. Mahaney's administration's complacency. The axiom of all these is solidarity. I myself wouldn't be in a loving, thru-the-Bible-one-chapter-at-a-time little "poor" church that I've been at for awhile now if it had any solidarity with the places I've been.
Hi Nicole,
Well, that's not really what I was saying. I didn't mention home groups and that's not what this interpretation is about. It's also not that people get together and say "we are all one church," and certainly not that anybody tries to dominate a region, that's surely not in the Bible.
Actually when I was thinking about what you wrote I was reminded of what Jesus said in Matt. 16:18, "I will build My church." So the church is not something created by people anyway. Jesus is building His church. If we try to make something and call it the church, we are in trouble! If we mean business to be part of the church, we have to go to Him and ask Him what He is doing on earth and what His intention is for us to do in order to find and participate in His building of the church, and seek out what He says about His church in the Bible.
I feel like that's what the people who put forth the interpretation I'm talking about did, very much, and that's why I pay attention to it. If you're interested in learning more about it, here's a link. It's an excerpt from an online book, but you can go down to the bottom of the page and click on a link to read the entire book online, and you can go to the index to find a lot of related books.
http://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/THE-BASIS-OF-THE-CHURCHES.HTML
I've been mulling over the passages about obedience to elders. I think we have to distinguish positional elders vs. spiritual elders. Jesus says in John 10: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep."
So, we see that there are those who look like leaders in every aspect, but they did not enter through the door. The church is not the door, Jesus is. So, too, we must understand that not all of the leaders the church puts over us are truly leaders. The church makes much of the process of choosing and appointing leaders, but ultimately it is Christ who chooses. In fact, I think in the modern church, the definition of leadership has become theological knowledge, energy and force of will, rather than wisdom. When Jesus asked the disciples if they were going to leave, they said, "where would we go? You have the words of eternal life". The disciples recognized wisdom. Jesus did not have to use fear or the threat of discipline. Those who left left and those who stayed stayed.
Now, I do believe we need leaders to protect the flock - those who recognize abusers and bad theology and are willing to stand against, but too often, the abuse is done by the church leaders and the very leaders who should be protecting the flock instead circle the wagons around abusive leadership.
That said, though, the authority in the church is not the authority in the world, and the more the church leadership uses the world's tools, like fear, intimidation and punishment, the more obvious it should seem that the church has denied the work of the Spirit and is instead putting themselves in God's place with relation to the congregation, and that becomes very, very dangerous. Are your leaders chosen for their service, or their service of manipulating others to serve them?
To Mark:
Thank you. I found your comments insightful and comforting. <
To say the least this fantastic summary of Gothardism is a diametric opposite of whats in back of the hype,kind smiles and puppet strings.
Mark, that is what I was trying to say. Thank you.
I agree with all, Mark did a great job.
Your comments remind me of something I wrote for my church last year: Sadly, erroneous Christian teaching on authority has resulted in pastors, husbands, and parents exercising their authority just as Jesus taught it should NOT be used! Taken together, I believe the New Testament passages teach that the purpose of God-given authority is to lay one’s life down, to give up one’s life for another. Authority is to love others. The power is primarily over oneself, in order to serve someone else. The focus is on what one gives to others, not on what one gets from others. The command is to love, not to command! This is a prime example of how the good news gospel of the new covenant in Christ Jesus turns traditional human values radically upside down. For Jesus, authority is a chain of love and service inspiring mutual submission from the “bottom up” rather than a chain imposing one-way obedience from the “top down.”
Agreed, I think the erroneous thinking comes down to, "when someone HAS to make the decision, who makes that decision and what should the other person do", and then all the theology gets unwound. But, that involves layers of sin, and I find it's inconsistent with other topics. For example, with divorce, we understand that it is sin that leads to divorce, so the church tends to be unwilling to participate in that sin (i.e. will not grant a divorce unless there are so-called scriptural grounds), but when it comes to a relationship breakdown to the point that the two in that relationship cannot come to an agreement, then the church is happy to get in the middle and command submission.
I guess we can call this relational brinkmanship - the church doesn't want to be involved until the relationship is destroyed, and then they swoop in to save the day. That is usually done by re-victimizing the victim. My wise wife says that the church will generally take the path of least resistance. Siding with "authority" is generally the easiest thing to do, rather than challenging misuse of authority. Or, forcing the victim back into an abusive relationship rather than investigating and dealing with abuse.
Also, another thing about authority is that those who feel they must be superior to their subordinates often have the worst performing teams - the teams are limited by the ability of the one in authority. Those who see their authority as providing support so that their subordinates can flourish usually are the best performing teams. Unfortunately, though, the way leadership is portrayed through our media and churches is the former. One guy who "understands" and has to push the knuckle-dragging masses to succeed.
Mark, you hit a home run with this article!
Mark^
Your comment should be the basis & main composition of a full-fledged article. Am reading it again. And, probably, again!
I believe that is the very reason BG told so many young people that they were selling themselves short in getting married. Or, in some cases, forbidding it forthrightly instead of by such deterrents of flattery. He didn't want those under him aspiring to the higher level of responsibility that marriage is. Didn't want to be over-taken in success in life/faith. (I've always been unmarried & so am categorizing myself in a lesser-responsibility mode right along with Gothard. Thing is, I've never held anybody back, in fact have set couples up successfully [still happily married]). Makes me wonder.... did Gothard EVER support any marriage, EVER? And, I wonder if some already-married people declined to come under his dumbrella, maybe even letting him know his singleness was the reason. Or, maybe he just knew from Scripture alone that he's unqualified to be an elder. From there, it's obvious: pontificating on marriage to married Christians is obviously a no-go for any person who is not even qualified to be a elder. Had I known the Bible better, I'd like to think that I never would have been the IBLP-er that I was. It's a sad reason, but it nonetheless did affect my reasoning. Conversely, BG DID know the Bible. He used it as a 411 on his buyer's market. So.... based on the Bible's reasons that it exalts marriage..... and the simple fact that it is therein exalted.... he WAS threatened by his subordinate's marrying. And he manipulated to diminish this threat. It's too bad for everybody ever in contact with him that he considered every person within his influence as being a subordinate of his.
I agree with the commenters above: authority means 1st of all taking charge of yourself to act in love. This is the authority that facilitates the flourishing of others as they strive to do the same.
18 individual now on the second amended complaint. ttp://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/02/18/second-amended-complaint-filed-in-bill-gothard-iblp-sex-abuse-lawsuit-18-victims-in-lawsuit/
Here's the whole link-- http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/02/18/second-amended-complaint-filed-in-bill-gothard-iblp-sex-abuse-lawsuit-18-victims-in-lawsuit/
"Daniel Dorsett – the Second Amended Complaint states that he began working at IBLP in 1993. From 1994 though 1996 he was Bill Gothard’s primary driver. During this time, Mr. Dorsett saw Bill Gothard sexually harass or molest over one hundred fifty young ladies. Gothard told him that if he told anyone about what he saw he would go 'straight to hell.'"
Thank-you Julie for all your work on this and many other stories. All I can say is OMG, it get worst and worst. IBLP ought to be completely shut down and the properties sold off and the money not only compensated to these victims but scholarship funds set up so ATI students can move on in education and therapy. There is no redeeming value in any of this and the whole thing is damnable and ought to be shut down.
I greatly admire Julie Anne of spiritualsoundingboard.com, but I'm just someone whose name also happens to be Julie Anne! I realized after I posted that link with my name here, it might be confusing.
:) ! Anyway, thanks for the link all the same!
To Julie Anne:
With everything that has taken place and contemplating the testimonies of all those who have not yet come forward, some might believe that those of us 'on the sidelines have become numb' regarding each new revelation...
I have not read the accompanying link yet, but my anxiety level 'took a leap' just glancing: Gothard told him that if he told anyone about what he saw he would go 'straight to hell.' OMG!! Words cannot describe...:+(
That was very similar to my reaction.
The story just keeps getting worse with these new plaintiffs! It looks like Alfred, DG and his employer also got "top billing" on page 11 and 12 of the suit.
I am reminded of Psalm 37 and the evil spoken of as men who sin and cover sin. While the whole chapter is worth reading I like verses 8-11. Billy and the board have much more to for then to the court in DuPage County.
Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath!
Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil.
For the evildoers shall be cut off,
but those who wait for the Lord shall inherit the land.
In just a little while, the wicked will be no more;
though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there.
But the meek shall inherit the land
and delight themselves in abundant peace.
Alfred has now arrived.
WND published an article late Wednesday about the additional plaintiffs. The article quotes Gibbs III quoting a December 31 letter from Gothard:
“In this lawsuit, Gothard has constantly attempted to manipulate and control the lawyers for the plaintiffs. On December 31, 2015, he sent a letter threatening ‘greater damage to your clients and to the cause of Christ if you expand and refine your lawsuit.’ He also seemed to threaten death to the lawyers by stating ‘Jesus affirmed the death penalty for doing this when he stated, ‘He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” He additionally explained that the ’emotional damages of your clients’ were caused by ‘whispering’ and ‘tale-bearing’ against him. He further stated that ‘Christianity is under attack in the world’ and that he wants ‘nothing to do with your amended lawsuit,'” the document said.
I'm wondering if this letter has been posted in full anywhere? My Google can't find it.
The WND article is here: http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/ministry-sex-abuse-cover-up-becoming-like-bill-cosby/#1BQlTAWMeolLGePc.99
The whole quote, including the part around Gothard's quotes, appears to be lifted from the amended lawsuit. I would think the letter would be an exhibit, but I only see two exhibits, neither of which is the letter.
I've since found part of the letter reproduced in Exhibit A: Bill Gothard’s Affidavit which can be found here: http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/02/20/motions-to-disqualify-david-c-gibbs-iii-allege-serious-misconduct/
I highly recommend that people all 145 pages. It provides a really interesting insight into Gothard's thinking. All his public humility and brokenness and deflecting of praise is gone. It reveals a man who thinks incredibly highly of himself fighting tooth and nail to regain control of his empire which he feels was stolen from him. He seems to view the sexual harassment stuff as something of annoying sideshow. What he really cares about is the restoration of his power, money and property.
Thanks, Jeff, for sending this link. It was a lot to wade through, but definitely very worth reading and also very insightful into BG's way of twisting everything. You hit the nail on the head when you said "It reveals a man who thinks incredibly highly of himself fighting tooth and nail to regain control of his empire which he feels was stolen from him. He seems to view the sexual harassment stuff as something of annoying sideshow. What he really cares about is the restoration of his power, money and property."
Interesting how BG is so concerned about certain board members "stealing" the assets when in reality it's BG himself that's so concerned about preserving them!
thank Jeff, spot on analysis.
Thanks Jeff. However, the Gothard/IBLP allegations against Gibbs III reflect what I have warned about for months: Gibbs III has a personal involvement in all this that may prejudice his ability to serve his clients well. His conduct appears to be opportunism, possibly directed as his father, Gibbs Jr., more than toward justice. This will be very ugly from start to finish.
I'm tend to agree with you, Don. It's quite the soap opera. Gibbs III's public response to Gothard isn't overly convincing. I hope that somehow in this soap opera the plaintiffs are heard in their own right and the truth – unalloyed as possible – is known.
On the face of it, Gibs III may have screwed up on the other hand, this may have been a kamikaze on his part to make sure the ship gets sunk. This suit was never about getting money. Everyone who was harmed primarily wanted the truth to be known.
Gothard might get Gibbs disqualified, but Gothard really really starts to look like a scumbag now that the truth is out on the table about his conniving to take back control. He wanted back power so bad, he was willing to use legal means.
Even the motions to get rid of him kind of admitted that Gibbs learned an earful of stuff that they would have rather kept hidden. I get that Gibbs could have been more forthright, but hey, I thought IBLP/Gothard had nothing to hide.
Wow. I knew of the lawsuit and the 18 - only the tip of the ice berg I am sure. My wow is as to BG's response.
His response leads me to thank each of those involved in this suit against BG and IBLP. I thank you and your lawyers and your families. His response shows how very sick he really is. The scriptures he chose... his intimidation tactics... Thank you from so many of us who will be glad to see this close IBLP ATI and for getting the truth out so more families cannot be hurt. My heart aches for those affected in my family and all the young people we, as parents, ignorantly hurt by being part of this.
So Bill in "counseling" one of the plaintiffs, goes to the bathroom with an open door, urinates with the door open and then walk out while zipping up his pants. That is so gross and disgusting on top of everything else. He is such a big d***. But I guess we should be all impressed that he is keeping his "vow" that he never kissed a woman. And someone like this still claims that God speaks to him in his meditations on the Bible. I am wondering what part of the Bible encouraged Bill to urinate in front of a troubled young girl. I'm sure that his excuse is that the door just opened on his own or that this girl opened it to peak on him. And Alfred is worried about bed time stories with girls sitting in his lap in their nighties that Gary or Norma or Tony may have seen or not seen. This is just beyond the beyond.
But remember, Rob- at least one of these first-hand witnesses will "go straight to hell" for having told what they've seen & heard him do.
Brutal abuse. God help them all to have courage in the face of it...... to face it.
Yes, that is pretty sick stuff. Having two males now involved does have an added punch to the already sick affair. I don't think Bill realizes that he really is talking to himself about "going straight to hell" comment. I know Don R. raised questions about the safety and sense of the Alert program here and to make someone strip down to underwear and then step out in freezing weather is beyond the pale. Abuse of all kinds seems to be part of the very fabric of IBLP and all of it's programs which is due to the fact that the head of it all, Bill was rotten to begin with and it just filtered down. The State of Ill and Indiana and Texas ought to go in and shut the whole damned operation down and the assets be divided up to the victims and scholarships given to ATI students so they can move on in education and their lives. That is what ought to happen. This is not reformable and the State departments that sent troubled youth to these programs ought to have their butts kicked in for putting vulnerable youth in harms way to be furthered abused. This just further damages good religious based programs that are used by State governments to help such kids. I don't know for the life of me how IBLP got away with this for so long and why they were not watched better by State governments in offering such programs for vulnerable and troubled youth. I almost think this is why Bill set up such secularized type of character programs and he and IBLP was not better reviewed. Why is TLC still filming the Duggars and Bates? Why is any of this seeing the light of day still? Locking kids up for days, not feeding them, isolation, whipping kids, not allowing basic medical care, not allowing proper counseling and therapy should cause the State that these programs reside in to go in and immediately pull the plug on IBLP forever. All it's material ought to put into a big bond fire and destroyed and the big name leaders that defended Bill in the 1980's ought to have their sorry rear ends hauled out in public so they can now explain why they think Bill is still such a "Godly man".
I absolutely agree with your comment. I very much wish each family could get back what they paid in just tuition. I would take the money and divide it to each of our first 4 children commensurate to what they had to endure. (#5 only lived through the last vestiges of teachings still clinging in our hearts and minds and was thankfully never part of ATI IBLP past the age of 6)
I would not keep a penny - if we were reimbursed. Our oldest was in ALERT (his story but I so wish I could tell my take on it. When I think of it I go between remorse, outrage, and tears.) Our second went to EXCEL. I honestly hate even writing that word. There was truly no excelling there. Only grief and a few lifelong friendships.
I would like to get our ALERT and EXCEL monies back and hand them directly to the 2 oldest. I know this cannot happen but even a small portion. We were duped and sold a bill of goods.
I don't know if this is possible legally, but I almost wish that I could see a class action law suite against IBLP for education fraud and the monies gained used to help ATI families put their education and lives back together. This would be in the form of scholarships for either a GED, community college, tutoring, real on job training etc. I realize there is a lot of guilt out there by ATI parents but something like this I would hope would be steps in the right direction for healing for both sides of ATI families, parents and students. I think you and the other parents that realize now that all of this was wrong are very brave because it takes a lot to admit that something you once followed and believed was wrong. That takes a lot of courage on your part and sometimes the hardest person to forgive is oneself.
I just read all two-hundred plus pages of the Second Amended complaints on the spiritual soundboard site. It made me sick. The victims need to be compensated for the physical/psychological damages inflicted upon them. But also the perps should spend some hard time in the crowbar hotel. I hope and pray that the victims receive their due justice. People see these things and the cause of Christ is severely damaged. I pray that I and others who are with RG will not get nightmares. I have encountered many different things on this side and that side of Earth, but this one took the cake.
Does anyone know why Jane Doe II is not in the second amended complaint?
Elizabeth D,
I wonder this too, having no idea. But I do know that if I were ANY of these victims, I'd be having anxiety attacks, chest pains, insomnia, crying episodes, fractured thought-processes & my medical doctor would likely advise me not to go through trial. Doctors, not just lawyers, weigh in in such severe circumstances as the plaintiffs have faced/still face.
I hope this civil case get the attention of state authorities and that they will pursue criminal charges. As others have said, this is just sickening! I read a few of the comments from Gothardite mouthpieces--the vindictiveness and outrageous blasphemy of the merciful character of God in order to try to intimidate whistle-blowers is a monstrous evil.
This came across my newsfeed today. Sounds like the case is building momentum. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/women-detail-sex-abuse-allegations-bill-gothard-article-1.2536758
thanks for the link. The only quibble I had with the article was that it said Bill retired in 2104. He didn't exactly retire but stepped down with the plan to return (thanks to the DG crowd).
I've been wondering about the male drivers/assistants. It sounds like one of them joined the suit.
He had a 15 passenger conversion van with 6 captains chairs and a bench seat in the back. Some of the captains chairs could swivel to face (footsie) the seats behind. In the early 2000's it had over 200,000 miles on it. Oh the stories that van could tell.
The young man that joined the suit probably drove that thing in the mid 90's. It would be interesting to hear his stories.
Rob W I second everything you said up there. If IBLP was at all repentant, they would do exactly that- without court orders. When ya cripple people in order to sell them crutches, the least ya can do is pay for surgery to try to fix the torn ligaments & broken bones, now that this extortion has been recognized for what it is. IF there's any remorse for having done this to them. And if there's not.... justice doesn't have to die there; it can still (& will) be rendered by court order even when there's no repentance to it's effect.
I believe at times the Lord Jesus,[in the severity of His Love/justice,much like the American soldiers forced German residents to see the atrocities done in the local concentration camps;done because of hidden cooperation,hidden assent], will now thru these proceedings compel many to see this darkness,in contrast to His Kingdom;that there can and will be a severity;and that not by hatred,rage,or vindictiveness,but by compelled compassion to raise a voice not to be stifled for His Own.His Own;exploited;His Own trampled,beaten,abused,raped,physically,spiritually;and then suppressed.In shock,disbelief,and horror,those dots we now see must be connected,justice ratified to appease a cry swelling up from hearts too broken for the natural ear to hear.
I anticipate IBLP will file for bankruptcy soon. There's no way they will survive this unless they have Director & Officers Insurance coverage in place. I still think Gibbs has a conflict of interest problem that may get him disqualified from repping the claimants due to helping Bill prepare the affidavit which was adverse to IBLP. I believe there may have been a motion filed by Bill's attorney as to this issue. Does anyone know the outcome?
I have no idea the outcome, but if G3 was made to go to Oak Brook in order to stay under the Umbrella in becoming a lawyer (idk), then there shouldn't be any objection from the defense to such methodology.
Both Gothard and IBLP have filed motions. The court hasn't made a decision about them yet. Homeschoolers Anonymous is covering the story as it develops and posting court documents.
I give this song to each of us but especially to the victims of Bill Gothard and other spiritual leaders abuse. Let the words sink. deep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIZitK6_IMQ just be held.
praying for Dr. Cornish, Kari Underwood and all the others that are behind this blog due to the possible threat of a million dollar law suite by Bill for defamation of character.
He'd have to prove the stories false and in malicious intent in order to win, but, he seems to have deep pockets and that is troubling.
I, too, pray for these incredibly brave advocates for the truth regarding a public menace.
We're included in the threat to sue, too, as those who have posted. Mine have been about the direct effects of IBLP teaching wielded by those well beyond Gothard's personally creepy touch. And I haven't even told all there is in my experience with IBLP. I think I'll divulge more here right now.
The Red Notebook "interpreting" the Bible for me in counsel sessions, the Hammer-Chisel-Rock and also the "Umbrella" drawings that were handed to me after being hand-drawn in front of me during it's lecture. I personally still have 2 of these, from 2 different churches, with the handwritten words of these diagrams likely court-identifiable as to who penned them.
How many more of these are out there, I wonder? Something for Glen G. to think about.
Or, among other churches that were not all-around copy-cats of IBLP in sermons & administration methods, no doubt this diagram-with-lecture was nonetheless also used on more than just me. At opportune times. Like when the cops told me during my 911 call that I needed to come down to the police station & fill out a police report of a sexual assault because I had just come to realize I was not his only sexual assault victim. Hence, this new knowledge is antidote for his having contacted me later on the day of the assault to tell me that it was my fault because my dress was too tight, evaporating his power to dump his shame on me. [Even though I had yelled & swung hard at him but he gripped my arm & maneuvered me, did with his other hand what his force had it to do to me]. And also because I'd just physically seen the perpetrator mingling in the children's wing at church even though his own daughter & her husband have banned him from EVER coming into contact with their children/his grandchildren. And choose not to see him themselves, either. And a pastor at this church expressed he was mad AT ME as soon as I walked into my appointment to report this because I had told his secretary over the phone in making the appointment that the perp had "done something me that I needed to report". Because the perp is an authority figure/volunteer there. So, they used the "relationship" they "forged with me" during my reporting of the sexual assault to them to tell me I needed THEIR counseling. Hence, the Umbrella diagram/lecture. I was not abiding under authority as I should have been, even though they had nothing to accuse me of in this, I nonetheless got hit with Satan's missile for this vacant reason. Me to blame. (Of course). This paper I still have, along with the Hammer one from my 1st church. The Umbrella was drawn before me & lectured to me in retaliation for the filing of that police report. It should still be on file even though the SOL re. charges against the perp had expired by less than a year before I filed. Otherwise, the Umbrella diagram would have already been presented at trial sometime between late 2007 & 2010. Because I WOULD have pressed charges. If I hadn't been bullied into silence.
I am just one person who has had IBLP's particular teaching signature write me off of my basic right to defend against criminal assault. It stands to reason that I am not the ONLY one who has kept their signature in a similar writing-off by it. Playing a percentage, I can be equally sure I am not the ONLY one who got it as direct retaliation for having reported a misdemeanor to the police. It is interesting to me to wonder how many records of IBLP's formula for victim-blaming have been made following the filing of police reports (some in time for charges filed?) & are still in the possession of those they were used against. I know mine is not getting thrown away, just the same as the misdemeanor report is still on file. And, BOTH police report filings and counsel sessions were dated at the time they occurred. (Appointment record(s) for counseling). So, such recordings are dated before any alleged "colluding." Not to mention the ability of courts to identify hand-writing. There's no doubt that other diagrams of the Umbrella exist as evidence of it's abuse in retaliation for the reporting of crimes. Just some things for Glen G. to think about. And yes, I use my real name on this site. Why not? I speak the truth. And it's quite verifiable, in terms of exhibits, witnesses & the history of the perpetrator of being repeatedly terminated from employment (5 times that I know of) for sexual misconduct towards his direct victims.
Even apart from IBLP's teaching being used to attempt to obstruct justice & keep victims (and everybody else) silent about sexual assault, it's not exactly golden. It's not as if being falsely indoctrinated, bullied, & experiencing forced shunning of those banned from one's church ever endeared anyone to the anti-Biblical regime that was cited as the pablum for this & for much worse.
I hope anyone ever suing RG is prepared to hear (& see physical exhibits) what people like me have to testify of if I/we ever get cross examined.
Sincerely,
Nicole Marie Gardner (age 36)
Snohomish County, Washington State
Directly to Glen G.:
You with your professional access can bring up my report without the filing number despite my name having been redacted in it. To help you out, it was filed at the Bothell, WA police precinct. Date of assault was September 27, 2007. And- as a reminder- you cannot make it public without my consent. I do not give my consent for the police report (other than description of the assault itself, it's status as a crime, & the subsequent Umbrella-bullying I received because of having reported it- & this all for reference purposes) to be made public. It contains other names is why. (People & location. These names I do not consent to be made public). This entire comment here that I am just finishing up is being made public by me. Along with all comments I have made here on RG using my name. But not the names contained in the police report. If you have access to it, it's because you're a lawyer- & the attorney privilege entails you to not go public without the victim's consent. If you have time to read the report, have in mind there also being written proof of IBLP teaching's use in the bullying of me for my abiding by the law in my trying to keep a crime from being repeated. Again. As it was also a repeat in it's being done to me (I was yet another victim) by the assaulter named in the report. And remember: I am just one person out of 5 million+ witness that IBLP dogma was spoken & done to. (In addition to having been thoroughly brainwashed by the time of the assault as a 4-time IBLP alumna & survivor of an IBLP-run church). It's not "just 18"....... "just 18"?!?!?!? who have a case. Going after us in a round 2 will get you my case presented, also. And maybe others, also, have exhibits to be presented??? The coercion & harassment I have experienced by the DIRECT implementation of IBLP's heresy simply cannot be my own isolated experiences in some sort of polarized opposite of IBLP's common influence. Even as much as you make it out to be. You will discover this, I am certain, if you choose to sue us.
Sincerely,
Nicole Gardner
I clarify: a cop was NOT on the phone during my original call to 911. The dispatcher had the cop call me back within 10 minutes of my 911 call. I also clarify that the cop told me I needed to come down & fill out a report upon his hearing my account & asking me questions about the assault, not because there was another known victim. (My sentence structure almost seems like he determined this based on another victim; this was not the case). He said I needed to come put in a written report of what had happened. Because he would other wise have had to have filed a report about the phone call & something of that nature had to have me actually meet with police. (Police protocol). Him saying I needed to come file a report was about what happened to me and on this basis alone. I drove right down there when he said that.
One reason for the written report is to allow you to identify yourself and to sign it as your representations. The police only "know" by hearsay. The victim/complainant knows first hand. Oral reports are inadequate grounds to investigate.
In reading all of the documents on Homeschoolers Anon., it struck me that Bill in his so called efforts to contact people after he resigned was not an effort for asking for forgiveness and reconciliation but an attempt to harass, intimidate and influence his victims to back off and change their stories so he could go back to business as usual when he went back to IBLP. So all the meeting he had with Larne and Tony and Bill was really a cover up with them too, to throw them off the trail. He had no intention at all to repent, ask forgiveness, restore and reconcile. He is pretty sick spiritual man. He did nothing wrong and it is all RG fault to begin with. He is very dark and evil.
Rob, what you write is very true and glaringly obvious to those who have never been under Gothard's spell. From my perspective, getting him under the scrutiny of the courts can't come too soon, but he'll probably be spinning whatever happens (likely bankruptcy and the dissolution of the "ministry") right into the grave as a miscarriage of justice aimed at God's "anointed"! (What a farce!) At least his victims will be vindicated by those whose judgment really counts. One thing is for sure, when Gothard comes before the Lord face-to-face, there will be no escaping the monstrous lie his life has become.
Karen,your comments carry a lot of thought and truth,and there certainly is a more universal perspective to the Kingdom of God.My input to this comment is that Bill Gothard's life was cleverly monstrous many many years ago when many more were doing his dirty work for him.Inquisitive minds and probing hearts need look no further than family support,parental participation,"clean cut all American family values".Back then you felt more guilty if you criticized his lopsided,but seeming sincerity about authority,than if you did not.What you did not realize in his system,and someone else hit on it at another website[Murray?],was even then if you took his assumptions to their logical end,all us males were nothing more than brute lust machines,helpless in our animalistic drives for sex,unable to relate towards any attractive woman,but thru endless checks and balances that did not need to be there for Bill,the affectionate fatherly figure.Females weren't worth it,males needed protection from themselves.So that is utterly all Christianity is:worthless females,and male beasts,constantly lusting after their beauty,depraved,enslaved,encapsulated in a needful system which just might bring them the necessary edge to dominate and enslave. Worthless but sexually gratifying females need depend on males for meaning;the spectrum of their lives hanging on imparted blessings from our side of the fence,always imparted from the master.This is the hopeless treadmill of Gothardism's unredeemed religious caricature of our hopelessness in his system.Wicked, base,animalistic.
Obviously Gothard views the world via 'his own lens'. This is demonstrated in his dogma. He is governed by lust, greed and power. And, his disdain for women is reflected in his abuse of them as well as his total disregard for their needs not only spiritually, but in every way. :+(
Yep to all! But we knew that possibility going into the meeting. Just for clarification the Denver meeting with Billy included Gary and Norma Smalley, Bill and Joy Wood and myself. Tony did not participate because he thought he would be a distraction to Billy.
Larne
sorry about that, thanks again for the clarification!
Right, Tony was not at the meeting. What sticks in my memory is while Bill was busy trying to get back on the board, he simultaneously told Tony that should he be invited back on the board, he would decline the offer.
Gothard's motion reveals some of the most twisted reasoning...... ever. Seeking to sue his board & use those he'd molested to leverage the board by their not having listened to the women's reports...... of HIS molestations!, "Binding Christian Mediation" that was to be put in writing as the ONLY recourse should his no-advocate-present-meetings with each victim fail to result in "reconciliation", saying in 2 different places that Wilkinson's mother could "confirm" that he'd never molested her. How the heck could Gretchen's mom know ANY of what transpired over the months of Gothard's alone time with her? Her mom wasn't a student living there, too, was she? And, if so, accompanied Gretchen in all those dark-hour "counsel" sessions? This is the same woman who blew-up when Gretchen was finally home & told her family that Gothard had molested her. Even if Gothard isn't lying about the mother so-saying, this women definitely has a motive for claiming to be the All-Seeing-Eye; if she DID say as Gothard says, it's likely so as to absolve her own guilt for blowing up when confided in by her own daughter. And those are just the highlights I remember. If Gollum in "The Hobbit" filed a motion of some sort, the net knotted by the stickiness of his not-quite-transparent cobwebs would weave just like this one. "'Quite safe, yes,' he whispered to himself. 'It won't see us, will it, my precious? No. It won't see us, and its nassty little sword will be useless, yes quite.' This is what was in his wicked little mind, as he slipped suddenly from Bilbo's side, and flapped back to his boat, and went off into the dark." [Quote from chapter 5 of "The Hobbit"]
Slimy.
When the veneer is taken away,and the supramoralism,Gothard has to be one of the most destructive elements masked behind religious posturing,ever to influence the evangelical protestant church.So this is the inevitable end to his contrived programs:threats of death for David Gibbs III,for "cursing his father",dropping the prosecution's body of evidence on a "technicality of feigning support by the prosecution", threatening a former driver he will go to hell if he confesses seeing over 150 molestations take place.This part of smoldering patriarchy,now revealed in its core,HAS DENIED IF NOT OVERTLY BUT SUBLIMINALLY THAT GOD HAS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPOSURE.And its fruits...,Vyckie Garrison,a very intelligent,now leading influential blogger,gone to atheism,mocking a "personal relationship with Jesus"at a Pennsylvania feminist rally,denied custody of all but one of her children;by a husband whose fruits trace back to none other."Salute" him and his "authority",going down fighting, into an ever darkening abyss,thousands now passive,thousands atheist,cynical,angry,some rocked to sleep in a slumber of spirit,"submitted",but to what?Is there a responsibility for the church;protestant,orthodox,catholic or otherwise?I myself am a protestant and ashamed.Don't tell me that satan's darkness hasn't infiltrated the evangelical fundamentalist church."When the enemy comes in; like a flood the Spirit of God will lift up a standard against him.Come on boys protect yourselves from an inner religious darkness.Say something.
Yes. The churches I attended in my denomination had no direct connection to Gothard, but there were a few significant connections elsewhere, including one on the IBLP board, and that poison has spread such that many of the leaders exude the same victim-blaming, legalistic, authoritarian tone. The broader councils designed to protect members from corrupt leadership have instead protected the leaders and bullied the members into submission.
David, all of us who participated willingly, denying our own doubts, suppressing our own concerns, swallowing the lies, are just as guilty. Blaming Gothard for all the lost people out there really doesn't acknowledge the broader church's responsibility for tolerating the entire sham. It also does not give much credit to God who hardens one heart and softens another, calling all His elect to himself in His way.
I don't have the resources to track this down, but I think that the church has always wanted this universal authority. The church and state fought over absolute power in the Medieval era, with kings raising armies against Popes and Popes excommunicating countries for the sins of their rulers. The Reformation didn't bring and end to this, and the idea of spiritual authority became, I think, more invasive in the protestant church. This idea has infected Western culture with an invisible, but pungent caste system. Those in authority tend think of themselves in a higher order, and demand submission and honor. Whether it is policemen, government officers, pastors and elders or even bosses and directors, it seems that those people go to great lengths to assert and maintain their superiority.
I tend to be good at debate and after completely demolishing a pastor's arguments, he said, "well, you just have to accept the fact that I'm right." He said it with a tone that said, the argument is over. I've played my pastor card. It's no wonder in this age that pastors and leaders of all kinds are eating this up. You see, how dare I argue with my pastor in the first place? That puts me out of the umbrella into unquenchable fire! Now the pastor doesn't even have to have a valid reason for holding a position. He just asserts it's true and those who disagree are (gasp!) showing rebellion and contempt and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Don, I really admire your stance here and you hit the nail on the head for all of us. We all participate in sin when we deny the Holy Spirit's conviction in our own hearts and defer to fallen human beings. The only real defense against this kind of manipulation and deception is with God's help to get to know the depths of our own hearts with its weaknesses, desires and fears, and in childlike faith take all this directly to God. Let's take our cue from Jesus, who the Gospel says was "greatly displeased" when His disciples tried to act as gatekeepers and prevent the mothers from bringing their little children to the Lord for His blessing. "Let the little children come to Me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven!"
Don,I thought you were commenting to the other David;I sure appreciate the feedback.Back in the 70's I was a clone not necessarily of Bill Gothard ,but of Gothardism.There's a difference;I couldn't leave.The cult influenced our church/fellowship,too many big name leaders endorsed Bill;espoused his anecdotes,vaunted his programs,made the official sanction.Who was I?In 1982 there was a rift with God getting me out thru a brother and his wife.Yet no one could bring themselves to believe this was only the beginning of the first "fruits"of Gothardism;I went to a Twin Cities Seminar in 1987.I was too brainwashed to believe that Gothard was that bad.I was a "sucker".By the year 2003,I knew he was false.Its not a reach to believe he is too dangerous for any one person or group without prayer;truth by revelation.Though we the church were responsible,there was control,exploitation;and the inevitable association with leaving God."God" is behind Bill Gothard,forcing,coercing.From this false connection comes the Vyckie Garrisons,Jerushas,Libby Annes,awesome bloggers,atheists;dynamic leaders,unable to make the dichotomy between God and Gothard,cynical of Christianity,at one time sincere;until Bill bludgeoned,bullied,condescending behind brute Patriarchal Power.Now comes the afterward,which makes me pray fervently every day not believing its over yet.Yes I blame myself;the church,but when its all said and done,only prayer and the faithfulness of God,can ultimately deliver,"Gothardism"FAR TOO BIG AND WICKED".
Interesting that Bill chose to include his own letter in his complaint: "During the conference, I called your father and discussed the possibility of you coming to the Headquarters. When you and your mother visited the Headquarters, I made a further phone call to your father. He explained that from his perspective you and your mother were teamed up against him. Therefore he was not able to receive the respect that he wanted. I discussed this with you and also listened to your side of the problem. This only confirmed to me the need for you to get away from the stress at home."
The last sentence is critical. Bill is admitting that he is a hypocrite. According to his own theology, the umbrella works through the authority of the father, church and government, and removing themselves from that authority allows them to be attacked by Satan. But, when it comes to supporting their father's authority or imposing his own authority (which is neither family, church nor government), he chooses to discard his supposed theology and get them out from under the umbrella of their father. Interesting.
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. And all those cliches.
There's almost a Catholic feel to Bill's authority structure (not trying to demean Catholics here). Bill was like the Protestant Pope in his own mind. He had discovered the truth of biblical living while the rest of Christendom was going down the broad road of rock records, college, and Cabbage Patch dolls. Not only was he the leader of a Christian organization, he was kind of the head of the only true branch of the Church. He never said that in so many words, but it was definitely implied that being outside the IBLP umbrella wasn't a safe place to be.
Well, as a Catholic and having been on both sides of the divide and I also know you are not trying to be contentious at all but just asking honest questions and observations. Despite of how the office of the Papacy is either viewed by most Protestants or portrayed in the media, the office of the Pope is not a top down dictatorship with every utterance to be followed as if infallible beyond any question. Catholic magisterium which is the collection of all teaching under authority of the Pope with all bishops is collective not just in the here and now but includes all of history as well. Any type of "ex Cathedra" statements is actually very rare, only happening twice since Vatican I. Authority in the Catholic Church is not demanded with threats of hell fire as in some of these other Churches that seemed to become involved with authority type of teaching of Bill Gothard and others. The Pope doesn't go around and micro manage people's lives as Bill's teaching did. Martin Luther stated at the end of his life that he got rid of one Pope but made 100 more. While priests and Bishops are very much obligated to teach and promote Catholic teaching, one can just look at public Catholics such as a number of politicians that openly defy things such as support for abortion, gay marriage etc and it is pretty rare for them to be denied communion (ex-communicated). Ex-communication is actually very uncommon and done after years of personal appeals by the person's Bishop. That is a far cry from what different people described in IBLP type of fundamentalist churches. I still don't get how even Tony Guhr was shunned and ex-communicated. I find it incredulous. Real authority never demands blind submission. Someone that goes around demanding submission should not be in any type of authority to begin with. While Bill may have made himself out to be a Pope and there are blind followers that grant him that, he is a far cry from any real Pope, especially in recent history. He can't even hold a candle to JP II, Benedict and even Francis. I'll stick with these guys way over Bill Gothard. And with Benedict, he had the humility and honesty to step down do to his age. Bill here is suing to get his position back. A good book from the Catholic side is "Pope Fiction" by Patrick Madrid. I appreciate your question, it is a good one.
rob war, thanks for your perspective on this. I'm glad you saw that I was just trying to wrap my mind around it instead of criticizing or stereotyping Catholics.
As you know, Protestants claim to spurn any formal spiritual hierarchy. We love the thought of direct access to God. It just feels to me that Bill wanted to be THE gateway of truth from heaven. He and a lot of other people believed that he had found the missing keys to truth. His yearly trip to fast in the North Woods was kind of like the High Priest going behind the veil or Moses going up on the mountain to receive the 10 Commandments.
My point being, it diverges greatly from the modern Protestant understanding of how truth (especially new truth) is revealed. Am I making sense? My point is not to say Catholics are wrong here, just to say Bill isn't acting very Protestant.
I think there is a contradiction here. Yes, we have direct access to the throne of God, but God's instruction and correction are thought to come through the church leadership. I think this is the "Mother Kirk" teaching, that yes, God is our father, but we also need a mother to nurture and guide us. The church uses that sort of teaching, I think, to trick Christians into being less discerning about leadership, and to stay put in abusive church situations. The umbrella fits nicely into that.
The logic is that each person's thinking has been deluded, so we need to have God-appointed spiritual leaders to lead us into truth. However, somehow they refuse to acknowledge that the leaders' thinking could also be deluded, and that God doesn't exactly reach down and appoint those leaders. Instead there is a human process created to choose those leaders, which can also be sinfully manipulated.
I think I could have been more accurate by saying Protestant denominations like Independent Baptists, Bible Church, etc don't have much formal hierarchy. Certainly the Church of England has a established structure, etc. Analogies seem to get me in trouble. :-)
I see a huge difference, though, between a ministry that does Christian counseling and one that inserts themselves into a position of false authority.
I just want to add a few words about this question of authority in the Church (speaking as a formerly Evangelical, now Eastern Orthodox believer). The saying that "He cannot have God for his Father, who does not also have the Church for his mother" is a saying that comes directly from those deemed (in all Christian traditions) to be the Fathers of the Church, i.e., the most authoritative and important teachers and interpreters of the Scriptures in the early Church, and it is an understanding of "Church" that was basically universal among Christians at the time. (Note: NO Christian tradition teaches the Fathers, as individuals, are infallible). But, this saying has a particular context and is a basically a tautology that acknowledges that the one one who truly honors God as Father belongs to the Church. This is not meant to suggest that the members of the Church need to check their brains at conversion/baptism, and let the hierarchy rule every detail of their lives!
If you read Church history about the time of the Arian heresy, for example, you can see that not only the hierarchy, but also the common people were extremely engaged in the whole debate about the Arian vs. the orthodox interpretation of Who Christ is as "begotten of the Father before all worlds, very God of very God" as the Creed says or whether He was a very exalted creature of God (as Arius taught and Jehovah's Witnesses teach). Also, this tautology is very clear that it is "the Church" (all genuine members collectively), not merely its hierarchy, in which this charism of the Holy Spirit for the nurture and guidance of all believers resides. There are times official councils of church hierarchs were convened, but which were political rather than genuinely spiritual in nature, and even though the bishops ruled on something (under political duress), these rulings were roundly rejected by the members of their sending churches, and the conciliar decisions never held their authority (e.g., the Council of Florence in 1439). Other councils were deemed authoritative by all orthodox Christians up until the Great Schism between East and West in 1054, but this was not just because they were officially called by the Emperor, or that all local orthodox churches were represented by their bishops (though this is, in fact, the case in many of these), but because over time the rulings of the council were discerned by all orthodox Christians to be true and in accordance with the revelation of Christ in the gospel that had been received in their various regional churches. Many times it wasn't until decades later and the dust had, had considerable time to settle for a council to take on this kind of authority for believers.
I cannot agree with you that "the church uses that sort of teaching to trick Christians into being less discerning about leadership." What I mean to say is it is not genuinely "the Church" acting whenever a church leader or some kind of religious leader or Bible study teacher connected with a church emphasizes this teaching to attempt to reinforce his own control or authority (in the "Lording it over" sense). It doesn't matter what church the leader is in, all those placed in positions of authority (or who, like Gothard, arrogate authority to themselves!) can abuse this position and can even in good faith just make mistaken statements about the church and the nature of their authority in the church.
Emphasizing the authority of the Church over the course of its history to discern and recognize the gospel and its correct application by making dogmatic statements to distinguish the true faith from heretical teachings that crop up from time to time is another thing altogether (than the abuse of power by a particular leader or group of leaders). This is based on Christ's promise to His Apostles to send the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all the truth and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church He would found upon their preaching. This spiritual reality about the nature of Christ's Church (as Spirit-led and indestructible) is actually a safeguard for those who understand it properly against the abuse of authority and the danger of heresy like that of Bill Gothard.
Can't reply specifically to this comment, but I agree in part and disagree in part. At the same time the church fathers said that they were also establishing their authority as the church fathers. It wasn't long after the writing of the New Testament that the local clergy became hierarchical - it perhaps initially started as a recognition of giftedness, but before long, there were pastors, bishops and archbishops, none of which had scriptural support as any office, and then the archbishop of Rome and Constantinople had their official squabble over which was the "archest" of the archbishops.
But, the Bible is very ambiguous as to what exactly certain terms mean. For example, Exodus talks about Moses and the people. It also talks about the elders. So, it's not necessarily precise as to whether "the people grumbled" meant every last one of the people, or the people through their leaders, or what. In the same way, when Moses "told the people" did he tell them directly, or through their leadership.
That ambiguity carries itself through the New Testament when it talks about the church. For example, in Matthew 18, it says, "tell it to the church". Does that mean the church leaders, the congregation, etc.? There are all sorts of opinions about what each instance means. For example, is the Great Commission given to the apostles (i.e. the leadership) or the disciples (i.e. the collected saints)?
So, yes, I think the Eastern Orthodox church has a healthy view of the church in terms of the collective will of the Spirit-led people, but many other churches are quite different. So, if my church believes that ultimately it is the church leadership that is the personification of Mother Kirk and portrays that as the teaching of scripture, doesn't that give me the right to doubt the doctrine? In the same way, RG questions various approaches to Matt 18. For example, some say that Gothard must be convicted by his own elders in order to make accusations public to "the church".
That would presumably carry over into church discipline. For example, my old church believes that all church discipline must be done behind closed doors, and kept as private as possible. When people were excommunicated, only a general description of the sin was given. Trials were never made public. This is a result of the view of "the church". For example, new members are received behind closed doors and then presented to the congregation. As such, it is clearly the view that the church is the collective will of the Spirit-led LEADERSHIP and not the people. By that interpretation, I say that the leadership of the church is not my mother.
Thanks Daniel for your questions and thoughts. I honestly think they are very good ones. A number of Protestant denominations teach and have a "hierarchy" which including Lutheran, Anglican and Methodist as examples. A hierarchy isn't a go between in the sense that you are thinking of it, ie: I won't have "direct" access to God unless it is through my church. Proper hierarchy is suppose to be a teaching vehicle and a protector of orthodoxy. Trust me, I have direct access to God as a Catholic and you do to as a Protestant. Just as an observation in all of this, Bill rarely focused on any Church authority and structure. The particular Churches that got caught up with his teaching seemed to fall with those that were independent and had no hierarchy or at least a strong one to begin with. For all the faults of the above mentioned mainline denominations, being influenced and falling for Bill Gothard was not one of them. In a sense, it shows how a denomination that is part of an overall structure can be a protection of sorts for popular movements that come and go like IBYC/IBLP. So someone that comes along and quotes the Bible like a machine gun is less likely to seduce the gullible if they have a frame of reference and belong to a Church with a strong structure and body of teaching which to refer to.
I think of the million or so homes that bg crept into by way of his sales tactics. Took captive countless women. Usurped countless mens' & boys' Holy Spirit-led sense of spiritual/social responsibility with his dictator-at-the-top dogma & system. Promised that he was giving the secret formulas to God's code-op machines, that blessings would pour forth like gumballs, 100% sure if we followed his codes & 100% fail if we didn't. Some of the gumball "flavors" were advertisements of how we would be solicited by people who sought us out in their desire to make us successful. Those with influence to make us successful would be tripping all over themselves to apply this to the enhancement of OUR lives. With no knowledge of the world, we didn't know how utterly ridiculous this claim was, especially having been regaled with all kinds of anecdotal stories to this effect. For us women, there was an added dimension; by being godly enough, the due wages for this at God's (bg's god's) hand would be a "qualified" man knocking on our dad's door to request our heart through courtship. Him dropping out of the sky all because we agreed to never be employed or go to college so as to focus on the rest of bg's teachings. Because this made it incumbent upon God both to filter & to deploy all our associations because we ourselves earned the personal integrity of all others who may (& surely will!) solicit us for our benefit. Yeah. Sure. That's how the world works; that's what the Bible says. Not! A hundred times, NO- that is NOT what the Bible says.
So, I am curious that bg finally may have fell for his own sales pitch. According to his & Blair's motions, there was a knock on his door. In answering it & inviting G3 & his colleague to come in, bg seems to have believed he himself was entitled to the filtering & deployment that he'd long assured us protected from vulnerability & instead would catapult us to success. If the motions are true in this one respect, bg finally has personally experienced what most of us have- getting played by his gimmicky doctrine.
I don't relish my having been sexually assaulted or my having been otherwise played. But, for me, these things did shatter my naivete stemming from IBLP fallacy. And now, I am no longer self-blaming for having been sexually assaulted & for also having been played as a student of bg indoctrination. I'm glad that, prior to turning 80 years old, I learned the truth about assumptions-of-earned-safety that were synced by Gothard to his illusions of self-entitlement. But, as he himself is no doubt finding out- you're never saved from surprise for as long as ya live. Life is NOT like a box of chocolates for trusting his promises that obedience to him automatically makes it like this. As bg himself will have been finding out over the past year if he has indeed fallen for his own sales pitch. He may well have just found out what he did to us. Even though he never listened.
Great post, Nicole. Thanks.
Seems like his ignorance of the law is going to backfire. I can't see the judge saying, well, everything G3 did was completely legal, but I'm going to throw him off the case because he tricked you. So, it seems that Gothard's own hubris is going to become his downfall.
Great job Nicole.So many are so mad at how he dodges,counterattacks,eviscerates,absolutely without conscience.I'm praying that every last ploy he contrived against the hapless,exploited,and vulnerable will come to nothing.He never has had to answer,but will.
Well, the court is like a big notepad recording what he says. He is skilled at looking the right way to each person individually, but I wonder if he is so skilled at doing that with every word recorded and a huge penalty for lying under oath. All he can do at this point is deny, deny, deny, but how do you poke holes in the accounts of so many stories?
I read on Midwest Outreach that Gothard had his lawyer write a letter to RG. It links to RG on FB where it can be read. The letter asks that those who have posted FALSE statements on RG against BG to remove them. That means the true allegations can remain. I am sure most, if not all of what was written, will remain on RG.
http://midwestoutreach.org/2016/02/25/bill-gothards-double-standards/
The more I think about it, the more it seems that BG will be hoisting his own canard if he goes forward with a lawsuit and it all goes to court where witnesses will be brought in to tell their stories--THEN EVERYTHING goes on record and out in the open.
Saber-rattling, as the unraveling, exposure, and burning of his life's work continues to accelerate before his eyes
"Burning of his life's work" David ^^^ how sobering.
I have been watching videos of those who have come out of Scientology for the purpose of learning about brainwashing and how we can believe the. most. ridiculous. things. Scientology is a comic book farce but that is not what my comment is about. It is about "burning a life's work"
38 years in it. 28 years. Entire life up to the point they left at 18 or 23. Leading others into it and then leaving and the others remain brainwashed. It is serious stuff. Throwing your life away for a man and a fairy tale.
If you listen, the parallels are astounding. Not in doctrine but in M. O. of the organization. Satan doesn't care if he has to put on a choir robe or a Sea Org costume - his bag of tricks remains the same.
I know some think this is extreme. Again it is not about doctrinal comparison obviously but about mind and people control. Bill Gothard may have started well - the jury is out on that one - but absolute power corrupts absolutely and this is what we have seen happen. The only leaders I respect in this organization are those who have left through the years. I honestly mean that. I sure wish the whistles were blown so loudly that their lips are still stinging but what is done is done. I hope they have seen their mistakes and next time will take on any Leader in the name of doing what is right.
So my story, and unfortunately the story of my oldest children - 10 + years in. Programs, brainwashing, and setting my brains on the shelf. Lots of lessons learned. Hopefully it has given a discernment to our children that lasts their life times. They were the ones thinking - "this stuff stinks. These families are hypocrites. At least their children are not all in - that is for sure!"
God bless those children who are now adults. May His hand of grace and favor rest on them and may they know his presence every day in guiding and drawing and help.
Cults are interesting to study - again, not so much the doctrine but how they are formed and how they operate and why we fall for them. Rats, I wish I hadn't. Now to walk forward for many more than 10 years (I hope) being His and loving His pure Word sans interpretation.
I too study the area of Scientology and those who are escaping from its grip on their lives. At first when I started reading about gothard I didn't look for similarities between the two organizations, but finally when I did, I was gobsmacked by the parallels. Both are a "long con" that ensnare and enslave others for the benefit of a "leader". Separation from family, separation and fear of the world outside of the con,
physical and mental abuse, and all based on pathological ideas and rules that were created from whole cloth. Long hours, food deprivation, constant study that will keep the member too busy to be able to really think. The similarities are striking and sickening.
I believe that one reason gothard has recently made comments about slavery and other issues is to take the spotlight away from his actions that are being uncovered. He is a sociopath..total narcissist with no regard for others, just himself. All the long discussions on this board about "authority", courting, defrauding, and other creations of his sick mind...it breaks my heart to see, because doing so takes the focus and spotlight off him and his criminal actions....his very intent.
All are designed to divert from the truth of what he is.
Caroline, I agree with your comment except in one point.
The discussions on defrauding, authority, courting, other creations of his sick mind ARE the spotlight on his criminal actions. It is from these teachings he received the fuel and covering to commit his criminal actions. These are an integral part of his choosing to commit these acts. Ask the plaintiffs and they will tell you that every subject you named and more are very, very important to discuss on this site. The plaintiffs and thousands of others are coming free of these teachings and truth is coming out about BG and how he thinks, in discussing them.
I am not looking for a written answer to this question but I am wondering if you have ever been involved in IBLP/ATI. That is not to point a finger at all or cut down in the least. Those who have been a part of these organizations see the need that is real - a need to get this all out and put the pieces together of how BG thinks.
Thanks for your comment.
Well I get that, and I can explain a little better what I meant. Thankfully I was never a follower of his organization, but from my point of view, this is what I see: It's not a crime to preach and promote ideas that are frankly, ridiculous on their face.. . . like not kissing before you are married, or his myriad of other opinions that he pulled out of thin air. I realize that some of his specific teachings made it easier for him to commit crimes...it is part of the larger con......but creating these rules and regulations and exhorting others to follow them is not a crime. But fondling, rape, child abuse, and the long list of his perverted actions ARE crimes.
That's how I perceive this. And if he's going to get what's coming to him..on earth, his criminal actions are what should always be at the forefront. that's why I said that long discussions on "authority" and his other ideas just serve to divert attention from his crimes.
And I believe that it will be easier to find additional support to bring him to justice if you realize that good people outside the IBLP ...indeed those who might not even be of your same faith....also view his criminal actions as abhorrent and deserving of exposure.
After reading all the documents and signed affidavits, I am almost beginning to wonder if the affidavit that Bill signed for G III was meant as a trap for G III in the sense that Bill now can and has turned around and claimed that G III misrepresented himself to Bill in order to get Bill to sign and thereby disqualifying G III from the case. I don't think G III did anything wrong or was unethical in any way. Someone like G III that knows these people and teaching like the back of his hand would be a major threat to Bill as a lawyer, hence forth, Bill efforts to disqualify G III from the case. I am not one to see conspiracies at all but after reading all these lies and logic from Bill and my view of him now as totally diabolical leads me to these conclusions. I am just thinking out loud right now. In now reading some of the post here and on DG and elsewhere, there seems to be a view that G III was unethical. But I don't think so and this is just my gut reaction. I also think and have stated here that Bill's so called reconciliation attempts were not that but attempts to shut people up. He could really care less about any of that and only wants his power back. G III in his response said his only error was being aggressive. That is not a crime nor is that unethical but only aggressiveness could have blinded someone to a trap which is what I think the first affidavit is. The problem for Bill is that now his traps are legal sworn in court documents that should bite him in the butt and he was taking a big risk himself. I don't think Bill realizes what a big idiot he is in doing so and his attempt to disqualify G III is desperation for what is coming his way in court.
I'm not too desirous to sort this mess out, but one thing to keep in mind is did these interactions not take place when the first suit was merely against those on the IBLP board? Gothard had not been named on a suit as a defendant. During this time, the Denver group determined Bill was not repentant, and after this, Bill was added in as a defendant. I am not clear as to how it all fits together, but there is a timeline here which may explain some things.
"The problem for Bill is that now his traps are legal sworn in court documents that should bite him in the butt and he was taking a big risk himself. I don't think Bill realizes what a big idiot he is in doing so and his attempt to disqualify G III is desperation for what is coming his way in court. "
Was wondering if you'd be able to elaborate on that a little; specifically, on what "traps" BG tried to set, how you see them backfiring, and what's on the horizon for him as this goes to court.
David and Rob War;I agree,and anyone not used to lies must brace himself to see the utter cruelty and wanton brutality they serve to exploit further the victims;and further the cause of the suppressor/tyrant.How are these lies backfiring?What is this so called breach of ethics in layman's terms?One added thought the Kingdom of God can and never will be furthered with what Gothard has done;teachings attitudes toward women,extortion,blackmail,lust.Kicking against the pricks is not contingent upon orchestration of mere words.
I was trying to process all of this out loud. I think Lynn pointed out something very important that I didn't consider in my above musings, is that Bill gave that deposition to G III before he was named in the suit directly so it makes sense that G III came to Bill to get a deposition from him against the board. The suit wasn't about Bill getting back to power but about the 10 victims (at that time). I would bet Bill fantasized that it was about him and this would help him get back to power. G III didn't misrepresent anything in my mind. Now, Bill is in the law suite too and is trying to wiggle out of the first deposition he gave to G III which is damning to himself and take down G III at the same time. Bill now has a new aggressive lawyer and I would bet if Bill consulted a lawyer the first time, he wouldn't have given the first sworn deposition. I was trying to make sense of it all and Lynn pointing out that this was given before the law suit was amended to include Bill.
Great observation.
What "power" is even left to supposedly regain?? It's like trying to regain command of the Titanic after it's struck the iceberg. That power only existed when people in mass were buying the IBLP product, which hardly anyone is anymore (at least not enough to make it sustainable, much less a powerhouse). Does he expect to walk up to his old office as it was with a new teenage secretary awaiting him?
It certainly appears that Mr. Bill Gothard will always steadfastly believe that 'whatever he wants, he will get'; 'whatever he pursues, he will be acquire'. He is relentless!!
Regardless of his age and all that has taken place to the contrary, in his mind, no doubt, at some point he expects to walk up to his old office as it was with a new teenage secretary awaiting him...
"Give it up Gothard; it ain't happening"...
I don't know whether or not Gothard can have his first affidavit disappear off the court record (as he requests). But I do know that, just because he might be able to retract his admittance TO the truth, this doesn't retract the truth. It's kinda funny that he only stated fact to try to bring down IBLP board members by doing so. Now that his vision of using it to do that isn't coming to fruition, this inability to use his statement to his desired effect somehow makes what he says in it that he did no longer true, even though he swore by written deposition that it was true? If I didn't know already that Gothard little values truth in general (Bible, other testifiers to what's true that the Bible identifies as such) I would be confused by his going back on his word like this.
Hi Mark,
I'm replying to your reply to me above about authority in the Church and starting a new thread for convenience. I gave you the historical context for the phrase "mother church". It doesn't sound like your denomination's practices and understanding of authority in the church are really relevant to that historical context, nor that they are necessarily using the phrase "Mother Kirk" in the same way.
"Bishops"