Branson, Missouri is a tourist destination in the Ozark mountains quite close to the Arkansas boarder. The city has a great many entertainment venues and hotels, sort of a family friendly “Las Vegas” with a distinctive southern, hillbilly flavor. The area rose to prominence over a century ago because of a best selling novel called “Shepherd of the Hills”, written by Harold Bell Wright. Published around 1907, it is historically accurate fiction that tells the story of former city preacher Daniel Howitt who moves to the Branson area to become a shepherd. Over the years he endears himself to the residents with his wise counsel and benevolent deeds; the residents affectionately call him “Dad”. He caries a broken heart and, as the story unfolds, he is able to bring deep healing to one of the greatest tragedies of the community by being broken and then healed himself.
The book was so popular that tourists began to visit the area. Starting with the only attraction in the area – tours of a large limestone cave – locals began to cater to their new guests. Next to the cave they built a period flavored attraction called “Silver Dollar City”, then added a great many other venues over the years to make it the place it is today. Reminders of the story live on, including the main “Shepherd of the Hills Parkway” that leads through the city, and also in the “Shepherd of the Hills Outdoor Theater” which has for over 55 years run a well produced play depicting the story told in the novel (http://theshepherdofthehills.com/outdoordrama/)
While watching the play recently we were interested to observe the scene represented above and could not help think of the controversy swirling around Bill Gothard. The comparisons are interesting. “Dad” in the story is an older man dedicated to counseling others, especially focused on improving the lot of a young lady, “Sammy”. Sammy is preparing for marriage and is unsure of many things, having lost her mother. With her father’s blessing “Dad” gives her many hours of heart to heart counsel on things spiritual and practical, including teaching her how to speak with better grammar, dress, carry herself as a fine lady. In the depicted scene he is helping her through a critical moment, clasping her hand in both of his as he looks into her eyes and speaks to her heart.
The depicted event seemed signicant because it so mirrored some of the situations that Bill has come under fire for. See, this is exactly what Bill is doing and thinking as he at times has held the hands of the young ladies he has poured his life into. He is counseling them with their parents’ permission and sees himself as “Dad” to them, a sentiment many have echoed back as well. He counsels them on spiritual and practical matters, sometimes even on improving their appearance and deportment. All of this to see them confident and successful in their future lives and marriages.
Similar scenes are seen in other classics like “Anne of Green Gables”. Perhaps it hales back to a long forgotten day, but it is a day that Bill lives in, a man to many hopelessly “old fashioned”.
Should Bill have been more sensitive to the sensibilities of some of his counselees that felt uncomfortable with this type of attention and behavior? Yes, he should have. But what he did was done with pure motives, much like the “Shepherd of the Hills”. And many young ladies have testified to the blessing he has been to them. May this little example serve to provide another frame of reference to understand Bill and his 50 year ministry of counseling.
(07/25/2016 update)
This is a scene from the Hollywood version of “The Shepherd of the Hills” staring John Wayne. Depicting “The Shepherd” and “Sammy” are Harry Carey and Betty Field:
So in defense of Bill, you turn to historical “fiction”. This is just that fiction, nothing more, nothing less and your continued defense and excuses are not based in reality but “fiction” that you do not want to let go of at all. The rise of Branson MO is due to a number of things much of it based on the provision of local entertainment provided to tourists that highlighted the local culture much of which is based in music, the type of music BTW that Bill would not approve of using his analysis. This is grasping at straws. So some play in Branson has some scene that is fiction of some old man trying to “counsel” some young girl and they are holding hand and he is gazing into her eyes in order to give her “encouragement”. This is fiction pure and simple, it is not old fashioned and comparing this fiction to Bill’s real behavior is as low as it gets. Bill’s behavior is not fiction. Bill’s behavior is not “old fashioned” but your comparison is fiction and your continued excuses is beginning to look like insanity.
So, now we know your opinion, Rob 🙂 Take about 20 seconds and ponder a venue that caters to thousands of tourists every year . . . depicting this kind of behavior. A novel read by millions. Do you think anyone is shocked, bothered? With the reactions that Bill has been getting on this specific matter one would think that the play would have been run out of town long ago . . . instead of working on its 55th year. It would be great if you could step outside your prejudices for a brief moment, step back, and ponder that objectively. Instead of attacking us for daring to try to get you to do so.
People see through fictional characters in fictional settings. The same level of standards are not applied. An example would be the Three Stooges which was filled with Moe smacking around Larry and Curly. In the real world, it would be called abuse. In the make believe world of the Three Stooges, people got the act and humor and realized that this isn’t the real world with real behavior. People watching this play about a fictional preacher see this one scene in context of whole story. But, Bill’s real behavior involved multitude of young ladies over multiple years even after being confronted by numerous peoples. You can’t justify Bill by using a fictional character in a play. It is grasping at straws here and more of a sign of desperation on your part.
So you see nothing wrong with the behavior depicted, correct? I mean, I suspect you would if it talked about fondling and such, as would every decent person. Please just try to deal with the point being attempted.
I have read SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS and do not recall the main character playing footsie with Sammy. Nor shaming others and sending them home for even talking to her.
🙂 And of course we expected that type of response. But you will have to admit that there has been a lot of focus, repeated, on “holding her hand with both of his as he gazed into her eyes and spoke to her heart”. As a weird, “creepy, if not evil thing. Maybe, just maybe we are dealing with a difference of perception of cultural appropriateness. Which MIGHT just extend to several other things that have been focused on so much.
Just as much as I see hitting and eye poking wrong in the Three Stooges
Agree totally with both rob & readerrabbit. It’s a lame defense. The accounts with Bill include far more than just what is referenced (fictionally) here. We don’t have access to a script, so I’ll just ask – is there anywhere in the play where Dad tells Sammy, “Don’t tell anyone about this; it’s special, just between you and me” ?
Sandy: And there again you have run right into it. We are certain that never happened, that event and conversation you cite. Until the individuals making those claims answer to an independent 3rd party we are left with two tales, one of which we each accept as valid.
This is a re-written response to the Moderator’s comment above, shortened somewhat at his request.
You’re certain “that” never happened. You acknowledge there are stories because you keep going to crazy lengths to defend them, but you cherry-pick the parts you accept. For instance, you accept that your Bill held hands and gazed into eyes because you can pick that out and insert it into a folksy setting in which it’s fine to do so. It’s not always creepy, nobody ever said it was, point made. Yet if in the SAME story the hand-holder/eye-gazer also says, “Let this be our little secret,” you halt right there because you can’t insert that one little part of the story into a setting that normalizes it, neither can you verify that it ever happened. But wait – why didn’t you argue about the hand-holding and eye-gazing, too, if you were basically just gonna call the story-teller a liar anyway? It’s glaring that you admit to just the parts of stories that fit your Mr Bill mold even if you have to contort them to fit. And admit – there’s a lot of contorting going on. Mr Bill just says “I didn’t mean it like that,” “I was just overzealous,” “I just wasn’t sensitive enough,” “It wasn’t footsie, I just tapped their feet,” “I was just acting fatherly,” and you buy everything he sells over and over again.
You say that the story-tellers need to answer to an “independent third party.” We’re not in a court of law here. What third party are they obligated to go through before it’s okay to post or blog or speak for themselves? What you’re looking to dis/prove is a COMPLETE waste of your time because cameras were not rolling, and intent can’t be proven. Third parties won’t change that; we’ll always be left with he said, they said, at least as long as your Bill claims innocence on every charge. You need to stop scapegoating RecoveringGrace and judging their motives. There are plenty of independent stories, and plenty of unsolicited concurring comments on RG and elsewhere. You act as if anybody who has a story to tell must prove their accounts by you. Not answering to either you or an “independent third party” does. not. make. their. stories. false, Alfred.
Let’s go back to your defense of the hand-holding and eye-gazing. You’ve removed it from the creepy contexts of the original stories and dropped it into a folksy tale of “Dad” and “Sammy” that makes it heartwarming. Yet if Dad told Sammy not to let anyone know how he treats her (my hypothetical addendum), your folksy play would take an abrupt turn toward the dark side – right? Maybe you’d sit there in ignorant bliss, but my eyebrows would rise as I figured out that he and his image weren’t in sync. So folksy might turn creepy in a heartbeat if you listen to the whole story in context. I’m not proving anything about anybody’s stories – I can’t. But neither can you disprove anything just because there weren’t cameras rolling and the guy that is the consistent brunt of overwhelming volumes of stories consistently deflects blame and claims excuses.
So what I’m saying is that’s it’s unfair for you to pick out parts of stories and pass them off as heartwarming when the story-tellers told them in undeniably creepy contexts to begin with. They were young and didn’t understand what was going on, they didn’t expect a man they respected to act like that, they tried telling others but were disciplined or accused of lying. You claim because they tell their stories now that they’re jumping on some kind of “kill Bill” bandwagon – for what earthly reason?? I’d say bolstering their own sanities now that they realize how they felt was valid is way more believable than jumping on some abstract worthless bandwagon.
Your point was taken – that hand-holding and eye-gazing might, in innocent context, be acceptable between a male and female. In fact, I might, if given the opportunity, take your hands in mine and gaze into your eyes and tell you, “Use your brain. Bill’s lying to you.”
Half again, please. Seriously.
Yes, if you knew Bill you would understand how that is quite reasonable. You raise many questions, answer none of them.
What earthly reason? Because Bill has consistently set a very high standard for holiness and Christian living. Things like no remarriage for the divorced, no rock music in any form, no dating. It is very offensive to some, some that gave up and quit and blame him for the experience, others because they find he has himself not hit all of the high standards he preached. That has been “the offense” from day one . . . Some just want to hurt him, have him destroyed and go away.
There are way too many reports of Gothard doing things with wrong motives, like going to ladies rooms whole they were in night clothes. There would nit be law suits and testamonies were it not true. you are making light of his wrongdoings.
Forgive me, but there were many reports linking Jesus to sinners, gluttony, drunkenness (if I read Matt. 11:19 right) Reports are not proof. Sometimes they are an expression of intense hatred.
Bill never went to secretaries’ rooms in their nightclothes. We have direct testimony to that from one of the secretaries that was there, close, the entire time.
Mr War
If you and your revenge gang were really following Jesus you’d have done as the rest of us who’d been abused and instead of trying to make your money off suing people on exaggerated charges you’d do as we did and go to them personally and lead them to repentance , then get a job to make money as we do so you don’t go around looking to sue others . Bill is no such person as you falsely charge and has blessed many of us over 30 years in purity . We’ll see you all at the great judgement day..
You are so certain? Is that because Bill told you? How do you really know Bill is telling you the truth? You were not there but enough young ladies with the same consistent story of his behaviors seem to make Bill look like a liar.
The consistent stories interestingly all appear on Recovering Grace . . . and nowhere else. And this multiple decades after the fact. That is at least as consistent with a coordinated campaign as it is consistent behaviors. Again I urge you to make a careful consideration of the much promoted “Cabin Story” to get a sense of the tragic – violent – misinformation that springs up and gets repeated in ever widening circles.
We gave some of our foundation for disbelieving Gretchen in the “Did He Do It?” article. There is more that can and will be added. Please consider the comments made toward that end.
What about this one? It isn’t Recovering Grace.
http://micahjmurray.com/dear-bill-gothard/
And there is at least one woman on the lawsuit against IBLP that didn’t publish on Recovering Grace either.
You are right, DJ, and we recall one other. Regardless, these are accounts from over 20 years ago. Why now? Any chance they read Recovering Grace first, decided they had something to add to pummel Bill, and published elsewhere, maybe to catch some traffic for their own blogs? As stated elsewhere, Bill has been vulnerable, subjected to “pummeling” in media for decades. I suspect the same magazines who made a lot of money on the Duggar scandal would have happily pursued the same against Bill. There is no reason to hide sexual abuse . . . unless it really isn’t that and really didn’t make sense until a carefully developed platform and context made it relevant.
Comment on November 25: “The consistent stories interestingly all appear on Recovering Grace . . . and nowhere else.”
Comment on November 27: “You are right, DJ, and we recall one other.”
Do you not consider it problematic that a website that is supposed to be sharing the “truth” doesn’t have a very good handle on it? Or was this just an oversight?
“There is no reason to hide sexual abuse . . . unless it really isn’t that and really didn’t make sense until a carefully developed platform and context made it relevant.”
Actually, it’s fairly common for women to hide sexual abuse. More likely than being forthright with it, in fact. I would suggest that it is as equally plausible that the women only recently discovered that they were not the only “victim,” and were thus emboldened to come forward. Not saying that is what happened for sure, but just saying that it is as plausible as the “attention seeking” scenario that you are suggesting.
Of course it was an oversight, DJ.
The worse the abuse is, the harder to disclose, especially the scenario of testifying in court and putting a “man of God” behind bars. Here we are talking about touches that many did not find offensive, sitting too close for some young ladies’ comfort. No, other scenarios are highly likely.
One possible benefit of this lawsuit is that, if not “thrown out”, it gets examined in a court. “Bill caused me serious damage with sexual abuse”. “What did he do?” “He sat too close to me, he tapped my feet with his”. “Did you ask him to stop?” “No, I didn’t know it was wrong”. “Did he do anything else?” “Well, no”.
And as noted elsewhere, we are especially hopeful that the single RG account alleging sexual contact – which we believe to be a fabrication – is finally actually examined. Time to come out of the shadows into the full light. We doubt anyone would disagree.
Sexual abuse and sexual harassment are not necessarily the same. The lawsuit alleges that some of the women experienced sexual harassment at IBLP. Someone can sexually harass someone without ever touching them. The burden of proof for sexual harassment is not as difficult to achieve as sexual abuse. These women may easily sway a jury to believe that they experienced sexual harassment at the hands of their employer and counselor, Mr. Gothard.
Sexual harassment is a fairly precisely defined matter. It revolves around circumstances that make a workplace environment abusive. That usually includes promotions or demotions, financial loss due to not complying with sexual advances. Not sure how that would even be alleged to apply here. The other notion is behavior that is sexual in nature that makes the situation, again, “abusive”. And a key there is . . . Saying so. And reporting it in a timely manner. See, of the one or two instances we are aware of where a girl made a complaint, either directly to Bill or through others that something bothered her, she was apologized to and it never occurred again. In virtually all – perhaps all – of these plaintiffs they said nothing . . . Until they surfaced 20 years later to sue for damages. Seriously, other than cutting a deal to avoid the expense of litigation do you honestly believe any one of them has even a microchance of prevailing? This would quickly turn into a case of “sexual harassment law abuse”. Other terms come to mind. I am not sure but what the law and courts may turn out to be Bill’s best friend.
I actually think that they have a very good chance of winning their lawsuit. Remember their case is against IBLP and the board of directors not Mr. Gothard, and they have dozens of other women making similar claims. And I think that if Mr. Gothard winds up testifying that we will see that the court is definitely not his friend.
We will see. All those other women are irrelevant to the case. Unless they are making some sore of “class” claim. Which they are not. Remember, the two lawsuits in the 1980s were also “against IBLP”, against its board. In the case of “sexual abuse” there was actual abuse by Steve Gothard – I guess his role was COO – which was well documented. Lawsuit #1 was thrown out for lack of foundation, lawsuit #2 – the one about abusive work conditions due in part to sexual abuse – was quickly dropped because it apparently had little chance of succeeding and thus carried considerable liability for the plaintiffs. Lawsuits are not a game. I am no lawyer, but, knowing what I know about Bill Gothard, IBLP and at least some of the plaintiffs, I can only shake my head.
I attended the Basic a long time ago and never got a clear understanding of the events that happened in the early 1980s and how that plays into Bill’s recent resignation. You mention two lawsuits, the first being thrown out for lack of foundation and the second one was dropped because it had little chance of succeeding and that the second was about abusive work conditions due in part to sexual abuse. What was the first on about and why go to all the trouble to file a suit that had little basis. Who filed it was it, was it a personal suit or class action? Was the second suit for sexual harassment? Who were the plaintiffs of that one, was the women who felt harassed?
Your post only brings up more questions and ask if there is a reoccurring theme between these suits and the one just filed? As Christians we should only pursue legal action when all other Biblical avenues have been exhausted or if there is evidence that the offending party is not a Christian. Your last sentence really makes me wonder what you are trying to really say. Are you questioning the character of Bill, IBLP or the plaintiffs? Do any of them have a track record of improper behavior?
At the moment I am context-less to reread the comments you are replying to. First of all, Recovering Grace has details on the lawsuits posted here, with their interpretation, not all of which we agree with: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/03/failure-to-reconcile-part-two/
The actual lawsuits are available here:
Lawsuit #1
Lawsuit #2
The second lawsuit involves a general complaint against the Board of mismanagement as brought by the “alumni” as a class who were concerned that the corporation would collapse and not be there for them to take as many seminars as they wanted in the future, for free, as promised. And get “birthday cards” and other materials on their birthday. Mismanagment included the purchase of porn movies on Steve’s behalf and the “sexual favors” that became part of his way of going business. I believe the intent was to remove the Board and replace them with another. I am not a lawyer.
Our stance is that those lawsuits should never have been filed. We agree with your statement on Christians and legal action. Some actions had been taken within the confines of “the church”, but they failed to satisfy many, so they resorted to this method.
We have a specific concern with Tony Guhr who was in the thick of all of this, researching, interviewing, motivating. It was felt by some that he ended up doing more damage than good, pushing things to a point where no solution was possible. Bill became so frustrated with him that he sent a 19 page letter to his church and others involved documenting the ways in which he had damaged the process. It is called the “Agent of Satan” letter on RG because the term “The Agent” was used throughout when referring to Tony prefaced with a challenge that Tony was either an “Agent of Satan” or and “Agent of the Lord Jesus Christ”, and the recipients should decide which it was. Tony’s church received the letter and promptly excommunicated him without a hearing. Tony and RG have highlighted this as a prime example of heavy-handedness on Bill’s part, especially since the excommunication largely ruined Tony’s life because of the role of that church in his life and family. What neither he nor RG passed on was that the church had a long track record with Tony already. He had been investigating and openly chastising their leadership for completely unrelated issues, ultimately performing an act of protest that was, in fact, a technical cause for excommunication under church bylaws. They simply had had enough of Tony. When Bill contacted the church recently to try to make things as right as possible, they were completely uninterested in opening a dialog on Tony. They stated however, emphatically, that his excommunication had nothing to do with Bill’s letter.
Tony was the one furiously motivating for a lawsuit. As was noted in one of the communications posted on RG, those that finally gathered to make it happen were surprised to learn that he had withdrawn and would not be joining them . . . for reasons he did not pass on. By all rights he should have stood as the class representative. That is the reason for bringing Tony up.
This was in the 1980s and unrelated to the recent action by 5 women against the IBLP Board for “negligence”.
Interesting point, but frankly, it’s not really the fact that an older guy was looking into a girl’s eyes while holding her hand that bothers me. It’s that he was the one who propagated such high standards for everyone else about physical contact with women, defrauding, emotional purity, and guarding your heart. While it will always be debated whether or not his intent was sexual or fatherly (and to a point, none of us can be 100% sure without being able to read his mind), it is rather obvious that this was a pretty blatant example of hypocrisy. The young people and the ATI followers were held to standards Gothard was not applying to himself. That’s what I see as the major issue.
Yes, there will be (and should be) discussion around whether or not Gothard was intentionally sexual about what he was doing or whether or not it was because of his old-fashioned preferences. And sure, let both sides of that discussion talk and see what the truth is. But it seems practically undeniable to me that there is a blatant double standard here that resulted in some pretty heavy, obvious hypocrisy.
Bill sees his practices outside the realm of “male and female” and inside the scope of “family”. The example here provides a context to see that perspective.
So if everyone that worked for IBLP was “family,” then why did Mr. Gothard repeatedly punish and send home others who did far less than he in the area of touching?
He didn’t see the matters as the same, that the “getting to know” of young women under his care was essential and central to his responsibilities while outside the realm of what was appropriate for the young men. I am sure you can see how that could be true. That having been said, he has also acknowledged that some of that was wrong, damaging confidence even if appropriate. And he has accepted responsibility for being callous toward some in this regard. And he really wants to talk to those with hurts in that arena. That process is necessary and continues.
“He didn’t see the matters as the same, that the “getting to know” of young women under his care was essential and central to his responsibilities…”
If it was essential and central to his responsibilities, then why did he not “get to know” all of us young men and women equally, rather than a select few attractive ones?
Bill felt a special calling to encourage young ladies to become mighty in spirit ever since several events he witnessed in high school years pointed out a neglect in the church in this area. Lots of focus on the fellows, but Satan often attacks the wives and mothers first. We discussed this at length with him. He has had a heart to bless and help . . . Much like the fictional “Shepherd of the Hills”. This was for Bill far different than the typical male surrounding himself with attractive females. And many young ladies thank God for the blessing Bill was to them.
It is a scenario that screams for abuse, and is where his enemies go to mine tools to bludgeon him with. Because not a few of those brought in had “troubled” pasts it also screams for exaggeration and outright lies for any that might crave a spotlight at the expense of a public figure. That was a vulnerability that also screamed for extra care and accountability, some of which was ignored.
“Bill felt a special calling to encourage young ladies to become mighty in spirit ever since several events he witnessed in high school years pointed out a neglect in the church in this area.”
1. Then why only the attractive ones? Everyone at HQ knew Mr. Gothard had a “type” that he took special interest in. It can’t be a coincidence that he felt drawn to the pretty ones.
2. If he was focused on them becoming mighty in spirit, then why did he place so much emphasis on how they fixed their hair, wore their clothes (and underwear), and so on?
“1. Then why only the attractive ones? Everyone at HQ knew Mr. Gothard had a “type” that he took special interest in. It can’t be a coincidence that he felt drawn to the pretty ones.”
So, IS there a reason for attractiveness in a woman (or man)? Does God do that randomly, or for a purpose? See, the devil sure spends extra time on the pretty ones, because he gets so much more mileage out of time invested in them than in the unattractive ones. The movie stars, the athletes . . . the just “gorgeous” ones. People instinctively like them and follow them. Argue all you want about what should be . . . can you tell me I am wrong? So . . . why in the world would Bill not spend more time on them as well, for the same reasons?
Here is a bit of a quiz for you. In Hebrews 11 we read that Moses’ parents were full of faith that God had big plans for him when they looked at their son and noticed _____________ . . . what. Can you answer that?
“2. If he was focused on them becoming mighty in spirit, then why did he place so much emphasis on how they fixed their hair, wore their clothes (and underwear), and so on?” Did you hear Bill give advice on underwear? Do you know anyone to whom he gave advice on underwear? Neither do I. Bill has strongly denied that to me, personally.
On the rest, the “Shepherd of the Hills” gave focused advice to “Sammy” on how to dress, carry herself, speak, all with the purpose so she could make a great impression on others, especially her future husband and his family and friends. Ordered her women’s magazines toward that end. Fictional . . . but . . . apparently considered quite normal, OK, given the overwhelming popularity of the novel. Do you really think that is bad, raising a young woman’s confidence and appeal, overall success, with “dress for success” tips? When I started in the working world I had to stand in front of groups of people and do seminars (computer related). My boss was quite savvy and took me aside and gave me a copy of “Dress For Success”, actually bought me clothes along the way. I needed it, and to this day am grateful.
“See, the devil sure spends extra time on the pretty ones, because he gets so much more mileage out of time invested in them than in the unattractive ones.”
Alfred – first of all, did you really say that?? I copied and pasted, so it looks like you did. Did you say it with a straight face? Smh!!
And second, what could Bill possibly say that you wouldn’t buy hook, line, and sinker? This one’s definitely a sinker. And you have not only bought his “reasoning” for why he liked the “pretty girls,” but you’re trying to pass it off on us. No dice!
I’ll bet there’s another, more believable reason. Use your brain … put the pieces together … I very sincerely dare you.
These are the posts we just have a hard time approving . . . and you have had a series of them, Sandy. What exactly is your point? Yes, we said it. When God destines someone for greatness, both He and the devil provide extra attention. They need extra help, really. If a beautiful – or rich or genius or super-athletic – person is not taught to manage their gift and life, they become the devil’s playground. Think “Disney Princess” syndrome. This is exactly the problem Bill noted in his youth, and, again, few others recognize it, or care. So, yes, I said it. Now, make a point, please. I dare you. While you are at it, please take the quiz I gave and provide your answer. WHAT caused Moses’ parents to be filled with faith that God had destined him for greatness? Scripture is quite clear, Hebrews 11:23, uses the word “because”.
His parents saw that he was no ordinary child. Some versions say “special” or “beautiful.” I guess you’re used to Mr Gothard stretching scripture to say whatever he wants is to say, but to go from Moses being no ordinary child to Bill coming up with a “reason” that he was attracted to the pretty girls and not the ordinary or ugly ones is insane. He’s already come up with one story for taking more time with girls than boys – that they had been neglected by the church and he was helping them become “mighty in spirit”? LOL – use your noggin. He told them to stay home till marriage, not get an education, and on and on ad nauseum. That just doesn’t FIT with seeing that they were being neglected by the church and wanting to help them. In that twisted line of reasoning, it seems like he should’ve discerned that the homely ones weren’t treated well and they needed extra “help.” But that wouldn’t help his case.
You keep asking me to make a point, Alfred, but I’m trying to make them all around you. I don’t come here with a personal “Bill story.” I come here with extensive first-hand experience with a manipulator, and I know to what lengths they go to and get you to go to. That’s why I feel a tinge of affinity with you, even while at the same time I want to just walk away from someone who can be so callous to the legions of hurting people who have been affected both directly and indirectly by your Mr Bill.
My point, my friend Alfred, is that you need to use the brain God gave you and try to make actual sense of the lines you’re being fed. We can all pray for discernment.
They saw he was a sharp, good looking little boy.
g0791. ἀστεῖος asteios; from ἄστυ astu (a city); urbane, i.e. (by implication) handsome: — fair. AV (2) – fair 1, proper 1; of the city, of polished manners, elegant (of body), comely, fair
You completely blew by here, Sandy! If you are going to “lump” me, I shall “lump” you. Bill’s detractors have a typical disregard for what the Bible actually says, the “words”, in favor of general notions that are consistent with what they believed before they even considered what God had to say.
Moses had an unusual natural appeal that gave them faith that God had a special purpose for him. That’s what it says. Which tells us that we can discern aspects of God’s intentions for individuals by looking at them. How attractive they are is an important part of that.
BTW, if God and Bill don’t want unmarried young women to get an education, how come Bill invented Verity College and Oakbrook School of Law, which regularly confer degrees on ATI young ladies? Something doesn’t add up. Maybe you are the victim of some typical “echo chamber group think”?
1. The Moses analogy is a joke, as Sandy pointed out. You have to complete ignore the story of the anointing of David by Samuel to say that scripture teaches God uses the attractive.
But just for clarity, Bill noticed in his youth that attractive young women were falling prey to “disney princess” syndrome and thus, he decided that his life calling was to solve this problem? Hence he spent an inordinate amount of time counseling them privately in ways that most would view as inappropriate, simply because he saw this problem that no one else was seeing?
Just wanted to make sure I’m understanding your/his viewpoint.
2. I can’t say more strongly how inappropriate that behavior is, and I honestly can’t believe that anyone with a rational mind would view the way Bill controlled every detail of these young women’s lives as okay. It’s sickening really.
And no, the popularity of a fictional book doesn’t make something okay. Does the international success of Harry Potter mean that it’s okay for me to start performing wizardry?
That story very much emphasizes the very point being made:
“And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.” (1 Samuel 16:12)
David WAS one of the beautiful people, prepared for that role. Perhaps if his older brothers had prepared their hearts as David did, and as you know Bill has focused his efforts on this with his “Journey to the Heart” and one on one counseling, one of them could have been selected.
So who told you that Bill controls every detail of young ladies’ lives? That is not even remotely close to reality. That is our testimony with young people on staff and in close contact with others – many young ladies included – who have been part of Bill’s discipleship programs.
How about sticking with the points being made? This is a God fearing audience that made “Shepherd of the Hills” so popular, not even close to secular novels today. Upheld high standards. Not possible if the behavior of “The Shepherd” is considered inappropriate. Which, of course, it was not. Exact same types of situations that Bill is being loudly condemned for, “per se”.
You keep bringing up Greek words here and there but the OT was written not in Greek but Hebrew. Your repeated use of throwing in one or two Greek words is curious as best. It really doesn’t prove your points because you are taking one word here and putting out of context as well as trying to look impressive in that you spell out the Greek word and then give the Greek meaning. It looks like what you are implying is that the Bible has not been translated correcting from the earliest recorded languages of Greek and Hebrew? Your further implication here is very troubling in stating that God just uses “attractive” people. So does that mean ugly people are not wanted or needed? What ever happen to the first of Bill’s “non-optional” principals? If God just uses the attractive which is a very subjective, why did He use Bill then? Because he is so physically attractive? I hardly think so.
God wrote both halves of the Bible, so if Hebrews describes Moses with the Greek word asteios, then that is completely accurate.
Now that is not what we said, was it. Thank God that isn’t true, since the class of beautiful people excludes me. No, the point is that God generally prepares a man or woman to stand in front of people and lead by giving them certain characteristics. It is a gift, a power to engender instinctive trust, confidence irrespective of the message being proclaimed. Very similar thought to that put forward by Charles Spurgeon a century ago as he selected candidates for his exclusive preachers college. In this case he posited that God would prepare a man to preach publicly by giving him a powerful voice, required especially in a day before amplification. That is practical faith, proven by the fact that God assumes full responsibility for such characteristics from birth. Look at our Presidents and other elected leaders . . . How many are short? I can’t think of one. Most are conversely big and tall. Studies have proven that people instinctively believe that large, tall men are better able to lead and protect them. Being 5′ 3″ tall, it is unlikely God intended me to be President . . . Or a CEO. But I am suited for other things that Mr. Big & Tall struggles with.
I’m with the others. The use of Shepherd of the Hills as some kind of explanation of Bill”s behavior is just bazaar. I respect the obvious – you have been impacted by him in a positive way and can’t see Bill as anything but a kind and generous man with a pastoral heart. But this is just not who he is. How many women have to tell almost the identical story over decades before the obvious is accepted? The Bill I knew 35 years ago is (frankly) the same Bill I see today.
Frankly Sandy and the others are spot on. Your comment that we will not know until there is an independent investigation is also spot on. Unfortunately the Board of Directors, the group that is ultimately responsible for Bill’s behavior and must account to donors, staff, students, customers, and the State – had this opportunity and totally failed in its most fundamental responsibilities. Instead of an independent investigation they hired a legal firm of questionable reputation, one that is hardly independent, one who’s staff apparently qualified to investigate the sexual abuse of female staff of a major christian organization and then provided no documentation or transparency. It was a disgusting and irresponsible attempt to cover up another scandal. Just like the one they did 35 years ago – hired a so called “independent investigator” . About the only difference between this investigation and the earlier one is that the earlier one was done by a pastor and this one was done by a lawyer.
“The Bill I knew 35 years ago is (frankly) the same Bill I see today. ”
Dan, please share the Bill you know . . . personally. Not the accounts of others, your assumptions based on those accounts, your personal observations and experience.
“How many women have to tell almost the identical story over decades before the obvious is accepted?”
We don’t see that at all. Can you, BTW, recall a single accusation of “foot play” being detailed from 35 years ago? I haven’t up to this point. See, 35 years ago there was talk of pajama hugs, women in nightgowns on his lap. You must be aware from all we have put forward that we have found no evidence of this, in fact strongly denied by folks that were in there, those cited as witnesses. You appear to be one who would know some of the folks we cite . . . what do you think?
One almost gets the sense of “whatever works” is what is promoted. And – forgive me – but the grouping of accounts of late are recollections from 20 years ago, a time gap that makes the likelihood of memories being tainted by other accounts highly likely. It is at least as consistent with a long standing, at times latent, desire to punish Bill for unrelated things as it is showing a real pattern of behavior.
” It was a disgusting and irresponsible attempt to cover up another scandal. Just like the one they did 35 years ago – hired a so called “independent investigator” ”
We agree that it could have been more thorough, but their focus shifted from defending Bill to not being damaged by him. Lawyers look for defensible positions against lawsuits and their were confident that they had that, leaving larger matters to later investigations. They concluded that there was no substance to the accusations of “sexual harassment” let alone “sexual abuse”. Do you really think that a professional lawyer like David Gibbs Jr., not his first rodeo, would leave himself, IBLP exposed in any substantive way? That becomes a matter of professional pride, if nothing else. I suspect you will discover that he is a lot smarter than you think.
There was nothing wrong with what they did for the purpose before them. We wish they had, however, kept with the process, working with Bill, to address all of the other issues, which would have included getting him and the accusers together address their concerns. Bill shouldered that responsibility, but so far almost none of the young ladies have agreed to talk with him.
I worked for the man for nearly 6 years, was his stand in for his taped seminars, ran 18-20 of his seminars each year, counted his money (always a big concern) and played checkers with him (he is really good). Each of the women who were abused by him and his brother were close personal friends and I am close with those who have been attempting to work with him in the last few years. When my friends tell a consistent story I tend to believe them, not just because they are my friends but because the stories are consistent.
Finally, I understand your point about lawyers protecting their clients. This is large part of what they do. It is called risk management. If the Board of Directors wanted to be transparent they would have hired professionals who understand the delicate requirements of interviewing women who may have been sexually abused. Instead, they hired lawyers who’s skill sets seems to be personal injury and estate planning. No, I do not think Mr. Gibbs is stupid. He probably did exactly what he was hired to do – I think your point – he protected the assets of IBLP from risk (litigation). While the public expected, and were told they would get, was an independent and thorough investigation. What we got was exactly what we got 35 years ago – a well constructed job of managing risk, exposure, and the truth. While I don’t think Gibbs did this, the last investigation (provided by a well respected pastor who later had to get out of the ministry because of his own sexual improprieties) had the audacity of blaming the victims of sexual abuse for the abuse itself. Exactly what Bill’s sister did (I was standing right next to her).
Dan: Bill must have had several “stand-ins” since that is the role given to Tony Guhr in the Veinot book. I guess since you used the terms “abused by him and his brother” in the way Tony has, I will have to ask you the same things I asked him: what abuse are you aware of that Bill was guilty of? Steve was guilty of horrid sexual activity as well as watching porn – you appear to equivocate the two?
We have spoken at length with Linda in the last year, and have graciously been granted much information regarding Ruth. There are discrepancies even in the accounts we are aware of. Our concerns with Tony’s attestations are given elsewhere on the website. What information can you give towards confirming or denying the perspectives we presented?
We share your perspective that the Body of Christ should have this all cleared up, formally. The how and by whom is tough. That would take a lot of cooperation and purpose of heart which we have not seen a lot of. The consensus almost seems to be to let 81 year old Bill Gothard disappear into the sunset and everyone else move on. For those that see him, deal with his grief and frustration let alone are aware of the millions of people affected by an unresolved situation, that seems wrong in every sense. We will try to continue to move in the right direction with whatever help we can find.
There were several of us that were his “stand ins”. Someone had to “man” the overhead projector during taped seminars. That was one of my jobs. So yes, a few of us had that title. I am very familiar with each name you mentioned – Tony, Linda, and Ruth. I was close to all three and in my own opinion, all three have suffered significant abuse from Bill, his brother, or both in one form or another. I am also very familiar with the impact this abuse has had on all three.
As to sexual abuse and what forms it took should be rather obvious. Sexual abuse is generally defined as any unwanted sexual contact, touch, innuendo etc. Having listened to countless corporate training on sexual harassment there are pretty clear standards = when a superior is sexual towards a subordinate, either by actual touch or even innuendo it is considered sexual harassment. This is especially so when corporate HR policies prohibit any kind of romantic association between between superiors and subordinates. What is more, it is the corporation that will pay for the damages when the subordinate hires an attorney. Yes I am using the terms sexual abuse and harassment synonymously. If you prefer to call the actions by Bill’s brother (Senior Vice President & COO) as sexual harassment so be it. In either way, the corporation failed miserably in its duties and both the Board and Bill did nothing. As such it is the corporation that was both negligent and liable.
Furthermore, Bill seems to have this idea that sexual abuse (or harassment) is defined by intent (one of the Chicago papers quoted him on this one a while back). This is just outrageous. If a women is submitted to unwanted touching and has to endure it because of her employment any reasonable court, jury,or judge would say it is harassment – regardless of intent. To believe intent must be sexual only gives him license to play footsie, run his hands through a women’s hair, or ask for a hug when they are ready for bed.
Finally, it sounds like we do agree that a thorough and unbiased investigation would be of value. From this perspective anything you can do to make this a reality would be of enormous value to the Body of Christ. Several months ago I proposed a reconciliation model to RG but it was not published. I don’t think it was because they did not like the idea but because they did not think the timing was appropriate. Either way, I still think the proposal would work. In my judgement, your love of Bill and his work would take on real value to the larger community by pushing this forward. Not only is it a reasonable action item but one that is way past overdue. Blessing on you for this desire.
So if everyone, male and female were the same to him, then why didn’t he “play” footsie with boys? Why didn’t he give “affirming” hand holding to boys? Why didn’t he surround himself with young men as with young ladies? Why didn’t he have boys sit in his lap for a bedtime story? Your excuses and justification is moving more and more into the bizarre.
No, we have some among us that saw that kind of “foot activity” with a fellow . . . tap, I see you, you are important. It is NOT footsie. And to the rest, come on. There is no way I treat my daughters the same as my sons. I have a daughter that loves to climb in the chair with me and sit while I work . . . my sons would feel weird if I buy them flowers for special occasions . . . daughters rush up every night for a good night kiss . . . Not the fellows, no way. I am sure you can think of many cultural things, especially in a day gone bye, where men treat young women much different than fellows. It is not bizarre . . . it is normal, healthy.
This isn’t about how you treat your own children, this is about how Bill treated the young girls and boys he surrounded himself with and your assertion that he didn’t see or follow male and female roles because he saw (according to you) them as “family” and didn’t see (according to you) as male and female and didn’t follow (according to you) normal conventional behavior so he is justified (according to you) in his behavior towards young men and women because he saw himself as one big daddy type and his behavior (according to you) is normal because this is just Bill being Bill. You are using the same excuses as those defenders of Michael Jackson that invited young boys over to romp around with him, then proceeded to sleep in bed with them, having milk and cookies and reading bedtime stories as they all nestled together in bed, a single rock star surrounded by young boys. Justifying abnormal behavior needs to stop whether is it Bill Gothard or Michael Jackson and all you have done is replace celebrity culture with a Christian leader because that is just Bill being Bill so it is OK.
Trying to equate anything Bill did with Michael Jackson is disgusting. If you can’t find anything redeeming or encouraging or useful in the submitted analogy . . . move on, please.
Tyler, missing this comment, apologies. Please see the reply to Dan below (above?). The point being that something appropriate on one foundation is completely inappropriate on another. Thinking of doctor exams, for example. It is a fine line to walk sometimes, demanding some accountability and safeguards that due to the constant flexing schedule were perhaps not as meticulously followed as they should have been.
I can understand that to a point. But the fact remains that he had scrupulously high standards for those in his ministry, standards that he held those around him to for over 40 years. I understand your explanation, and I probably would feel the same way as you do if I knew the man. We tend to sympathize more easily with those we know and judge more harshly those we don’t. Whether or not he realized it though, he was fostering and enforcing an incredibly high double standard: on the one hand, young people of opposite genders were not supposed to touch or some accounts say be alone together, yet he would sit close to young women during one on one counseling sessions, give hugs, etc. Hmm… still trying to think it all through.
If Bill has done anything, it is to set a high standard. If you spend any time with him you quickly learn that his reality is not quite that tight. I recall feeling that for the first time when, after grinding my own wheat and baking bread for my family daily for some time, we came to headquarters for a visit . . . and the lunch meal the staff graciously served us included white buns. 🙂 Others joked about his penchant for root beer and ice cream. I remember being impressed by his dark hair given his age, a testimony I figured to his fasting. Then others noted that he dyes his hair. His reasons were “for video purposes”. Those that know him well gained an understanding between the public standard and the real man. To some extent that was freeing, since the standard was high enough to kill you. And . . . he did note it himself, objectively. I recall him speaking at a Basic Seminar, holding up a paper vertically, from the bottom, then folding it, and attempting unsuccessfully to again hold it up. When he bent it back, hyperextended it the other way, then it was able to stand up straight. His point: Sometimes you have to overemphasize the missing thing to get the entire system back in balance. That made a lot of sense, and helped a great deal to process his teachings and later ATI. It told me that we needed to manage some of the stimulation being given, to make it fit me, and then my family.
So . . . some things were deliberately overemphasized, rules, standards, punishments, to make points. It caused problems for some of us literalists, used to “black and white”, no compromise, purposed to do it all without a miss. That is a prescription for guaranteed failure.
Just to reiterate what others have stated- The Shepherd of the Hills NEVER held up a standard for others that he did not uphold himself. It is a travesty to link Bill’s behavior with a beloved literary character and ruin the book for others. As to Bill believing he was exempt from all the rules he set forth as a standard for spirituality (and staying in the program) because he viewed everyone as family, I call Hogwash. This sense of entitlement and exploitation of others is standard narcissistic personality disorder. Even a quick Google of that term reveals many Gothard characteristics that are classic to this disorder. Perhaps this is why he appears so believable to the moderator when he gives his rationale. If he truly believes it is legitimate to hold others to a standard that he can violate at his whim and is not able to realize the destruction his actions bring to others, he is a troubled individual. He needs strong friends in his life to encourage him to seek help- not make excuses for him and enable him to continue.
“The Shepherd of the Hills” was a originally a proud pastor that drove his son away and, through harshness, was responsible for driving a young woman insane. Hardly an innocent individual.
You gave your opinion, we posted it, if you don’t like the analogy we found, move on. We liked it, think it provided some perspective that is meaningful to some.
“Standards high enough to kill you”? Whatever happen to Jesus own words “my yoke is easy and my burden light”? Do you realize that your post not only shows how legalistic Bill’s teaching is but that he even couldn’t follow it himself and the blatant hypocrisy of it all. Bill had a black and white literalistic mind set, you have stated that yourself already in defense of his view of Bible interpretation. It isn’t a matter that “literalists” misunderstood Bill, they understood him all too well. You can’t spin this any better. Jesus own words and warning to the pharisees should be reread by you and Bill and His (Jesus) own warnings and condemnations were against such people, people that taught one thing and did another, people that made heavy burdens on others that they couldn’t keep themselves, people that had “standards high enough to kill you”.
Explain this passage . . . Why did all those disciples quit Jesus?
“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (John 6:60-66)
Reread the passage yourself. Some quit following Jesus because of His statements concerning the fact that He called himself the Bread of Life and that no one would have life within themselves unless they ate the Bread of Life. It is an actual reference to the Eucharist and has nothing to do with “high standards” that you are twisting it into. Sorry but the other commenters here have agreed that the “Shepard of the Hill” comparison has nothing to do with Bill at all and the scene of this old man holding and gazing into a young woman’s eye is fictional and this does not justify Bill’s behaviors at all. If this brings you comfort it is more of sign of despiration on your part, not anyone elses.
Definitely did read it. They said what he said was “hard” . . . “g4642. σκληρός sklēros; from the base of 4628; dry, i. e. hard or tough ( figuratively, harsh, severe): — fierce, hard, harsh, rough, stiff of men: metaph. harsh, stern, hard of things: violent, rough, offensive, intolerable”. Something Jesus said seemed “harsh”, “intolerable” . . . Jesus noted that it offended them.
See . . . He just finished telling them, not that they had to take the “Eucharist” – which didn’t exist then – but that they had to basically “eat” Him. Which haled back to the focus of the entire chapter, “What it takes to be a real disciple”. A lot of them were dabbling in Jesus, but they had to get “full in”. Jesus reminded them that He had the truth, that spiritual things alone matter in this life (and, BTW, “flesh profits nothing”, which would speak to worrying about bread turning into flesh. That was in fact the opposite of what He was concerned with).
It is the same today. People don’t hang up on Jesus because they don’t like the notion of bread turning into flesh. They hang up because they figure out that you can’t be a Christian without doing this, living a “hard” life: “23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it” (Luke 9)
First off, I really appreciate the moderating staff taking the time to respond to these comments. It’s helping me formulate exactly what my thoughts are on the different takes I’ve heard about Bill Gothard and ATI/IBLP from friends who have attended the seminars, writings criticizing him, etc. It certainly helps to hear from people who actually know the man and are willing to discuss concerns. Thank you!
As to what you said, that’s somewhat eye-opening. I have friends in ATI who have talked to me about the feeling of constant pressure to measure up to what felt like an impossibly high standard, but it’s interesting to hear that stated here as well. So, if I understand correctly, you’re saying that Gothard over-emphasized high standards at times to compensate for the commonality of particularly low standards in the church, feeling that the over-emphasizing of higher ones might bring up the general bar and bring up the standards as a whole? Is that correct?
If so, there appears at first glance to be a problem there. The answer to imbalance is not more imbalance, it’s balance. The answer to out of proportioned facts is not more out of proportioned facts; it’s balanced truth. The problem with analogies (like the paper one) is that what is true in one case is not necessarily true in another. Yes, maybe that analogy holds true with paper, but it doesn’t usually hold true with worldviews or matters of theology. For example, the answer to hate against one race isn’t to teach that that race is better than everyone else and God loves them more. That just leads to a different kind of imbalance. The proper response is to teach truth.
Most welcome.
While your general point is correct, that we are after TRUTH to balance, practical reality says that you do not skip out of well worn patterns of behavior by lots of truth. For example, what is the solution to a long term bad diet resulting in morbid obesity? The answer is an extreme diet – or at least relatively extreme – perhaps an extreme lifestyle to go with it. Check out “Biggest Loser” type shows. See, after the objective is obtained, discipline is learned . . . AFTER that normalcy may be engaged in. How about alcohol abuse? Is the answer for a drunk to return to “moderate, social drinking”? No, the answer is complete abstinence, at least for a while . . . for ever, according to many. Credit card abusers? Again, the answer is often, “No credit cards allowed” . . . at least for years. The reality is that hyperextension in the opposite direction IS often required to obtain long term balance.
One of his regular quotes: “It is better to shoot for the moon, and get off the ground, then to shoot for a light bulb and get nowhere.” So many of these behavior things have less to do with “truth” and more to do with degrees of “better”. Prime example is “the blessing of children”. He presented extreme examples – Susanna Wesley with 19, she herself the youngest of 25. If her parents had had 24, then used birth control, why, no John and Charles Wesley. David being #8 son, maybe #11 overall. If Jessie had practiced normal “birth control” . . . well . . . This coupled with lots of Scriptures leaves you with the sense that God is not in favor of birth control, that that may in fact be a sin. Result: Lots of children in ATI. There are some ATI Moms who felt overwhelmed, even destroyed because of circumstances that included a baby every couple of years. Some bitter at Bill for “misleading” them.
Over the years we as a family learned that birth control is, in fact, not a “cardinal sin”, in any case, since Daniel let them neuter him (“eunich”) in ways he did not let them feed him idol meat and wine. If a sin, Daniel would have been prepared to die rather than submit to permanent “birth control”. Result for us was some birth control at a couple of critical medical times in life . . . and still ending up with 11 kids. Maybe we would have had 19 too, otherwise? But it was, for us, a very wise thing. Regardless, that is a prime example from my family of shooting for the moon . . . and getting off the ground. And – this is the key – neither my wife nor I ever once felt inclined to blame Bill when things got really bad. Because we took it to Jesus first, and when we both had peace from Him, we let God plan our family. We remain grateful to Bill for doing what practically no other preacher has had the guts to do, preach the truth about God’s opinion on children as an unmitigated blessing. We are so grateful for each one of the children God gave us, could not imagine life without any one of them. Without Bill, there would not be a bunch of them.
We have stuck with ATI in part because it is a heavy stimulus in the right directions, like a gale force wind . . . giving us the option to trim our sails to catch it all, or most, or, in some cases, very little. No wind, no motivation . . . we prefer the wind.
High standards? An interesting concept for Bill Gothard. His running of the IBYC corporation did set a high standard. Visual graphics were always of the highest standards and branding was critical. Headquarters grounds were always immaculate and highly complimentary to the surrounding community. He seldom appeared in even casual settings without a suit and tie. He also set high standards for his staff and expected them (us) to follow a high moral code. When speakers would speak at our staff retreats we were treated to only the best.
Personal/professional conduct – different story. In the late 1970’s he published a book titled “The Pineapple Story”. The message was all about giving up our rights to God and others. He was a terrific salesmen. After his introduction at a large seminar we sold 10,000 of them in fifteen minutes. However, during the most tense part of the scandal that involved the sexual abuse and harassment of our female staff by his Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and his little brother, and he felt his rights might be in jeopardy – he hired a professional court room litigator. It was a bit like turning a wolf inside a cage with a family of rabbits. During this same time he summoned executives from Bob Jones University and Charles Stanley from Atlanta to convince staff that we should not be concerned about executive leadership sexually abusing and harassing female staff. The verbal beating was such that a guest, who was also an attorney, called it – abusive.
So I think your observation of Bill is true especially when his personal or corporate image is concerned. But when he feels his personal and corporate rights or image is threatened his standards seem to fall somewhere towards the gutter. Lies, deceit, and obstruction of justice are not too low for his personal standards.
Trying to track with your criticism. Was Bill wrong for promoting ‘The Pineapple Story”? The account has been a tremendous blessing to many, and all of the resources have always been very reasonably priced, excellent values. With respect to the lawsuits that were brought by former staff members, you are completely misrepresenting the situation. The staffers sued the corporation seeking to seize control based on gross mismanagement. The Board exercised their insurance which was in place for that purpose and mounted a vigorous response. The accusations were based on very flimsy assertions, starting with the allegation that staff had been routinely defrauded of pay. It wasn’t true, and as a result they had trouble finding someone to stand as the class representative. The court threw that part out from the start. For the other lawsuit, basically workplace abuse based on the things that Steve had done, the plaintiffs were not willing to deal with the possible consequences should they lose, and so dropped it. Lawsuits are not a game. If you bring a suit you can expect that those being sued will defend themselves, especially when you are asking for 5 million 1980 dollars.
Personally I think the lawsuits were wrong from the get go form any number of perspectives. Many documents relating to that effort are posted on RG. There you can see that Tony, the one with the copious “evidence”, heavily motivated/lobbied for that action, then, strangely, declined to join when he had succeeded in getting folks lathered up for the fight. RG never provided a reason for that.
I have to had it to you…. you are consistent in responding. In my comment about Bill’s “high standards” I am not sure where you got the idea that I found anything wrong with the “Pineapple Story”. It was a cute story. Nor did I mention any law suits. The point was this: Bill preaches that people should give up rights in the “Pineapple Story” but when his are threatened he hires a lawyer. I forget the man’s name but he was on the Board of Trustees of Bob Jones University and liked to brag that he had never lost a case. He was joined by his soon to be son-in-law as his para legal. He met with each of us that were concerned over the sexual abuse and harassment of our female staff by Bill’s little brother & COO while Bill stood by and tried to say he never knew. We were told (I was told) “we are moving with you or with you” and then told to be out of our IBYC supplied housing within 3 days. Fortunately, several of our volunteer regional leadership showed up at their own expense and basically said “wait a minute, you cannot treat people this way”. Thus maybe you can understand why some of us might think of Bill has exhibiting “high standards” as a bit laughable.
I am curious about why it is that Bill always seems to describe his accusers in litigation as power hungry and only after his money. This hardly is the tone of a kindly father (or grandfather) that just wants the best for his wounded and hurting children that you so desperately believe him to be and portray him as in this blog.
“Bill preaches that people should give up rights in the “Pineapple Story” but when his are threatened he hires a lawyer”
Dueling principles. Meekness on the one hand, authority on the other. Paul let the folks at Lystra beat him to a bloody pulp, but appealed to Caesar, the authority ordained to protect him, when threatened by the Jews.
“High standards as laughable”
Bill is . . . A sinner. He wrestles with things, just like you do, and I do. Unlike us he has had millions of people looking to him for guidance and an example. I wonder where he will come in in the final judgement. He has seen thousands saved, maybe rivaling some of Billy Graham’s numbers. Billy and his team have stated that they see something like 3% of those responding as genuine “first time” converts (many go forward to confirm, with doubts). So that statement is not as far fetched as it appears on the surface. He has also seen many delivered from horrible problems, released by the truths he presented. You know that Joni states that it is unlikely we would have ever heard from her had it not been for some focused advice he gave her when she was a hopeless, unknown, broken quadriplegic. I hear she was to be a featured speaker at his big 50th year in ministry bash. That story is repeated over and over. So . . . Does the Lord spank him harder . . . But maybe also cut him some slack at other times? Maybe.
I want all of you to know, I really do respect the fact that you keep responding, and so quickly! I also think there is one thing we can all agree on and that is that the Bible is God’s word and therefore it must be used with a high degree of respect. To this end, I really dislike it when men and women use it to justify their own malicious actions or to justify their own opinions no matter what the context of the verse they may be quoting. So when you quote Paul and his appealing to Caesar as an equivalent of Bill hiring a court room litigator to get rid of his rebellious staff who’s only crime was that they objected to his deceit about knowing full well that his little brother and COO was sexually abusing his female staff – then I think it only fair to warn you. You are perverting the word of God for your own defense. When Paul appealed to Caesar he was placing himself fully and completely into the arms of the Roman judicial justice system. What we would probably call today the “courts”. This was totally his right as a Roman citizen. However when Bill hired a court room litigator to get rid of so called rebellious staff he was protecting himself FROM the judicial justice system. It had nothing to do with authority, it had everything to do with power. So please, use the Word with some respect if you are going to quote it to me. Tell Bill he needs to come up with something better than this.
Now, let’s move on from this specific subject. There are more interesting comments in your blog that I want to weigh in on.
Thanks again for your encouragement. While we obviously do not see all things the same it is deeply appreciated.
I may be missing part of the chronology here. My understanding, based on documents posted on RG, is that a group of staffers, including Tony Guhr, decided that the only way to get control of Bill and the situation was to use the courts to do so. Al Capone was cited, i.e. he was “untouchable” for the real crimes, but the government eventually got him on something as “mundane” as taxes. They gathered resources and a lawyer . . . were having trouble getting someone to stand as the representative for their “class action” until one of the members of their group, someone formerly an administrator, reluctantly agreed. Tony, chief motivator to this end, was by that point nowhere to be found, leaving the rest to soldier on without him. They sued for something like 10 million dollars. In response the Board of Directors used the insurance money from a long standing policy for that purpose to hire a firm to defend them. That team quickly and decisively prevailed.
Was the board wrong for defending themselves? Should that have given in and paid 10 million of mostly donor money toward that end? Not trying to be unreasonable, but I am confused, perhaps from missing a piece of the legal puzzle there.
You are probably not aware of this so maybe I can explain it further. As about half the staff were walking out in 1980 because of Bill’s deceit and acceptance of his little brother’s sexual abuse of our female staff while he was operating as the senior vice president and chief operating officer, Bill hired a professional litigator to make sure we would not come back and suit IBYC later on. He came at the recommendation of Bob Jones University. We were told by this lawyer to join us or get out and told (for most of us) to be out of our housing in 3 days. Like I said, it was a bit like putting a wolf in a cage with a family of rabbits.
Later a class action law suit was filed by some of the women who were sexually abused, forced to publicly confess, and then were fired. I am not all that familiar with this specific legal action but I am confident that your understanding of it is grossly inadequate. It sounds to me like Bill told you it was a group of disgruntled staff who were just out for his money. Nothing could be further from the truth. From my reconciliation, the suit sought to bring a class action to the courts on behalf of those young women who were victimized. Maybe you can understand their predicament: 1) almost all were from conservative Christian homes, 2) they had just been fired for having premarital sex, 3) they had no money, 4) they had no real desire for their sexual involvement with the senior vice president of a national ministry to be any more public than it was, and 4) they just wanted to put the abuse behind them and move on. Unless somebody wanted to put up significant dollars to hire the appropriate lawyers it was doomed to failure. Frankly, I have always been embarrassed by the fact that I did not step in to help, not that I could have helped much, but I could have done more than nothing.
Maybe someone from those days that is tracking this can shed more light than I can.
Also, I don’t really understand why you would think it appropriate to compare Bill and his work with the person and ministry of Billy Graham. Dr. Graham has never had a single accusation, let alone legal action, for sexual harassment, never that I can recall saying a single negative thing about anyone in ministry, even about those who apposed him, and has a reputation that is first class sterling. Meanwhile, Bill has tolerated his brother’s sexual abuse of staff knowing full well it was going on and his own reputation is in question when it comes to sexual harassment. You can argue all day that the man is innocent of these charges but about the only you can really say with clear absolute fact is that he put himself in compromising positions with young, attractive, and impressionable young women. Furthermore, Bill has no qualms, and after way too many years, has admitted that he intentionally sought destroyed the reputation of those who opposed him. One really simple example: Dr. Earl Radmacher, who was the President of Western Seminary in Portland Oregon, had serious misgivings about Bill’s use of scripture and his theology in general. As a way of neutralizing Dr. Radmacher’s criticism among staff Bill would quietly let it slip that Dr. Radmacher had serious moral issues. They way he knew this? Dr. Radmacher sported a very fine beard. Just follow your own links to Bill’s so called “new” seminar. A young lady with prior experience questions the new seminar and Bill. There was nothing in her statement that is harsh, demeaning, or disrespectful. Yet as willing disciples of Mr. Gothard she is labeled as “speaking evil” of him and cut off. I could also give you several other examples but I wish not to speak for them.
So Bill’s indignation and pain at what he believes is a witch hunt is, frankly his own fault: 1) he set up a system that allowed himself to do what was forbidden by others, and 2) he was either too stupid or too arrogant to think that compromising situations would not make him look like he had comprised his own morals, and stupid is not a word I would ever use to describe Bill Gothard. Of course, you have also put out the theory that Bill is just this kindly grandfatherly type that wants to direct his family of children to their best. As i and others have noted in this blog, a sentiment that is just bazaar.
Please bear with me because I’m learning some of the rationale for why people accept some of his higher, more extra-Biblical standards even when they realized they were, in fact, extra-Biblical. Thus the continued comments…
Again, there’s a problem with using allegories. They can be great tools, but they can often miss-lead because they’re applied to something they were never intended to be applied to. I won’t argue with anything you said about SOMETIMES extreme correction being necessary to correct a problem. All of your cases are true. But there are plenty of opposite analogies that are also true. In order to help cure a workaholic, you wouldn’t tell him to quit his job and chill by his swimming pool all day. You’d probably tell him to work less and relax more, correcting imbalance with truth.
A football catch wouldn’t correct a field goal kicker who tends to kick right by telling him to aim for the stands on the left. He would say to tweak his him some left in order to land centered. That doesn’t seem to be what Gothard did. His seems to be a measured rationale that moved the goal from balance to imbalanced. Maybe it was due to overcompensation, maybe it was due to something else. Either way, I still don’t see Biblically how we can say that the answer to imbalance is more imbalance. Imbalance is never good in matters of theology and Biblical truth. By definition, truth is our goal, and anything other than truth is not what we want.
I disagree with the notion that the standards are extra-biblical. Perhaps you can zero in on an example or two. My example of the “blessing of children” is not one of them. You are likely aware that birth control was almost universally regarded as immoral by the church at large a scant 100 years or so ago. There are good reasons for coming to this conclusion. While folks disagree with some of the interpretations, we suspect that the church in general jettisoning this notion is not related to better hermeneutics.
I have never attended a seminar, so I can’t say with 100% accuracy what all the extra-Biblical standards were, though I have no doubt some of the other former ATI members on here could mention some. What I do remember from reading the ATI textbook was the chapter on CCM as fleshly (I can’t remember whether or not they called it sinful, but it was certainly implied by a lot of out of context verses. I don’t have those textbooks anymore, but at the time, I actually wrote an essay on that chapter, centering on the out of context Scripture.).
Another example would be above that a moderator who commented remarked that she felt pressure to make white bread and grind her own wheat that wasn’t shared at hq. While she didn’t outright say it, again, that kind of implies she expected those kind of things to be happening at hq. Was that because of teachings? Or maybe not quite teachings, more just comments that could be interpreted by someone hanging on his words a little too much as a teaching?
Umm… courtship as a Biblical command and dating as evil? Again, I’m trying to think back a few years to when I actually read the textbooks.
Those are examples of application of general principles to come to a conclusion which, you are right, are not overtly called out in Scripture. But God does have an opinion on each of those things . . . What is it? Is it the same for all people, or different for different folks? It especially comes into play when people are dealing with overwhelming problems that have their roots there.
Even Paul did that, make applications, finding deeper meanings in Scripture intended for a completely different purpose. Of course we can always cite his unique apostolic authority, but you have to admit that he does not appeal to that, instead pointing out things that were always buried there by the Lord:
“Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.” (1 Corinthians 9:8-10)
Lessons for Christian workers from commands about oxen in the OT law?! That sounds like something Gothard would do.
Okay, this comment has done a lot toward convincing me that nothing anyone says will convince you that Gothard may be wrong on what he taught. Above, you specifically said you disagreed that “extra-Biblical standards” were taught, I gave two examples as you requested, and your response is to say that those are “examples of application of general principles to come to a conclusion which, you are right, are not overtly called for in Scripture.” Isn’t that an extra-Biblical standard? Though you were careful not to use the same phraseology I did, you admitted to the same thing. Conclusions were taught that are not overtly called for in Scripture.
Your defense of that? Well, what is God’s opinion of it? We just said that in God’s revelation to man, His inspired Word, He didn’t say, which makes it a question of personal conscience and the Holy Spirit’s individual leading in each of our lives.
Are you admitting that some of the standards taught in ATI were extra-Biblical, or going further than the Bible commanded? Because it sounds like you’re trying to say that in part of your comment but also trying to rationalize it by saying that God also has opinions He doesn’t voice in His Word (which are then not binding on all believers).
There are extra-Biblical conclusions that are based on, well, any number of things, including other writings, science, psychology. There are conclusions based on the comparisons of Scripture with Scripture, example stories from Scripture, solving riddles in Scripture (like the parables and proverbs). Every theological perspective in the world does that. That is how we can conclude that, say, pornography and child molestation are evil . . . That drugs are bad . . . That more than one wife or husband is a bad idea . . . And, BTW, that God is in three persons and that Jesus is God along with a lot of other Cardinal beliefs. None of these things are overtly called out. Are we “extra- Biblical” to call Jesus God and preach the Trinity? Some say so . . . Whatever, that is correct “hermeneutics” and that is what Bill does.
Let’s see if we can address your examples. You mentioned daily fresh bread. Jesus taught us to pray for “daily” bread . . manna was also “daily”. That speaks to intent, design, suggesting our diets are designed to work best with “daily” bread. The only way to do that is to bake it daily, and it gets even better if you grind it daily (Ok, that is an appeal to science, nutrition research consistent with Scripture). ((And the “she” is a “he” here, BTW))
With respect to CCM, Bill has consulted all of the available Scriptures on music. We learn that melodious music drives evil spirits away and draws God’s Spirit near ( David vs. Saul, and Elisha in the battle of Moab, if I remember correctly). That suggests that music has a defined spiritual aspect, not being confined just to the physical vibrations of sound. Paul commands Christians to make melody in their hearts, confirming this. Since evil people who hate God make music with enthusiasm it is within the analysis to understand that different kinds of music have different spiritual effects. He appeals to a number of scientific facts and examples to help clarify that, since we would not want to use evil music, whatever that is. Bill is NOT alone in believing rock music originated from evil – both “Rock and Roll” and “Jazz” are gutter sexual terms. If Bill says, “The Bible condemns CCM”, yes that is incorrect . . . But maybe so is saying “The Bible condemns child molestation”. Maybe the better statement is “God condemns CCM”, and “God condemns child molestation”. Nobody disagrees on the latter statement . . . And some agree with the former. You tell me. Neither is treated overtly in Holy Writ. What is your standard based on?
Something hasn’t been sitting right about the Shepherd of the Hills analogy the last couple of days, and I may have figured out what it is, for myself at least. I mentioned above (and others agreed) that the double standard is striking. In this present analogy, it would be like the shepherd criticizing Matt and Sammy for holding hands or taking rides alone together while he is secretly doing those things in his own cabin with her. Again, the fatherliness bit would be easier to believe if “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” was not so rigidly enforced there.
A different standard for a young couple “in love” over an old counselor and his counselee is not a problem, is it? That is the salient point. If the old counselor is in love with the counselee, yes, that is a problem. Same idea for some of the things a doctor will do . . . Appropriateness for identical actions depends on roles and intent.
Mr. G always said his principles were universal and non optional, so the “differing standards for different people” line of justification simply doesn’t fly.
There are 7 non-optional universal principles as Bill highlights them:
Design
Authority
Responsibility
Suffering
Ownership
Freedom
Success
These are covered in the Basic Seminar. For example, the blessing of children is found in the “Design” section, God having deigned us to “multiply” . . . By design. Birth control is outside that design, hence generally not a good idea. However, other principles might come into play there, say ‘Authority’, since the husband has authority over his wife’s body . . . AND she also has authority over his body, according to 1 Cor. 7. So that is expressed, for example, in mutual agreement on abstinence, which could be an expression of “birth control”. The latter is not much emphasized in seminars, but it is also true.
So the principles ARE non-optional. The application, that takes wisdom, grace, balance.
Reasonable people can argue all day about a Biblical mandate regarding birth control. it is not exactly a new debate and using history as part of the proof is hardly valid. Up until maybe 100 to 150 years ago infant baptism was the norm and now it is probably the exception. Also, it took nearly 200 years before pastors of local churches were routinely paid a regular salary so I find the historical perspective interesting but not very convincing.
This is exactly the stuff that derails Christians from what is really important. If God was all that concerned about birth control He would have made it plain. Using the so called principle of design as a proof that birth control is a bad idea is a stretch of any text that might apply. But you are certainly free to differ. Billions of people practice some kind of birth control but I doubt if God is going to judge them for it when there are many larger issues that God clearly is upset about.
Where I wish we would put more emphasis is not on these side issues but the issues that God clearly states He is interested in. Here is a partial list:
From Isaiah 58:
1. to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke,
2. to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?
3. Is it not to share your food with the hungry
4. and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter
5. when you see the naked, to clothe them,
6. and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Matthew 25:
1. Food and water for the hungry and thirsty;
2. Hospitality to the stranger
3. Clothing for those who need it;
4. Visiting those in prison.
I understand that this list can be added to, but why fuss over issues where the Bible is relatively silent and why not focus where scripture is abundantly clear?
:
Birth control will always be problematic – did not say a sin – to any believer that reads God’s strong declarations of personally opening and closing the womb (Gen. 29:31), and of personally weaving each baby together inside of there (Psalm 139:13-16). If God does the weaving, under what imagined authority are we declaring ourselves smarter than He to say that any baby so woven is “unnecessary”? That applies to all those “mistakes” as well. It has been said that the world started calling babies “choices” after the church – the conscience of the nation – did so first. [And with your billions . . . billions are on their way to hell as well, not trusting Jesus for salvation. A multitude can be so very, very wrong] Infant baptism is absent in the Bible, both by precept and example. Salaries ARE a problem for pastors, not called out for sure. Scripture makes it clear that those they minister to should support them, just nothing about a contract.
Here is a list where God is quite clear. Tell me the last time you heard this preached from from other than an IBLP influenced source:
Giving ALL DILIGENCE, it says. What has more focus in Scripture in terms of motivation than this? Sounds like a lifelong, intense purpose. Implying, even, that our “calling and election” are in jeopardy if we don’t, and if we do, we are guaranteed to never fall?! Tell me . . . where are the preachers on this one? Bill didn’t make this up, right?
I thank you again for your comment. It is heartfelt and sincere. I totally agree that the Psalmist’s eloquently confirms the beauty and wonder of creation. As such, it is not to be taken lightly. However, getting from family planning to abortion using these scriptures is a stretch of their context. If you want to make that stretch, feel free but why not just stick to what it clearly says and leave it there?
As for your quote of 2 Peter 1 – yes, Peter is very clear that this is important. Paul is equally clear in 2 Corinthians 7 when he uses the same word. You might look this passage up. If your friend would follow the same pattern as Paul this whole mess would have or could have been avoided. And yes, I have heard several sermons on this passage. Think I have done so myself a couple of times.
How you get from a discussion of birth control, to equating that with abortion, to this passage on 2 Peter and then an introduction to your thinking on eternal security is an interesting journey. You seem to suggest that one can lose their election and calling if they are not diligent enough. Just how diligent is enough? Is it really possible to lose one’s election? But here in lies the problem, if my salvation is based on my own diligence then I am in real trouble. My own preference is to rely on His diligence, the diligence he demonstrated on that old rugged cross to die for me. This is my security. If it is not yours, I would invite you to consider this good news (gospel) for yourself. Of course, I don’t really doubt the earnestness of your salvation, but every time I speak with someone who speaks as you, I find a fundamental inability to trust… trust in the grace of Jesus. But maybe this is just too simple, especially to for those who believe that they are smarter than all the teachers who have gone before them in the last 2000 years. Something so simple as trusting in His sacrifice can be an affront to intelligent people who want something more complex so they can be satisfied that their own definition of righteousness is good enough.
Thanks, Dan.
Your link of 2 Peter 1 and 2 Cor. 7 . . . Bill is currently seeking to be most “diligent” – “careful” and “forward” to use the KJV – in seeking to humble himself and straighten things out. That IS the point of 2 Cor. 7:7-8, right? The same complaint may be lodged at both David and Solomon with respect to “following their own advice”, both of which actually did far more than Bill is actually even accused of, let alone did. They nor their teachings never fell from favor permanently, since they were “of God”.
And if you read our treatise on Salvation , you could have saved yourself some earnest and actually appreciated effort. We believe in eternal security, at least as far as “avoiding hell” is concerned. There are other salvations in our being that we may lose, and with that Peter and Paul are most concerned. The wisest thing you can do with possible heresy based on a misreading of Scripture is to correct the thinking. The quoted section both implies we can “lose it”, or if we work really hard, we will never “lose it”. Having sufficiently baited you, how do you answer?
Thanks you for the links to Recovering Grace and the lawsuits, as I read those links and other stories on Recovering Grace it only brought up even more questions. When I came back to Discovering Grace I found this Moderator’s reply to a Dan and it seemed as good of a place to reenter the conversation. In the Moderator’s reply they quote 2 Peter 1:5-11. I just heard an expository sermon on that a couple of months ago that goes to the heart of my new questions. In that sermon a profound statement was made, “A faith that doesn’t change you, can’t save you!” It brings up the question of how we are to live and show evidence of that we have the Holy Spirit in us? If there is no evidence of turning away from sin maybe there was no salvation to begin with. The verse talks of virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity. In verse 9 it says, “But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins”. While I read the various stories and documents in Recovering Grace there was a reoccurring theme that seemed to show that Mr. Gothard was deficient in the above characteristics, and that his personal life was different then his public one. In verse 10 it says, “for if you do these things ye shall never fall.” So if he had those qualities why is there such an uproar? That is unless there is merit to the charges.
As I read both filed lawsuits and the statement that generated my questions, you stated: “lawsuit #2 – the one about abusive work conditions due in part to sexual abuse.” I assumed from your statement it was a sexual abuse suit but when I read the second lawsuit the emphasis was really on malfeasance and nonfeasance, violating the duty of care which they owed the member and alumni of the corporation….making extravagant or improper expenditures of corporate funds….self-dealing by taking advantage of corporate opportunities for gain and benefit, false claims and misuse of corporate assets. Of the six “Cause of Actions”, count five states that reference to the previous four counts they make the following statement: “That certain of said individuals defendants did engage in outrageous conduct toward employees of said corporation defendants, IBYC, engaging in threats and coercion to obtain sexual favors resulting in physical and emotional damage to former employees and that the individual defendants did knowingly acquiesce in and by third conduct did condone such conduct.” Your statement seem to want to emphasis that the second suit was about sexual abuse but the way count five reads it’s just showing how deep the problems were. Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m just trying to get a handle on all of this.
The new question I have is on the last part of count 5, “and emotional damage to former employees and that the individual defendants did knowingly acquiesce in and by third conduct did condone such conduct.” Who is this specifically in reference to and what was their claim against them? It seems to imply more then just the one person which I would assume to be his brother who is also a plaintiff in the suit. In reading some of the stories on Recovering Grace I would guess there is some implication against Mr. Gothard? Was the Board aware of the sins discussed in count five?
Finally going back to 2 Peter 1:5-11 and in reference to the links you directed me to, there seems to be a lack of the qualities mentioned in those verses on the part of Mr. Gothard and his organization. As a Christian that is of great concern to me as to who was Mr. Gothard accountable to?
A lawsuit can allege anything it wants. The entire purpose of the courts is to bring objectivity, assign guilt to some and clear others. We would suggest that you not put too much emphasis on those documents, given that they hardly saw the light of day. That was because the first was almost immediately dropped by the court, and the second was almost as immediately withdrawn by the plaintiffs. That should give you a sense of the degree of compelling evidence that was offered.
Bill was not guilty of sexual mischief, if that is your question. While some have alleged it – exhibit A is the “Cabin Story” which we deal with in “Did He Do It?” – there is absolutely no evidence of it.
Beyond that, we are not sure what your point would be. Bill is not perfect but he hardly resembles the monster depicted on RG. A lot of slander that we are seeking to independently address. As far as being accountable, Bill has reported to a Board from the early days and been under the authority of his local church which ordained him. As well as secular authorities who have been called in to investigate a variety of complaints from time to time especially focused on how the court appointed young people were handled. The Institute has been cleared each time something like that surfaced.
You state: …. Bill is currently seeking to be most “diligent” – “careful” and “forward” to use the KJV – in seeking to humble himself and straighten things out.
Well let’s see. He did write an apology letter to Tony Guhr. Give the boy credit for that.
“Diligent”? Thirty five years ago he writes a letter about Tony (who had been a loyal and dedicated member of his staff for several years) an “agent of satan” (I believe this is the exact term). He (Bill) then sends it 18 national leaders including Tony’s home church which was a small church representing a tight rural community in the heartland of Kansas, and if memory serves, even Tony’s family. I knew Tony. Worked closely with him for many years. You can call Tony many things. Passionate, committed, fervent, smart, dedicated, hard working, willing to sacrifice, warrior, bull dog, etc. “Agent of satan”? This was nothing more or less than a narcissist (Bill) using his power and position to destroy the reputation of a man who was threatening to expose his lies and deceit.
Vine’s uses several adjectives for the word “Diligence”. Among these are 1) earnestness, 2) zeal, and 3) haste. So let’s see.
1) It took him 35 years to finally admit he had lied about Tony;
2) It was only after months and months (6 I think) of a group holding his feet “to the fire” so to speak that he wrote the letter; and
3) Then he failed to send the letter to the same people he had sent copies to originally.
So yes, I am happy to say he finally did the write an apology to Tony. Diligent, (earnestness, zeal, haste)? I’d be a fool if I thought Bill is “diligent” to correct his own lies, deceit, and abuse of power.
Next you write:
The quoted section both implies we can “lose it”, or if we work really hard, we will never “lose it”. Having sufficiently baited you, how do you answer?
Let me know the question I will be happy to respond. And no, you do not need to “bait” me. Oh, and I did read your treatise on salvation. i just learned long time ago the prepared statements usually hide more truth than they reveal.
The letter Bill wrote never once called Tony an “Agent of Satan”. Obviously he was making the case for that, but what he actually said, letter written to Tony’s uncle, was:
http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/the-Agent-19-Page-Letter-9.5.1981.pdf
So . . . It is a misrepresentation when Tony says “Bill Gothard called me an “Agent of Satan” 69 times”. He substituted “The Agent” – in quotes – in every case where he would have said “Tony” . . . So you and I can make up our own minds on whose agent he was.
Beyond that, we can see why Bill was so perturbed with Tony. He was given a specific job by the Board, to conduct an independent investigation of the scandal and report back. Then, when told to stop, he continued his muckraking on his own. He called, he met, he accused, he agitated, and some believe he made a difficult situation completely impossible to solve. His efforts alienated not a few – Jim Sammons, when receiving Tony’s recent packet of accusations, made a point of letting it be known that the whole lot went into the trash without being read.
When Bill contacted Tony’s church last year with willingness to do whatever necessary to make things right, the leadership emphatically indicated that they had no interest in reopening the matter. They, moreover, emphasized that their action against Tony was unrelated to “The Letter”. Apparently Tony had similarly alienated the leaders of his own church over unrelated matters, accusing and demanding, deliberately performing an act of protest that was an excommunicable offense. That option was exercised around the time that Bill’s letter did, but was formally unrelated to it.
That was the question. How do you reply to the implication in the section that we can lose our calling and election . . . and that if we work really hard, we will never fall? Here it is again:
“Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.” (2 Peter 1:10)
You have certainly learned your lessons well. Bill, it seems has taught you the fine art of misdirection. Obfuscate and confuse the truth by attacking the character of your accuser (in this case Tony). You had made the claim that your boy Bill was being “diligent” (as in the Biblical sense), being humble and trying to straighten things out. All I asked you was how can Bill be “diligent” when it takes him 35 years to seek reconciliation? It is a pretty simple question really. For a response you again attack Tony and his character. Is this the sign of a humble man? Is this the way your fictional shepherd friend noted above would respond? This is why characterizing Bill as the Shepherd of the Hills so so bazaar. Breathtaking in its attempt to hide and confuse the truth. In attacking Tony you are once again missing the context, confusing the truth, and hiding Bill from his own sin. When Bill wrote that letter about Tony he was a deceitful, liar who’s only aim was the protection of his own power base. He sends out a letter to national leaders, local leaders, and even Tony’s family calling him an “agent of satan”, (yes I do understand that he did not directly refer to Tony with this name but it would take a fool to not recognized this was his intent – as you yourself declare). Bill Gothard was out to destroy Tony because he was just hitting too close to home with the truth. What is more, by your response and attack on Tony you are just enabling more of Bill’s deceit. By claiming that Bill is somehow like this kindly pastor/grandfather of the Shepherd of the Hills you are part of Bill’s web of pathological lies and deceit. You are now his accomplice.
Given that you could not answer a pretty simple question (is your boy Bill being “diligent” after taking 35 years to attempt to reconcile with Tony?), I will not respond to your question about my understanding of your 2 Peter quote. If you care to be more forthcoming and honest in this way, I will be happy to respond – probably in your salvation blog where it will belongs
We have our own 10 year track record with Tony, plus the testimony of a number of others. We have a different opinion of the man than you do, consistent with some of the complaints Bill listed in the letter. Tony alienated a number of folks, quite significantly his own church leaders. He did with them exactly as he did with Bill. Interesting little vignette he provided on his own as published on RG, of being invited to Bob Jones University as a representative of IBLP and, while there, openly rebuking the leadership for having archeological specimens of ancient idols in their museum as they were seeking to given him a tour, clearly offending them. Whatever his positive qualities, Tony has had a real problem respecting authority, giving honor where required, being honorable when he disagrees with someone in authority. So we are not nearly as troubled by the letter as others are.
We have been privy to his correspondences with Bill of late, demands, lengthy “confessions” he helpfully provided for Bill to publish that repeatedly spoke of how evil he was (Bill speaking) and how righteous Tony had been. You know the man, so you likely know exactly how that went. If you have not read “The Letter”, please humor me and do. See if you can find anything in there that you can point to as exaggeration on Bill’s part. Sorry, Tony is part of the problem, not just a victim, to whatever extent that is the case.
Forgot one more thing. Since you are so adept of quoting scripture why don’t you take a quick read of Proverbs chapter 8. You will find that “Wisdom” is speaking and says in verse 7 and following:
My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness…
Your defense of Bill by attacking the character of Tony on further implicates you and his wickedness.
Tony had a character problem. It was well known, especially to the church he grew up in. They excommunicated him for cause, for their own reasons, unrelated to Bill, which explains why the terminus was so abrupt and permanent. Can you objectively disagree with what I have just stated? You seem to have passed over that point several times.
Reconciliation is NOT the process of one person groveling before another until the other is satisfied. Having seen some of Tony’s demands on Bill over the years it is small wonder to us that Bill didn’t try harder. And it is far, FAR from the one way “mean Bill – victim Tony” scenario. We would like to have you interact with the perspective we provided which is missing from the RG narrative. Did you read the letter?
According to Bill Tony DID accept his apology for harshness and forgave him in the last few months, which is encouraging and appreciated. So perhaps it was not as impossible of a situation as it seemed. Given the level of vitriol and the facts of the full picture, we are hard pressed to find too much fault with Bill.
In any case, since setting himself about to seek out those with “aught against him” two years ago, we consider Bill to have been fully diligent in the process. Which was the basis of the comment.
Well, good. Now that was not so hard was it? We have established two of your core beliefs and values.
1) That for Bill to take thirty plus years to seriously (using this word very loosely) seek reconciliation after trying to destroy Tony with his family, local leadership, and whatever national leadership that was listening qualifies for your definition of “diligence” within the biblical context; and
2) That you find it within your ethical code to attack someone’s character as a way of deflecting blame from your leader and yourself as his accomplice.
Now that we have that settled I will respond to your earlier question about 2 Peter. it will be under your salvation page (or thereabouts) and take me a while. I have clients who are requiring my attention at the moment.
🙂 Now you are being bad. Since I have asked you several times to respond to the concerns that Bill expressed, confirmed by Tony’s church let alone our experience with Tony, that Tony brought a large portion of this on himself. So, allow me to ask again: Have you actually read the infamous letter? And what factual fault do you find with it? Kind of important to establish how egregious of an offense Bill was guilty of.
See, it was a post pointing these things out that got me banned from RG. So you will forgive me if my feelings are hurt, feeling like the important people accusing Bill and heralding Tony’s cause are prepared to do about anything to avoid addressing my concerns. Will you be the first?
On your Dec 2nd reply to John Champion you state;
“Tony’s church received the letter and promptly excommunicated him without a hearing. Tony and RG have highlighted this as a prime example of heavy-handedness on Bill’s part, especially since the excommunication largely ruined Tony’s life because of the role of that church in his life and family. What neither he nor RG passed on was that the church had a long track record with Tony already. He had been investigating and openly chastising their leadership for completely unrelated issues, ultimately performing an act of protest that was, in fact, a technical cause for excommunication under church bylaws. They simply had had enough of Tony. When Bill contacted the church recently to try to make things as right as possible, they were completely uninterested in opening a dialog on Tony. They stated however, emphatically, that his excommunication had nothing to do with Bill’s letter. ”
On Dec 7th in reply to Dan you state:
“Tony had a character problem. It was well known, especially to the church he grew up in. They excommunicated him for cause, for their own reasons, unrelated to Bill, which explains why the terminus was so abrupt and permanent. Can you objectively disagree with what I have just stated? You seem to have passed over that point several times.”
Alfred I’m confused, was Tony promptly excommunicated from the church without a hearing as you stated in your Dec 2nd reply above or was he excommunicated for causes unrelated to Bill as stated in your Dec 7th reply above?
Have you confirmed that fact?
Have you verified Bill statement with the interim pastor Bill spoke with or Tony?
What do you base your claim of “Tony’s character problem” on?
Our understanding, based on what Bill relayed from his conversation with a principal from the church, is the the excommunication was unrelated to “The Letter”. So that is a modification from our prior understanding, of the letter as the “last straw” in the saga of Tony and his leadership.
We have not spoken with that “principal”. But the discussion is open, if anyone has information to counter. It is consistent with information we have received from other sources. Is it inconsistent with what you know?
Since others are asking this question we will answer it in a single post. But the salient points have already been made elsewhere.
Alfred’s reply 12.10.15
“Our understanding, based on what Bill relayed from his conversation with a principal from the church, is the excommunication was unrelated to “The Letter”. So that is a modification from our prior understanding, of the letter as the “last straw” in the saga of Tony and his leadership.”
You go on to say:
“We have not spoken with that “principal”. But the discussion is open, if anyone has information to counter. It is consistent with information we have received from other sources. Is it inconsistent with what you know?”
Lastly you say
“Since others are asking this question we will answer it in a single post. But the salient points have already been made elsewhere.”
Alfred let me get this straight you have posted “facts” not from you calling the interim pastor Bill talked to or with Tony but only based on what Bill said. In doing so you make the statement referring to “Tony’s Character problem” and the reasons for his excommunication, not to mention other negative innuendo you allude to in the last two sentences. Aren’t you setting yourself up for slander or libel, Tony would not be considered a public figure like Bill. You take the hit and Bill walks away, I think I have seen that movie before:) More important what does the Bible say or better yet I’ll quote some verses you used. What we have been accused of violating I think I could say the same for you. I could list various Proverbs about seeking out a matter, gaining knowledge, ect. but I think you are familiar with them.
“Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another: Lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away.” (Prov. 25:9-10)
“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15)
“Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:16-18
Thanks for the advice, Larne. You DO know that I pursued Tony for years, exchanged many emails . . . until he accused me of “Vain Jangling” and announced there would be no further communication. That – ironically – after threatening to pursue an action with the elders of my church (who laughed when I described the threat). So my options with him are more limited. I bear him no ill will at one level since I find myself like him in pursuit of the truth as I am burdened by it and respect him for that. But I do hold him accountable for impeding my efforts for no righteous reason, simply because he didn’t like why I wanted the information, OR didn’t consider me important enough. And particularly for putting out public, defamatory statements against Bill but allowing no examination of his facts. And as far as the law is concerned, painting a public figure as a moral failure is defamation “per se” and will result in a conviction if the information is false, and if it is provided “with malice”, intent to hurt. The world heard that Bill was guilty of “fondling” secretaries courtesy of the portfolio Tony built up, although he denies being the person to actually hand it to the LA Times. He certainly appears to have handed it out to a fair number of folks, one of which wasn’t me.
Any time any of us comes to the conclusion that we are on an unchallengeablely righteous cause we are setting ourselves up for a fall. It is a shoe I have also worn from time to time.
Thanks, Larne & Dan, for y’all’s first-hand insight and helpful comments and questions. I don’t have anything but an observation at this point, and it may be rather obvious – the only “witnesses” Alfred can find to corroberate in Bill’s favor are either Bill or those who believe what Bill has told them to believe. As in the case of Tony – Dan knew Tony and has described a very different Tony than Alfred has, but Alfred didn’t know Tony back in the day, but sees no problem with libelous descriptions of him. Alfred *seems* to know a lot about Tony, but what does he know besides what Bill has told him? And if there are “others” who have told Alfred about Tony, what is *their* source of information – can I also guess Bill?
Tony was known to a great many more than the witnesses you described, and not all of them have a favorable impression of him, Sandy. For the record, some on our team testify to blessing that came through Tony back in the day. I know he is not an evil man. But he made some serious mistakes that caused measurable harm. Only eternity will tell to what extent Bill and those that favor his cause are right about that.
But to answer your question: “Is it inconsistent with what you know?” It only took about 30 minutes to confirm. Although I did spend way more time confirming the facts in emails and phone calls.
1. It was not immediate
2. It was not triggered by the Agent of Satan letter of 1981
3. It was actually six years later
As I stated in the previous post I think you should check your facts on your own, if Bill makes a statement quote him, you are responsible for your words and for correcting mistakes and misunderstandings which we all make. In this case maybe your were even a little malicious in you error in judgment and comments of Tony. Maybe you are spending too much time listening to Bill and maybe his true feeling about Tony are coming through which might speak to the sincerity of his apology letter. I could be wrong only you will know.
I stand by my statements. It is a risk I must take.
Apparently I am not mistaken, based on what you just said and the effort you expended? For that I thank you.
Let’s look at the real facts regarding Tony and Bill’s Agent of satan letter.
You state in your Dec 2nd reply to John Champion:
“….What neither he nor RG passed on was that the church had a long track record with Tony already since he had been investigating and openly chastising their leadership for completely unrelated issues, ultimately performing an act of protest that was, in fact, a technical cause of excommunication. They simply had had enough of Tony. When Bill contacted the church recently to try to make things as right as possible, they were completely uninterested in opening a dialog on Tony. They stated however, emphatically, that his excommunication had nothing to do with Bill’s letter.”
In a reply to Dan on Dec 7th you state:
“Tony had a character problem. It was well known, especially to the church he grew up in. They excommunicated him for cause, for their own reasons, unrelated to Bill, which explains why the terminus was so abrupt and permanent. Can you objectively disagree with what I have just stated? You seem to have passed over that point several times.”
Have you checked with Tony on these facts? What do you know of the repentance letter that Bill wrote regarding the Agent of Satan letter and Tony’s reply, have you talked with the interim pastor regarding your statement “they were completely uninterested in opening a dialog on Tony”? I have twice? Where did you get your information? Sometimes a little information is dangerous depending on the sources it comes from, most notably Bill. Below is the apology letter Bill sent to Tony and was also to be sent to 20 of the original recipients. I underlined important facts.
“November 6, 2014
Dear Tony,
Almost one year has passed since I called you in order to be reconciled with you. God did not allow that to happen because I did not understand the deeper issues that were involved in my offenses toward you.
When I wrote that nineteen page letter about you with its 26 points, back in September 5th, 1981. I was judging you on various matters. God states: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.“ (Romans 2:1)
I stand condemned because I am guilty of the deeper offense that is revealed by judging. It was the lack of genuine love toward you as my brother in Christ. That letter was written out of a concern for my name and ministry, rather than a concern for Christ’s Name and His longing that we be one in Him so the world will believe that God sent him into the world.
My lack of love was further revealed by sending a letter that included factual errors and false assumptions. By sending the letter to your uncle and to others, I damaged your name and reputation and I impugned your motives. I also sinned against the Lord and His law, for “He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law.” (James 4:11)
In addition to the above offenses. In January of this year I made statements to others that you and two other men were seeking money from the Institute and attempting to shut the Institute down. These statements were not based on fact and therefore were not true.
Tony, there is no way that I can undo all the hurt that I have caused you by my prideful and unloving heart. I can only come to you now with a deeply humble, repentant, and contrite heart, and sincerely ask: would you forgive me? I am also in the process of contacting those who received that letter in order to send them this letter to them.
Love in Christ,
Bill”
Bill admits judging Tony, being more concerned for his name and the ministry then the name of Christ, included factual errors, false assumptions, damaging Tony’s name and reputation, impugned Tony’s motives, that Bill admits sinning against the Lord and His law, that Bill’s prideful & unloving heart caused Tony hurt. Tell me again what defense you are making for Bill and offense against Tony? It seems to me Bill has admitted to committing some very serious offenses. Then tell me what Tony’s “character problem” was! Tony was proclaiming truth and Bill was covering sin. You discussed Tony being rebellious and not under authority, neither were Martin Luther and the other reformers that took Christianity out from under the oppressive hand of the “Church in Rome”. Thank God for them and men like Tony and Bill Wood who fought the battle against sin. In Scripture false prophets are clearly defined by Jesus in Matthew 7:14,15;24:11; 24:24, Mark 13:22, by the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 2 (all) and the Apostle John in 1 John 4:1. Unfortunately Bill fits some of these warnings. In 1 Peter 5 he discusses what a good shepherd is, e.g. humble and setting the example. In vs. 5 Peter says “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” What did Bill admit to in his apology? That he had a prideful heart and an unloving heart that cause hurt. But back to Tony not being under authority, when he was fired by then President John MacLario he was no longer under the Institute’s authority. The fact that he retained copies of his investigative documents was prudent and legal considering the sin the Board and Bill were trying to cover.
END OF PART ONE OF TWO
PART TWO OF TWO
A little historical background on the history of this letter might help. In our June 2014 Denver meeting with Gothard he agreed to write a repentance letter to Tony for the “Agent of Satan” letter he wrote September 5, 1981. In Denver he admitted that the letter was wrong, and even though he claimed he did not actually call Tony an “Agent of Satan” he admitted he completely understood the power of that implication to anyone that read it. (You can’t make a negative point 26 times and ask the question is this action of an Agent of God or Satan and not expect someone to pick the latter.)
What follows is from my journal regarding our attempt to have Bill complete the apology letter.
““BILL CALLS JULY 21, 2014 CHANGES HIS TUNE AND RENEGES ON SOME OF HIS DENVER PROMISES:
As the summer progressed we found Bill seemed to be regaining some of his confidence and defiance regarding his need to repent. According to Bill, his family and friends (this included his two mentors) were recommending he not publish a new statement on billgothard.com to replace his April 17th statement or proceed with any further repentance. He was already starting his new ministry of meditation and memorizing and was starting to sign up men. (sorry girls it’s men only)
One of his tasks from Denver was to write a letter of repentance and apology regarding the slanderous 1981 “Letter of satan”, he wrote about Tony G. The repentance letter was to be sent to Tony, to his parents, to his home church and nineteen others who were copied in the original distribution of 1981. During the summer Bill called the interim pastor of the church who stated that since Tony was no longer a member, along with the facts the church had gone through a split and all the leadership of the church in 1981 were either dead or very elderly there was no need to send a letter. Bill did claim the pastor called Tony a Bulldog, though we know this pastor never once met Tony or personally verified any claims with Tony, skipping such requirements for coming to his conclusions. We reminded Bill that the letter was still required and part of the repentance process. Following Bill’s call I too called the interim pastor, after explaining the reason for the letter he agreed to accept it. We wanted Bill to send the letter regardless of what the church did with it. In my call with the pastor he did not use the term Bulldog and said he did not even know Tony.
By the end of August Bill was still resisting any further public repentance and wanted to do it all privately.
Observations of that phone conversation were sent in an email to other members of our team.
CONFERENCE CALL WITH BILL AUG 2:
On August 2 Mr. Wood and myself had another conference call with Bill that lasted 49 minutes. Again the “to do items” of our Denver meeting was discussed, along with the promised repentance letter to Tony. We insisted that it need to be completed along with a new statement for billgothard.com…. Not much was accomplished with this call, Bill seem to have dug his feet in and was back tracking on his Denver agreement. He had his confidence back and was not willing to publish anything negative about himself or his failings. He stated his family and friends were advising against it and he felt it was good counsel.
WE SENT BILL ANOTHER EMAIL:
On August 24 Mr. Wood and I sent Bill another email and ended with the following question: “The measures we set forth in Denver, set in place a process of confession, repentance, asking forgiveness and restitution. The question I have, “is that still your goal?”
AUGUST BOARD MEETING AND A LATE NIGHT CALL:
It is our understanding that during the August 25th Board meeting Bill had requested to be reinstated and that the Board refused his request. At 10:21PM Seattle time (12:21AM Chicago time) I received a call from Bill now wanting to get on with the repentance he agreed to in Denver. Something had changed for him that night for him to call that late. Both Bill Wood and myself tried to only talk to Bill via conference calls and because of a job transfer for Bill Wood we were not able to arrange a conference call till September 11th. During that call, Bill for the most part was back onboard with the Denver milestones and agreed to work on the repentance letter to Tony, with copies going to all those who received the original distribution in 1981. The call lasted almost two hours.
THE BELABORED TASK OF AGREEING TO AND EDITING A LETTER:
It took two months and two more conference calls of 52 minutes on October 3rd and an 18 minute call on October 30th along with several email exchanges before we had an agreed upon repentance letter. It was not as complete as Tony wanted but Bill Wood and I felt it was the best we could do. The letter to Tony was sent November 6th. In our agreement, Bill was to also send twenty additional copies to those on the original distribution list. In early December I called Tony’s former church and another man on the original list to see if they had received their copies. They had not! Bill had also failed to send an apology letter to the parents of Tony whom Bill had directly and deeply offended.
CONFERENCE CALL DECEMBER 13TH FAILURE TO COMPLETE PROMISE:
On December 13th Bill Wood and I had a 22 minute conference call with Bill Gothard and confronted him with his failure to follow through on the agreement. He assured us that the letters would be sent. We informed him we would call in a few days to check up on him again. Bill also mentioned that he had written a new statement for his website and wanted us to look it over. He agreed to send it to us and we received it on December 15th. The statement was called “A Bigger Picture” it included several paragraph he wrote and seven positive testimonial letters written to him. He wanted to portray a positive picture of his ministry as opposed to the negative one RG had published. It was quite evident that he still didn’t get the whole concept of repenting from the heart and accepting responsibility for his action regardless of his intent. We decided to hold comment on his proposed “A Bigger Picture” till he had accomplished sending all the letters.
CONFERENCE CALL DECEMBER 16TH, ANOTHER PROMISE;
The follow-up call was held on December 16th and lasted 31 minutes. Bill stated that he had sent most of the letters but was missing a few addresses. We agreed to provide those to him and this was done by email within the next few days. We wished him a Merry Christmas and told him we would call in early January.
JANUARY 15TH TWO MORE CHECKUP CALL:
On January 15, 2015 I called Tony’s old church and the other man I had previously called to see if they had gotten their letters and they had. I also called Dr. Chuck Swindoll’s office to see if he had gotten his copy of the letter. (Dr. Swindoll was on the original distribution list) His assistant promptly replied via email that he had not.””.””(END OF QUOTES FROM JOURNAL)
In a subsequent call Bill claimed to have finally sent the letter to Swindoll. Another email contact was initiated with Swindoll’s office but they did not reply. During this time the interim Pastor’s wife (of Tony’s home church) was being treated for cancer and around Christmas 2014 their son, a Sheriff, was in a debilitating car accident and they left the church to return to their home in Grand Rapids, MI to care for their son.
It is evident this apology letter was fought by Bill throughout the whole process and to me that is evidence of a sinner who is unrepentant. Several times after the letter was sent to Tony we asked Bill if the other 19 copies were sent and he confirmed they were but with the few people I checked with that was not the case. We know Tony, Rev. Skip Smith and the Emmaus Church received their copy of the letter. We don’t know if the ones I didn’t pursue ever got a copy since our information is based on Bill Gothard’s word, which as you can see ended up being fairly unreliable.
Historically let’s look at the real facts of the story. With the lawsuit on the horizon Bill sent the “Agent of satan” letter to the church, Tony’s family and 19 other men, some Christian leaders, while he failed to send a copy to Tony. Bill also sent two men to meet with the church elders and pastor. It was a secret meeting and Tony was not invited or aware of the meeting. The church had been big supporters of Bill and the Institute. At this point the church membership was unaware of the issues Bill had with Tony. However two things did occur following the meeting.
1. The elders personally shunned Tony to include business with the Guhr family farm. This was a common practice in the closed Mennonite community and had an immediate financial impact on them. The threat of loss of business caused the Guhr family to ask Tony to move out of State so their business with other church members could be continued.
2. In the Church’s annual business meeting one of the leaders made a motion to ex-communicate Tony based on his charge that Tony was involved in the lawsuits against Bill. It was a forbidden practice in the church to take a fellow believer to court. (I might add the reason Tony did not participate in the lawsuit to begin with.) (The church was ardent supporters of Bill and the Institute.) This was the first time Tony had heard of the complaint and the issue was debated for 60 minutes. Tony explained his non-involvement but it was an older gentleman who stood up for him and asked “who were witnesses #2 and # 3 regarding this matter” as dictated by scripture. With none being present the motion was dropped. However, the congregation left the meeting with more unanswered questions, mass confusion and doubts put in their minds. With the practice of shunning and ex-communication in the closed community that only set the stage for what happened 6 years later. After the meeting Tony approached the pastor to discuss the content of the meeting with Bill’s men but the pastor refused to extend that courtesy to him.
Tony was ex-communicated six years later for a dispute with a mandatory Church tax which was a set percentage based on your annual income. This tax was in addition to tithes and offerings through the year and was levied against anyone who was a member of the Church, including the poor. The threat and penalty for non-payment of this church tax was automatic excommunication from that body of Jesus Christ. Tony felt this unbiblical tax discouraged the poor from attending and participating in the church. He decided to simply not make the tax payment and was excommunicated. When the letter was written there was no “long track record with Tony”. Tony stood up against an unbiblical church policy and the elders didn’t like being questioned. His standing for truth both in this case and the older case against Bill lead to their decision.
Alfred your statement that Tony’s ex-communication had nothing to do with Bill is not completely true. Nor was your statement that Tony and his family never suffered a negative impact from Bill’s malicious letter. In fact it had an immediate major financial and personal impact.
Lastly, In the fall of 2013, Bill on six occasions requested two things from Tony.
1.) What was wrong and in error with the 19 page Agent of Satan letter Bill wrote on September 5, 1981.
2.) What evidence did Tony have that Bill had detailed knowledge of his brother’s immorality.
On December 31, 2013 a packet was sent to Bill, Board and other regarding specific and detailed answers to those questions. Remember this was only Tony fulfilling Bill’s request. See: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Tony-response.pdf
The details and documentation provided to Bill in response to his repeated requests was never disputed by Bill on even one point in the two years since. Additionally Bill confirmed his knowledge of his brother’s immorality in our June 2014 Denver meeting. He admitted that knowledge given to him in 1969 and 1976, each for separate incidences. He also confirmed to us that his letter to Tony was wrong and he presented a copy of a draft apology letter he latter retracted. (We had discussed this requirement with him in a conference call a month before our Denver meeting)
Dan in a response to you on Dec 7th has made a correct assessment when he said: “Bill, it seems has taught you the fine art of misdirection. Obfuscate and confuse the truth by attacking the character of your accuser” (in this case Tony, one who stood against all odds for truth)
My facts based on two calls I made with the “interim pastor” and several emails and calls with Tony verifying the facts via emails or calls; Additional calls or emails to Rev. Skip Smith, Rev Chuck Swindoll’s office, various original letter, emails, journal and documents in my files. I have been working on this for over a week to insure the accuracy of my statements. Then I had Tony check the final draft for errors. Tony ask me to include the following statement regarding the parts and documents he is responsible for.
“Larne checked with me directly to confirm the facts referenced which are simply based on documents which are public record, reviewed and examined in detail by the IBLP Board (in 1980 and again in 2014-2015), reviewed and examined by Bill Gothard (in 1980 and against in 2014-2015), reviewed and examined by attorneys of Bill Gothard, with not a single point of fact disputed or countered by BG or any others with any evidence these statements and support documentation are false in any way.”
Who have you checked with besides Bill?
END OF PART TWO OF TWO
Alfred, you’ve said on more than one occasion that if Bill Gothard ever lied, that would be a game-changer for you. Multiple instances have been brought to your attention, but you excuse them away. In the letter from Bill to Tony last year, BILL said he lied – “factual errors and false assumptions.” It’s as close as he’ll get to it, anyway. Don’t excuse his “factual errors and false assumptions” as “mistakes” or that he was “overzealous.” He didn’t inadvertently lie because he was mistaken on the facts; he knew them, and he LIED to deflect attention from his own problems.
He is a lying liar who lies. And deceives, and manipulates.
In addition to Bill admitting in the letter to “factual errors,” there is a credible account here of Bill agreeing in September to send additional letters, although in early December it was determined that at least some of them weren’t, and by mid-January, at least one still wasn’t sent. Would you say he was truthful to his word that he’d send the letters, or would you rather excuse that, too?
What IS the definition of “is,” sorry – “lie”??
Bill lies. He has lied to you, he has lied to untold numbers. Regardless of anyone’s feelings or motives. The ONLY defense you have is the defense you’ve been told by a man who has no problem twisting words and facts to his own benefit. What state does that leave your defense in?
Of course we expected that . . . but, as I continually tell my kids, reserve that handle of “lie” for something very specific. Misdirection may be deceitful, but it is not a lie. Certainly a difference of perception of a situation is not a lie. Memory glitches are not lies, even when they are helped along by our strong desires in a certain direction. Changing our minds is not a lie, even if that results in conflicting statements. We have other names for those things. A LIE is a conscious misstatement, particularly in response to a very specific question. That stands in a class all by itself . . . a very serious class. Revelation tells us that all liars go to hell.
So, no, we are not aware of Bill lying under any circumstance we are aware. Everyone who knows Bill knows he lives in a world of “faith”, a world where things that aren’t are treated as though they are (Romans 4:17). Proverbial optimist, rose-colored glasses. Along those lines he sees things in things that nobody else would see. He believes things inside of others that they do not believe . . . but Bill sees the conclusion sought for as already occurred. At some point that is either very spiritual – a person in touch with God at a very deep level – or it can come about because of mental illness. Regardless, that is NOT a lie.
Sandi raised some great points. But to your response I had to say, Wow, that’s not what I was taught but maybe you use a different dictionary then me, so I looked it up.
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie:
verb (used without object), lied, lying.
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
But it really does not matter what the dictionary says it what God would say because He knows our hearts, our intent and our actions.
If I could share some “misdirected” statements and you tell me what they mean.
During a time of praying and fasting a person receives a stern email giving him three weeks to respond to a previous set of conditions he agreed to. Instead of responding he calls his friends and tells them these men are asking for money and trying to shut him down. (Nowhere was that mentioned in any of the emails). Five months later he decides he needs to connect to these men and one of the conditions for a meeting is writing an apology letter. In the email dated May 31, 2014 below; I have redacted the woman’s name as I was asked by Bill to forward the email to her. Was that a lie?
“XXXXX,
In a phone conversation, I stated that Tony Guhr, Bill Wood and Larne Gabriel wanted money from the Institute and also wanted to close it down.
During a conference call with Larne and Bill, they reaffirmed that these statements were not true. I asked Larne and Bill to forgive me for making this false and unloving report. I was wrong in saying it.
My desire is to bring about reconciliation and this statement certainly did not further this goal. I now ask you to also forgive me for saying what I did and correct this false statement with anyone that you may have shared it with.
Thank you for doing this.
Sincerely,
Bill Gothard”
So Alfred is that statement a misdirection, difference of perception, memory glitch or a lie? Above Bill says “these statements were not true” and that he made a “false and unloving report” and that he was “wrong”. He made these statement in at least four calls to the 1980 women and he had Linda make at least two possibly more call to the 1980 women and other staff. In addition to the 1980 abused women he made that statement to some if not all of his former board members. We required him to send that retraction letter prior to our Denver meeting, to them also which he claimed he did. If you are looking for something to do maybe a call or email to the Institute’s Board members from 2014 to check and see if they received those letters would be purdent. (they refused to have contact with us.) He was to also send that letter to Tony in May but that was not accomplished till his November 6th “Agent of satan” apology letter. A letter Sandi did a great job of highlighting the finer points.
But again this is not what we think it what God sees through his unfiltered lens.
So he is up at the Northwoods, fasting already maybe weeks, trying to deal with an angry, “stern” letter and he jumps to an incorrect assumption. And there ARE people with all kinds of great ideas for the “wealth” of IBLP. And he is called a liar because he is willing to correct his error? Larne, that is not right.
Alfred I am really having trouble tracking your logic. “And he is called a liar because he is willing to correct this error? Larne that is not right.” He was not called a liar because he is willing to correct his error; he is called a liar for telling two lies about Tony, Bill Wood and me! Remember the verses you quoted from about telling tales, “Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:16-18
In the summer of 2013 Bill was under a lot of pressure from RG, they had posted three stories starting in 2012, first with Lizzie’s story, then Annette’s story, and in April of 2013 Grace’s story. His Chairman of the Board, Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX) had resigned and I believe one other board member.(While I don’t know why they resigned I think it’s a pretty good guess.) I had just started posting on RG that summer and in late August he called me wanting to reconcile. I told him any reconciliation had to include more then just me, and had to include Tony, Bill Wood and a few others including the abused 1980 women if they so desired. He agreed and I told him we would contact him with the scope. Which we did on September 16, 2014, his reply was an affirmative response on Sept 18th. On Sept 20th we sent Bill detail conditions regarding reconciliation including a meeting along with some very detailed administrative steps he needed to accomplish first. On Sept 24th he reply with major changes to our conditions for a meeting and failed to accomplish the administrative steps we required. On Sept 29th we rejected his counter proposals and never heard back from him.
It was during this time he contacted Tony six times demanding proof that he was aware of his brother’s immorality (as told him in 1969 and again in 1976 by Gary, Ken and Ed) and what was wrong and in error with the 19 page Agent of Satan letter Bill wrote on September 5, 1981.
We waited over three month and on January 10, 2014 sent him the “stern email” (maybe firm but unwavering are better words)”. We stated if he did not contact us by January 31st we would share our stories with RG. He had our emails and phone numbers but instead of contacting us during his ‘special time with God” he chose to spread lies. Why would he do that unless it was never his intent to follow through and just delay us? A 35 year old pattern we were well familiar with. He had a total of over four months to resolve this but did nothing. Then it was another three months before he finally did on May 1st. Just how “Willing” was he?
So when he called me on May 1, 2014 after his administrative leave and resignation, he knew he was in a bind and had no choice but to agree to our conditions, which were given to him in a conference call on May 5th. This included the apology letter we are discussing. I did not receive a copy of that letter until May 31 to forward to one of the women who did not want Bill to have her address, email or phone number. Again there was nothing “willing” about this, it was belabored and forced. It took him four weeks, with prompting, to write 106 words. The only reason he was talking with us was because he had been advised by others he need to deal with the 1980 staff and it was a good place to start.
Larne, there is no way to characterize Bill’s responses as “lying”! Money has been forced to the front of these discussions on a regular basis. Something like $10 million dollars requested by some of the folks who were part of the “stern” letter, or am I mistaken? Back when he resigned in 1980 he indicated he was told by those taking over – on his way out – that a great deal of money was to be distributed to some of the entities that had been offended or misused. Quite recently the same scenario has been put forward with current Institute resources. The women of late are asking for $50K each to cover their “abuse”. Please clarify the facts for me.
So, no, he is not “lying” when he expresses from time to time – as he does to me – that he believes that financial incentives are not far from the surface of at least some of the accusations coming toward him. It does not apply to you, I am convinced of that . . . but I think we need to move to another example.
Bill to Gary: I am dating her.
Bill to her Dad: I am not dating her.
I’d call that a conscious misstatement to keep himself out of trouble with both Gary and her Dad. It’s not a memory glitch or anything haphazard, sir, when it was in his best interest to call it both ways to people with differing interests.
Bill on a conference call: I never wrote a 19-page letter.
Bill did write a 19-page letter completely at odds with his teaching of “not giving a bad report.” (By his own timing and example, the “bad reports” Bill said not to give were apparently only *about* him, not *by* him.)
Bill to Tony: I made factual errors. I damaged your name. I impugned your motives. I sinned.
While you continue to excuse what Bill said in the 19-page letter he once denied even writing, I’ll remind you that the letter wasn’t commentary and opinions (we all have ’em), but bold first-hand accusations … made not only to Tony, but about him to scads of other people I think you referred to earlier as “the church.”
Bill himself admitted to Tony that the letter was wrong (in spite of your still defending it). He didn’t say he’d gotten his facts mixed up. He didn’t say he’d had a change of heart. He said that in saying what he said, he’d sinned. So would you call Bill’s “factual errors” that he apologized for (a) misdirection, (b) difference of perception, (c) memory glitch, (d) change of mind, or (e) conscious misstatements? HINT: Bill also told Tony that the letter was written out of selfish concern.
So there’s a letter written out of selfish concern with bold first-hand accusations. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer by a long shot, but I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to say that by Bill’s own description of the letter, he meant to put the “factual errors” in there for his own selfish purposes. Any answer but (e) isn’t consistent with Bill’s own description.
Bill on his website: I do want to continue pursuing reconciliation in a Biblical way.
Bill drug his feet for months and at least initially did not send copies of the letter that he said he would.
Bill in his letter to Tony: I told others in January that y’all were trying to get money and shut IBLP down. These statements WERE NOT BASED ON FACT and WERE NOT TRUE.
Alfred. Please tell me exactly and specifically what Bill did when he told others that Tony and others were trying to get money and shut IBLP down:
(a) he was misdirecting them, not wanting to tell exactly what Tony and the others were doing;
(b) he had a difference of perception about what Tony and the others were doing – they weren’t trying to get money, but he thought they were;
(c) he had a memory glitch – he forgot that Tony and the others never said anything about money or shutting IBLP down, so he mistakenly said they were;
(d) he changed his mind about whether Tony and the others were trying to get money and shut IBLP down or not;
(e) he consciously misstated that Tony and the others were trying to get money and shut IBLP down even though they’d never brought this up so that their motives would appear evil and Bill could play the role of victim; OR
(f) you are sure Bill never said that. HINT: (a)-(d) don’t make sense, and either (e) or (f) indicate that Bill LIED by your own explanation of what a lie is.
Or we can check the official definition Larne has shared. Bill told Tony that he told somebody else that Tony was trying to get money and shut down IBLP. He admitted to Tony that this wasn’t based on any kind of fact, and said himself that it was not true. Would you call that:
(1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
(2) something intended to convey a false impression;
(3) an inaccurate statement;
(4) the telling of a lie;
(5) telling an untruth knowingly;
(6) a false impression; OR
(7) all of the above?
You said Bill “sees things in things that nobody else would see. He believes things inside of others that they do not believe …” Yes, Alfred, we would agree on that point. But trust me when I say it’s not from “God at a very deep level.” How do I know that? This man is NOT “above reproach” by all accounts but yours, so first, I’ll rule that out, but second, I’ll give you a better explanation. I’m saying it is Bill re-framing reality to suit his purposes and dictating it to those within his grip of masterful control. I’m not coming close to diagnosing anything; I’m not qualified. But I’m emminently qualified to tell you that this is what masterful manipulators do. Very effectively. It is extremely telling when Bill himself has said he made statements that he knew were not true yet you’re contorting in every crazy direction to hold fast to your claim that Bill Gothard does not intentionally lie.
I talk to my kids about lying, too, but not so much about the definition of it; they know the difference between a lie and a mistake – it’s a heart issue. I’ve just instilled an intense abhorrence of the practice of it.
I know you don’t like wordiness, but as much as I’d rather just walk away, some things need to be said.
OK, I find myself repeating myself. But here goes:
If you have dealt with “matters of the heart” you know how difficult that can be. I know others will bristle, but I am convinced that there were one or two young women in there that meant something to him at a deeper level than just associates and friends. The fact that he verbalized “dating” for one would indicate that. If Bill is anything he is highly idealistic . . . and thus at times conflicted. So his ideal part said he didn’t need a woman to complete him, making him like the Apostle Paul. His heart may have rumbled around elsewhere. So . . . that makes perfect sense to me.
But I simply do not know anything about his interaction with her father, especially the timing. Maybe others can clarify. If you reverse those statements, well, maybe that is not so nefarious?
He forgot . . . at least forgot the length. We are talking 35 years ago! If Gary Smalley can forget the most important points of the “Cabin Story” to the point of telling people to cite him as a source, then retracting it with the clarification of his wife, you know that can happen.
Not every fact he published was wrong. Maybe some were, at least in terms of motive and some details along the way? Of course he damaged his name and impugned his motives. There IS a time to do that, right? Bill left it at the blanket statement as a sign of love and sincerity. There is never anything that we do that is completely without fault, things we excuse but that Jesus would never do [BTW, these comments are our own. Bill has not seen any of this discussion, nor given any input other than when we go to him, which in this case we have not. Do not want to misrepresent him in his recent actions and statements.]
Maybe not true for all people but that has sadly been true. Some in that inner circle sued him for $10 million, with Tony apparently a leading voice motivating toward that end – that is hard to forget. That Tony does or does not want to shut IBLP down? I don’t know, but that opinion has been voiced by many. In fact, Tony was the leading advocate for completely suspending operations back in 1980 until things were “fixed”. Again, some memories linger a long time.
We have no problem with you in general. Just . . . try. You have been out-worded by several others of late.
Sorry to hound you as it seems, but I completely left out the most glaring and troublesome statement.
Larne said, “Additionally Bill confirmed his knowledge of his brother’s immorality in our June 2014 Denver meeting. He admitted that knowledge given to him in 1969 and 1976, each for separate incidences.”
This in spite of his defense over at least 35 years that hinged on lack of knowledge. I don’t have to mention how violently Bill has claimed this defense since 1980. I don’t have to mention how violently you have claimed it since whenever you vowed allegiance to the Defend Bill Patrol. I shouldn’t have to mention that this is not somebody making an accusation against Bill, rather a first-hand report of Bill’s own admission, but I will.
You need to do a few things with this statement, Alfred.
First, you need to evaluate if Larne’s statement is credible. Get back with us on that, (spin-free, please?), because I’m thinking it is … there were witnesses that could easily prove Larne a liar if not, plus Larne doesn’t have near the questionable track record that Bill does – just sayin. But I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for sure.
Second, you need to recollect and even mull over how sincerely Bill has repeatedly looked at you and declared that he didn’t know what Steve was up to before 1980.
Third, you need to reconcile the first two steps. Either you can do it in some incredulous way and carry on, or you can take a new approach to life and admit that Bill very earnestly lied to your face.
It’s hard to convey emotion via a keyboard, so I’ll just assure you that my emotion isn’t gleeful in the least. It’s a hard thing to realize you’ve been had. But here in print is something you must deal with, and I challenge you (and hope others will, too) to do so.
I have spent some time pondering this with Bill, Dan. The fact that others told him things about Steve at certain points in time does NOT mean that he believed it all. Because he didn’t. His knowledge of and relationship with Steve basically precluded a great deal of it from being true. So while there were things that could not be explained away, he remained convinced that people – maybe even some of the women – were conspiring against them both. Exaggerating, even lying. So he went to Steve, confronted him with the facts he knew, and heard Steve’s confession and explanation. He was far more inclined to believe his trusted brother than any number of others who did not have that level of commitment to him. So . . . he “fixed Steve”, sternly demanding certain steps of action, which included leaving his position as, what, COO and retiring to the anonymity of the Northwoods to get right with Jesus. Things he heard on following up convinced him that Steve had, in fact, been fully restored, “fixed”. And he proceeded based on that joyful understanding.
He was wrong, he was very wrong. He was also wrong when he tapped the Voller family to head up ATI because of the existing problems that Jim already had, that apparently some in his family knew about. He lived to see another trusted associate violate a woman on his watch. He was heartbroken – I was there at the conference when this all came out. It ascribe evil motives to him in either calamity is reprehensible, Dan.
Alfred lets clear up one important thing first. What is a lie? Let just settle on what God says about lying since we have already been through the dictionary version. I’ll even use Bill’s favorite version, the King James: Exodus 20:16 the Ten Commandments chapter; “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” The term “false witness” might even be considered by some to include some of your lesser definitions. For me my parents called it a lie and it did not take too many spankings or soap in my mouth to make their point, maybe Bill missed out on that as a child. (and no I was not abused!)
I sure would like to know where that great deal of money went. Bill made financial promises to many of us and some took large financial losses because of those unfilled promises. Ruth and I asked only for some of what was due based on the Institute’s policies and promises. Her father did asked for $8,000 to add an apartment to their basement for Ruth and for moving expenses. Even then, that was not much money for what she went through. Most of the other abuse women were treated the same but even then it depended on how hard you fought.
Regarding your less then accurate statement “Something like $10 million dollars requested by some of the folks who were part of the “stern” letter, or am I mistaken?” when I discuss the facts of the lawsuit in a separate post. Regarding the $50k being asked for now, that peanuts for what they suffered and quite frankly it speaks more to their seeking validation of their claims and seeking repentance from Bill then it is about the money.
In Sandy’s above post they state: “First, you need to evaluate if Larne’s statement is credible. Get back with us on that, (spin-free, please?), because I’m thinking it is … there were witnesses that could easily prove Larne a liar if not,” I completely agree with that and please do! Sandy makes some great points.
But I suggest you start first with your statement above: “I have spent some time pondering this with Bill, Dan. The fact that others told him things about Steve at certain points in time does NOT mean that he believed it all. Because he didn’t. His knowledge of and relationship with Steve basically precluded a great deal of it from being true. So while there were things that could not be explained away, he remained convinced that people – maybe even some of the women – were conspiring against them both. Exaggerating, even lying. So he went to Steve, confronted him with the facts he knew, and heard Steve’s confession and explanation. He was far more inclined to believe his trusted brother than any number of others who did not have that level of commitment to him. So . . . he “fixed Steve”, sternly demanding certain steps of action, which included leaving his position as, what, COO and retiring to the anonymity of the Northwoods to get right with Jesus. Things he heard on following up convinced him that Steve had, in fact, been fully restored, “fixed”. And he proceeded based on that joyful understanding.”
But before you do let me share some relevant facts in your search for the truth that you can also inquire about. In May 1977 when I was first asked to come on staff to replace John Johnson who had returned to United Airlines, I flew to Chicago for an interview with Bill and then John flew me to the Northwood for a required interview with Steve. I turned down the offer because I did not have a God given peace about it (Philippians 4:7). Bill told me “I didn’t have to have that peace because since I would be under their authority God would give them the peace.” When I finally did come on staff 20 months later it was very evident and unquestioned that Steve was the number 2 man. (COO) On staff I was informed by others that Bill had told them that I reject the position in 1977 because I was afraid to fly in Chicago. (As a side note, at this point in my career I had been flying for 10 years, had thousands of hours and had flown helicopter patrols along the DMZ in Korea, I had flown in Alaska, Canada and a good part of the Continental US. In snow, rain, wind, ice, heat and around thunderstorm and I was a licensed Aircraft mechanic, believe me the Midwest is not the worse place to fly.)
But Alfred please check on my statements about Bill knowing about his brother immorality. First check with the witness in Denver, Gary and Norma Smalley, Bill and Joy Wood where Bill admitted he knew. (All I ask make sure you tell Gary or Norma that you are checking on my statements two statement below.)
1. In Denver Bill finally he admitted he knew of the first revelation in 1969. He stated that he and his father took the young woman (an employee) for a drive and confronted her. She denied it so Bill and his father dropped it. (She had previously confess to a staff wife)
2. In 1976 Gary caught Bill’s brother having sex in his office (across the hall from Bill’s office, I have no idea where Bill was) which lead to Gary, Ken and Ed confronting Bill and the three men’s resignation and exodus.
Over the years I have heard all kinds of excuses about Bill’s recollection and misunderstanding of that confrontation, one even include that Gary, Ken and Ed didn’t use the Biblical term “fornication” so he didn’t know what they meant. Ask Bill if he ever said that. Believe me he is not that “spiritual”, with his thousands of hours of counseling, to not know what they meant.
So here is what this seems to boil down to, if Bill has lied, you will have a major decision to make. Are your honest enough to yourself and God to make that decision?
The first application of that is in the legal sense, those that witness to a crime . . . or lack of it. Telling precise facts on what happened. Trying to get someone in trouble by stretching or skewing the facts:
“If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; . . . And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.” (Deut. 19:16-19)
Those telling stories on RG are “witnesses” that come under this scrutiny.
That is a problem what we are aware of. Bill promised the world to many folks, then often felt differently when the time came to deliver, seeing the issue in a different light. He has acknowledged that – the story of Pastor Johnny Jones which is in the Veinot book twirls around that and was representative. I am not sure what I am at liberty to disclose, but the terms that Bill eventually proposed and provided were – in our mind – substantial, many zeros. When someone steps out in faith it is the Lord that they are following and should trust. However, a promise is a promise. And Bill has acknowledged the problem to us on a number of occasions.
Please clarify. I have the lawsuits in front of me. At least one individual involved in recent efforts with Bill is listed as plaintiff, and I see something around $10 million being requested in one lawsuit . . . and the other alleges damages in excess of $40 million.
And, again, this is where some on our team get really excited. Folks that have been genuinely abused at the hands of unbalanced individuals, dragged up, not raised by a loving family. Some struggling financially but would never dream of pushing that button. And exactly what is this $50K of largely donor money for? Feeling uncomfortable because Bill held their hands too long and touched their feet with his, all things that happened to others without concern being interpreted in a completely different light?
I will be communicating that to him this evening.
1) So they did follow up in 1969 . . . and came to understand that the woman was lying . . . to the staff wife.
2) I can imagine that Bill was incredulous . . . that Steve, his brother that he knew so well, would have the insanity not only to have sex in the first place, but to do it in the office, where people could hear, and surprise them?! According to Gary it was pretty obvious what was going on – again loss of all sanity on Steve’s part. Can you blame Bill for being doubtful? That just defies reason. Somebody was telling an outrageous lie – trust his brother or the men?
The one question you seem to skirt is whether Bill has lied. Why don’t you ask Bill if he has ever lied to or about Bill Wood, Tony or me. I would be curious to his answer. If you are unwilling to ask him I think that would be because you don’t want to hear the truth. Ask him and see what he says.
I sent him your comment and will call him tomorrow. Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year, Larne.
Have you heard back from Bill on my questions yet?
Larne: I spoke with Bill today. In response to the question whether or not he ever lied to you or the other two men, he gave an emphatic, “No”. He asked me to ask you if you wanted to reopen the discussion with him. He feels that there are pertinent things that he did not feel at liberty to discuss given the circumstances surrounding the Denver meeting, which would be appropriate to add to the discussion now. I will be seeing him tomorrow, the Lord willing. Let me know.
Alfred,
My original question was actually two parts. “Why don’t you ask Bill if he has ever “LIED TO “OR” ABOUT” Bill Wood, Tony or me.”
Bill answered the “LIED TO Bill Wood, Tony or me” part.
He DID NOT answer the LIED ABOUT Bill Wood, Tony or me” part.
It might seem a technicality but its not.
Larne: Bill did not lie to or about any of you. A lie is deception, not a mistaken opinion. We have talked about this. Again, if you want to reopen the dialog with Bill, he is prepared to do that, to clear things up.
Alfred,
What would it take for you to believe Bill lied? Last week I published a copy of a repentance letter Bill sent Tony, in it Bill admits “These statements were not based on fact and therefore were not true.” Bill refuses to use the term “lied” and we fought with him all last year. In scripture the Ten Commandants says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Now if Bill wants to split hairs or have a word fight lets look at the meaning of “Lie”, “A lie is a statement that is known or intended by its source to be misleading, inaccurate, or false.” So a false statement or false witness is the same as a “not true statement”. In James 5:12 encompasses many meanings but one is “Jesus commanded his followers therefore not to swear but to invest their simple words of yes or no with complete integrity (Matthew 5:33-37). James follows that passage; we might conclude that he is simply prescribing honesty in speech.” (Bible Gateway)
Bill can call it anything he wants, but God calls it a false witness, meaning a lie or not true statement. Then God tells us to be truthful in our speech. God will not accept a word duel because he knows the heart and its intent.
With that in mind and the question you asked him twice in the past couple of days, what was Bill’s answer? Bill emphatically stated he has not lied to or about Tony, Bill Wood or me. Correct? But what was one of the things he sought repentance/forgiveness for in this letter to Tony? For making untrue statements, another word for a lie. The way I see this is Bill lied twice, once about the “untrue statements about Tony”, second he lied about not have lied to us. Two lies. Bill’s “False statement/lie” in reference to our question if he ever lied to us which is verified by the letter he wrote to Tony on Nov 6, 2014. Further more his second lie is lying about not lying. Two lies, false report, untrue statements, you pick your definition but I believe God would look at them as the same. There are more, to include the rest of the “Agent of Satan” letter below, but I want to keep this simple for now.
With that in mind, since Bill lied these two times could he also be lying about the women who are accusing him? This is why we re-asked the question about him lying either TO us or ABOUT us. Lastly, how can you tell when Bill lies or has Bill never lied to you? I can think many times based on our previous private correspondence and at least three times this past week.
BILL GOTHARD REPENTANCE LETTER TO TONY REGARDING “THE AGENT OF SATAN” LETTER AND OTHER FALSE STATEMENTS (LIES)
November 6, 2014
Dear Tony,
Almost one year has passed since I called you in order to be reconciled with you. God did not allow that to happen because I did not understand the deeper issues that were involved in my offenses toward you.
When I wrote that nineteen page letter about you with its 26 points, back in September 5th, 1981. I was judging you on various matters. God states: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.“ (Romans 2:1)
I stand condemned because I am guilty of the deeper offense that is revealed by judging. It was the lack of genuine love toward you as my brother in Christ. That letter was written out of a concern for my name and ministry, rather than a concern for Christ’s Name and His longing that we be one in Him so the world will believe that God sent him into the world.
My lack of love was further revealed by sending a letter that included factual errors and false assumptions. By sending the letter to your uncle and to others, I damaged your name and reputation and I impugned your motives. I also sinned against the Lord and His law, for “He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law.” (James 4:11)
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE OFFENSES. IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR I MADE STATEMENTS TO OTHERS THAT YOU AND TWO OTHER MEN WERE SEEKING MONEY FROM THE INSTITUTE AND ATTEMPTING TO SHUT THE INSTITUTE DOWN. THESE STATEMENTS WERE NOT BASED ON FACT AND THEREFORE WERE NOT TRUE.
Tony, there is no way that I can undo all the hurt that I have caused you by my prideful and unloving heart. I can only come to you now with a deeply humble, repentant, and contrite heart, and sincerely ask: would you forgive me? I am also in the process of contacting those who received that letter in order to send them this letter to them.
Love in Christ,
Bill
This is and has been over the top. Bill at all times expressed what he believed to be correct. If later clarification showed it otherwise, that is NOT a lie. Not every “fact” stated about Tony was completely correct, just like not every matter we have alleged here has turned out to be accurate. But, the substance was correct. When you discover you have “missed the mark” you straighten it out. Lying is completely different, a work of the devil, the father of lies.
And he really, truly believed at the time you men were seeking money. Again, it was Bill Wood who stood as the plaintiff in the last $4.5 million class action lawsuit against IBLP, right? On the day Bill left in 1980 he recalls Bill Wood asking for access to the finances, the plan expressed by him and by several others of the principals there being to distribute significant amounts of money around the world to those deemed worthy. And here was Bill Wood again, signing this demanding letter. The current matter has lead . . . where? To a lawsuit between Christians, women asking for $50K-$150K each for indignities that they allege they have suffered. Money is never far away, brother. I am getting weary of this. Surely you can apply some objectivity here and stop making such harsh and unsubstantiated accusations.
Alfred says:
“Larne: Bill did not lie to or about any of you. A lie is deception, not a mistaken opinion. We have talked about this. Again, if you want to reopen the dialog with Bill, he is prepared to do that, to clear things up.”
If Bill had a mistaken opinion or a question about our emails on January 10, 2014 why didn’t he call me, he had my phone number and had called me several times or email us. But he chose the same week he received the email while fasting and praying at the Northwood to call many to spread a false report. HIs conversation was a deception to gain sympathy and support of those he called.
No, that was what he believed. And we have already established why. You, personally, no.
Alfred writes:
“No, that was what he believed. And we have already established why. You, personally, no.”
We could not be any clearer . Regarding the WE in the middle sentence, to make it clear you must be referencing your team and not you and me because we have not established the why. To us he has still lied..
But just as important is “if” it was a misunderstanding on his part or he was offended by us what does scripture say he is to do? That takes us back to Matthew 18:15-17. Did he attempt that? NO! Did he attempt any contact effort with us at all, even through a second party to clarify the questions he might have? NO! Instead he spread lies and gossip to others to spread those same lies. He asked your 1980 witness to call those he knew would not take his calls.
Is this the actions of a God appointed Spiritual authority as you call him? Or the actions of a man who in his attempt to cover his sin sought to discredit others? What would do Alfred? Even thought we are on different sides and points of view, based on our private email conversation I truly believe you would contact me! We have been arguing back and forth for a month on this site and to my knowledge you have approved every one of my submissions. (although keeping track of them on this format is difficult with over 1400 comments) Why wouldn’t Bill? In you read the part of my January 10, 2014 email, I sent you last year, that Bill claims he misunderstood, where do you get we are trying to get money for my statement when after discussing what he had cost me I specifically stated the following:”. To make this very clear, I am not looking for a penny of your or the Institute’s money; God has blessed my family, but that does not mean that there was not a cost.”
It is important to understand this was written because Bill has always associated God’s blessing with financial success.
I go one to finally state: “For other staff members who have not been so fortunate, you are responsible for financial devastation in their lives.”
Nowhere does this letter state that Bill Wood, Tony or I are personally looking for money from the Institute, in fact it says just the opposite.
My guess is, included with this letter was a list of grievances Ruth wrote in 1981 I had taken from her correspondence. My guess that scared him, so he had to discredit the source, me. BTW Bill had previously received copies of this correspondence in 1981, at that time he unleashed his attack dog John McLario on us. So there is a pattern of behavior he seem to be following.
Yet you support the efforts to extract money from the Institute to turn over to the abused and financially devastated? As I said, money is just never far from the discussion. All those nice buildings, expensive property. It may have been a rush to judgment, but it was not entirely without a foundation. Bill Wood, signatory to the letter he was reacting to HAD already sued IBLP once.
On December 1, you said, ” the “Shepherd of the Hills” gave focused advice to “Sammy” on how to dress, carry herself, speak, all with the purpose so she could make a great impression on others, especially her future husband and his family and friends. Ordered her women’s magazines toward that end. Fictional . . . but . . . apparently considered quite normal, OK, given the overwhelming popularity of the novel.”
You keep implying that the success and popularity of the “Shepherd of the Hills” vindicates Bill Gothard’s actions. You have clearly stated that because the “Shepherd of the Hills” is so popular the public must agree with the actions of the main character in the book. Successful books get published all the time containing objectionable actions and material. Smutty romance novels are some of the most successful types of books that get published. How can you claim that the success of the “Shepherd of the Hills” proves anything when the most successful and popular books, tv shows, and movies are usually full of things that Christians object?
Do some research on the novel. Again, it was written in 1907 or so as anything but a “smutty romance novel”. God and country and sage wisdom and lots of Bible. Take the time to look at it. Please take as a given that this is supposedly an example of wholesome interaction between an elderly preacher and a young lady who has lost her mother and has a bit of a shifty outlaw for a father.
Read my comment again. I wasn’t calling the “Shepherd of the Hills” a smutty romance novel. I was stating that modern romance novels containing objectionable material are some of the most successful books currently published. You also edited my previous comment to remove part of it before you posted it; I don’t appreciate that. You didn’t answer my question of how does the success and popularity of the “Shepherd of the Hills” prove anything when the most successful and popular books, tv shows, and movies are usually full of things that Christians object.
The success of “Shepherd of the Hills” is a side note. Its success among God-fearing Americans is more important, but still a side note. Just focus on the story and tell me if the “Shepherd” was out of line in his interest in “Sammy” and behavior towards her. The success point was to suggest that “family values” folks didn’t think so, also shown by the perpetual play in family-friendly Branson. Honestly, we are beating this to death.
Yes, we edited your post to remove your complaint about the several posts we did not release, the last one because it made a reference to “Shades of Grey” which we didn’t like. We don’t do that a lot, twice in fact for this same reason, to remove a reference to a dropped post.
Moderator:
I believe you made an honest mistake; I’m not accusing you of falsely accusing me for supposedly having made a “Shades of Grey” reference, or any reference-of-such-a-reference. I saw no such comment in spite of having read the comments above. I have no familiarity with the story line of that sick tale and don’t plan on acquiring any. My reference was to Bill. He conducted a 7-10 year dating relationship with a staff member during which he often hinted broadly at marriage. This psychological manipulation had an effect similar to the physical closeness he maintained with this woman, in sending her away, he broke her heart to match the state of her will that he’d broken repeatedly over the past 10 years. Not to mention, she then had no means of supporting herself other than to be the kind of secretary that Steve Gothard insisted that a total of 7 women become.
With respect to the article which this thread stems from: the Shepherd on the Hills was able to minister to people’s brokenness due to having been healed of a broken heart himself (according to you, this is a parallel to Bill). THIS man, having suffered the tragic loss of the love of his life, has therein the basis for ministering. Your correlation of this to Bill is extremely puzzling. I don’t feel that I’m reading into the classic drama by pointing out that there’s really no correlation.
On another note, you responded to Dan above in part by saying:
“the grouping of accounts of late are recollections from 20 years ago, a time gap that makes the likelihood of memories being tainted by other accounts highly likely.”
You then go on to say yet again that hardly any of the young women will sit down and discuss these “tainted” memories with Bill. With someone in his camp like you saying there’s no way they could have kept any accurate account of such vivid experiences it’s no wonder they haven’t met with him. Yet, by some miracle, the same time lapse hasn’t similarly damaged the vividness of Bill’s memories of the exact same situations. Even though he has 35 different people with whom his interactions are supposedly able to be kept track of by him, whereas each one of these women only has the interactions with them by one person to keep straight. Just how stupid do you think women are? Or, if it’s not that, then how comparatively genius do you think Bill is?
I will pass this through. The “Shades of Grey” was a reference to Helga’s post, not yours.
You seem to know a great deal about this 7-10 year relationship. What is that based on? I am just curious of your level of involvement . . .
Shepherd of the Hills is a wonderful story, reenacted for 55 years straight in the “Shepherd of the Hills Theater” in Branson. We felt that this classic tale of a single elderly man focusing on a young girl, teaching her how to dress and conduct herself in high society, buying her things, holding her hands and gazing into her eyes as he spoke of the wonderful future ahead of her might provide another frame of reference to evaluate Bill and his ministry to young ladies over 50 years.
There are not 35 different people. There are somewhere around 10 young ladies, at least one of which we are certain made up the salient points of her story. And since the accounts given by the others are not being corroborated by a number of other sources that we have contacted for comment, we are beginning to believe that their tales were at least exaggerated, either by them or by the RG editors, to slide into the place they were needed for. The best explanation for honest people would be that memory has faded over time, being more recently filled in by the narrative being promoted by RG. Any honest servant of the Lord Jesus Christ will be more than eager to bring matters out in the open, the light, so healing may be obtained for all parties involved. Under the current circumstances especially, we cannot think of a just reason to refuse to talk to Bill, but then sue for damages, as some have done.
I read about the woman Bill said he dated on Recovering Grace. Unless Bill comes out and denies that she was his top-ranked personal assistant out of hundreds of thousands of underlings in an organization copiously tauting stringent adherence to authority, I’ll have to assume that the 10 years she spent as such indicates she was no loony toon. I have more to say to what she still obviously has going for her credibility in the eyes of one only acquainted with her from RG, but I won’t say it now.
I also have things to say about theatrics and exaggeration of physical expression in that field for the purpose of holding the attention of spectators (the only people being communicated to in a theatrical production) but I won’t say all that, either.
Also that the Shepherd in the story befriended Sammy one-on-one because she was the granddaughter of his close friend, as opposed to never having known her parents or grandparents prior to selecting her individually from groupings of young girls like herself. One of the most significant aspects of this story is that Sammy is, in fact, his blood granddaughter. To any theatrical director, the script is known as the portrayal of what will have become known to the audience as a blood tie, and this before the play is over. For these 2 reasons, if I were the director of Shepherd on the Hills, I too would direct the actor playing Sammy’s blood grandfather to hold her hands for extended periods of time. It’s not like there wouldn’t be onlookers studying this behavior every time it occurred in practices & performances. Also, anyone vying for the role of “Sammy” would have been very familiar with the script before final auditions in attempting to get the part.
What I need to say regards your decrying the RG team along with your claim that they contacted women who had worked with Bill.
It is likely that not a single one of the “10” women realized that what they had always known had happened to them actually was in violation of state administrative codes. Bill’s actions (one of which is photographed at the top of this thread) were sexually harassing of his employees/volunteers/counselees & rate as misdemeanors but for the stature of limitations. It is what it is. I ask you: What difference does it make if a misdemeanor call is initially made by a person one was done to versus their admitting it’s occurrence only when asked? There is so much humiliation felt by victims of sexual harassment even if they are unaware that that is what it is in the eyes of the law. Even before sexual harassment laws were in place, an external investigation should have been mounted while Bill was still dating Ruth; she had to live on campus, she was thousands of miles away from her family & friends (including her boyfriend), she traveled all over with her boss as his right hand. No woman in that position could ever be reasonably expected to have a balanced perspective from which to be able to decline to date that same man. And yet, to decline would have been the only safe option in that incredibly off-kilter scenario. Back in the 70’s, every one who’d ever worked with Bill should have been questioned patiently & in numerous different sessions to get them to break in their loyalty about what was really going on under the dome. The dome of the umbrella teaching itself should have raised scrutiny & the fact the Bill converted his subordinate into the additional role of girlfriend should have brought it straight to the issue at hand. Even a so-called brother who wasn’t running the lives of millions should have had his lifestyle assessed when he named his girlfriend simply for the obvious implications of how he’d obtained said girlfriend and her autonomy that he’d already compromised so heavily. Not to mention how this all flew in the face of his own teachings.
Moderators, what were YOU doing to serve those you took to be your fellow brothers & sisters in Christ? The RG team, according to you, was still in diapers back then. They’re all STILL young and therefore, apparently, their voice is despised by you in your comparative 35 years of doing life Bill’s way. Since babies in diapers would have had a hard time assessing the growing situation from their playpens, I guess I have you to thank for the fact that “most of the reports are 20 years old”. That’s how long it took for people to mature in age enough to pick up your people’s slack.
I hope none of these “10” women ever even come close to talking with Bill in person. The nature of this mess renders everyone needing to come to ground on a leveled playing field. It’s never been level; Bill’s always had the upper hand. That’s how he’s used it to physically manipulate these women with condescending touch. He kept them in their place that way. A place that he defined by flaunting the liberty he had over them.
You Moderator people here on DG are continuing his put-downs by stating that these women aren’t remembering correctly. Other than that these women dislike their histories of interaction with Bill, you mainly say their only honest characteristic would be to say that their memory has faded over time. What of those who like their recollections of interacting with Bill? How has time not affected THEIR veracity, only that of those who DISlike what they remember? Tell me: can you vouch for the competence of all drivers you’ve ever carpooled with? Do you remember every one of these drivers to have been above reproach in their handling of vehicles to the point that you would vehemently deny anyone else’s claim to the contrary? On the other hand, has any of you ever been hit (or swerved & braked to avoid being hit) by another car while out driving?……….. If so, was it too long ago to remember where the other car came out of to nearly make contact with your’s? ………Do you remember whether it was a car, a truck, or a (mini)van? ………How about which road you were on?………..How about which stretch of that road?…….. How about the exact spot on that road…….could you point it out even today? How about how time froze as the unfolding of this instance stood out to you as distinct even as it was occurring. From the moment it happened it was memorable because it was unusual, unsolicited, unexpected, and uncomfortable. Therefore, it has retained it’s initial place in your mind over the years, especially since it was not oft repeated by other drivers. But I have news for you: If this was 15 or 20 years ago, it couldn’t have happened. There’s no way you could actually remember that far back in time. If you’re imagining that you remember, it’s because of all the wrecks you’ve seen drug off to the side of the road & on TV since that time when you 1st imagined nearly being totaled yourself. My question here in asking you Moderators if something like this has ever happened or almost happened to you is fishing to which you have NOTHING to offer of your own experience. (And if, at this point, you tell me that getting run off the road is too insignificant to be remembered, on a par with being sexually harassed, I’m going to be even more upset. Just as a car doesn’t need to be totaled in order to remember an incident in it with another driver, so also a girl/woman shouldn’t need to lie bleeding on an exam table to have sustained a memorable violation of her person). This said, I’m going to tell you that I’ve located the driver who you have said ran you off the road (because he’s my friend) and so you have to sit down with him so that he can tell you he never did anything wrong. It’s this falsely accused driver’s right to explain to each one of you that nothing dangerous happened, and it’s his right to be able to tell everyone that he set you all straight in person regarding his conduct of his own vehicle. Which of course is for him alone to determine even after the fact of his having determined his own past actions.
More, more, more of the same. I don’t know anybody in Indiana or Illinois or Texas or wherever you are. But I know there’s already been enough; there doesn’t need to be more might makes right.
OK, this is way, WAY too long . . . will pass it through this time. Please make individual points in individual posts, otherwise it is impossible to work with. OK?
Right. Without her here to make a statement all of us do well to go easy with our assumptions. Her family would deny that she ever “dated” Bill – we know he told several others that he was. Some who worked with her then testify that she loved him – again, her family vehemently denies this.
I think you are mistaken? I have not read the entire book, did see the play. Sammy was the daughter of the gang-banger Jim and a deceased mother. If I am missing something, let me know. Pete, the “challenged” boy, THAT is his grandson.
That is because it was not – and we are deliberately excluding Gretchen’s story which we believe to contain significant fabrications. 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. Armchair lawyering is a limited and even dangerous game, especially when it gets folks lathered up to the point of filing lawsuits.
No, that is a picture of the “Shepherd” talking to “Sammy” . . . from the Branson play.
Bill’s pastor is prepared to moderate such a session, or they can bring their own advocates. So, no, that is not right. If it is worth suing for $50K – a technical violation of 1 Cor. 6 – then it is worth bringing the concern directly to the alleged offender.
We cite the case of Gary Smalley who is a well known Bible Teacher across the country for years, one whose truthfulness no one would question. Yet he completely misstated the “Cabin Story”, giving permission to cite him on it . . . until corrected by his wife last year who has a clear recollection. He is now eager to correct the narrative. God knows . . . but that is why it becomes very unfair to be bringing things up 20 years after the events with NO record generated, as would have been the case if the one violated had taken the Scriptural route and, one way or another, gone to the perpetrator for clarification when it happened and perhaps “the next step”. “Statutes of Limitation” are not there to squash the rights of the victim, but to uphold the rights of the accused.
Wow. So, because the woman Bill says he dated died over 20 years ago, her testimony is canceled out because she can’t make a current statement for this website. Truth is truth whether the humans who testified to it are deceased or not. Moderators, you testify here to the truth that this woman’s husband is still speaking today; you say:
“Her family would deny that she ever “dated” Bill – we know he told several others that he was.”
Her widower says (I paraphrase) that she was given permission by Bill anytime she even saw her family and that he told her not to write letters back to her then-boyfriend (her now widower), even taking letters this boyfriend had mailed to her so that she would never see them. This last part was in violation of federal law. So, in not being allowed/able to either continue with or to break up with her boyfriend of some time, as well as being alienated from her parents while still a teenager, it stands to reason that she did not tell anyone she was being dated by Bill. After all, her parents approval of her original boyfriend may have left her not knowing how to tell them he’d been replaced. Another possibility is that she never accepted a date from Bill. Maybe his “dating her” was comprised of “dates” during time spent on the job that she had not consented to other than in signing an employment contract.
You say:
” Some who worked with her then testify that she loved him – again, her family vehemently denies this.”
Maybe this is true; if so, how would her family know? (See above paragraph). If it is true, then we would have to assess: Just how condemnable is it for a woman to love a man who’s dating her? Does this means she has fallen into sin by falling in love? I find it rather interesting that Bill told several people that he dated her. Did he ever say: “I love(d) her?” Of course not. Because he didn’t. Love doesn’t act unbecomingly, and it’s certainly unbecoming to date anyone (let alone by such means) whom you have no capacity to love. Especially when it’s a matter of drawing ridicule to the person you’re using in this way for their loving you in your charade.
I stand corrected in that Sammy is NOT Dad Howitt’s blood granddaughter. By the end of the play she is the in-law granddaughter of his close friend.
Direct quote from Wikipedia:
“The main story surrounds the relationship between Grant “Old Matt” Matthews Senior and Dad Howitt”.
“Misdemeanor battery”?!?!?!? Wow, just what everyone wants to have happen to them. Tell me, does every indictment of sexual harassment include “misdemeanor battery”? Was Monica Lewinsky “battered”?!?!?!?!
One of Bill’s ACTIONS is photographed at the top of this thread. And it’s no wonder you had to use this photo to depict such action of Bill’s: there were, of course, no cameras around to record HIM doing this. But, way to go in making what was done in secret known widely.
I do not believe your account of Gary Smalley in it’s contradicting of “the Cabin Story” on RG. It’s unlikely that he was suffering from cerebral damage when he made the account to RG, as he was when answering your questions.
You say:
“as would have been the case if the one violated had taken the Scriptural route and, one way or another, gone to the perpetrator for clarification when it happened and perhaps “the next step”
Like I said- to which you responded with this- it’s you Moderator’s goal to have one person’s perception/ interpretation of incidences involving at least (2) firsthand witnesses to trump that of their equal witness. The non-perpetrator-witness was supposed to have gone to the perpetrator-witness “for clarification”. This stipulation is SO un-Biblical. The Bible condemns such partiality, especially in the courts. No wonder there’s a lawsuit pending; what else could be done that hasn’t already been done?!?
To make a point, in this case “battery” is not “battered”, just “unwanted touching” forced on someone. And, again, this is based on the worst possible interpretation of a short email from an uncorroborated witness. Who seemed eager to not be examined further on the matter. And was mad at Bill for getting her sent back home. The point is that we have an official state authority examining the complaints lodged of late against Bill . . . and being uninterested in “sexual harassment” per se.
Of course you don’t. For the same reason you and a lot of others so readily believed the original incorrect account. You want to see Bill hurt, whatever it takes. I heard a hint of “Gary can’t think straight anymore” in there. In this case you will have to also say the same for Norma, his wife. Those that have spoken to them of late, some fast friends of RG, disagree with you. So read the more recent comments on that article on RG and see if that may change your mind.
Well, here is what the Bible says:
“Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another: Lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away.” (Prov. 25:9-10)
“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15)
It is fairly clear that a believer has the responsibility to go to one that has offended them, privately, first before doing anything else. Going to a public website or publishing in a book as the first action is indefensible, at least from a Scriptural perspective. It proves a lack of love since “be that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.” (Proverbs 17:9)
Perhaps I missed seeing it elsewhere, but why have you not shared your evidence that proves that Gretchen’s story contains “significant fabrications.”
We spend some time making that point in the “Did He Do It? – History and Scandal” section.
So if I am understanding this correctly, you base your belief that Gretchen’s story is fabricated on the following facts:
1) Bill Gothard denies it is true.
2) Gretchen at times forgot traumatic events in her past.
3) Your Freedom of Information Act requests to the Hinsdale Police Department showed that the Hinsdale Police Department had no police report of Gretchen giving her story to the police.
Did I miss any facts?
Is there anything about her story that would give you pause, Helga? Did you notice the discrepancy between her account of her “calling” to HQ . . . and the testimony of her house leader?
Gretchen:
“We went to a conference in Knoxville in July of 1992. That’s where I first met Bill Gothard. I remember he wouldn’t let go of my hand, and he kept telling my parents how sweet, beautiful, and pure I was. I was in awe as I listened to the man whom I had been told was responsible for me being alive tell my parents that he wanted me to come to Headquarters. Me? The youngest of seven children, a preacher’s daughter? What did I have to offer him, this man whom my mother almost worshiped and my father would preach about in his sermons? That was during the first week of July. By mid-August I was at IBLP Headquarters by his request. I was put on payroll right away. I was 16 years old.”
Dixie:
“Many young people, some as young as 13, had started spending time at Headquarters during those four years. Late that summer, the girl you are about to hear from, “Charlotte,” moved into my house. She was a vivacious 16 year old, and she loved the outdoors. She was also what we called an “encouragement case.” In other words, she did not fit the mold. She dressed differently; she seemed much too friendly with boys, and we were told she had been giving her parents trouble at home.”
Somebody is misrepresenting things. According to Bill her parents were desperate as they contacted HQ for help, end of their rope to know what to do with their rebellious daughter. That seems to fit the Dixie version.
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.
That fits a pattern of which we have other testimony, someone who loves the limelight and is skilled at crafting stories to fit a need. But obviously you must make up your own mind. Or maybe you already have?
I don’t understand your last paragraph. Are you saying that you have interviewed people that knew Gretchen and that these people claim that Gretchen is someone who loves the limelight and is skilled at crafting stories to fit a need?
Correct
Why is there any need for Gary’s wife (called Norma) to be able to think straight? Is SHE the one to whom an opening cabin door revealed a woman in a sheer negligee who at some point sat on Bill’s lap? And, if this “Cabin Story” is false, why hasn’t Gary done something over the years about his name being put to that public account? He hasn’t been hospitalized for the past 3 years.
I want to see justice for people who’ve been initially hurt and taken advantage by Bill, then hurt by his personally-instigated cover-ups, then shamed, slandered & bullied when his cover-ups didn’t work and/or these people dared to make a peep in their own defense, then hobbled in the only Christian community they ever knew by this same sullying of their reputations. Talk about “want”-ing to “see” someone “hurt”. How about we talk about actual objectively-identified ways of hurting people. Defined by the Bible. After all, Scripture says: “Therefore do not pronounce judgement before the time, before the Lord comes, Who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” (1 Cor. 4:5) The one-on-meeting between the wronged and Bill that you demand is an objective that is wrong in and of itself, the glaring partiality that is the basis for it spelled-out in your moderation-before-the-one-above. It would be just another mis-application of Scripture manifested as concrete happenstance were it to happen, even if partiality wasn’t the motive, as you’ve declared it to be in the case of your desire for it. Again, we both share a mutual desire for concrete happenstance, eclipsing merely guessed-at motives of others: So let’s start with the “whats” rather than supposed “whys” in reading the reports of people whose testimonies appear on RG as well as here. How are those who were young girls being un-wanted-ly touched 15 to 20 years ago supposed to have, AT ANY POINT IN TIME, countered his “clarification” (your word) of this with the fact that he had a history of using staff for his personal romantic fulfillment? Or counter his “clarification” with the additional fact that “10” other girls/women were receiving unwanted touching from him also? Or counter his “clarification” with the fact that his own board of directors would in the future admit, on the stand, that they had begged him on numerous occasions to quit doing so? (It is my hope that they will be as honest on the stand as they were in 2012). Or counter his “clarification” with the fact that his promoting “The Chain of Command” in it’s heresy had brainwashed them to fail to kick him in the shins?
Lastly, I ask you folks over there who run DG:
When Proverbs was written, was it acceptable for any female, adult as well as child, to meet a man alone who was not their close relative, for any reason at all? The Bible had already been blown WAY out of any context for application of these verses by the life of Bill; that’s how he sexually harassed all these women in the 1st place. And, when Jesus told people to go to their “brother”, I’m certain he meant it the way you take this. That is how I take it. Problem is, it’s ingrained in IBLP culture that females don’t have brothers. A brother is an equal. All we had, within IBLP culture, was a “father” who dictated the supremeness of all human fathers reigning under his copyrighted paradigm. So much so that, in any incident involving any such father figure with (a) first hand witness(es) in addition to himself, it’s up to the other(s) to go to such a one for “clarification” of what they experienced. I tend to think Jesus was right to say “brother” in reference to such incidences and the action needed to be taken in light of such conduct. After all, there’s nothing unequal about interpretive ability inferred when both the people witnessing the same thing are recognized as siblings. Maybe, when sensory perception (the 5 senses) is equal in both parties, it means that 2 first hand witnesses of the same event really are on equal footing. That said……. do you Moderators still think it’s Biblical for a Mt. 18 meetings to take place even though it couldn’t be for the purpose of Bill’s “clarification” of what the others witnessed if it were to be in obedience to Jesus’ words?
Seriously, please say what you have to say in half the words.
Please take the time to read the words that Gary wrote to us on this again. Also humor me and read some of the last chronological comments in that “Cabin Story” account on RG. You will see that Larne believes Gary, since Gary and Norma personally told him this – face to face – last year. You will see him pleading with folks – you – to drop this one. Do appreciate you posting since this forum gets boring without comments, but, seriously, you speak of a lot of things you don’t know.
Back to your comments on “clarification”, this mandated meeting between the accused and their accuser is for the purpose of clarifying the facts in the presence of a small number of witnesses. We, for example, know of what we see are glaring issues with Gretchen’s stories based in a number of simple facts from folks that know her and were there. This is an opportunity to pass simple sanity checks on both sides of that story. Having advocates for both sides as witnesses keeps it fair, yes? Those who are righteous and have been deeply wronged generally welcome such a venue to finally get their matters out in the open. Bill eagerly is seeking these meetings – Gretchen is unwilling to meet.
Boy, that is an odd one. Would have to ask for ANY Biblical precept to say it is not OK, for starters, otherwise you are substituting your moral codes for Scripture. I can think of Ruth sleeping at Boaz’s uncovered feet – with a bunch of sleeping men unaware of the next morning conversation. Jesus at the well of Samaria. Jacob at the well with Rachel.
Is this in regards to Matthew 18? Then let’s have an advocate there. No one has any problem with that.
Alfred, please refrain from quoting what I think. If you recall on November 12th I sent you this email below which explain my most recent thoughts. I don’t know where the Cabin Story really occurred nor does it matter. Your attempt to shift the guilt away from Bill and drag the witness through the mud is counter to the scripture. Regarding your comments about Ruth I will continue to refrain from commenting due to the pending litigation, but I know the truth and so does a very Holy God who we all have to answer to on our day of reckoning and He will be the final judge. Regarding your “witness”, your desire to protect Bill from the consequences of his sin overshadows the consequences it could have on your “main” witness, enough said.
******************COMPLETE EMAIL TO ALFRED BELOW********************
“””Alfred,
I have written several responses to you but have not felt lead to send them, mainly for what I have read on DG. Then this morning someone quoted the DG Moderator in a RG post and below is my response to him. As a Christian I owe you that much and this will be my last response;
• Kevin,
When someone make a statement it important that they make sure the words they use are truthful to the best of the knowledge they have. If not one need to provide the exceptions to the statement or change the adjectives in their writing. That said the moderator’s statement, if said by Alfred is false as he is very aware of the truth. “Are you aware that not a single one of that multitude of accusers has come to Bill, with or without witnesses?” Ruth came to him with a witness (me), in the July 5, 1980 Board meeting Bill was confronted by victims with witnesses, Gary went to him with witnesses in 1976, the Denver 2014 meeting was with witnesses, should I go on.
What is troubling in this statement and others I have read on DG it the condescending authoritative tone the moderator or moderators use; “Are you aware…” The moderator is trying to put you in your place. “….not a single one…” really, I guess the moderator is all knowing and has talked to everyone of the accusers and was at every meeting. Oh by the way, I forgot to mention that earlier in the week of the 2014 Denver meeting Bill flew to Mexico to meet with one of the accusers. Her husband was a witness along with Dr. Doty Murphy who accompanied Bill as the mediator. When the abused women were sent packing in 1980 many had no support or money and a meeting was out of the question. Bill for several years after the scandal refused to talk with any of the women because he was supposedly banned by the board from doing so. (He made this claim in a 1983 phone call when he was trying to get Ruth to change her story. The board rule didn’t apply when it might benefited him.)
Lastly it doesn’t make my blood boil because I will not have to stand before my Savior and account for the moderator’s statement, only my own. On that day Matthew 18:1-14 will apply along with Matthew 7:21-23. Those that seek to put another god (little g) before them will soon realize they are dealing with a very jealous God (big G).
Larne
(Note: Between “Kevin” and here is the copy of a post I made on RG to insure Alfred saw it, my email continues below.) (There is no way you can use italic in this blog)
Alfred this post above is an example of what I view is the whole tone of DG, which I see as projecting a very authoritative and condescending tone. In some of DG’s stories and statements important facts and details have been left out to make Bill look good, thus not telling the whole truth. There also seems to be an “all knowing” knowledge of Bill’s naysayer’s motives along with a superiority condescending spirituality attitude. Bill is a master deceiver and you have been deceived, in most cases you have never met or talked with the persons involved, you have read the stories and listened to Bill’s denials. Even with overwhelming evidence Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer and John Gacy claim their innocence till their deaths. I know you will bristle at that example but the point is, denials are not a proof of innocence!
Let me give you a further example involving the “Cabin Story”. I have been open about questioning some of the facts of the story, mainly the location and what she wore; I feel the truth is important, what ever that might be. Until two years ago I never heard “that story”. So my questions are based on my inmate knowledge of Ruth and personal observations. But Ruth was very specific about the commonness of sitting on Bill’s lap and the familiarity she had with him. That was something Bill and Steve groomed in the women on staff, particularly the women they were attracted to. She was also very descriptive about the late bedtime goodnight hugs at the Northwoods. All of these facts were things Ruth discussed openly with other abuse staff women with me present. Each one added their own affirmation to the stories. The “Cabin Story’s” possible flaws do not negate the bigger sin of Bill’s grooming, impure motives, duplicity, and lies regarding his actions and relationships with the women.
He trained them, told them how to dress, how to act, how to be attentive to him (I was in that class too, it was repulsive). Whether it happened in Bill’s cabin, Crazy Bear Lodge, the retreat center or Bill’s office, Ruth was trained and encouraged to sit on his lap. That also applies to whether she had on a long flannel nightgown or a see through skimpy nightie, it’s all immaterial. What it shows in a trained familiarity and encouragement on Bill’s part to encourage that behavior and what was acceptable to wear in his presence. Bill used the carrot and stick with his staff to accomplish his desired response from them. He is a master manipulator, just as he now manipulates you, when you are of no added use to him he will dump you like a hot potato! Just look at Bill Wood and myself. Since our “failure to repent” phone conversation with him in May and the published letter in June, I have written him a couple additional emails with no response. I was not looking for a response from him but we are of no more use to him. He was able to delay, stall and defer our process long enough to get his new ministry up and running. He manipulated and used us till we were of no more use to him.
This will be my last email, for over two years I have engaged you privately and shared some very private details so you could see and hear the truth first hand. I know Tony and others have done the same. We are on different sides, ours is to get him to repent before it’s too late. I can’t read your mind or know what your ultimate motivation is; I will leave that the Great and Righteous Judge. I will continue to pray for you, your family and Bill that God will open your eyes. Regardless of the good you feel you have derived from Bill, his unrepentant sin will be the historical measure of his earthy life but his eternal judgment will be determined by a very Holy and Jealous God. In the end does Bill’s story reflect the Five Solos, by Scripture alone, by Faith alone, by Christ alone, by Grace alone, For the Glory of God alone?
A servant of Christ alone, for the Glory of God alone,
Larne”” (END OF EMAIL TO ALFRED)
Larne: Thank you for posting. I (Alfred) deeply appreciate your friendship over a number of years even as we have disagreed – in some cases strongly – on various topics relating to Bill. In partial answer here:
It does matter to us since the difference between a remote location in the Northwoods and Bill’s office is enormous in terms of implication for mischief. There is no way to explain the former even with a lot of imagination. What she was wearing is also significant, since a woman dressed for bed is not going to be in Bill’s presence for righteous purposes. “That story” has done more damage among the rank and file than anything else, being at one point posted as part of his Wiki page. So you can see why it matters a great deal to us.
We were focusing on the witnesses that comprise the Recovering Grace narratives which, with the exception of Ruth, are not part of 1980. With respect to Ruth, you have testified and I have a letter from her to Bill from the mid 1980s that he never violated her, took advantage of her morally during all those years. You are correct about the trip to Mexico to address the concerns of one young lady, one who did not publish on RG and the details of whose accusations I am not aware, hence was not sure it fell in the same class as the 8 who have published stories.
Larne, you know the history well enough to know where we are coming from. Frankly anyone with a different story to tell than what fits the “Evil Bill” narrative has been shown the back of the bus or the exit. So we have dealt with endless condescension coming from the “other side” which continues in the more recent comments critiquing our efforts. I doubt you are going to deny that. So, are we really badly out of line here?
You and I have discussed this. It was one of the first questions I asked Linda Sergeena in the hour long meeting I had with her, she who was secretary during almost all of the time Ruth was, living across the hall from her, also compromised by Steve. As I told you she reacted strongly to the implication, calling it a “lie from the pit of hell”. Also recounting Steve’s activities in this department which no one is denying and which she is convinced were the basis for this accusation. As I said to you, you have every right and responsibility to tell what Ruth told you, and we have the same responsibility to tell the stories that others tell us and, in this case, specifically wanted told publically. Is it not strange that no one else seems to testify of this? There were plenty of others around that would remember that, as frequently as you are implying it happened – there is nothing at HQ or Northwoods easily done in a corner. Gary would have seen it . . . Tony would have seen it . . . Linda certainly would have seen and lived it.
If and when that happens it will hurt … and as always the Lord holds each accountable for their deeds, including Bill. But we are more concerned about the bigger picture, the role that the Lord assigned to Bill, the gifts He gave him toward that end, the impact on our nation and the world at this time in history. If it is what we think it is then the devil has an overarching objective here to wipe the world clean of Bill and his ministry. And if we are right, then we will do the Lord’s will and do what we can to avoid that from happening.
Alfred regardless of how you feel about Bill and your desire to protect him, you are still missing the point. Sitting on his lap, next to him in the car (on bench seat) and good night hugs were things encouraged by Bill, but were expulsion reasons for others. Bill groomed Ruth and others. The facts of the case on Wiki are not the cause of the damage to Bill’s reputation, its Bill’s hypocritical actions and sins. You should be more concerned with the sin then the publication of that sin.
You state; “What she was wearing is also significant, since a woman dressed for bed is not going to be in Bill’s presence for righteous purposes.”
That statement puts the emphases back on the woman (Ruth) assuming she was the instigator. But in Gary and Norma’s revised statement Bill called her and told her to come to his “office/where ever”. If that is the case, a flannel nightie might be more appropriate then her normal work dress, in those days dresses were knee leant not the Amish look of the ATI era. But the bigger issue is Bill’s grooming of the women and request that she came back to work. I talked with the Smalley’s too. Bill’s ATI era teaching of blaming women for rape because what they wore is well documented. But in this case Bill trained Ruth! So who is at fault? Why did she feel comfortable to see him in her nightie/nightgown and sit on his lap? Was it the way he trained her?
You state; “Is it not strange that no one else seems to testify of this? There were plenty of others around that would remember that, as frequently as you are implying it happened – there is nothing at HQ or Northwoods easily done in a corner. Gary would have seen it . . . Tony would have seen it . . . Linda certainly would have seen and lived it.”
Have you asked Linda if you can specifically use her name in your posts and defense of Bill? I choose to leave the women out of this. Regarding the “good night hugs” I have had that conversation with two of the other women, besides Ruth who would verify her testimony. Other stories about Bill’s actions have also been shared but I will not involve them nor am I going to ask for them to support my statements. They do not want to be involved; I have respected that, so I will take the hits. I have not asked them to do anything! Lastly, I refuse to get into an argument with or about Linda, she has been through enough.
You state; “But we are more concerned about the bigger picture, the role that the Lord assigned to Bill, the gifts He gave him toward that end, the impact on our nation and the world at this time in history. If it is what we think it is then the devil has an overarching objective here to wipe the world clean of Bill and his ministry. And if we are right, then we will do the Lord’s will and do what we can to avoid that from happening.”
For us based on Matthew 18:15-17, our “Failure to Repent” letter (http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2015/06/failure-to-repent-tell-it-to-the-church/) did just that and we are to treat him as a tax collector and heathen, then to warning the church in general. We have done just that through the same “church” that Bill operated in “The General Public”. What Bill has accomplished has nothing to do with his unrepentant sin. They are two mutually exclusive things. Because of his failure to repent we feel he is no longer qualified to be a pastor/teacher based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Hitler had an unremarkable early life as an artist but as a solder in WWI “By all surviving accounts, Hitler was a brave soldier: he was promoted to the rank of Corporal, was wounded twice (in 1916 and 1918) and was awarded several medals.” If his life ended there we would call him a hero of his country. But his later life proved him to be one of the most wicked men who every lived. Does his bravery or medals negate anything of his later sin? (I know you will hate this extreme analogy but it emphasis my point) How will God look at Bill in the final judgment? In our failure to repent letter we make the following point:
“Bill we each choose a path and, in the end, we will answer before our Eternal Judge for that path taken. God has made it clear that when we stand before Him, He will either say “well done thou good and faithful servant” or “I knew you not.” (Matthew 7:13–29 and 25:21) In Leviticus 19:2, God says “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.” Again in the New Testament Peter repeats the command in the era of Grace, “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” (I Peter 1:16) That should be our desire: to be holy.”
What will be Bill’s answer? What will God’s answer? What should be our action? Our goal is to bring Bill to repentance and honor God. What is yours, is it the same or to cover sin?
Some behaviors are wrong in one setting but fine in another. The elderly/pastor shepherd is holding the young lady’s hands in ways that would clearly be wrong for a young man. At this point we do not believe the long hugs goodnight since we have valid conflicting first hand testimony, and Bill is adamant he never did that.
This is a tad confusing. Is there a “revised statement” other than the email Gary sent us? In that comment he surmised what might have transpired, winter coat and all . . . you indicated how unlikely that would be for Ruth to go out other than fully dressed? We felt the same – When we subsequently asked him to explain coat/nightgown he said emphatically that he could not recall what she was wearing. Twice. We think the nightie came from wherever the cabin did.
She was adamant that we pass on, publish what she told us, however we wished. Also indicated she had permission or speak for another secretary that did not want to get personally involved but wanted to help clear Bill’s name.
You know we strongly disagree. I am accountable to my church, Bill to his, you to yours. The “general church” let alone a group such as Recovering Grace has no authority to excommunicate. You must do as you feel the Lord directing you, but we make up our own minds on that.
Later in that chapter, Leviticus 19:16-18
“Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.”
Does Jesus reject us, His children, when we sin, even grievously? Does He tell as many people as possible about what we have done? Does He hold a grudge, walk away . . . Or does He keep with us, ever pursuing us until He captures us? Would you cut your own son or daughter off as you are attempting to do with Bill? Would you believe tales told against them because many people tell them with passion, or would you doubt them, believing the best of your child until you are absolutely forced – multiple corroborated witnesses – to conclude otherwise? It is all so different when love is involved.
“Our goal is to bring Bill to repentance and honor God. What is yours, is it the same or to cover sin?”
How do you propose to do that if you are forced to shun him? Yes, we are here to help Bill in any way we can, prove him righteous or help him recover righteousness. We are not here to cover sin . . . But accept the fact that we are also set to . . . “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19). These are not hearsay witnesses, but accounts that we have vetted to any reasonable level of confidence. It seems like every time we dig into an account, it falls apart.
You write:
“How do you propose to do that if you are forced to shun him? Yes, we are here to help Bill in any way we can, prove him righteous or help him recover righteousness. We are not here to cover sin . . . But accept the fact that we are also set to . . . “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19). These are not hearsay witnesses, but accounts that we have vetted to any reasonable level of confidence. It seems like every time we dig into an account, it falls apart.”
Lets say one of your daughters is fondled by an elder in your church. How do you deal with it? What if he denies it never happened or says I was just giving her an encouragement hug? Who do you believe? Yet she feels violated? Where are the two or three witnesses to an act or acts done in private? What if she feels emotionally violated? Matthew 18:15-17 gives an answer to that, first you go to the person and confront them (vs.15), (in the case of a child a parent is always the child’s representative), if that doesn’t work you take a witness or two (vs.16), If that doesn’t work you take it to the church (vs. 17). Lastly there is not a positional restriction in Matthew 18 of who can confront who. This is what we and others have done.
In the case of LaGrange Bible Church’s willingness to deal with Bill in 1981, they took no action even with witnesses. However, that does not mean Bill was not guilty. Most of the extended Gothard family attended the church and had been long time members and I presume generous givers too and maybe the Institute made donations to the church. The church was in the middle of a building project and they commissioned Bill so their reputation was on the line. Personally I have seen some pretty rotten church politics over the years regarding covering sin for influential church families. In a 1981 meeting with the LaGrange Bible Church regarding a letter Rev. Chuck Lynch (a member) wrote. The following link was the church’s response: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/1-LaGrange-Bible-Church-1981-Event.pdf
Then again in late 2013 the church received “Tony’s packet”, yet again they took no action: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/1.22.14-LaGrange-Bible-Church-Letter-to-TonyG-51.jpg
After Bill’s resignation and our 2014 Denver meeting Bill told us he was under the authority of three mentors, two of whom he was meeting with regularly. His pastor, Pastor David Shoaf from the Independent Baptist Church in Bolingbrook Il, Dr. Donald Wood then an Elder in the LaGrange Bible Church. Bill informed us that both men were adamant that he not publish a public statement and move ahead with his new ministry. Apparently Dr. Wood was a long time family friend and his late father was a staff pastor there during the 1981 meeting. I think it would be difficult to think that the church’s 2014 decision was not influenced by this long time relationship of both Elder Dr. Wood and staff member the late Rev. Wood with the Gothard family. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-10-19/news/9104040377_1_minister-dr-donald-nancy-wilson
(Note: I might add the third mentor was Dr. Doty Murphy but he seemed to be quickly dropped when he insisted that Bill publically repent in writing.)
Tony’s 2013 letter to LaGrange Bible Church: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/12.30.13-14-LaGrange-Bible-Church-Cover-Letter-and-Request.pdf
Lastly and probably more important is your question about shunning him. I believe there is clear scripture of how we should love our neighbors, insure they have food, clothes and shelter. I believe the line need to be drawn with encouraging or enabling the sinful behavior to continue. We believe Bill is not qualified based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 so to us anything that enables his “organized ministry” is a sin. That not to say he does have a personal responsibility to individuals to share the gospel. Maybe he should join his brother-in-law Phil Garvin and witness on the street corner. However, he is no longer qualified to be a Teacher, Pastor, Elder or Leader in the Christian faith! He has lost that based on his continued sin of unrepentance. By your enablement and encouragement of his new ministry you are an accomplice in his sin. God wants His Church to be Holy and Pure, yes we are forgiven but it first takes confession 1 John 1:9.
Alfred,
Only God can see the bigger picture, and frankly, Bill is a tiny part of it.
You must think the world is very small and God even smaller if you believe He depends on Bill in any way. God may have given Bill gifts, but he also gave him free will. Bill screwed up, and it is probably not fixable. He is not the first man to shoot himself in the leg. He is also not the only man to whom God gave gifts.
Bill is an important figure in your life, but he is not as famous as you think. Pretty much no one I know has ever heard of him. I bet a million dollars no one at my place of work knows his name, except the friend I confide in about my childhood.
Why do you need him? You don’t. You don’t need him at all to teach your kids about Christ or homeschool them. You don’t need Bill to be a Christian or go to church. Even if his whole ministry folded, whichever family members work there would find other jobs and the earth would keep turning in its orbit.
God is very big and there are more than 7 billion people on the planet. There are plenty of people to fellowship with and learn from. I swear sometimes you make Bill sound like the latter day incarnation of Christ.
Of course I beg to differ. Ask your parents, see if they have a recollection, or others in their generation, especially church folk. No, Bill Gothard’s name was as well known as Bill Bright and almost as well known as Billy Graham (the “Bills” of the 1970s and 1980s). Of the population of the State of Oregon, a full 20% attended a Basic Seminar.
God is indeed very big, but He looks to the individual to perform specific tasks. Think about “a man” in the following verse:
“30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it:but I found none. 31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord God.” (Ezekiel 22)
And when God picks a person, He does not easily change His mind. The individual matters far more than you are acknowledging:
“For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Romans 11:29)
Alfred,
you have basically deified Bill Gothard. There is nothing anyone is going to say to you with the mountains of evidence to change your mind. This is totally and spiritual sick.
That seems odd coming from you, Rob – and if I have misunderstood your theological bent, I apologize in advance. But . . . don’t you believe in “deifying” or “beatifying” ordinary mortals, so they are accorded a reverence far above what is due to, again, ordinary mortals? Some people believe that to be theologically sick. But Scripture says to “give honor to whom honor is due”, and to respect those that God has used to bring us the Gospel, and then train us in the ways of the Lord. That is just telling the truth . . . I heard Jesus in the words they spoke, it was Holy Spirit empowered, I and my family and, hence, descendants will never be the same.
I cannot tell you how many “mountains” of evidence have moved, have shrunk to molehills when FINALLY the light shines on them. That is certainly true here. Mountains just don’t scare a believer, and they certainly should not convince a skeptic by their bigness. Speaking of which, do you still believe in the “Cabin Story”, Rob? Just a gut check . . . on evidence presented . . . and people who don’t ever change their minds.
Yes, he was most famous in the 70s and 80s. Lots of people are famous and later drop into obscurity. That was some 30 and 40 years ago!
The only Bill in that trio who would be known to people outside our little subculture is Billy Graham. I just asked my husband, “Do you know who Bill Bright is?” “No.” Of course, I know who Bill Bright is because of the family I grew up in.
God does look to individuals to perform certain tasks, but he also gives them free will to make a royal mess of it.
True enough. Now . . . do you believe in heroes . . . at any level? Do you remember, respect, honor, talk about, point out to your children, visit memorials over any “special” people in any discipline, be in sports or politics or science or whatever? If you do, then, come on. Some people are just really significant. We stand on their shoulders, in their shadow, we thank God for them for all they have done, in some cases for millions of others. It is a crime to forget them, in fact . . . ungratefulness.
The question of heroes is interesting because it is something I have thought a lot about. I am very cautious about looking up to anyone as a hero or heroine.
I am immediately reminded of the song “Hero” by Steve Taylor. I used to listen to that song a lot growing up. It is a Christian song about how disillusioning it is to realize how sinful and fallible our earthly heroes are as we get older. However, we have Jesus. Jesus is the hero we are looking for. Jesus is the hero we want and need.
That’s how I know you and everyone else will be OK if Bill Gothard doesn’t recover from this. You know Jesus. You don’t need Bill Gothard specifically to teach your kids about Jesus. Your kids need Jesus and you much more than they need Bill Gothard.
I don’t totally understand yet why humans have such a craving for heroes. It’s something I think about constantly. I do know it has caused a lot of mischief across human history. Maybe we have some kind of hole in our hearts we are trying to fill.
You are right Bill is famous just do a Google search with these two names, Duggar and Bill Gothard. Or type in “Bill Gothard scandal”. But for comparison type in “Bill Graham scandal”, and you will get nothing on Dr. Graham.
I was not a math major but in an accounting class the very first day of the cass the professor made the statement, “figures don’t lie but liars figure”. I am not calling your a liar but the professor’s point was you can make the numbers say anything you want them to say. Since you are the math major let’s talk numbers and see which ones you are using.
About the time the Portland seminars would have started in 1970, 20% of the population of Oregon in 1970, based on the US Census data, was 418,000 based on (2.092 million), for 1980 it was 526,000= 20% of 2.633m, 1990 was 572,000=20% of 2.86m), 2000 was 686,000=20% of 3.43m and 2010 was 767,000= 20% of 3.839m. Memorial Coliseum only holds 12,000 but because of the stage configuration it was only set up for 8000 and even by 1980 was rarely full. (I checked with the man who set up all the live seminars.) But let’s pick the 1990 numbers since the popularity of the seminal was well faded by then. In 1980 there were two seminars a year in Portland I believe probably less by 1990. But I’ll give you 2 per year. With 40 completely full Memorial Coliseums would only add up to 320,000(11.2%) or 252,000 less then the 20% you quote, but that assumes full coliseums and two time a year. In the seven years I was on the Seattle Usher Committee (basic seminar) and mostly as Co-chairman, we were told that only about 40-50% of the attendees were first timers, the rest were returning Alumni. (I verified that number with the administrator too) I would think the Portland numbers would be about the same. If that is the case the number drops to 160,000 or 5.59% and it’s probably way less then that, even with giving you the 50% number.
But what is even more bazaar if we compare your 20% number for 1990 or 572,000 to the total alumni for the whole Country probably is 2 million then. By your numbers of 20% of the Oregon population would equate to 28.5% of every individual person who attended a seminar in the whole country. Considering that Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, Bay Area, Seattle, Chicago were the big seminars plus the dozen of video seminars your numbers are a joke. Check your fact before you make a statement.
Yeah, that is a bit hard to process. I am quoting something I was told, so it must be true 🙂 Now your numbers improve a bit if you take only adults and exclude the elderly, leaving 60% of the population. There are others that are unable to attend for various reasons (in prison, handicapped, etc.) so that might get us to 50%, which is 20% of about 1 million folk, or 200,000. That would be 10 years of seminars, completely full. The number of households in Oregon in 1970 was 692K, 20% of which is about 140,000 . . . 7 years, completely full.
Again, I do not have the context for the statement – it was not Bill that told me that.
As to your statistic on Billy Graham and Google . . . just checked, yes, he too has a family member in a sex scandal.
If you make the statement that 20% of the people in Oregon attended the seminar, then that’s 20% of the population. You gave no qualifiers just a blanket number. That goes back to my professor’s statement, “that figures don’t lie but liars figure”. Buy more important it fails to meet God’s standard of “not bearing false witness”, your were trying to make Bill more relevant and important then he really is. If you are going to quote someone say that, “I was told” or “Bill told me”, ect. You can’t go back a re-clarify a false statement because no one will trust anything you say.
If you read my statement about Dr. Graham I specifically state “… you will get nothing on Dr. Graham.” That as you saw was true to my specific statement. His grandson was not part of the Graham ministry and was a pastor of his own church in Florida. My statement was direct, specific and clear and that’s what yours should be. I too say the part of the grandson but as I re-read my post I knew I could stand behind it because it was completely truthful to Dr. Graham who is not responsible for his grandson’s action. But as long as we are on the topic of his grandson, while I don’t know all the details of his sin I was impress that he admitted it publicly, resigned and sought help, I wish we could say the same for Gothard.
This is the whole problem with the Gothard defense which starts with his practice of obfuscating the issues and you do the same thing for him. Bill lies, as I have given you multiple examples with witnesses, Bill Wood, Gary, Tony, Ruth (you’ll have to die to ask her and your wife and kids might not appreciate that.) plus many more, but there are other who don’t want to be involved so I leave them out not mentioning them and I’m willing to take the heat because their wellbeing is more important to me then my reputation of being able to publically validate my story.
I took the comments from someone in the ministry, not Bill, someone who should know and repeated them. I didn’t “do the math”, I had no reason to. And you calling me a liar? I am guessing there is a way to get to 20% of the “eligible population” – probably this was on a briefing inside a context, the context has been lost, but the attendance percentages remain impressive. Were there not seminars in other cities, like Eugene? It has been a long time, I do not remember.
Bottom line: Were the attendance numbers in the 1970s and 1980s not impressive, no matter how you slice it? For a 30 hour seminar, no less? I was there – what can you compare it to?
And we agree that Billy has had little/nothing by way of moral scandal and we all honor him for the wisdom of his policies. Of course, he is not into “counseling” as a ministry focus, not like Bill, so the wear and tear of that sometimes messy process is not in play. Taking in broken young people from the court system and working with them intensely, sometimes 24 hours a day. According to Bill, Billy, in speaking with him at one point, acknowledged this difference and commended him for what he is attempting to do.
If you don’t go to war, you will probably not get a bullet wound. If you stay away from forest fires, you are unlikely to get 1st degree burns. Bill’s focus has been the trenches, the front lines of the battle.
And, why don’t you look up Dr. Dobson, while you are at it. Scandal inside the ministry, there was some of that, although nothing that I am aware of that besmirched Jim. Unless you favored the cause of his former second in command who I believe wrote a book about how badly he was treated.
Alfred, you cannot justify any of Bill’s actions by pointing the finger at other Christian organizations or even big names like Dr. Billy Graham and say “well they have scandals too so Bill is ok so what is everyone complaining about” First of all, this is moral relativism. You are justify Bill by other’s bad actions. Because the grandson of Dr. Graham had a sex scandal, Bill then is ok. It doesn’t work that way. Focus on the Family has hundreds of people that work for it. You waffle between your excuses for Bill. Either everyone is lying or misunderstood him, or it really isn’t that bad and everyone else does it to. The main emphasis in Bill’s teaching was moral excellence and having good “Godly” judgement. Bill did not practice what he preached. Yes, in the 1980’s there were other big name scandals with Jimmy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert. Jim Bakker lost his ministry, went to jail and ended up divorced. Jimmy Swaggert was eventually ex-communicated from AoG and is off in his own little corner like Bill and has ended up like Bill just surrounded by his few die hard followers and has become the poster boy for bad TV evangelists behaviors and he is still being caught with hookers. Any scandal of either sex or money brings shame on all Christians.
If you follow the thread you will note that this was first brought up by someone else. Hence my comments.
Not in every instance. He has said as much. Who has? in other words, have you practiced all you preached? The difference is that Bill had given his entire life to the Gospel, to further the work of the Lord, eschewing so many things we take for granted, not the least of which is a family. And he has stood before millions and said some things that needed saying but nobody else had the guts or wisdom to say, at least not with that platform. Like politicians every word, every act of his is scrutinized, analyzed. Why do I not know about your faults? Because in the overall scheme of things most people don’t know you exist or care. Same with me. I kind of like that. Bill is not like that.
So now he is busy trying to fix some of the mistakes, mistakes that I think in context and in the hindsight of history will be shown to be so, SO much less than alleged. Support him, help him, stop speaking evil of him.
Your state: “And you calling me a liar?” You tell me. Let’s say your kid misses curfew one night and your start the process of consequences. They plead with you and reluctantly state they were pulled over by the police. Your inquiry continues as to why they pulled your over and they cautiously tell you they were pulled over for speeding. In exasperation you ask why they were speeding, finally they say because they were late for curfew. The exasperation and frustration could have been avoided if the truth would have been told from the beginning. But in the back of your mind is their reluctance to tell the truth once they were caught (being late for curfew). How could that whole encounter been avoid if the truth was told in the beginning. If that child walked in the house late and said,”I know I am late, I pushed my schedule past the time I knew I need to be home and while speeding home was pulled over by the police. I was wrong in being late, in speeding and I learned my lesson.” Would your ‘consequences” be different in this response then in the grilling of the first example?
That is all we have been looking for with Bill not only from the IBYC era but the folks I have talked with from the ATI/IBLP era. Just the truth with confession, repentance, asking forgiveness and making restitution (which does not have to be financial).
In God’s kingdom the truth always wins and is demanded right from the start. Look at the example of Acts 5 with Ananias and wife Sapphira, and their being struck down for lying. You know the story but verse four says it all, especially the last sentence. “4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” (NIV)
So your 20% statement falls under several possibilities and you can decide. It could have been completely innocent because you believed the source and desperately want to protect Bill, it could have been intentional to make your point regarding Bill being famous without thinking of the absurdity of the numbers or it could have been with the intention of deliberately deceiving, thinking we would never check the facts. I would hope it was the first but only you and an all knowing God know.
But my point isn’t really about you, its about Bill, because this has been his pattern of behavior for the past 40 years. His actions appear to be based one, “The end justifies the means!” Back to Ananias and Sapphira it not how much how much they gave, it was about the lie, not only to the church but more important to a very Holy God.
You can’t control Bill’s lies nor should you try to justify them, they are his responsibility to those he lies to and more important to God. But you can control what you say, think about your sources and every word your write. Can it be back up in a court of law, do I have proof, did I see it, hear it or experience it. If someone told you something, say so, or “I believe…”, or “Bill told me…”, or “I can’t verify the source but….”. Other wise when you make crazy statements without even thinking them through or qualifying them, people will disbelieve everything you say.
With that thought I challenge you to go back and reread the lawsuits and with simple math and the exact words of the suit relook at the specific numbers you quote and then specifically state the facts as if you were responding to God and like Ananias and Sapphira your life was in the balance.
Lastly my challenge should be about everything you write, it should be an Ananias and Sapphira moment with God looking over your shoulder, and that is the same for all of us. You have confronted some of the participations on this website that they were just external observers (my words) to the various claims against Bill. In reality regarding my era of observed abuse and the specific ATI women’s claims against Bill so are you. You are an outside observer, you were not in Bill’s office with them or his hotel room or the Northwood. Ask yourself are your doing this for Bill or for God?
Generally yes, and the Lord is always so much harder on the unrepentant than those that repent, however late in the process.
And he asserts he has done that. You have rejected his reality and substituted it with our own. You demand that he repent of deliberately sending young women up to the Northwoods knowing that mischief was likely to follow – he emphatically rejects that notion and will never confess to that. He did NOT know it was likely in any – to him – reasonable sense. Frankly no one has the right to tell me what I have or have not done – in that I report directly to the Lord. You are going beyond any authority you have to demand this.
This is simply bothering me a great deal, Larne. You know me well enough to know how that happened. And if you are willing to “go there” and accuse me of lying on this, it calls your entire perspective and motives into question. In my mind.
#1 (http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Legal-01.pdf), I added it up, I apologize, that comes to $4.5 million. This “plaintiff”, standing for the class, is one of the participants of the recent letters to Bill, correct?
#2 (http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Legal-02.pdf), They plead losses in excess of $40 million, with redress requested through a court appointed board to take IBLP funds and give it to those wronged.
Have I discharged myself?
So who exactly is an inside observer? The Holy Spirit for sure. Were you there in his office or hotel room yourself? I am speaking of some who went through that whole mess. Does that count?
We are doing this for God, and Bill secondarily, because we love him and want to see justice done for him. For God since, as expressed, we see this battle in a much larger light, forces of evil attacking the things of God. We want the cause of the Lord to prevail. That battle will go on long after Bill goes home to be with Jesus.
You state according to Bill and referring to my “alleged” statement: “You demand that he repent of deliberately sending young women up to the Northwoods knowing that mischief was likely to follow – he emphatically rejects that notion and will never confess to that.”
What I have stated for the past 35 years is that Bill was aware of his brother’s history of immorality and sent women to the isolated Northwoods to work for him, there they were emotional and physically abused! They are two completely different statements, even if the latter might imply to some the former. Bill has changed my wording to obfuscation the charges against him.
In Denver while discussing this issue he made the same false statement the phrase he added was “to be abused”. I corrected him in front of four witnesses and I have never said those words. In Denver he finally admit he was aware of his brother’s history of immorality. It was hard for him to deny his knowledge of immorality since one of the men who confronted him was there, Gary. My simple statement reflects back to the basic question of his qualification according to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. A “question” he can not refute and when asked twice in Denver he stated he was unqualified! However, I believe he feel that if he can refute any part of my statement in public he can minimize the whole thing as being unreasonable (obfuscate). I believe this is what he is doing by changing my wording. His sending the women to the Northwood showed very poor judgment and a complete lack of concern for the employees in trusted to his care. (In 1970 he required Ruth’s father to fully entrust her care to him regarding all things.) Granted Bill could not see the future abuse, but what would a prudent person do? If your brother had a past history of child abuse would you send your son camping with him? Of course not, so why would you send your female employees, who you had been entrusted with their care, “camping” with a brother who had a history of immorality.
Bill knows the truth about his statements in Denver and my correction, so ask him, then I invite you to verify both my statement and his with Bill and Joy Wood or Gary and Norma Smalley, lastly ask him to show you the proof that I have made the statement he has claimed. If he can show it to me in any of my letters, emails or documents I have sent him or even you, I will gladly repent. My statement is very simple, Bill was aware of his brother’s history of immorality and sent women to the isolated Northwoods to work for him, there they were emotional and physically abused.
Lawsuit challenge:
First lawsuit: Thank you for your correction. What’s 5.5 million difference between friends.
“#2 lawsuit;(http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Legal-02.pdf), They plead losses in excess of $40 million, with redress requested through a court appointed board to take IBLP funds and give it to those wronged.”
In a class action case, the court determines the extent of damages; it could be $1 or a billion. The real question is where the second lawsuit’s distribution of funds would have gone? The simple answer is to the 2 million alumni. So each alumnus would have gotten around $20 back based on what they originally paid for their seminar fee. Not a penny would have come from donated funds. The two plaintiffs in this case would have each gotten a generous $20, so when you say the suit was for $40 million it infers a completely different picture then $20.
You state: “This is simply bothering me a great deal, Larne. You know me well enough to know how that happened. And if you are willing to “go there” and accuse me of lying on this, it calls your entire perspective and motives into question. In my mind.”
I did not call you a liar but asked you to question your own words with God looking over your shoulder. Many of your exaggerated statements, i.e.regarding money or about the percent of people from Oregon who have attended the seminar, points to your attempt to falsely building up Bill and falsely discredited his detractors with inaccurate facts. We are responsible before God for every word we say, write or think and we all need to remind ourselves of that. We need to check our fact to the best of our ability or to qualify what we are saying.
Your also state: “So who exactly is an inside observer? The Holy Spirit for sure. Were you there in his office or hotel room yourself? I am speaking of some who went through that whole mess. Does that count?”
No I was not in his office or hotel room during the events these women endured but I spent thousands of hours with a first hand witness (Ruth) and hundreds of hours with her sharing those same stories and claims against Bill with several other first hand witnesses in person(other abused 1980 women) and each of those witness confirming each others story. Ruth can’t come back from the grave except through me but if she were still alive it would be her writing these posts not me. I stand behind the mouths of two or three first hand witness who confirms the truth. I have shared many of my personal experience with Bill or direct observations I saw or heard and many stories I have not reported but that does not minimize their impact or severity. With the exception of one, I do not doubt the stories of the women you state you have personally talked to. That would be the same for the 1980 staff, not all the women were targeted by Bill, he had a very specific look and personality he went after. That seems to have continued to the ATI era as well.
Lastly your state: “We are doing this for God, and Bill secondarily, because we love him and want to see justice done for him. For God since, as expressed, we see this battle in a much larger light, forces of evil attacking the things of God. We want the cause of the Lord to prevail. That battle will go on long after Bill goes home to be with Jesus.”
I won’t judge your above statement and in a broader more general sense agree with you in; “For God since, as expressed, we see this battle in a much larger light, forces of evil attacking the things of God.” That said how I would apply and interpret the words of this statement would be completely different. We are under attack from “forces of evil”! We are in a moral revolution, but some forces of evil come from within, through false theology or focus away from the sufficiency of Jesus, that too is what we are fighting. Our focus should be only on Jesus and His sanctification of us to be more like Him. We are to warn our brethren of those that are in error and for those that Matthew 18:17 as been applied to. The greater church in general has a long history of covering sin of those that are called Christian leaders. So if the leader of the general church won’t deal with sin, could God raise up men like the shepherd Amos to proclaim the truth. There in no doubt in my mind that God was called me (I am not comparing myself to Amos) to this effort to proclaim truth and give Bill every chance to repent before it’s too late. I too love Bill, I served his organization for 7 years as a volunteer and 18 months on staff. Since 1980 he has been in my home, I have shared meals with him and even spent a week at the Northwoods. I too have invested much in his ministry to include my time, emotions and money. Through it all I thought I was serving God only to finally realize I was really serving the prideful desires of unrepentant man.
So I had a chance to talk to Bill in a focused way about your comments, which you have made a number of times, tonight. Points he made:
o What the staff members including Gary said to him at the time they uncovered the sexual abuse of Steve with the secretary in his office and what he heard and understood were most definitely not the same. He came away with the notion that he had exposed himself to her, open zipper, etc. – disgusting enough, but not the reality of what they were testifying to. Maybe they described what they saw, apparently never said, in so many words, “They were having sex”?
o In a prior post you wondered where in the world Bill was while this was going on. This was the height of the ministry, so I suspect you would know where he was – crisscrossing the country, personally conducting two seminars a week in two different cities. In his defense he was at the very least distracted, overwhelmed and whatever with that insane schedule which was only even possible because of the Learjet that John and you piloted.
o He confronted Steve, Steve confessed to hugs and kisses, and with that information they went to the fathers of each of the girls for Steve to ask forgiveness. Why, WHY did not a single secretary speak up to her father . . . to say what had actually happened? Is that reasonable, Larne, especially with all of the focus on “chain of command” and whatnot? That is an anguished question, for I believe you that it all happened.
You yourself testified that at least in one instance a secretary confessed to a staff wife and later denied it when Bill and father interviewed her. I am sure that he was all too happy to put it behind him – the investigation that he conducted satisfied him that Steve had NOT crossed the “big line” with any of these women.
You know Bill well enough to know that that is quite reasonable. He tends to hear what he wants to hear, that I will grant you. But . . . Larne . . . he would NEVER have put these women, that he clearly felt responsibility for and cared for, in any kind of realistic harm’s way.
“Immorality”, impurity yes . . . sex, no. He emphatically denies that.
Having rubbed shoulders with, ministered to some recovering and recovered folks it is amazing what you will do in the boldness of the Lord. If not, what power, what redemption in there in Jesus? Jesus touched the untouchable, unclean leper. We are given power to walk on snakes and drink poison . . . and what would kill anyone else will not hurt us.
That was so far from certain. Bill’s testimony was that the first thing one of the “plaintiffs” asked him for as he (Bill) was cleaning out his office was access to the ministry finances, with an expression that significant sums were to be distributed out to others. That solution was again recently proposed. Not alumni, but folks closer to home. Maybe worthy. Point is . . . everybody knows how to distribute funds . . . eying those holding, resources.
Blood starts to boil 🙂 Go over the “cabin story”, the endless airtime and analysis, along with what I suspect you KNOW are at least some embellished accounts bandied about of late . . . and then talk to me about “inaccurate facts”. I am about “Facts” . . . if I misstate, it is not on purpose, and I do backflips to correct the account. Surely you can give me that, after all of the interaction we have had, Larne.
When they contradict the stories you have heard, then we have . . . something. I am all about reality. If my witnesses are liars and you know it, you need to say so.
“What she was wearing is also significant, since a woman dressed for bed is not going to be in Bill’s presence for righteous purposes.”
Wow.
So, every one of the women whose doors Bill knocked on late at night were supposed to have gone to bed in their street clothes; they could not possibly be in nightclothes for righteous purposes. Moderator, do YOU make sure that the defining factor for what YOU wear to sleep is that you be girded for righteous purposes?
I am praying that anybody and everybody who has been harmed by Bill and is/was able to recognize this will never have further contact with you or anyone like you (esp. Bill himself). And no, it’s a no-go with your back-tracking on what you originally said to a post of mine:
“very unfair to be bringing things up 20 years after the events with NO record generated, as would have been the case if the one violated had taken the Scriptural route and, one way or another, gone to the perpetrator for clarification when it happened and perhaps “the next step”.”
In other words, none of those abused by Bill will ever follow Mt. 18 until they meet your’s/Bill’s demand of going to their brother for their own (the women’s) express purpose of having it explained to themselves that everything happened to them at their brother’s hands because of the reason that he’s a father to them.
Got it.
That will never happen in light of Mt. 18, or any other SCRIPTURAL principle, because any such groveling to your demand COULD NOT fulfill any obedience to Christ’s words. You might do well to re-read Larne’s letter. You’re graced above and beyond measure in his even talking to you. He actually loved/loves the woman that GOD gave to HIM.
Unfortunately, placing all the responsibility on the victim is becoming more common in the Church. Those who are abused are challenged to forgive and to continue in relationship with their abusers, just as if nothing had happened. Evidence shows that most abusers will say anything, but rarely change. To put the blame on the victims is inexcusable and these women are wise not to meet with a man who has already crossed his own self established boundary lines multiple times. If Bill really believes, as the moderator seems to believe, that he was in a special position of privilege and had the right to invade these girls’ personal space, all the more reason not to trust Him.
One of my problems with this software is that I do not get to see context. So, in general reply . . . Bill has no right to invade personal space, but those feeling invaded have every responsibility to say something bothers them. At THAT point, if behavior continues, then you have something other than a misunderstanding. I have spoken to honorable women who experienced exactly the same sequences as some now suing . . . they saw no problem, see no problem, and some frankly get a little angry at what they see as “spoiled” young ladies who have never experienced genuine abuse, then claim that handle on the Gothard oddities in course of which they completely, emphatically deny, disregard a great deal of good that was sent in their direction by Bill and his ministry. AND have the audacity to sue that same ministry. For abuse.
Bill had no right to invade personal space. Period. Not… but if the girls did not respond perfectly at that time, or discount his abuse because of all the other supposed benefit he had brought their way, he is exonerated. This is the crux of the argument. That’s why I mentioned that victim blaming is prevalent in the Church. A leader comes in, rallies the youth, teaches an awesome Bible study, even befriends some stragglers and difficult kids, going out of his way to spend personal time with them (grooming) works extra hard and does the jobs no one else wants to do, and when his ministry and persona appear indispensable, it is revealed that he had been abusing a minority of the kids. Just a few. People are shocked that he could do such a thing, especially in light of all the good that has been accomplished by his tireless efforts. Those who feel they have been helped and not harmed by his ministry just can’t accept that such a great guy is capable of this and actually want him to continue. Surely this was just a misunderstanding. There is an overwhelming tendency to resent those who bravely blew the whistle, (exposing themselves to even more shame.) No matter that they may have saved others from trouble. THEY become the scapegoat because THEY destroyed the hero.
All his good was done in public, so it’s easy for him to have a positive reputation with all, which is , of course, what he has been working on all along. But the abuse was sly and done primarily in secret, so unless you were personally impacted, it’s easy to simply declare it couldn’t have happened. And these kids that were abused? Look at the mess of their lives and the wrong way they handled it! ( Let’s evaluate even their nightgowns!) No matter that the shame they went through and fear of being disbelieved made them reluctant to come forward. They are judged as undeserving of victim status. It is little wonder more do not come forth to receive such ridicule. This scenario is not unique to Bill Gothard. I’ve seen your “honorable ladies”, though some of them are male, get angry in several ministry situations. They seem to have no problem heaping condemnation on the heads of those who are the least deserving and questioning every motive of those who are true victims, all the while excusing their hero.These things ought not to be.
And you, dear Rabbit, appear to also be in the class of “armchair judges”, forming opinions based on the tales you read on the Internet, or am I mistaken? So, this morning I kissed and cuddled my daughters, I feel no remorse, I am happy. The “Shepherd” is an example of dear friends, non-relatives, having access to “personal space” without a problem in sight. To decide for all of us that Bill’s motives were evil, even that all girls who found themselves tapped or handheld felt violated is out of place, even if you were one who experienced this and felt violated. Because I know for a fact that many didn’t. And if you were involved and felt violated it was your responsibility to tell . . . Bill . . . your house leader . . . your parents. If you didn’t, then you have a responsibility that you did not discharge.
Alfred,
If a single, solitary person was violated, it’s a problem. And if that single person was too intimidated to speak up, that does not make the violation OK. It does not cause blame to descend upon the victim.
Also, Bill’s motives do not matter. Do you not have sexual harassment training at your work? The only thing that matters is whether an interaction is unwanted by the recipient. The ignorance or motives of the person who initiates contact does not matter.
Another point I want to make – it is possible for non-relatives to be allowed into an individual’s personal space. However, this only occurs by the individual’s consent.
It is also possible for relatives to violate the personal space of loved ones. Everything depends on the consent of the individual.
I work for a Fortune 100 company. One thing is clear, “sexual harassment” has to be “unwelcome”. The key is letting that be known, which can be done through company channels or directly. And the statute of limitation is fairly significant in terms of making a claim, typically a year or less. Some of the complaints of unwanted touching were during meal times or on van rides when the young people were not being paid. Beyond this the relationship of Bill to the young people is much more like a “counselor/counselee” type situation than employment. As such the rules are definitely different. Sitting next to Bill on the couch, holding hands, kneeling together side by side, these were normal aspects of the counseling program as he conducted it. Again, if a young person complained and nothing was done to respect their requests, that would be a different matter, being forced into unpleasant situations.
As you indicate, personal space entry is “by consent”. Not saying anything, even with multiple opportunities to do so – to Bill, to the “house leader”, which each young woman would have, to parents – would be taken as consent. You know . . . if you don’t like it, say so. With one exception as I recall there is no evidence that any of those telling their stories complained . . . and in the one case where I do recall a complaint, the targeted behavior ceased immediately.
It is very strange to hear you speak in one comment about God tossing abuse victims into a lake of fire and then about the love of Jesus in the next comment. That does not make sense.
Frankly, I am not willing to interpret the end of Matthew 18 without researching it thoroughly first. I have had so many teachers and preachers and random Christians thrust their uneducated interpretations of Scripture on me, I do not take anything on face value. This, even though I am very familiar with the Bible and have read Matthew 18 countless times. I spent over a decade in a Christian school.
All I can say is I think I understand you better now. I know more about your beliefs. Our beliefs influence everything about us. Your beliefs about hell and Bill’s crucial role as a man who saves people from hell explain a lot. Your God has no empathy, so you display little empathy.
You believe abuse victims are not victims, just sinners who are either guilty because they did not fight off their abuser or commanded by God to bear their pain bravely with all deference and forgiveness to the abuser.
You don’t think the Bible and modern psychology are compatible, and if they are not, you take the Bible.
I fear you are the kind of person who would do anything, even something terrible and against your own conscience, if you thought the Bible commanded it.
And I would like to point out that your interpretation of the Bible is as fallible as any person’s. I can’t count the number of people who have chided you for cherry picking your Scriptures.
I am sorry you live your life in a place where hell is always licking at your feet. I am sorry your God is not good. If you ever suffered abuse, it must be hard to live in your universe.
If God is the monster you say He is, then I say there is no heaven and hell. Rather, the entire universe is hell. If we are stuck with a God who exists, and He is a person who creates sentient beings only to throw them into a pit of fire if the damage caused by abuse prevents them from knowing Him, we are all in hell right now. It is terrible to think you wake up every morning with this God watching over your shoulder. If you do not feel compassion for me, I certainly feel compassion for you.
And it sounds like there might be countless, abandoned people in hell, in which case I may have to go there to comfort them. Why would I want to jump for joy in heaven when I saw God so carelessly toss his creations down to hell?
It all makes sense when we start to understand how horrible sin really is, not the sin against us, but the sin against God. What strange notions that we have the power, somehow the moral authority to specify the terms of our surrender to our Maker. If God is that irrelevant that He is bound to honor our demands on Him, our sensibilities, He is not worth worshipping. Only a God with the power to destroy both body and soul in hell is God enough to worship.
“And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” (Luke 12:4-5)
God is not a monster . . . but He is God. And He is not to be trifled with. In that fear comes wisdom, and that wisdom is the greatest gift a person can have. As everything flips upside down, a person’s friends sometimes become their enemies, and those previously counted their enemies, some of them turn out to be their best friends.
If modern psychology or modern science trumps the Bible, the Bible is not worth the paper is it printed on. Who would want to worship a puny god like that? Think about it.
Hell is the endless, continuous dying of bodies and souls separated from God, the “second death” as the Bible calls it, every day half as alive as the day before, endless decay, never quite done, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:44) It is the place of all those who declared themselves equal in authority to God, little gods themselves. It is the death that Jesus bore in insane agonies on the cross, so we might be delivered. IF this is true, then it is the only thing that matters in this life. Whether it is nice or even reasonable is irrelevant. Those that believe in Jesus believe it because He said it, and He is God, and He knows.
Jesus is the light that shone on every one of us as we were coming into the world (John 1:9). He is our first memory, imprinted on our inner beings, His person, His laws written in our hearts. And life is a race against time to bring us home, to surrender our rights, our lives to Him and trust Him and what He did on Calvary with all our being.
None of us get everything right. But Jesus is the one thing that is right. And if He is right, so many things that are normal and respected in this godless world suddenly become toxic and unbearable. “And he (Jesus) said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15)
Those that really believe in Him will appear unreasonable and contrary to what is so normal and expected in our world. “18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1 Cor. 3)
You write:
I work for a Fortune 100 company. One thing is clear, “sexual harassment” has to be “unwelcome”.
I would love the opportunity to talk with your corporate counsel. My guess is she would have some strong words of clarity for you. Having sat through several corporate training on sexual harassment sexual harassment is more than just “unwelcome”. Also, your firm probably has formal systems in place to allow for one who feels he is harassed to trigger an investigation. Once triggered that are formal processes to protect the offended party from recrimination. I would love to see the document where IBLP details the process that details how they handle complaints of sexual harassment. Maybe you can be so kind as ask for a copy and post it.
So we have company rules and state law. Under state law my understanding is that the same behavior is acceptable in one instance and unacceptable in another. Asking a coworker out on a date may be a delight or harassment, same event. What makes the difference? When she says, “No thanks” . . . or “Yes, I would like that”. There are no laws against coworkers having sexual relationships . . . unless it is unwelcome pressure, tied to favors or threats, or even consensual relationships that harm others because of favoritism. In the absence of that, the law yawns. Do you understand it any differently?
Strongly yes! My guess is that sexual harassment is understood in far stronger terms than this. A lot has to do with protecting those who are supervised from being harassed by that supervisor. This is also the issue with Bill and people just saying “all they had to do was say no”. To say “no” to Bill would have been accusing him of sexual harassment. Just saying “don’t do that” would have been accusatory. What 16-20 year old young lady, trained in the fine art of chain of command, would have or could have, done this? You have to understand, chain of command teaches that fundamentally authority is the very voice of God and to be honored and respected. Now you are expecting them to have the emotional maturity to tell the most influential man in their lives to stop touching them. This is just too much. Frankly, without clear process and training IBLP was just asking for trouble. I think it could even be argued that the board and Bill were clearly negligent in not setting up clear processes and training to protect young female staff. Given their risk exposure they had inviting so many young men and women, even minors, one might believe that either A) they did not care, B) condoned sexual harassment, C) were just stupid or arrogant, or D) they actually believed that senior leadership were above incapable of something as odious as sexual harassment. Any of these scenarios would are objectionable.
Thirty five years ago we got the same “all they had to do was say no” from several of our national volunteer leadership. When they realized the powerful emotional bond, connection, and place of authority Bill and his little brother had, they changed their mind. Something I still give them credit for. Too bad it is so hard for some to understand that in the work environment Bill designs via his theology, just saying “no”, is darn near impossible.
I expect that sort of things from the uninformed rabble, but this is a tad disappointing coming from you, Dan. That is a caricature of what Bill teaches. Starting with the example of Daniel, the appeal, the purpose to not be bad for anybody. And in the case of sexual attacks, even in the Basic Seminar, fleshed out in material in later years with ATI, he spoke much about “crying out”, the responsibility to open your mouth and . . . resist . . . when someone is attempting to do evil. I am not sure at what point he started saying this, but I recall him saying over and over: “You can disobey and be respected for it; you can obey and be despised for it”
Again, IBLP is much more in line with a counseling or training program than a job. If that was not true in your day it most certainly was true in the timeframe that the young ladies in question were there. To imply that IBLP had no standards to protect against mischief because they didn’t have an anonymous hotline is simply wrong.
And, as to “just say no” not working, powerful emotional bonds and all, here is what Scripture says:
“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (1 Cor. 10:13)
So . . . it this true or false? If true, then no sex failure on our part is ever the fault of God or some perpetrator. There is no other way to understand this . . . unless God is lying about always providing a way of escape?
“Again, IBLP is much more in line with a counseling or training program than a job. If that was not true in your day it most certainly was true in the timeframe that the young ladies in question were there.”
Alfred, were you an apprenticeship student at HQ during the 1990’s? Just wondering why you think you have the final say on what it was like to work under Mr. Gothard during that time.
Some of us were.
I wasn’t asking “some of us.” I was asking the author of that comment, Alfred.
The author of the comment works closely with a team which includes folks who were there on staff, LIT program. The author himself was in ATI in the timeframe specified, but was a Dad, not an apprenticeship student 🙂 Is that significant to you?
Very significant. The experience of working for Mr. Gothard was entirely different than what was presented to parents. The perspective that Alfred presents is that of the latter.
So . . . if the young people – or then young people – you worked with Bill tell me, does that satisfy you?
No, for two reasons:
1. You have a pattern of only passing along the reports that fit your ideology. I have seen time and time again on this website and RG that you attempt to “gaslight” anyone who presents a story that doesn’t reflect positively on Mr. Gothard. Why would I trust now that the only reports you have received are positive?
2. I personally witnessed things, and have many dear friends who experienced things. There is a reason there are numerous “ATI survivor” groups out there. People who had only positive experiences don’t typically view themselves as survivors.
Fair enough. You have a piece of the turf. Tell your story. If there are actionable items in there, we will do our best to address them.
I have a bigger issue to address separately, but Alfred – you just quoted 1 Cor 10:13 in making a point that girls that Bill allegedly hit on always had a way out. I’m not even addressing the ludicrous stand you continue to take about how girls could’ve just told him to stop and he would’ve realized he’d crossed a boundary and stopped. You are both helpless and clueless about grooming and intimidation, not to mention that some reportedly did go to family or staff, and they were disciplined or worse.
I’m not talking about what anybody did or didn’t do or should’ve done, so PLEASE don’t even go there; we just disagree – no biggie. My point is your outrageous choice of Scripture in (condescendingly) making your point. You just chose to quote a verse about BEING TEMPTED and God always offering a way out to apply to a situation of BEING VICTIMIZED. It’s like telling a bank teller there is “a way out” of being held up at gunpoint if s/he just acts responsibly.
NO. The perpetrator has a way out of his temptation to sin – which is what that verse addresses! Not so much the victim out of being victimized. Or did you just call getting hit on by a much older man a sin in itself?
I also note a lot of “armchair psychologists” who seem to know everything about that topic. Some of late who actually have training in some of these areas reacting in alarm to the more recent “authoritative” article on “grooming” posted on RG by one of the accusers. So I don’t feel too intimidated by your comments.
“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”
Yes, this does not say that it will stop abuse from happening. In fact, God deliberately allows some of that, just like He allowed His own son to be horribly abused. It says that we always have a way to bear it, endure it. Scripturally that most definitely includes resisting – This verse is more clear:
“3 Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. 4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” (Hebrews 12 ESV)
That tells us of sinful people coming against us. Yes, that may include enduring things we cannot change, but with all of the Scripture relating to “crying out” when attacked, that seems to be one of the key “ways to escape” God gives us. One of the things that Bill taught – clearly, repeatedly – was that if our children were ever sworn to secrecy, particularly “don’t tell your parents”, that was the first place they should be taught to go (Scripture makes it clear that a father has authority to release a young person from any vow provided he does so “in the day he hears of it”). What serial “groomer” pervert would teach that . . . to the very ones allegedly abused? Come on.
Even secular counselors acknowledge that verbal and physical resistance has an overwhelming positive influence on the outcome. So . . . let’s embrace that. And in THIS case it has to do, not with violence or forced sex, but with “feeling weird” because of certain boundary violation behaviors. Again, surely there is someone in the landscape – friends, advocates within IBLP, parents at the very least – that can help with that? Failure to exercise any of that leaves the entire situation greatly in doubt.
And you went there anyway. The point was about applying a verse about escaping TEMPTATION to a victim of abuse. Even IF “crying out” would’ve been possible or prudent or helpful at all, you said that God would always give the VICTIMS a way out of TEMPTATION if they were encroached upon.
I’m not debating you on the feasibility of crying out, and I acknowledge the verse about enduring hostility is more appropriate here. I’m saying it is bizarre and completely without excuse to apply a verse about one subject to a very different, indeed opposite situation. I know the apple’s not falling far from the tree. I just want you to have to justify why you’d pick a verse about resisting temptation as a perpetrator to make a point about enduring hostility as a victim.
And I am asking you if God is willing to affirm that an entire cadre of Christian secretaries all engaging in fornication with Steve had “escaped” temptation in the manner of 1 Cor. 10:13 and so were guiltless, according to the Lord. Were they unable to resist, in your mind, and so not participants? That is sort of what I am hearing. We have statutory rape in many states, that a woman does not have the ability to “give consent” under a certain age, hence cannot be blamed – is that how you see this? If so, on what basis, Scripturally?
Really? I point out your pattern of writing people’s stories off, and your response is to ask for mine?
If you are unwilling to engage your story in a public venue that is allegedly designed to bring things to Bill’s attention and help fix them, then we might be inclined to “write off” your allegations as well. Can you blame us?
You will write them off either way, so what does it matter?
Mr. Gothard is already aware of the issues. The very issues I saw and more have been recounted time and time again on RG and in ATI survivor groups. Many have spoken to Mr. Gothard personally about them, with no resulting remorse or repentance. Merely justification.
Can you cite someone who has approached Bill, specifically, especially recently? When and with what result? I assure you a completely different result if they got ignored in the past. We have sat in the room with some as part of this process – it is a big reason we exist, and Bill has been very willing to see this done.
Yeah, that IS sort of what you’re hearing. And I speak for myself. I dare not speak or judge for God, so you shouldn’t dare ask me a question on His behalf. He makes Himself known to us through His word and His Holy Spirit.
Well, we are inclined to sort of disagree. My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Nobody has the right, other than by great force, to pollute it sexually. Am I willing to “resist unto blood” to keep that from happening? The Lord has spoken. If I am more afraid of anyone else – that can kill my body – than Him – who casts both body AND soul into hell, I am in big trouble. I may be weak, I may not do it, but in that case that is not His fault, but mine.
WOW. The bizarre-fest continues. I guess you’re comfortable in the role of victim blamer. Very scary. I urge caution with that.
This is a hole I have fallen into several times. Would to God somebody would explain what a “victim” is. For example, was Eve a perp or a victim, taking the fruit, giving it to Adam? Paul appears to blame her in 1 Timothy 2:14, even though she was clearly called “deceived”, tricked, unlike her husband . . . NO mention of the devil. Interesting, eh? Victims walk free, Perps get punished. When you look to the law some strange things get punished and some astonishing things “walk free”. I KNOW what the Bible says, and it disagrees with modern psychology. What shall I do? Even if I am reviled or even harmed, I do have to stand with what God says.
Wow. I was going to write more tonight, but I just read your comment about not knowing what a victim is. I feel sad and sick. Not for the first time, I feel the God you serve is truly evil.
I will throw out another helpful website for those who might be reading this thread and paralyzed with despair. cryingoutforjustice.com
OK, we have probably whacked this enough. I do gingerly have to ask: Are you a Universalist, or do you believe that there will be some – maybe a lot – who end up screaming in hell forever and ever? See . . . so many of these are your “victims”, people who rejected Jesus because of bitterness that overtook them due to the injustice of others. Many blame Bill for turning them away from God. Yet God commanded them to release their offenders without condition and deal with Him about their own sin. And, for the most part, they refused. WHO is guilty, Lindsey?
Read this entire story, of a man forgiven of a great, impossible debt against his “Lord”, then turning around and throwing his neighbor into jail for owing him a few dollars. “And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” (Matthew 18:34-35)
He starts out that chapter with a condemnation of those who stumble, trip up the little ones. So . . . we know they will suffer eternal judgment . . . but what about those so tripped who never get saved and right with God, perhaps in part because of the evil done to them? The days are short – I do nobody any favors by authorizing bitterness, life long bitterness, to those who are declared “victims”. God calls us all sinners, “perps” against Him, worthy of hell – how dare any of us call ourselves a “victim”? Better to stop being the victim in respect to our fellow man, get right with Jesus, and enjoy all eternity in heaven while the perps weep and wail and gnash their teeth forever.
On account of evil notions like this, I sometimes doubt my faith entirely. What kind of God would behave this way? A God who creates innocent beings, allows them to be abused, then throws them in a lake of fire if they never get right with Him, “perhaps in part because of the evil done to them?” An evil God would do that.
If that is the God who rules the world, I guess I’m in trouble because I do not wish to serve an evil God.
Thank goodness you cited Matthew 18 because it contains the 99 plus 1 verses. I actually thought about the 99 plus 1 when I wrote my earlier comments. I believe God is the shepherd who goes in search of the 1. Matthew 18:14 – “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.”
I think Matthew 18:10-11 is particularly relevant to this entire discussion – “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”
I like those verses too. But . . . you don’t get to cherry pick, right? Please read the end of the chapter and then tell me if it is smart to grab the “victim” label for ANY crime and hold someone in our prison for crimes committed against us.
We do not get to pick the God we worship. There is only one, and He made us. Whatever His rules are, those are the rules. And if He offends us and we decide we will not worship Him, will we come out of that unscathed? That is not an option. If this is true, then everybody else who refuses to tell you the truth is your greatest enemy. So many grab bits and pieces of the Bible, the ones they like, and they have a comfortable faith. In the end we have to decide whether Jesus is real, really loves us, really is trustworthy, whether we are going to put all our weight down on who He really is rather on some caricature that suits us. The stakes are so high.
You write:
I expect that sort of things from the uninformed rabble, but this is a tad disappointing coming from you, Dan.
Sorry I took so long to respond to this. Just saw it. I think this blog is really bringing some clarity to Bill’s core values and those that are his disciples:
People who disagree are “uninformed rabble”. I will add this to the list.
And yes, I am aware of Bill’s thoughts on “crying out”. i am sorry to say but you have just put more trauma on the millions of women who have suffered physical and sexual abuse. Frequently it takes years for them to even begin to process that abuse. So now they are guilty for not “crying out”.
No, people who have never been to a Basic Seminar, studied what Bill actually taught, yet come up with all kinds of bizarre interpretations of “chain of command” would be “uninformed rabble”. I just get so weary of it. I go on to point out what he actually taught with respect to obeying authorities that are outside the will of God, example Daniel. I KNOW what he teaches, you know what he teaches . . . why would you turn that into “blind obedience”? That is the caricature of his doctrine.
One of the things I hate most is when people argue about whose abuse is most legitimate.
I have to say, it seems odd that anyone would be OK with the Gothard “oddities,” as you call them, but if they’re happy, yay for them.
Regardless, it still matters if some were not OK with the “oddities.”
You have accused many people on this website of being “armchair judges.” You must admit that if we are armchair judges, you most certainly are one, too. If people without professional training in psychology are not allowed to comment on abuse or grooming, you should not be allowed to comment, either. If our firsthand experiences do not matter, your firsthand experiences should not matter, and your secondhand knowledge most definitely should not matter.
We certainly welcome studied opinions, although the Bible is king and in any area where the “experts” counter what God’s word says, we stick with that. Are you trained in those areas?
You dodged my point, which is that you have been squelching people with accusations of being “armchair judges” or “armchair psychologists.” My point is that by those rules, you yourself should not speak.
I am one of the people the experts with training have helped.
We claim authority from the Bible, not psychology. That is the difference. I am glad you have been helped and I know that help is available. But any counseling of the soul (mind/will/emotions) without God behind it at least in principle is doomed to fail or be ineffective in the long run.
There’s always a possibility between Christians of working out a misunderstanding. The problem is, between Bill & his staff, there never was any MISunderstanding in his hand-holding, footsies, embraces. Rather, there was understanding of Bill’s exercised “right” to dominate; his attitude, as evidenced by his presumption was/still is no doubt much like that which you express above. Additionally, thanks to his grooming, it came to be just as clearly understood by the girls/women. Thanks to this systematic manipulation, while being gradually subjected to it, these “8 to 10” girls and women arrived on the same page as you and Bill. (And these honorable women you speak of). It doesn’t seem like Bill is much of a time-waster, so, it stands to reason that the time he poured into one girl or woman at a time would have indeed been done to some significant purpose. Tell me, Moderator: how many of the likewise honorable women you speak of were within the physical working space of THEIR stroker 16 hours a day, 6 days a week? And, how many thousands of miles were they from their parents & hometowns? And, how many of them were told by their stroker that they should distrust their peers on-site while at his place? And, how many decades older than them was their stroker? After all, if there’s a discrepancy in these answers from the realities that Ruth, Lizzie, Meg, Annette, etc. faced, then…….. I hate to disappoint you, but you’re withholding honor where honor is due. The women you cite are honorable and they have no MISunderstanding of their being stroked, no? So, they understand your and Bill’s assumption of men like him wielding his rights over them. This, with no doubt much, much, much less that MADE THEM UNDERSTAND. See, Bill likely wouldn’t have had to try as hard with them as the effort he put into the others. Meg, Lizzie, Ruth, Annette, etc. all impressed Bill as being honorable, also; his manipulation proves this. He had to work them over from his initial appraisal of their honor likely causing their MISunderstanding of him- and objecting to him as you say would stem from this- to where they understood. Which is exactly what happened. You are so correct, Moderator, in pegging understanding as the antidote to the “spoiled” who have a problem with battery and sexual harassment. Bill had this figured out 45 years ago, and still believes it as much as he’s still counting on getting with each of these women separately- AGAIN.
I am curious, “Incredulous”, what your experience with Bill has been. You make a great many repeated, serious accusations against Bill, but unless you have something other than Internet stories behind it, we am going to put a stop to it.
In point of fact, the women I speak to have spent every bit as much time with Bill as the ladies who publish. Years and years of constant, daily, from early morning to late night contact. So they have full authority to evaluate the accounts of others. During the time I was permitted to post on RG I indicated that I accepted the accounts of the women posting at face value, except Gretchen. Since getting to know these women I have frankly been changing my mind. I would never come to that conclusion on my own as I was not there. But they were. When I see emotion, when I see anger expressed, apologizing for appearing to call folks liars, but basically feeling that way . . . I start to gain insights I never had before.
So . . . what is your story?
Are you assuming that a man by necessity treats every woman the same? Are you saying that if some women had no problems, everyone had no problems?
Not at all. But if hundreds of young women went through counseling with Bill without a complaints, it is not fair to entertain the complaints of a few . . . decades afterwards . . . when they said nothing during the time they were there.
I absolutely disagree. At any rate, people do often do not tell stories like this until long after the fact. It is unfortunate. Others never speak up at all.
One reason they do not is because they are criminally afraid . . . a crime because it allows evil to go on and on and on. I think Scripture is quite clear on our individual responsibilities in that department. Another reason is because there is just not much to tell. The significance is whatever bothered us fades into insignificance when compared with the flow of the rest of life. Until someone comes rolling in on a vendetta and requires our help on a “class action” to destroy someone.
Along with my other response below – You said, “The significance is whatever bothered us fades into insignificance when compared with the flow of the rest of life.”
Regardless of what happened with these particular women and Bill Gothard, I can say from experience that if a human is legitimately violated or abused, the effects are most likely felt forever, at least on some level. The abuse can be physical, spiritual, emotional, sexual, or any combination of the above.
Even if you believe that Bill has never physically, spiritually, emotionally or sexually violated anyone, I think we should be careful about how we discuss these matters. People might be reading this thread who need help. I know you would want them to get the help they need.
I don’t get this. Why is that unfair? Either he did to everybody, or he did it to nobody is what I hear you saying. That’s not how abuse works. Abuse is NEVER done publicly. Abuse is nearly never done with witnesses or to the confident and fully capable. It’s done to people who have been shaped and trained to view authority as nearly infallible. It’s done in places where others won’t see.
How don’t you see this? You expect witnesses of abuse? You expect the abuser to do it in front of other people or do it to everyone? No wonder there are a lot of us who feel you will not be convinced of the truth if it jumped out and grabbed you by the throat!
Trying to find a handle for your comment, Tyler. Was it the statement that Bill has been slandered by tales brought up 20 years after the fact? Abuse is rarely done in public . . . which makes Bill’s situation all the more interesting because almost all of the complaints deal with situations out in the open. In this you will have to trust me . . . or anyone who has actually worked for and with Bill. He is almost never alone, always surrounded by multiple people. His office windows were never covered, and especially at night you could look into the blazingly bright room and see him and anything else you wanted to see. One of our team lived in a room that overlooked the office and she had full view constantly for years – when she wasn’t in his office. Bill held the hands of young ladies in front of large groups, as many have testified, as he spoke to and about them – it was just what he did.
I know Bill, my offspring have worked with him intensely for years, travelled the world with him, plus the testimonies of others on our team.
But please catch me up on your context.
I have to make another point about abuse because again, even if Bill Gothard is innocent, you say a lot of things in this thread about abuse and abuse victims that are not true.
It is actually possible to violate people out in the open. Going back to Clara and John Hinton, Clara recalls that John frequently touched children inappropriately in public, even in church. Every time she witnessed something like this, it happened so fast, her mind rebelled against it, and she decided she must have been mistaken. He would often push boundaries, trying to see how much he could get away with in front of other people.
Plenty, plenty of times have people been abused while others were in the next room or even in the same room!
In my own life, I once had a married supervisor place my hand on his erect penis in the back of a coworker’s car as we drove back to work from lunch. No one was ever the wiser, and I didn’t know what to do at the time. I do not apologize for not knowing what to do. I am not ashamed. I wasn’t even old enough to drink.
If any abused people are reading this, please know you are not at fault. You did not cause it, and you did not deserve it. It is possible to get help. I got help, and I am doing better every day.
That is disgusting. Yes, it happens, I get it. So let the record reflect that we are for full prosecution of anyone who is so lewd. Obviously we are convinced Bill wasn’t anything remotely close to that.
Remember . . . when the first stories come out, others join them, independent voices, more details. Josh was caught because of Ashley-Madison . . . in the wake of that details came out that were simply irrefutable. If that perp that did that to you (someone near and dear to me had a trusted family member do that and worse as a child) were later exposed on some other issue, you would feel happy to get that burden off of you once and for all, would likely add your voice to complainants.
With Bill . . . we have one (1) account that we do not believe for reasons we have stated that has alleged fondling. The rest . . . show the same pattern . . . sitting too close, touching the feet, shoulders, hair in ways that some ignored and others considered “weird”. That’s it. Bill has an explanation for each of those that follows the types of things that some adults (Shepherd of the Hills) might be normal and do with a tenderly loved young woman, seen as a daughter. Does this follow any other example you know of? Seriously . . . it is more consistent with a bachelor with “oddities” which are anachronistic and perhaps insensitive but not evil . . . but who is hated for preaching some of the things that folks complain about as offensive.
I guess I am trying to say that I hope you will be careful regarding what you say about abuse while defending Bill. That even if he is innocent, you should acknowledge the reality of other people’s situations.
For example, when you are defending Bill, it can be tempting to cast aspersions on the girls who came forward because you believe he is innocent. Even if he is innocent, I hope you do not do that because people elsewhere have real stories of abuse. We want to keep a safe environment for them. We do not want our discussion of Bill’s accusers to make them believe they will be devalued or disbelieved. Does that make sense?
I respect your sensitivity and will attempt to do better at not being harsh and appear unfeeling. I have had my own path of pain, albeit not related to physical abuse.
I have a story for you to read that’s much, much more pertinent to your query for MY story than my story. It’s Judges 19:10 through Judges 20:28
So that section makes no sense – to me – as anything pertinent. Maybe you can zero in on your point?
Sorry about the length. I’ve never been accused of conciseness.
Let me be clear that I am addressing the idea that if a young lady who is violated does not respond, cry out, protest in a some perfectly predescribed timely manner, that the abuse is negated. You seemed to indicate that because these young girls did not immediately protest to all from the mountaintop that their respected boss and mentor was harassing them, that they were less than honorable. I was relating the comparison between this situation and that of 2 church situations I was aware of, gratefully from an arm chair position. This site and those who dismiss the accounts from these women because “Bill has had such a positive impact on me, he couldn’t have possibly done this” just prove what I related.
There is a huge tendency to blame the victims, especially when their accounts destroy our image of our heroes. To an extent, I believe this is human nature. Most of us don’t like to hear accounts that the coach of our favorite football team has been less than upstanding and may be willing to excuse their behavior at first, until many stories relating the same thing surface. Such is the nature of loyalty, but it can be misplaced.
There are workplace harassment policies in effect for good reasons. And many places of employment discourage dating, especially between an employer and employee to prevent such pressure on the insubordinate. Should those in the Church or Christian ministry have lower standards than the world?
Also, attacking the messager does not discredit the message. It would be a helpful exercise to go back in the comments and see how many times this has happened when there has been no reasonable refutation of a point.
But if you need credentials, I can reveal that I have a pretty good and painful sense of how a young girl responds when she is violated by someone she trusts. When I was 20 and in the hospital, recovering from surgery, one of my doctor’s partners made early evening rounds. Under the pretense of checking my stitches, this respected surgeon checked every part of me. It happened quickly and I was so caught off guard that I did not “cry out” or even protest. To this day, I am chagrined that I didn’t figure out how to stop him. This was in a busy hospital, with a roommate and people in and out bringing dinner trays, nurses giving meds etc. No one would have suspected such from a highly regarded person whose position afforded easy access to do this almost in plain sight. My parents did not stop in that night and I could not have told them about such a shameful thing anyway. So I bore and repressed those awful feelings of shame, self reproach and anger for years and it was not actually until I married that I got a full understanding of the predator nature of that man. Does my 50 year old self wish I had found some way to expose his abuse, even at risk of my own embarrassment? YES! I was clueless then, but there is much more information discussed in public for women to I know how to handle these things. I certainly am horrified to understand that more than likely I was not the first or last young woman that he violated. So I vehemently protest that because all the woman Bill abused did not handle it at that time, they should be disbelieved and dismissed and he should be exonerated.
I am so sorry for what you endured, Rabbit. With some near to me that have endured such things as young children at the hands of a trusted relative I am far from indifferent. Jesus said it would be better for such a perverted person to have never been born.
If I may ask a question . . . who is more important, Bill or the young lady that he was counseling? The right answer is “neither”. I think you have fallen into a trap where because she is young and helpless she is automatically more important than Bill, her rights to fairness trump his. My point is that for justice to prevail, all persons in a situation must be fully and fairly treated. If a young woman has a beef against a powerful or rich man, should she be allowed to punish him or extort him because people will readily believe her lies or exaggerations over his protestations? I hope you say, “No”.
The reason for “statutes of limitations” and rules that require some form of expression of unwelcome-ness in that timely manner is not to deprive women of their rights, but to protect the rights of the male boss-man. And God holds to the same standard. Example:
“The partner of a thief hates his own life; he hears the curse, but discloses nothing.” (Prov. 29:24)
“15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord.
17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:I am the Lord.” (Lev. 19)
“In any wise”, whatever it takes. The ESV for vs. 17 says “lest you incur sin because of him.” We can incur sin because of the misdeeds of others if we do not speak up . . . so that we, as the victim, become also to blame.
We hide behind our fears and our smallness, but God emphatically addresses that, telling us that if we are not more afraid of Him than the perp that might hurt us if we say something, we are actually in trouble.
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
In any case, Bill has been wronged, slandered by these tales which are being brought up 20 years after the fact – with such amazing clarity, BTW, where Gary Smalley got one thing that he personally witnessed so very wrong . . . when the process of finding witnesses and corroborating details is so much more difficult. Which is OK, because he is big and bad, right? “Elephants don’t got no feelings”, right?
Wrong.
The victim never bears blame, period. They are the victim. I understand where you are coming from, but I hope you reconsider, especially for the sake of your loved ones. Like rabbit, I am just starting to be able to stick up for myself and talk about past abuse. When I was a child or even a damaged 20-something, I did not have the wherewithal to speak up for myself. I didn’t even know which way was up. Do I wish I could fly back in time 20, 30 years and impart strength, wisdom and healing to my younger self? Certainly.
This is all part of why abuse victims never speak up. Why would they want to deal with other people’s judgement? Especially if they were a vulnerable, helpless person at the time? Actually, it is kind of miraculous anyone speaks up. Then, add to that the disparity of power between a doctor and his patient, a pastor and his church member, a teacher and her student, an adult with a child, an employer with his employee.
You say, “should she be allowed to punish him or extort him because people will readily believe her lies or exaggerations over his protestations?” I would suggest that many people do not believe young girls when they make allegations. Every girl or boy who has spoken up about abuse only to be chastised by their parents, every young girl who has been unfairly characterized as a whore understands this. That is why abuse can go on for long periods of time. The victims are scared and defeated, knowing they will most likely be disbelieved.
For example, I follow Clara Hinton at findingahealingplace.com. She was married to a practicing pedophile for almost forty years without knowing it. How was he able to get away with this? He was a pastor, a beloved and charismatic member of the community. There are church members and friends who have a hard time believing it to this day, even though he is in prison.
I am not comparing Bill Gothard to John Hinton. I am actually not concerned with picking apart every young girl’s story about Bill Gothard. I am one of the people who is more focused on his teachings. However, I wouldn’t want anyone to get the wrong message from this discussion thread. It is important for everyone to understand the psychology of abuse and how hard it is for victims to come forward even 30, 40, 50 years after something terrible happens. We all want our daughters to come to us, even if they are 60 and we are 80 and they have carried the trauma with them for 45 or 50 years. We want them to know we will not shame them or blame them or tell them they should have done more to protect themselves.
Judges 19:10 through Judges 20:28 is not just a story of God having stepped in when might-makes-right has prevailed. It is a story that contains God’s affirmation to pursue justice against the “might” in a situation where all the lines were drawn by that “might” versus any defining of said situation on the part of the overshadowed.
Lizzie, Annette, Grace, Ruth, Meg, Rachel, Robin, etc. all faced affronts in any ways similar to that which the Levite and his concubine did. Moderator, is it important to you that they “dressed for righteous purposes” before responding at the door to the might’s summons of them? God said for the ONE REMAINING WITNESS’ account to be acted upon in the belief of that one account. He said it 3 TIMES. (Judges 19:18, 23, 28). There is no evidence that the Levite and his concubine had had to have been dressed for righteous purposes in order to not be liable themselves for what went down. What God’s position regarding this situation is says:
Civil rendering of assault and/or battery starts with (a) verbal demand(s) by the party showing the might. This trying to take further charge of the overshadowed party is attempted by leveraging the fact that they have already become in charge even before any verbal demand is stated. Even without stated expectation, the knocks on the door of one already compelled to answer it render doing so as imposed upon by Might’s insistence, thus not likewise culpable for letting Might take what he will.
Do YOU not think it significant that the Levite was not blown off or slandered by God or civil government for having met Might at his demand by merely negotiating and letting him take what he wanted? According to God, the Levite was not only innocent of being any accomplice in the wrong done, but his cause was defendable.
Just think if it had been the mayor of Gibeah who propositioned the Levite with this Levite rather being a townsperson. Not only that, but a townsperson who lived and worked in his own courtyard, with no place to work, no place to live, no place to go. In this case: “Justice, PLEASE!”
I am still at a loss to find a great connection with your tale from Judges. That Levite was a tad of a scoundrel, sending his concubine out to the mercy of a sex crazed mob rather than get attacked himself. Is he the good guy to you? That entire episode is an example of God spanking everybody, not sure who the heroes are . . . the “righteous” ones suffered huge losses and that did not change until they fasted, for what it is worth. In then end they made a foolish vow that they deeply regretted, resulting in a need to allow 700 young fellows to snatch and run with girls for wives that had no choice in the matter, neither they nor their families. It is just such a strange story, and I am just not sure what the lesson in that is for me to ponder.
It goes without saying that you wouldn’t like the Levite; I’m thinking this might be because of what was proved, through this Levite’s action when assaulted, by God’s telling Israel that his grievance was to be campaigned for. Do you think Lot was a scoundrel, too? Because 2 Peter 2:7 calls him a righteous man with a righteous soul.
Please read this and tell me if you think he is a good man. To save his neck he put her outside and then bolted the door behind her . . . And they used her as a sexual plaything all night, killing her . . . She died clutching the door locked by her loving husband.
Judges 19:25-28
“But the men would not hearken to him: so the man (the Levite) took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light.
And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.”
Addendum: I finally connected on your Lot comment. He proposed the same thing with his daughters. No, Lot was not in a good place. He was definitely “righteous” with respect to the sins of Sodom, but he definitely suffered deeply because of foolishness, starting with his choice of area to live in.
My point is, again, that the Levite story is far from “clean”. Proven by the strange sequence where God told them how to attack several times, yet each time having them suffer insane loses, failure. Bill lifts this story out as an example of the importance of fasting . . . For when they finally got that serious, God stopped spanking them. God tends ton spank the more righteous first before addressing “the bad guys”. When you look for a reason to spank, you can’t help but zero in on the clear cowardice and lack of love of the Levite, and the fact that the angry assembled rabble did not meticulously examine all the facts. Plus failed to show any love toward their failing brother Benjamin. Love they found with great remorse when the deed was about done.
Anyway, I must confess I am still trying to come to ground on your point. If it is God judging those that feel that sex abuse of women is OK, agreed. However, I ironically see a larger principle: Meticulously check out the story before attacking in righteous anger. And never abandon love, even when forced to execute judgement on a failing brother.
For the third time I reference Judges 19:10 through Judges 20:28.
Thank-you for clearly indicating that you have indeed read at least a portion of the passages that I twice before referenced, I do appreciate your humoring me in doing so.
I do not agree with you that Israel took up the Levite’s campaign due to a lack of understanding of what had transpired. Are you saying that God failed to meticulously examine all the facts? Or, is it that you missed the fact that God willed them to fight, in telling them WHO and HOW were to go up against Gibeah, as well as specifically telling them to “go up”? Lastly, if God did fail to meticulously examine all the facts, along with “the angry assembled rabble” who you say failed to do so, then was this because they didn’t listen to the Levite well enough?
Or, is it that you believe that whatever you don’t like about the Levite rather instead means that he shouldn’t have been heeded as a call to any action?
I know you clearly see the implications of the precedents set in both this & Lot’s Gn. 19 records. Else wise you wouldn’t be talking down the Levite (although at least you didn’t render his complaint as being because he was “spoiled” by the “blessings” he received while in Gibeah). And you otherwise likely wouldn’t be talking Israel down for taking up his wrong.
If you think things were unfair in that the Levite wasn’t written off, and/or in that Lot is in the eternal Word as a righteous man with a righteous soul in spite of choosing to live in a hell-hole, then please consider my practical suggestions as to why God upheld both their causes in spite of what YOU claim as disqualifiers for said justice. God is just, is he not?
Thank-you for your time and attention.
” Lastly, if God did fail to meticulously examine all the facts, along with “the angry assembled rabble” who you say failed to do so, then was this because they didn’t listen to the Levite well enough?”
No, the Levite lied. Listen to his story . . . you KNOW that is not what happened:
“3 Then said the children of Israel, Tell us, how was this wickedness? 4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. 5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.” (Judges 19)
Is that OK, in your mind? I think a lot of people needlessly lost their lives because of him. And God DID kill a lot of the “good guys” before He finally destroyed the “bad guys”.
God IS just. I am still not tracking on where we are going – I am answering in general terms. What does this have to do with victims of sexual abuse in general? I mean . . . this guy pushed her out to spare himself getting sodomized, better her than him. WHAT lesson are you trying to extract?
Again, this is no hero Levite, OK?
Gotta mention this, too; you said to readerrabbit above:
“God emphatically addresses that, telling us that if we are not more afraid of Him than the perp that might hurt us if we say something, we are actually in trouble.”
This is yet another statement of yours that makes a case for why victims cannot speak up as long as they hold to this type of statement.
In it, you address victim’s oft-held presumption that fear of the perp “that he MIGHT hurt us if we say something” being greater then their fear of the Lord. It would be fine to point out the sin of Small-God- Big-Man-Syndrome as long as you’re talking full-fledged adults vs. children; children’s obedience to the adults over them is as to the Lord (as God instructs). Fine to point out the sin of except for 2 things: Bill’s doctrine included everyone not-yet-married needing to regress back to childhood, like a weaned child on it’s mother’s knee (Ps 8 was his reference). The second thing is, (and this is was way worse) you said: “we are actually in trouble” in fearing man over God. This “actually in trouble” is your contrast to merely fearing what you say might happen to us by the perp if we say something. And, in this we have it: the ONLY “actually in trouble” is in not fearing God enough by failing to report. Report what? Because, as you say- there’s no actual trouble. Other than failing to fear God enough to report…….. what trouble?
If not even you can comprehend that a sexually exploited person is IN TROUBLE so as to be able to concretely state: “I am in actual trouble and I’m saying something so that I don’t get in even more actual trouble for not fearing God by keeping silent”…………. then how are they to figure it out so that they can explain to folks like you what being in actual trouble even is?!?!?!
This verse I have heard him quote: “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.” (Psalm 8:2) This is to show that babies – helpless babies – scare the devil spitless and give a big reason why he is so intent that there be as few as possible. And why we should – conversely – have as many as possible. WHAT lesson did you take from this? Weaned child on knee? I have not heard this phrase used by him nor have any context to place it in. Can you elaborate?
Trying to find a handle to attach to. We are told to be more afraid of God than we are of people who might hurt us. Are we clear on that? So let’s say God tells us our bodies belong to Him, HIS temple, bought with a price, then to what extent are we willing to defend His property from evil people trying to desecrate it? The more we fear God worse than we are afraid of the guy with the fists and gun and threats, to that extent we will stand against what he is doing. Does THAT make sense?
So you are basing bills behavior in the light of fiction instead of scripture now? Did “dad” play footsies with her, make her feel uncomfortable with his attention, not hold himself to the standards he REQUIRED from others?! No I didn’t think so. I use to work at headquarters for a while. I saw personally, his hypocrisy to his own standards. He apologized one minute, and the a few weeks later went back to his old habits. I was there when young men and women were sent home for giving each other special attention, but he did it himself.
what does God’s word say about such behavior?! don’t go comparing, and insulting good works of fiction with bill gothard! Compare it with the word of God!
What Scriptures are you focusing on, Karen? And good works of fiction like this point out some of the hypocrisy of some that have savaged Bill. See, look at it one way, and it just doesn’t seem bad at all.
Footsies – Don’t know if the Shepherd nudged her feet while they were counseling.
Uncomfortable – That is kind of the point, right? If it is uncomfortable then it should stop. You say something.
Standards, Special Attention – That again is kind of the point. The Shepherd was engaging in behavior that would have been completely out of line for a young man interested in a young lady, right? Different context.
I will briefly digress from my attempts to get a basic airing of Judges 19:10 through 20:28.
Bill advocated: “be like a weaned child on it’s mother’s knee” as HIS summary of this Psalm 8 quote in the IBLP seminar. Both said to support of his quoting Christ’s gospel statement that any wishing to enter the kingdom of heaven must become like little children. It was said in the same context with his instruction that college kids should move back home to restore themselves under their parent’s direct authority, both of which- of course- are presented in subtext to The Chain of Command. So, yes, he definitely did teach practical regression of growth and maturity that was already in process. And this definitely got more emphasis from him than any of the numerous Bible verses that are clear proponents for marriages producing many children. Bill was not speaking to wives’ fertility as much as he was speaking to kids/young adults and the parents of these. He certainly wasn’t speaking to instruct the babies that Ps. 8 actually refers to; (1) suckling infants wouldn’t have understood (2) They had no need too; these already “followed” Ps. 8:2!
“We are told to be more afraid of God than we are of people who might hurt us. Are we clear on that?”
Yes.
The perp(s) whose actions victims are sinning to fail to report are classified by you merely as those who “might” hurt us if we say something. As opposed to those who have ALREADY hurt us. So…… do victims stay under the thumb of who has already hurt them, or do they fear God Who might (and, you say, most certainly will) also hurt them?
The answer, unbelievable to you, is that God doesn’t enter the bogeyman contest in an “I’m-the-biggest-and-baddest” showing to further hurt those who’ve already been hurt.
Please reread Judges 19:10 through 20:28. And Genesis 19. And 2 Peter 2:7.
Now here’s a multiple choice test on what you just read.
“To be blessed by divine deliverance, and/or see HIS vengeance on the one who accosted them poured out, and/or to lodge a complaint on any level in an attempt to apply for the latter:
The person subjected to perversion:
(A) Doesn’t need to have resisted.
(B) Is otherwise too blessed & spoiled to be heard in this
(C) Had to have been dressed for righteous purposes
(D) Can have surrendered all that was taken
(E) Both (A) & (D)
End of test.”
What do you suppose caused Benjamin to refuse to hand over the perps? I think it was what the worthless fellows of Gibeah told the town’s elders. “This Levite never said to go away and leave him or any of them alone. And we only took what was readily surrendered. He never told us to stop! It’s unlawful for him to speak up late in the day, and to complain to anyone else other than who he’s taken up an offense against.” The offending party was thus “rightfully defended” & there was a war. There would not have been one if Gibeah’s or all of Benjamin’s elders had had God’s take on the Levite’s campaign. Talk about the mistake of “taking up another’s wrong.”
I have NEVER heard that quote, and I have been to a lot of Basic Seminars. Attended a full seminar a year ago. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny?
There is a time we must all be hurt – if Jesus was so abused, to some extent it is a pathway we also will follow. However, the point is that because we are not afraid before they hurt us we may avoid the hurt as we cry out to Him, and . . . cry out.
Beyond that . . . frankly I am having a really hard time tracking where you are going. I have two college degrees but I read through your comments several times and am befuddled. Neither the Levite nor Lot were righteous in offering up their family to perversion. I mean . . . you are assuming that by calling Lot “righteous” God was saying he was without sin? No . . . he was simply way more righteous than his neighbors, to the point that God wanted him to survive. I get lost in “dressed for righteous purposes” and “blessed and spoiled” . . .
Are you saying that someone “subjected to perversion” does not need to resist evil?
” ‘As opposed to those who have ALREADY hurt us.’
There is a time we must all be hurt – if Jesus was so abused, to some extent it is a pathway we also will follow. However, the point is that because we are not afraid before they hurt us we may avoid the hurt as we cry out to Him, and . . . cry out. ”
Finally, in spite of your saying here that we should willingly take a pathway toward abuse- what aspect of Christ’s propitiation would OUR doing so achieve, I wonder?!?!?- in the last part of your sentence I’ve finally been given your context. Context for all the comments above in which you describe abuse as something that the perp MIGHT do. Your point is (correct me if I’m wrong) that nobody should ever be so intimidated by another human being so as to fail to cry out should that other person enter our bubble. This way, we show that we are not fearing man more than God regardless if whether or not the perp would actually have hurt us once he got in our bubble, and also keeps all harm as merely potential versus already happening/harming.
So……. why did Bill select the most beautiful women (all half to one third of his age) to sit next to him in cars, vans, at desks, & to staff a tiny copy room in which he would cram himself into with at least one of them? Because this proximity, according to you, should have induced many young women to “cry out” multiple times during any given daily shift, if only to show that they feared God more than Bill in what Bill might do to them.
Moderator, have you spoken with Bill about all these scenarios that he hand-picked attractive women for that, -you say-, required them to be crying out to God to deliver them from? After all, as you say, their fear of God was occluded by fear of what man might do in their having failed to cry out to God. Thus the hurt as described in the allegations was not prevented. If what you say is true -that the job scenarios Bill placed these women into should have had them screaming- then you should really ask him how much of a necessity it was to break his and the lovely young women’s personal bubbles by his assigning them to these jobs.
I, on the other hand, do not agree with your take on the whole thing. I believe that, as long as an employer does not intentionally hire or promote those that he plans to sexually harass & commit battery against, that it’s not a crying matter if he gives a woman such a job. Including all related job roles. If such had been the case, hires would have been for the purpose of performing tasks, not for the employer to be escorted and accessorized by those judged as best of class. Or, as best of homeschool students that he saw as contesting for his approval at his seminars/beauty pageants.
I have never met Bill myself, although I have been to his video seminars multiple times. Several of my friends have, and also met Bill. Two of these that I know are sisters. One was adopted from India, the other a biological daughter of their parents and imaging this fact with blue eyes & long, wavy blond tresses. It was a puzzle to both of them (they told me at the time) when Bill clasped both of the hands of we-all-know-which-one, drawing them up toward his chest, as he spent over a minute pronouncing her as being of noble character. When this one turned to her sister & introduced her as such in moving down the line, said sister got a cursory nod & a mumbled nice-to-meet-you as Bill reached for the hand of the white girl who came next in line. Moderator, tell me: how is it that Bill pronounced my blond friend to have such noble character when, according to you, she should have started crying out the minute he reached for her hands? As you say, if she’d started yelling before he grabbed her hands, she would not have come to envy her adopted sister for having been left well enough alone. Also, she wouldn’t be lumped-in with your judgement for not having prevented deep feelings of shame at being singled out by Bill that continue to this day; branded memories of shame is hurt.
Moderator, how frequently do any daughters that you might have cry out when out in public, or at work (guess YOUR daughters can’t seal any meeting with a handshake!!!), or at the church door (just in case your family’s Pastor should happen to try to shake her hand)? Am just making sure you’re being a father to the same standards by which you’ve judged other people’s daughters.
I have answers to your other requests for clarification. Will do so later.
We are getting warm. She should never be so intimidated by another human being that we fail to take steps to see God’s will done even at the risk of consequences. If someone comes to defile the “Temple of God”, which God has declared my body and the bodies of my children to be, how do we respond? Do we let them do it? Or do we resist, using all the tools – INCLUDING screaming if necessary – to resist that? The key is how big of a deal it is, that which is being attempted . . . and who cares. If God cares, especially if God told us to scream, then it is pretty clear whose unhappiness– the perp or God – should worry us more.
Most sexual abuse would never happen if the victim resisted, vigorously, loudly. Most of the cases I am aware of involve non-violent people, relatives even, or friends, people who live in the shadows with the risk of exposure being their greatest fear.
Since we are dealing with fictional characters, did you see the sequence in “The War Room” where someone comes up to rob them . . . and the elderly prayer warrior “Miss Clara” resists him in the name of Jesus? Although that is fictional, others have done this in the boldness of the Lord, and God has blessed them and protected them. Obviously we would enter that without demands on how the Lord would handle it, but “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8) Jesus telling angels to give us special attention and protection. Is this real? Yes, it is.
You are repeating the adulterated stories that some have told. That is NOT what happened. As to an abundance of attractive young ladies, first, those raised for Jesus tend to be beautiful beyond anything they would be outside of His grace and the protection of a loving family. Also, I explained elsewhere some conversations I had with him, how he had a special purpose since high school to help those most likely to be targeted and compromised by the devil, those blessed with attractiveness which we all know can be used to get people to serve them selfishly, or to lead others into evil ways – think movie stars or entertainers -, or to pull others, naturally attracted to them, forward, toward Jesus and His ways. Sort of like the “Shepherd of the Hills”, working with a young lady clearly destined for some level of importance.
That would be a concern, obviously . . . without details it is sort of hard to know how to respond. If you want to communicate the names privately, or details that would get Bill to remember, I will take this to him and ask what he recalls, and what he intended.
I will try to stomach the video IBLP seminar for a fifth time sometime in January; that is NOT what I want for Christmas. Will get better references for the regression in maturity that it mandates that way. Haven’t stomached it in 12 years, hope I’ll be able to.
Have regrettably not yet seen “War Room”. THAT is what I DO want for Christmas.
My original point:
Persons already undergoing actual sexual exploitation shouldn’t be expected to fight back against the one hurting them. God does not command this in His written Word, although His Spirit no doubt empowers it; but we probably should stick to the Bible. An engaged woman is commanded to scream for help when she is initially laid hold of by an attacker (Deut. 22:20,21 plus verses 23 through 29). But none other than engaged women (thus, grown women) are compelled by any Scripture pertaining to responsibility to scream for help, and this only when being laid hold of (grabbed) by an attacker. Scripture puts no responsibility on any victim of grooming or in any case of sexual rubbing that grooming (as opposed to the sudden violence of grabbing so as to position a victim to perform a violent act on) instead manipulated them to not resist. And sexual rubbing is not getting someone where you want them so you can violate them; it IS violating them. Moderator, you are one of the few people I’ve ever come across who equates deceit with pulling the same punches as……….. punches.
Needless to say, the precedents set by God’s stated will in both the pre-Mount Sinai (Genesis 19) and Mosaic (Judges 19:10 through 20:28) instances do not go against His own law.
Moderator, you contradict both what His law states & these precedents that He set by (#1) Trying to guilt all victims for not crying out, and, (#2) Saying that they have no recourse for wrong done other than to go back for more brainwashing by the one who initially did it………. by brainwashing!!! Talk about needing to raise objection to being laid hold of! How about objecting to one who already got a stronghold in the mind/heart and then abused the advantage he’d thus taken.
Victims of sexual exploitation DO have recourse, by means of civil government or otherwise.
Even if there’s only one witness on the side of the victims left alive to tell the tale.
Even if that one witness has a lie mixed in with what is, for the rest of it, the truth.
Even if they’d chosen to live and work in a hell-hole for whatever perceived benefit such society advertised itself as offering.
Even if they appeased instead of resisted.
Even if their appeasement was them engaging an assaulter in his moral downfall (relating to demands/negociating) versus otherwise being passively subjected to it (LET ALONE RESISTING IT!).
Even if such negociating reveals a hierarchy of fears that, had this not been done, would have left fear of God closer to the top rather than relegating fear of Him towards the bottom. (As happened when the Levite didn’t just let them take his own body but instead laid his concubine’s down for his own that was initially slated for sacrifice).
Even with all these “failures”- as you’ve labelled some of these things- committed by assault victims, they still got deliverance and saw God’s judgement on their assaulters. Obviously, you as Moderator here do not share God’s understanding of the intimidation that a perv wields over his/her victims in crafting an assault. Does this mean that God is unfair? No; it means you do not understand His fairness in His verdicts regarding what & who was to be punished. These are Bible-recorded matters, not fiction. I think you are also forgetting that it was Jesus who scourged His Father’s temple of those who were robbing people of their faculties with which to worship Him. He didn’t get up on a soapbox & chew the exploited out for not rendering to God His rightful worship. Maybe that’s because of the fact that their means of rightful worship had already been compromised. When what God has given to you is wrongfully taken away, you are then bereft of what He willed for you to have, for whatever capacity He had given it to you to use it for. Seriously, look into Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, and John 2:14,15 and the background to this. God was MOST angry at His being cheated of the exploited people’s worship of Him- but he wasn’t mad at THEM for this; He took on who it was that took the means to do so from these.
No, I will not give my friends’ names or contact info and thereby risk the one possibly getting further contact from Bill. About that:
First, it’s absolutely unbelievable to me that Bill could be expected to remember his intent with one of 2 sisters, neither one which met him other then that one time in line.
Secondly, it’s unbelievable to me that anyone should even care to hear whatever declaration of intent could then be protracted onto this situation by the one it’s so common to that he couldn’t remember a one-person-one-time instance if he tried .
Hats off to you! My respect for you grew immensely. Yes, hunt it down, whatever you heard.
We really enjoyed it.
I just don’t understand this. Do you not resist evil, at all? The devil comes knocking on your soul, your mind, wants to pervert you . . . and you just let him? How far are you willing to go to keep him out of your soul? Why would you let far lesser foes pervert your body, holy and pure, God’s temple?
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” (1 Cor. 3:16-17)
And you cannot expect me to just believe the account to be exactly as stated, not without corroboration of some kind. There are many possible explanations, even if it played out exactly as you indicated. “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” (1 Tim. 5:19)
1 Cor. 3:16,17 refers to either promiscuity of the one whose body is defiled, as well as the role of the other defiler that they defile themselves with, OR a sexual abuser of the one whose body is thus defiled. Taken in light of the rest of Scripture, it does NOT in ANY way imply that a victim’s failure to fight defiles themself. The guilt of this lies solely on the assaulter. (Except when a young woman is engaged to one other than her assaulter).
What Scripture or precedents of God set in Scripture do you reference that support your interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:16,17?
Also, when I gave options (B) and (C) in the test I put in one of my comments above, these were direct quotes of yours in saying that those with allegations against your man have no right to have made them.
Lastly, if you did hear my friends who are sisters telling you what they witnessed, would you accept that accusation? (I have no reason to believe they would tell it to you any different than it was told me). Because that would be 2 witnesses. There are-you say- 8 or 10 witnesses accusing him. You should be accepting that above any hokum Bill gave you about needing to zero in only on attractive people ever since he was in high school. That is just no reason for any partiality or favoritism at all, let alone one’s whole life purpose, as you say he said it was/is.
1 Cor. 3:16,17 – You gave your commentary, I told you what I take from it. Of COURSE the pervert is fundamentally at fault . . . but . . . when those who have been assaulted have trouble with bitterness, this provides some insights as to how the Lord may have wanted them to react and thus influence the outcome. Again, how SHOULD we react if some heathen attempts to defile God’s temple? Nothing, because we are afraid? Not confess Jesus before men?
“Because that would be 2 witnesses.” That is definitely significant. However, I would definitely want to hear what Bill had to say on the matter as well.
Bretheren,
May I appeal to our Christian moral consensus that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden of proof lies with the accuser?
So, a Christian should presume Bill Gothard innocent of alleged offenses against third parties, until the offenses are proven. So what rises to the threshold of proof that BG offended a third party? The testimony of witnesses with personal firsthand knowledge might be proof.
But shame on us if we accept hearsay or anomyous claims as proof that a man offended his neighbor. We would resent the use of these against us, and rightly so. Let’s be fair.
The Board appointed Tony Guhr to interview those that had been abused back in 1980 and as far as I know he left no stone unturned. Is that correct, Larne?
And I know the Board during their recent investigation took statements from some that were not “friendly”, although due to the legal dance with those having published their accounts already – who were reserving their right to sue which some did – those interviews did not happen.
Yes Alfred no stone left unturned and more proof that Bill was aware of his brother’s immorality (including sex) and in a board meeting confession that Bill had his own moral problem. More proof that the women from 1980 complained to Bill about issues at the Northwoods. Should I go on?
When was that report turned over, Larne? Before or after the abuse up at Northwoods? If after, then that would be no proof that Bill acknowledged understanding the depths of immorality that Steve was guilty of . . . before he allowed secretaries to go up there.
Would you elaborate? He confessed to “defrauding” which is consistent with his toying with the emotions of, never committing to a relationship leading to marriage.
Yes, please. There is no longer any point in sugarcoating things . . . if there are facts of which you are aware that change the dynamics of this conversation.
David S. K.,
As Christian we have a higher standard. In the legal system a guilty party can have the charges dropped due to a technicality. Try that one with God. I believe the preponderance of evidence shows Bill lies! Bill can change his story and be as slippery as an eel and we have caught him red handed. He is not who you think he is and I know we can’t change your mind but the truth need to be told as commanded in Matthew 18:17. I suggest you read the linked letter below: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2015/06/failure-to-repent-tell-it-to-the-church/
Larne (part of what Alfred calls the Denver Committee)
Brother Larne, I intended my point to be more charitable and Christian, and less a legal technicality. I meant something in line with the spirit of 1 Corinthians 13, where the apostle exhorts us to be pretty lavish in extending benefit of the doubt. You know, “love thinks no evil,” etc.
Honestly, I wasn’t thinking of loopholes for Bill Gothard to evade justice. Maybe he needs to repent to somebody. You probably know him much better than I, as I was just a face in the Knoxville crowd a couple of decades ago, not an Oak Brook staffer. I just shoved my oar in after reading some of the content on RG, and then DG for a second opinion. I met Bill Gothard one time while I was volunteering with ALERT back in 1994-1995, but that’s about it. You may be right about not changing my mind. I hope I can be neutral in disputes among other people. What is that proverb which warns us that nosiness is like pulling a dog’s ears? So please understand if I hesitate to take sides. But I tried to suggest being fair and charitable.
You and the RG people probably have a point about Bill Gothard. But everybody ought to play nicely in the sandbox.
Thank you for that RG link. The comments under it alluded to a Denver meeting with Bill Gothard, so I have no context about that. So you and a man named Bill Wood were acting as agents for third parties, and calling upon Gothard to repent for offending them? A comment by a woman named Rachel Frost gave me that impression.
Sincerely,
David K
David K.
I Corinthians 13 is a chapter we should all live by and does not exclude those in authority. In Mark 12 Jesus is asked: “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” In Ephesians 1:4 Paul say: “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love” In Colossians 3:12-17. “ Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
So we are told to:
1.) Love the Lord FIRST WITH ALL our heart, sole, mind and strength
2.) Love our neighbor AS OURSELF
3.) We should BE HOLY and BLAMELESS before Him
4.) Put on HOLY, BELOVED, CAMPASSIONATE HEARTS, KINDNESS, HUMILITY, MEEKNESS and PATIENCE
5.) BEARING ONE ANOTHER, FORGIVING EACH OTHER
6.) Put on LOVE which BINDS your hearts
7.) Let the PEACE of CHRIST rule in your hearts
8.) Be THANKFUL
9.) Let the WORD of CHRIST dwell in you richly
10.) Teaching and ADMONISHING one another in all wisdom
11.) Do EVERYTHING in the name of the LORD JESUS
12.) Giving THANKS to GOD the FATHER
These again apply to all of us, no exception, no excuses, no covering sin, no end justifying the means.
In Matthew 18:15-17 Christ also gives us clear direction and commands on dealing with one who has offended you. Verse 17 is fairly harsh if he does not repent. We have done that many times and have given Bill every opportunity to repent. Our Denver group comprised five plus Bill. Gary and Norma Smalley, Bill and Joy Wood and myself. We had all been on the Institute’s staff in one capacity or another. My late wife Ruth was Bill’s personally secretary from 1970-1980, she was groomed by Bill and made an emotional slave to him then abused by his brother. Bill had “wronged” each of us that met with him in Denver and to a man and woman each in our hearts had forgiven Bill, even for sins he did not repent of. But there were others that we did stand in the gap for and confront Bill with their grievances. Our involvement is unfinished business from 1980 and further proof that his sins with the ATI era staff were patterns of sinful behavior that has gone on for years. In Revelation 3:19 it says: “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.”
For 35 years Bill has minimized his sin, covered it and lied about it, that is not the heart of a repentant man. We love Bill, otherwise we would have not invested our time and money in our effort for the past 35 years and particularly the last two, seeking his repentance. But in the end it will be a very Holy God that deals with him. But God has given us the responsibility for teaching and ADMONISHING the error in the Church to include it’s leaders.
Christians aren’t suppose to sue people. Why would anyone sue a 81 year old man other than to get his money? Money, Money, Money and God hates covetousness.
Kim
Bill is not being sued the IBLP Board is being sued. According to Bill he has no money.
The moderator said, “Most sexual abuse would never happen if the victim resisted, vigorously, loudly. Most of the cases I am aware of involve non-violent people, relatives even, or friends, people who live in the shadows with the risk of exposure being their greatest fear.”
Really? Do you not see this as victim blaming? This is so offensive to those who have been abused, who never welcomed or invited it, and were too shocked or naive to know how to respond. A large portion of sexual abuse happens in a fashion EXACTLY similar to the way Bill Gothard operated. A younger, trusting person is approached gradually (groomed) by someone they have reason to trust or respect. They are conditioned to confusing actions that gradually cross the line. They think, “If THIS trusted person is doing this, then it must be alright ” It is much more like the frog in the water with increasing line crossings than a violent assault. If it happened suddenly and violently the first time, the victim would likely be alert and indeed cry out.
I disagree that most of these abusers live in the shadows in fear of exposure . No, they are so crafty and confident with their success that they are encouraged to go on to try it with yet another victim. That is why as soon as you hear of accounts of someone being caught, authorities immediately start looking for other potential victims. And they often find multiple violations.
Counsellors report that 1 out of every 4th person sitting in the pew next to you has suffered abuse, and many at the hands of those they trusted. Again, Bill Gothard is not a special case,in this except as you excuse him.
I want to laugh. Groomed . . . for what? Footsies? Sitting too close? come on . . .
That sounds almost inevitable the way you put it. I read this, “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy . . . ” (Jude 24) He is ABLE, but He will not do this if the pervert is crafty enough. Seriously, no wonder so many turn away from God. With an attitude as you express, God has lost all right to be God, because is NOT able to keep those He loves . . . and who could fear and love a wimpy God like that. Best to stop playing games, trying to cover for Him.
Can you go into a little more detail as to what you mean by that last paragraph? Because it sounds like you’re interpreting that passage that the presentation of us as faultless is dependent on whether or not we have been preserved from committing sin or having sin perpetrated against us. Is being sexually assaulted “falling” (because I thought that was an action you did rather than something someone did to you) in your mind? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how that verse has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Yes, God is able to keep us from falling. He’s also able to keep anyone from being abused (definition of omnipotence right there), but He doesn’t. Are you just trying to explain why God’s not keeping it from happening is dependent on the victim? I’m trying to understand your argument here…
I have a friend who was abused as a small child by someone she knew and trusted. Are you saying it was her fault that God didn’t stop the perpetrator because she didn’t scream? I hope not…
Salvation is in multiple parts . . . the part where He delivers us from the penalty of sin, forever, and the part where He actively cleanses us from sin, daily, moment by moment. With the Greek present continuous tense, which is used here, we get : “But if we are walking in the light, as he is in the light, we are having fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son is cleansing us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)
Does Jesus succeed in cleansing all the vestiges of sin from the believers heart and life before he goes home to glory? You tell me . . . some Christians die out of fellowship with the Lord, living the depths of some sins. So . . . did Jesus keep that believer from falling? No theological mumbo-jumbo . . . did he fall or not?
You claim (taking the adversarial position) that God loves the victim . . . yet He did not keep the abuse from happening. He also allowed His Son to be abused in other ways . . . but because His Son is precious EVERY blow, every scratch had a deliberate purpose. Does He love the victim less? In some manner perhaps, but Jesus said that God loved His disciples . . . with the same love. If that is the case, and not a single hair can come off our head – via a blow or any other reason – without God’s permission, is there any abuse – sexual or otherwise – that comes to the believer without a similar focused intent? It is not possible for it to be otherwise. So . . . WHY does God allow bad things to happen? There are three reasons:
1) To spank, teach us
2) To take us home (take our lives at the right time)
3) To glorify God, do wonderful things through it.
Do we ever get spanked? Yes we do. Why? Because we have ignored things that God told us to do . . . or there are things that we should learn which we will learn no other way. DOES God have instructions or examples that relate to avoiding sexual abuse? He does, some general, some specific . . . some relate to parents, and children getting hurt is sometimes a judgment on them. Some relate to a victim, and the clearest is the fact that a scream becomes a legal per se proof that sexual activity was non-consensual. Quite a big deal. Added to that is general information that tells us that this body of ours is not our own, but belongs to God, tremendous price . . . and He expects it to be kept holy for Him. With that information, would that give some clarity as to how a victim is expected by God to respond when someone comes to violate that holy temple that belongs to God? I mean . . . if God gave you a holy jewel and told you to protect it with your life, what would you do when someone comes to tamper with it?
And, again, Jesus said multiple times: Those that declare Him, confess Him, identify with Him – out loud – before men, He will declare them before the angels. Why angels? Angels have one job: to help and protect believers. “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” (Heb. 1:14) Once they are specially instructed to notice someone . . . do you think that might change the outcomes of certain otherwise unavoidable occurrences?
I too have a friend that was abused as a small child by someone that she trusted. Would to God someone had taught her – with the solemnity and authority of God’s Word – to scream loudly when certain things began to happen – I assure you that would have been the end of it. In fact, it would have been the end of a whole string of abuses that touched her sisters and her cousins as well, ultimately landing said individual in jail . . . way too long later.
We are falling in pits here . . . probably time to move on. This is one of those topics where emotions run high, minds snap shut . . . and abuses that God never wanted to allow continue to go on and on and on.
Okay, I didn’t mean for it to become an emotional question, so don’t worry. I’m not emotionally upset. I’m frustrated, yes, I’ll admit, since she’s struggled with guilt for months thinking it was somehow her fault thanks to having been told stuff very similar to what you just said. And yes, I disagree with you, but that’s not my reason for commenting. I was trying to clarify your position, something I think you did rather well.
In answer to your question, without the theological mumbo-jumbo (although I think that was a fairly ridiculous demand, considering you want an answer to a theological question without a theological answer!), yes, He is able to keep believers from falling. Yes, believers do fall. Yes, they are presented faultless before the thrown. You may or may not agree, but if I didn’t believe that, I couldn’t claim to believe in imputed righteousness or that Jesus took my sin on Himself and separated it as far as the east is from the west. Your sin isn’t there and gone at the same time, it’s one or the other.
Do I think it might have changed the circumstances? Maybe. Angels might have intervened, who knows? I know of cases that people have cried out and it hasn’t happened; I have no doubt that it has happened before. So who knows? Can you back up your statement that God expects you to defend your jewel (I assume that’s your sexual purity) with your life? Just curious…
Yes and no. Yes, the sin is gone in heaven, but no it was not gone as the believer died . . . A mind, will, emotions still poisoned with its effects. Practically, that part of the believer was “lost”, burned up as time met eternity. Only the part of us that was “redeemed”, built on Jesus survives. In heaven we are half the person God intended.
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” ( 1 Cor. 3:11-15)
“Saved so as by fire” – what a bittersweet situation.
There is no other reason to pray the following prayer, unless there was some doubt:
“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24)
If we live in a random world with a God who doesn’t really care there is no guilt to worry about, just hopelessness. IF there is an Almighty God counting hairs . . . then our spirit quickly begins to try to understand what He was doing and why. Nothing is ever by chance in God’s world. So, yes, we all deal with coming to peace, with guilt, when bad things happen. And there is nothing like sexual violation in that respect.
And, no, not all of it is our fault. Otherwise Jesus was guilty.
So . . . what do you tell her that helps her? The truth sets us free – what truth is the key to setting her free?
Yes Alfred groomed, told how to dress including undergarments, how to walk, talk, what they could tell their parents, where they could go to church, who they could communicate with and in some cases reading private letter from male friends and then helping them craft letter in reply and telling them when to send them, checking up on them after dates or firing them because of dates. Bill let his displeasure known to other Gothard family members insuring that they placed pressure on staff for unapproved changes in hair style or car purchases. So not only did Bill groom he insured his family reinforces his desires.
BTW the verse you quote is totally irrelevant to this discussion and completely out of context.
Now, I keep hearing this, about underwear. Do you have anything that resembles corroboration on this? Knowing Bill, if he said it, and meant it, it will end up in a seminar or publication. For the record, no one in my family or our close circle of friends has heard this bit of advice. Some of these stories just take on a life of their own . . . and since they are SO insanely juicy sounding, they get repeated and repeated.
Larne, you are no fool so I know you know that the “grooming” these folks are discussing has nothing to do with how to dress. “Sexual grooming”, preparing a victim for exploitation.
But, again, humor me . . . that is exactly what the “Shepherd of the Hills” did with his young charge, right? Have heard zero complaints about him teaching her how to speak, conduct herself, what to wear, so she would be successful in a future “high society” life.
Let me quote from Ruth’s Story on RG: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/ruths-story/
“Image was everything to Bill. Bill would send Ruth and other staff women to his brother for various training, and would preface the direction by saying, “God has given my brother special insight and direction.” These areas of “training” were normally in dress and presentation. Ruth often stated that some of the women complained that Bill’s brother even directed what kind of underwear they should wear.”
That included Ruth and no one from your family was on staff in the 70s.
You write: “Sexual grooming”, preparing a victim for exploitation.” Alfred you are wrong, go back and read Ruth’s Story and the other women’s stories. Every aspect of their lives were controlled to the minute degree, it was all based on the approval of the Gothard who made all the decisions. These women did not ask for the help or advice they were told and not given a choice. Believe it of not I really don’t care but its a fact. Your Shepherd is just that a story made into a play to show something positive. But life was not all positive at the Institute working for the Gothards.
That Steve did this does not surprise me. Did Bill ever do that?
I believe you that Bill made suggestions on attire. I am saying you have misunderstood the “grooming” comments from others that I responded to and that I think you are reacting to. “He groomed them” to others means “he prepared them for sexual conquest”. But you knew that.
Bill was very specific about what he liked and made no bones about it. He also sent them to his brother’s knowing of his immorality. But what defines sexual conquest, it depends on the aggressor, maybe sex in the tradition sense, maybe perverted, maybe a foot fetish or total control over the woman to make him feel better about himself. Probably something to do with his growing up.
That extended to every aspect of his ministry, from the carpets to upholstery to pictures used on brochures to some of the minutest details on video productions. Not necessarily a problem, right? He had a pretty good track record of making the ministry appealing and interesting, which is why you do that.
Sometimes I think we are sitting in our little world, playing little games which a bemused world walks by. Can you, Larne, think of any situation of a person identified as a “pervert” was content to hold hands or even, stunningly, tap the feet of his victims? Sex is never like that. Once it jumps its banks it rushes wildly forward. Just look at Steve, how quickly he got from zero to 90 miles an hour. Bill is not, never has been, compromised morally.
Alfred, I promised myself and you I would not reply on DG but your posts continue to requires a response because you are just plain wrong. This was to be my first post but I got distracted with your other inaccurate statement as I continued research on this topic.
While the copy of lawsuit does not display the date of the filing the case number is “82e1981’ so one could assume it was filed in 1981, the second case appears to have been filed in 1982 with the case number “82e1982”. The presiding Judge Milton Irving Shadur ruled on the first case on March 7, 1983. Tony was disposed for 40 hours and Bill Wood was disposed twice, each time for 5 days with 6-8 attorneys present representing Gothard and the Institute. From Bill Wood’s memory there were over 900 pages of deposition. So your comment that it was immediately dropped by the court is incorrect. If you want to be correct it was dismissed, then appealed and the case was reinstated in the appeal. In Judge Shadur final ruling he only ruled on Bill Wood’s inability to represent the “class”, but NOT ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. I do not have all 18 pages of the ruling but just the last page with the conclusion. You could get a complete copy at the Federal Court house in Chicago. The wording of the “Conclusion” follows:
“There is no genuine issue of material fact, and defendants are entitled to judgement as a matter of law, as to all claims asserted by Wood individually, this action is dismissed; 1. with prejudice as to Wood’s individual claims: and 2. without prejudice as to all putative class members other then Wood. Signed: Milton I. Shadur, United States District Judge, March 7, 1983”
The two underline portions both make it very clear that the facts of the case were still relevant and not dismissed. As to Bill Wood’s ability to be a class member, the Institute had an employee testify that Bill Wood had the ability to hire and fire. This was never the case as the Gothard specifically retained those rights alone. (A copy of page 18 of the ruling sent to Alfred’s email.)
Regarding the second case of the “Alumni against IBYC”. After the first suit was dismissed on March 7, 1983 the law firm representing the Institute sought reimbursement for the $450,000 in fees and expenses. In an agreement between both parties, the claim for $450,000 in fees was dropped in exchange for the plaintiffs dropping the suit. Based on the defendant/Insurance company’s willingness to write off $450,000 that alone is evidence that second suit also had merit and it was represented by indisputable class representatives.
In another one of your post on your make the claim that the first lawsuit did not have support with the ex-staff. This was not the case, what we didn’t have was the funds, the time or emotional energy to fight them. Personally I had never seen or read the suit before the discussion came up on DG and was unaware it was on RG. When you started talking about it on November 30 it raised a question and I contacted RG on December 1st requesting a copy. The next day someone else had the same questions to which you posted a link to RG. I guess I was not alone in my questions. Proverbs 1:7 and 28:26 is clear you should not answer till you have all the facts (wisdom). The truth needs to be told and while it turned out the verbal history I had been told was correct I wanted to read it myself before I said something. After reading other’s questions and your posts on DG I started researching this for my own curiosity and “wisdom”. I communicated with Tony, Bill Wood and the court clerk at the US District, Northern Illinois Court in Chicago. I was looking for facts and documents to establish the truth.
Back to the staff, most left IBYC in the summer of 1980 with no jobs or money. The Institute paid peanuts and Bill actively discouraged savings especially for the women. The abused women had been paraded in front of the staff twice on May 14th and again May 17th for a forced public confession. Ruth was viscously attacked by a member of Bill’s family the night of May 17th after the forced confessional meeting. They each had been told that after a period of healing they could return to the Institute (although none wanted to). Then in a letter Bill wrote to 20,000 pastors they learned they had been terminated. No calls or personal letters from the Institute. The letters were passed on to us by friends and Pastors. Those that didn’t get a copy of the public letter read it in “Christianity Today”. During the short reign of John McLario, as IBYC president, he made threatening calls to Ruth and others to keep them quiet. There was no counseling made available and we were all discarded like trash. Bill refused to take our calls for over three years, then he called when he wanted something from Ruth.
Even though the women had been groomed and abused by Bill and his brother, in the aftermath Bill and the Institute made sure that the blame was shifted to them and that they were shamed. Let me give you a small example, Ruth had been directed by Bill to attend a local Bob Jones Independent Baptist Church whose pastor was on Bob Jones advisory board. Bill wanted a connection between the BJ group and the Institute. After the scandal the pastor initiated public church discipline on Ruth with out even talking to her. His source of information was provided only by Bill.
But I digress, in 1980 there was no internet, emails, cell phones, fax machines, home copy machines, digital cameras, home computers and long distant calls were expensive. The ex-staff was spread out all over the US and we relied on the US Postal Service and expensive copy machines in grocery stores. Sharing information was an expensive and laborious process. The women had been abuse by Steve and emotionally abused by Bill. There was no way they were going to stand up to 40-80 hours of depositions in front of 6-8 attorneys from one of the top law firms in the country and relive the horror of their abuse. Quite frankly neither were the rest of us. We all just wanted to get on with our lives and healing. Only Bill Wood and his wife Joy and the two men with the second suit had the courage to stand in the gap. The whole purpose of both suits was to make a public airing of Bill Gothard’s actions against his employees and those entrusted to his care.
You make four other statements that are incorrect and deceptive.
FIRST YOUR STATE:
“My understanding, based on documents posted on RG, is that a group of staffers, including Tony Guhr, decided that the only way to get control of Bill and the situation was to use the courts to do so.”
In the second lawsuit, the suit asks for a Court Appointed Trustee to take over the operation based on the Institute’s Board and management history of mismanagement. This is standard request for this type of suit to protect the assets of the corporation. Tony was not part of the law suit but was still disposed.
SECOND YOU STATE REGARDING THE FIRST LAWSUIT:
“They sued for something like 10 million dollars.”
The first suit is very clear and only asks 3.5 million, legal fees plus wage and benefit related issues. The latter is determined by the court based on a standard procedure involving specific wage laws and claims filed. There could have been over 100 employees involved for those that chose to file a claim. There is a big difference between 3.5 million and 10 million! I suggest you read it again, but this time a little more carefully, if you look under each count it will state the damages then in the following paragraph state what they are asking for: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Legal-01.pdf
Under “Plaintiff’s Causes of Action Against Defendants:
First Cause: Wages, amount to be determined by court
Second Cause: Promised benefits, $1,000,000
Third Cause: Discredit, libel, slander,… $500,000
Forth Cause: Outrageous conduct, Punitive $1,000,000, Compensatory $1,000,000
Total: $3,500,000 plus legal expenses and wage claims determined by court
THIRDLY YOU STATE REGARDING THE SECOND LAWSUIT:
“…and the other alleges damages in excess of $40 million.”
In the second lawsuit no amount of money was requested and that would have been determined by the court. What was mentioned was the value of the alumni services which totaled $2,553,014 and the amount of defendant’s liabilities are believed to be $40 million. Under “VI. Relief Request” page 14, point 6 of the second lawsuit it states: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Legal-02.pdf
“6. That the individual defendants be found to have engaged in ultravires activity, beyond the scope and purposes of the corporation and that they be found individually liable for all misappropriations of funds, fraudulent misrepresentations of the fact, failure to preserve and protect the assets of the corporation and all liabilities to third parties arising out of the conduct of the affairs of the corporation by the individual defendants which liabilities are believed to be in excess of $40,000,000.”
But what I find interesting in the second lawsuit is the “Fifth Cause of Action”, now bear in mind none of the 1980 women were parties or plaintiffs to this lawsuit and would have been very emotional to testify if subpoenaed. This count does not seek money for the women and is only added to show the outrageous conduct toward employees and mismanagement of the Board. I believe this is why the Board was so quick to settle the legal expenses of the first lawsuit with the dropping of the second. In hindsight this suit should have been tried first and there would have been a completely different outcome. “Fifth Cause of Action” follows:
“1. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, all of the allegations set forth above.
2. That certain of the said individual defendants did engage in outrageous conduct toward employees of the said corporation defendant, Institute in Basic Youth Conflict, engaging in threat and coercion to obtain sexual favors resulting in physical and emotional damage to former employees, and that the individual defendants did knowingly acquiesce in and by their conduct did condone such conduct.”
FORTHLY YOU STATE AND THIS IS VERY DECEPTIVE:
“Should that have given in and paid 10 million of mostly donor money toward that end?”
Mostly donor money, really, the vast majority of the institute revenue has come from fees and book sales, in the 70’s and early 80’s the Basic seminar and book sales was the cash cow. My office was next to the finance office and I remember asking them how much came from donations and they stated about 10%. I don’t have a copy of the finance records from then, but would suggest before you make such an outrageous claim again you look it up for those years. If you’re getting the information from Bill I would double check his facts, he has a history of not being completely truthful.
**************************************************************
Alfred In conclusion we have had the discussion about whether I am calling you a liar, again I will leave that to you and God to decide. But what I have a problem with are your outrageous statements that are without fact and contrary to the documentation available. I’ll say again Bill is not a creditable source, he has proven that time and again by his changing stories. Obviously you and your supporter don’t agree and that your choice and like me we will all have to answer to a very Holy God. Bill historically has twisted the truth and your statements do the same to put Bill is a better light that he does not deserve. I would suggest before you make a statement to research the available documentation, in this case you provided the link.
Larne:
Of course we are aware of that, Larne. But class action suits with a decent chance of winning attract lawyers who will work on commission – and they will beat the bushes to get the best possible representation. The fact that no-one among the rank and file felt so wronged as to stand in this case is telling.
Again, in a strong case lawyers come out of the woodwork willing to pursue on commission. And when they win THEIR costs are paid by the opposite side. Someone looked at the odds and decided they were not favorable. The company did not “write off” anything – from what I gathered their fees were covered by the Board insurance claim. I believe there was virtually no chance of a court agreeing with that suit.
I just want you to be careful with your words, Larne, for you appear to equate Steve and Bill in what they did. Later you say “emotional abuse” ascribed to Bill and “sexual abuse” ascribed to Steve. But this statement is very misleading, and possibly slanderous, based on what I know to be true.
I would like to ask Bill about this, since this is inconsistent with what others have told me. They alleged that Bill sought you out at least once a year at the Seattle seminar. Is that correct, or did that start after the 3 year time frame you mention?
That I understand. Lawsuits are no game. Was there no possibility that Bill would change his mind and tone once the “dust cleared”? The entire time was brutally toxic with accusations flying, a lot of misinformation. Toward that end – I am sorry – Tony did little to help and I think a lot to harm. He is acknowledged as the primary motivator behind the lawsuit, right? And his uncle actively pushed it ahead? And his interviews and conclusions ended up in the hands of the LA Times, doing so much further damage to the name of the Savior. Tony told me it was not he who provided it, but he certainly passed it on to a non-trivial number.
But once other folks took over there would be no limit on what they might do to “rectify wrongs”, right? Including rectifying a number of financial wrongs among the staff? I would consider that more likely than less.
I believe that you were told that, but I have a hard time believing it. In my day the cost of the 30 hour, week long seminar was $45, including a large syllabus. That one-time life-time fee allowed me to attend 4-5 additional seminars at no charge. Where I went was the Portland Memorial Coliseum, 11,000 seats . . . I can only imagine what that cost to rent would be. And among materials I was always impressed with the value. Even the most expensive item – the full color 2 inch thick encyclopedia-like Character Sketch volumes – were only $20 a piece. For the life of me I could not figure how that would pay for the expenses I knew, let alone the headquarters, Northwoods, staff, trucks hauling things around, the Learjets.
“Bill was very specific about what he liked and made no bones about it.” We all know Larne meant “what he liked” regarding women and his preferences for how they dressed, etc. It is very disingenuous to pretend otherwise. This is why no one can take this website seriously. Any reasonable person knows exactly what Larne meant. Your response is either 1) disrespectful, 2) snarky, or 3) purposely misdirecting. Considering what Larne went through with Ruth, I am astounded by the way you speak to him.
“Sex is never like that. Once it jumps its banks it rushes wildly forward.” I suppose that is your experience with sex. That has certainly not always been my experience with sex.
Are you saying the only kind of sexual violation is 1) 0 to 90 raping someone or 2) convincing the other party to go 0 to 90, too? That is ridiculous.
Are you saying there can be no perversion unless a sex act takes place? Violation without penetration is why we have sex offenses in the 3rd and 4th degree in my state. You seem to imply there can be no perversion without penetration.
And please stop saying “tap” the feet. I know you say “tap” to get away from “play footsie.” Every time you say that, I try to envision a scenario in which a man “tapping” my feet is not flirtatious. I cannot think of one.
Again, I don’t care if I never find out exactly what percentage of stories against Bill are fictitious. I take offense at the horrible things you say while arguing about this.
Well, let him say what he meant. What did you mean, Larne? Did you mean precisely that there were sexual overtones in what Bill liked in women?
No, I have the advantage of grilling Bill on this and having spoken to some who experienced the cadre of Bill oddities. The later have described it as anything but sexual, just his way of getting attention, communication affirmation. I believe Bill and I believe them. So I will describe it as it was presented to me.
Also, of course we can think of perverts who did not actually seek consummation. Many voyeurs are a good example.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/magnetic-partners/201207/the-voyeurs-wife
“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) (APA, 2000) defined Voyeurism (302.82) as a paraphilia that focuses on observing “unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity. The act of looking (peeping) for the purpose of achieving sexual excitement, and generally no sexual activity with the observed person is sought.” It is said that the high is in the “risk of looking” not the “seeing.” Orgasm via self-pleasuring may occur during or following the activity.”
Lindsey, all of this still involves stimulation of lust by porn, formal or created. That is still sex for a man. Bill is accused of nothing like that, right?
In part I look forward to the day a judge actually looks at these accusations. In part that finally some sanity can be brought to bear on these foibles. The other part wishes to see no more damage brought to the name of the Savior by the foolishness of His quibbling disciples.
Alfred states:
“Well, let him say what he meant. What did you mean, Larne?”
From the 1980 staff these are my observations and comments from Ruth, it is not meant to be negative toward any woman that fit these standard or did not. Each one of these women was special in the sight of God, just not in Bill’s sinful eyes.
Bill looked for a specific body type; trim not full figured, not taller then him, long hair generally brunette, very attractive with a radiant smile.
Bill looked for a specific spiritual type; one who loved the Lord and wanted to serve Him but not one who was necessary doctrinally deep. Maybe a simple faith or a new Christian
Bill looked for a specific emotional type; Bill seemed to like women with the gift primarily of mercy or secondary servant, ones that would respond attentively to his emotional need and desires, one who was willing to put Bill ahead of her own needs and be completely dedicated to him, one who would make a long term commitment to the above standards, one who would not question his doctrinal theology or decision and would hang on his every word, ones who he identified as being suitable to grooming. This could be because they came from a broken, authoritative or dysfunctional family and would want to please. In some cases the father trusted Bill that they turned over all authority for them to Bill for every area of their lives.
Women that did not have the above characteristics or had the gift of administration were given other roles in the ministry of were not allowed to get close to Bill.
Alfred states:
“Did you mean precisely that there were sexual overtones in what Bill liked in women?”
Bill liked women in high heals, again trim figures that presented themselves well, this included him sending the women to his brother to “suggest” the type of undergarments the women wore to give them perky breasts ( push up bras, that’s from Ruth). He wanted them to respond to him in an attentive way which I would call a sexual response. He groomed them to not be intimidated to sit on his lap, next to him in the car or from his touches. That was all done with a spiritual overtone under the banner of the chain of command teaching.
Bill told Steve to tell the girls what underwear to wear?! Does that even make sense to you? This is Bill . . . Who hates surrogates under any circumstances. And how do you establish Bill behind it? Because Steve said so?
You state: “When was that report turned over, Larne? Before or after the abuse up at Northwoods? If after, then that would be no proof that Bill acknowledged understanding the depths of immorality that Steve was guilty of . . . before he allowed secretaries to go up there.”
To answer your first question, the report was after the Northwoods scandal. But that is not relevant to the facts of the sin or the bigger of questions of Bill’s lies and the witnesses of his statements admitting his knowledge. As I stated before, ask the witnesses from the Denver meeting of Bill’s admission. “In the mouth of two or three witness” there were 5 of us. Bill admitted, to what Gary told him in 1976, that he was aware of his brother having sex. Ask Gary, Ken and Ed what they said in 1976 and if there is any doubt in his mind that he knew what they were talking about. In Denver we specifically addressed that issue of sex, not what Bill is trying to pawn off of his misunderstanding of the details.
You further state: “would you elaborate?” And “There is no longer any point in sugarcoating things…”
OK I’ll do that from publicly available record that Bill has not disputed or questioned. To quote Jack Nicolson’s famous lines from the movie “A Few Good Men”, “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!!!!” Well that what this is all about, are you willing to accept the truth? Below is a link to the truth of Bill’s confession, witnessed in several meetings, on different dates, including before his Board on May 27, 1980. A warning, it’s disturbing, especially for a man who claimed a pious life in front of a couple million. While the whole document is relevant, page 2 item #1 is specific. One must ask the question, was this action the result of the improper relationships he had with the women he groomed to sit on his lap, good night hugs, laying under a blanket watching the stars (in a group setting), holding their hands and taking long walks, evening canoe rides, taking them on dates and sitting next to him on the bench seat of his car, having them bring food to his cabin late at night. Ask yourself you’re a man what turns you on and what turned Bill on? (I’m not looking for a public answer on this question.)
I think Lindsey77’s comment above is completely relevant about stimulation. Then your follow reply to her forces an answer to that question. You have asked for it so the responsibility of it rests on your shoulders.
Alfred stated:
“Lindsey, all of this still involves stimulation of lust by porn, formal or created. That is still sex for a man. Bill is accused of nothing like that, right?”
Here is something Bill admitted to in front of witnesses. It the chicken or egg question, which came first? Having the women sit on his lap, next to him in the car, touch their hair, face or legs or play footsie with or the linked act?
“Caution advised, read at your own risk.”
http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/12.30.13-10-edited-Authorship-Publication-of-Ministry-Materials-by-Men-Involved-in-Immorality.pdf
It is relevant to the question of what he knew when. It remains that Bill did NOT believe the extent of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Steve at HQ prior to sending women to the Northwoods to work with Steve now – as he saw it – humbly cured of his acts of hugging and kissing 4 women.
We have examined this document and gone over it with Bill in detail, also referencing it in posts on RG. Several things to note:
1) Apparently this document reveals the dark secrets to which you are aware, correct? It is important that we have it all out on the table. I sought for a decade for Tony to even name the crimes that Bill had committed to allow his (Tony) name and testimony to stand behind the charges of “fondling” and “adultery” that is printed in the Veinot book, LA Times and elsewhere. This is, apparently, it, being his document prepared in the last few years.
So now it is crystal clear that his definitions of Scriptural terms deviate sharply from the rest of the evangelical church . . . making their use against Bill a crime, slander.
2) The purpose of the document is the classic “ad hominem” argument, i.e. the points made in IBLP materials are not valid because the ones preparing them were compromised morally. Not everyone agrees that that is a valid argument. Indeed, the Psalms and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon were prepared by men who were, at some point, in some cases past, compromised morally. God uses broken people.
3) I spent some time going over this document with Bill. He strongly reacted to the authorship question, stating emphatically that every word of those materials referenced were his, including the Character Sketches – he still had his notes to prove that. Steve and especially not the secretaries had any hand in that – UNLESS the act of typing made them compromised participants?
3) Bill confessed to a matter of “uncleanness” that is not even designated a sin in Scripture, C. S. Lewis notwithstanding. The closest we have – and we accept this as the Scriptural treatment of the topic – is Lev. 15:16-18. The consequence was being “unclean” until the sunset, likely referenced by Saul in 1 Sam. 20:26. It is quickly noted that the result was also applied to the marriage act itself, let alone any other “emission”.
Dr. Dobson is strongly on record taking this matter out of the realm of sin, regardless of other factors. As such he apparently fundamentally disagrees with C. S. Lewis – and Tony Guhr – that it is of necessity linked with visualization, itself even a stretch to apply to Jesus words, thus making it “adultery”.
Jesus was crucified naked, Isaiah was forced to walk around naked, and at times it is the lot of every public servant of God to have every vestige of modesty removed. Things disclosed in secret and properly dealt with so should remain that way. Regardless, Bill acknowledged and discussed that part of his journey with us. Part of that included a great deal of naïvety, followed by personal victory. It is reprehensible for Tony to “go there”, regardless, no matter how he found this out. Especially to publicly declare Bill an “adulterer”. These are the things that make the world laugh, especially presenting ourselves before a secular court and trying to take someone down as a sexual pervert.
4) The “spilled Coke” incident is discussed elsewhere. What he did was in clear view of his staff, which ought to keep anyone from calling this “fondling”. The Coke exploded all over her and the jet, floor to ceiling, and Bill reacted. He acknowledged he overreacted.
5) Bill emphatically denies meeting with secretaries in private quarters, let along his remove private cabin. The cited source for this is Gary Smalley – the cabin did not even exist during the time Gary was on staff.
6) The “Cabin Story” has gotten lots of air time, including this site. It didn’t happen, as Gary has acknowledged in the last year, confirmed by his wife. The corrected account, in Bill’s Oakbrook office, is given in our posting. No wonder Bill wanted the account stricken from his Wiki. In the aftermath the Wiki authorities placed the page in “protected” status to avoid this type of nonsense.
Regardless, it was the other “proof” that Tony had that Bill fondled women. His declaration to us in an email was that the fact that a woman was on his lap – even one he declared to others he was dating – with millimeters of material separating his genitals from hers, constituted “fondling”. These are the kinds of excesses that raised Bill’s frustration level to a point where he accused Tony of being an “agent of Satan”. Since the devil is the father of lies and misinformation designed to destroy God’s people, maybe there was some truth to it.
Sexual abuse is no laughing matter Alfred. Most sexual abuse isn’t stranger on stranger but occurs between people that already know each other (abuser and victim) and due to the fact that the victim and abuser already have some kind of relationship, it is too often under reported. Your last part and paragraph honestly makes no sense at all and is not even germaine to the topic.
RR, counselors report that 25% of a population are counseling candidates? Small wonder. Barbers also report that 25% of a population need haircuts. The report may possibly be true, but neither the counselors nor the barbers are disinterested parties. They have skin in the game. Can you cite a more objective source?
As for victim blaming, do you really want to assume that accuser = victim? Does that rule apply each time you get accused?
This comment really bothers me.
RR did not say that counselors state 25% of people to be counseling candidates. RR said 25% have been abused.
Abuse statistics are actually studied by many “non-counselors,” such as the CDC, because abuse impacts the health of the populace.
I think comparing people’s need for counselors and their need for barbers is not nice.
Are you saying people are never abused?
As for equating accusers with victims, RR didn’t say anything about that.
Sorry about that, Lindsay. No offense to you or anyone else intended. Of course the sex-offense topic is so personal that I probably rushed in where fools fear to tread (to invert the old proverb). I probably cannot even get near the sex topic without offending. So would you mind if I shut up now?
Brother David K
Brother David K,
Your apology is very kind. I accept it and wish you well.
Moderator, many of your comments sum up all victims of sexual misconduct as being guilty of defiling their own bodies unless they “cried out”. This stance, applied to those suing Bill, flies in the face of the main Bible passage on lawful-versus-unlawful conduct pertaining to the “crying out” of unmarried females when violated. (This being Duet. 22:20,21 plus 23 through 29). This passage does not include any invective for un-engaged women to cry out; as a matter of fact, this is not even posed as a possibility as it is in the cases of a woman engaged TO A MAN OTHER THAN HER FUTURE HUSBAND or a man other than her present husband. So……. which of the plaintiffs was engaged to someone other than Bill, and thus in need of “forgiveness” for her “sin” of failing to cry out?? And, if he did what he did to Ruth (a tiny fraction of which your own website corroborates), then this was paved with all his verbal hints at marrying her. Or so the Bible says. So……….. who failed at following God’s mandate in this “cry out” passage?
Yeah…….. that would be Bill, not Ruth.
If you can’t find a verse to substantiate your interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:16,17……… then is there anybody out there who can? Of course not. Because there isn’t such a verse; the Bible doesn’t contradict itself.
Women speak up. They are inasmuch accused of defiling themselves. And of also needing to keep silent because, by stating a complaint, “those who have been assaulted have trouble with bitterness”^^^^^^ (Moderator this is your quote generalizing all these). And you & your ilk can’t understand why they’ve had to take it to court in order to even be heard without getting slandered by statements like these. Bill has had grace shown him as if it were to a fellow brother; he was Matthew-eighteened by way of all doing so considering him as included in 2 Cor. 6:1-8. For at least 35 years. Even though those following that verse kept throwing their pearls before the swine only to have him trample them and turn on them.
And you say that my even reading of this on Recovering Grace is wrong of me to do and wrong of them to have published. How far will you follow Bill in trying to suppress the truth in unrighteousness such as this?
Moderator…….. if there any chance- at all- that you’ll consent to what the Bible says about these matters? Or ever give (a) verse(s) of your own to support your opinion(s)? Because you either sincerely don’t understand or pretend not to understand what is spelled out in the verses that I’ve referenced. (Some of which are Judges 19:10 through Judges 20:28 and Genesis 19, 2 Peter 2:7). Those of us who believe the Bible know what it says as being concrete.
I guess it’ll be self-evident on this site if you ever come around to this.
^^^^a part of my eluding to Deut. 22:25-27 should instead say: “woman who is sexually engaged with by a man who is not her future husband”
The Jude verse you quote to Readerrabbit above you interpret with the same twisted interpretation as 1 Cor. 3:16,17. Why would a victim of a sexual crime have had by this any negation of God’s promise to present them before Him “faultless”? Only according to you & any who, along with you, blame the defiled as if they were the defiler. Since Scripture says that God does not, how could He see them as faulted rather than faultless, Himself failing in His own promise of sanctifying these coming before Him?
Bill’s teaching on sexual assault is not Christian at all. Historic Christian teaching in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant has never blamed the victim or seen the victim as having sinned. Bill’s twisted used of a couple a passages in the OT is not even taught in Judaism. Only in Islam and under Sharia law does one find this sort of thinking of blaming the victim (women and children). Bill has stepped out of the bounds of any Christian teaching and thought and has aligned himself with the prophet Mohammed. Bill cannot even point to any Orthodox Jew that would interpret these passages the way he has. Bill’s literalist interpretation of the Bible, emphasis on rote memorization, demeaning views on women, emphasis on submission lines up more with Islam than Christianity no matter how many Bible verses he wants to quote and use to justify himself. After some study of Islam and then reviewing Bill’s teaching, I am honestly shocked at a number of the similarities and parallels between Bill and Sharia law. The word Islam itself means “submission” and the corner stone of Bill’s teaching is submission to authority.
If all that is in the OT were taught by Judeaism, there would be millions of new believers in the Lord Jesus. Remember, if we meditate on God’s law we will be wiser that our teachers. Not bothered by Bill being out of step with some.
Submission is a decidedly Jesus teaching too. What is your point?
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17)
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)
“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7)
Moderator, congratulations on a gracious reply to Rob’s comparison of Bill Gothard with Islam. Rob probably knows much more about Islam than I. But don’t you suspect that submission teaching is far from the only overlap between Christianity and Islam?
Even Wikipedia tells us that “belief in angels is fundamental to Islam.” Rob probably shares my belief in angels. Especially on this Fourth Sunday of Advent, we hope that our belief in angels does not disqualify us from following Jesus rather than Mohammed. I would hate to see my Methodist card revoked for the Muslim offense of believing in angels!
I know nothing about Sharia law, but it probably overlaps on many points with the morals we Christians take for granted. And it may even be milder than some of the severe threats we find in Old Testament law! At least we may hope so.
David K
Yes, just because a cult gets one thing right doesn’t sully the thing they got right.
I can’t decide whether you are calling Islam a cult. Are you?
Are you saying Islam got submission right with Sharia law and we shouldn’t discount it because we are not Muslims?
“I can’t decide whether you are calling Islam a cult. Are you?”
We believe that. You brought it up . . . the notion that because something that Bill teaches appears to match something found in a false religion. That is a false premise. Let’s move on.
I’m not sure you understand what rob is saying.
Comparing your understanding of godly submission to Sharia law is not a compliment.
In fact, there are many Muslims who disagree with the brutal manner in which Sharia law is practiced in many countries.
I hope you do not stone people or oxen as described in the Old Testament.
I’m pretty sure rob would say neither Christians nor Muslims should have an oppressive, distorted view of submission. rob would also say Christians and Muslims are free to share as many commonalities as make sense within their respective faiths, including belief in angels.
http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/womens-rights-under-sharia
http://www.clarionproject.org/tag/sharia
http://www.clarionproject.org/tag/honor%20killings
I am so uninterested in Islam and Sharia law, you can’t imagine. I didn’t bring it up. Let’s drop that, shall we? Islam is a false religion, yes, along with a great many others.
Yes, thank-you. Islam is Arabic for submission. Submission in Christianity is out of love, submission in Islam is not out of love but out of brute blind obedience to Allah’s will, no questions asked. Allah in Islam is portrayed as a revengeful God that is ready to pound on you if you disobey, very similar to how Bill portrays God. Christianity God is love (I John 4:8) and in Him there is no darkness. Islam is about power. Bill said in the One Accord video that use to be on IBLP that people follow the God they think is most powerful in any given age. Power is a recruitment tool used in Islam. Alfred stated early that if something happen to someone, that it must be God’s will. Islam teaches the same fatalism, that if something happen to someone, then it was Allah’s will, whether it be evil and bad or good. That makes God the author of good and evil and that IS NOT Christian teaching in any sense of the word. The black and white fatalism is more in line with Islam than Christianity. This is more that “being out of step”.
OK, I am going to imagine this came out before my message to “move on”, done with Islam. So, now you have said it. Let’s move on.
Alfred,
Your unwillingness to talk about Sharia Law and it comparison to Bill’s teaching is interesting. Why don’t you ask Bill if he feel his views on authority should be mirror image of Sharia Law but with OT teaching and Law as apposed to Islamic teaching.
Why do the opinions of religions matter to me, Larne? The only thing I care about is the inpired Word of God. I am really surprised that you would care about “Sharia Law”.
You DO know that Mohammed was trained by nuns in the Bible we know before combining pieces of that and other things in his new religion? He was well acquainted with Scripture.
Why do I care? The battle we are fighting now is against Apocalyptic Islam it’s good to know your enemy. You oblivious know something about Islam with the story about the nuns. Islam uses the parts of the Old and New Testement that fits Mohammed world view. Why this is important, is that Bill has done the same, he takes the parts of scripture out of context but part of his skewed world view and calls it “Gothardism Law”. It puts him in the position of the all knowing intermediary between his followers and God. 2 Peter 2 calls it a false prophet.
Have never heard the term “Gothardism Law”, sounds like a slur. Of course, we disagree with your assessment. Trying to smear someone by linking them to a commonly hated foe is old and classic. But . . . not a game we will be playing here.
I guess someone else cares too, and of course you disagree. But your “We Disagree” takes on the air of authority which you are not. You might have immersed yourself in IBYC history you have not live through the scandal, seen Bill’s lies, his covering sin, seen the damage from the abuse and or the relationships he broke. I pray for you because you have been blinded by a sinful man. Bill’s ideal world would be a world of Sharia type Law, maybe not as harsh, but with him at the head directly under God.
Bill is not an authority in the Church and has never been nor is he over anyone, he is not the pastor of a church or head of a family, but only of a corporation. His failing to live up to Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 by his own admission (in Denver) is further proof. The people who worked for him were never meant to be under his spiritual authority only the authority as an employer and as it related to their “employment contract”. But Bill twisted that later to encompass the former and sought full control over everyone’s lives. Something God never intended in the age of Grace. Our relationship is directly with Christ and Him alone! If we leave our earthly fellowship group (church) our relationship with God does not change nor is it diminished, only the fellowship with other believers is changed. The earthly Church has been full of Gothard types who are about control, power and pride. Knowing the evils of Sharia type law is knowing what we should not become. It can be viewed in the same light as the famous quote, “‘Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.’ We don’t want our God given precious Faith thru His Grace to be polluted by the political evils of “organized religion”. For me the only earthly organized religion I plan on serving is when my Lord and Savior returns and rules from Jerusalem, a perfect church rule by the perfect Savior who we will gladly serve!
Spiritual authority doesn’t work that way. A person becomes an authority, the “father” by virtue of the way the Lord allows them to be used. Including those that led us to the Lord.
“I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.” (1 Corinthians 4:14-16)
Spiritual authority comes with those that “watch for our souls”, like a shepherd. There is NOTHING in Scripture that limits that to an official position designated by elders.
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17)
And I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that Bill considered those “working with” him as disciples, not employees. Which is why “employment laws” frustrated him.
“And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught(“discipled”*) many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch” (Acts 14:21)
*μαθητεύω intransitively, to become a pupil; transitively, to disciple, i.e. enrol as scholar: — be disciple, instruct, teach.
We are to disciple everybody, all nations. Bill was big on that. It goes without saying that the student is under the authority of his teacher.
We can no more “leave” our spiritual authorities, i.e. those that have discipled us, than we can leave our family authorities, parents, grandparents, etc. Well, I guess we can leave those that “watch for our souls”, but seemingly not without consequences.
Bill poured himself and God’s word into a great many young people. Efforts that were sought out and received. Those that can objectively point to blessings that the Lord gave because of it. Like we can point to the blessings our parents were the means of providing, imperfect as they may have been. To rebel and revile and speak evil of such . . . it in some respects a crime that will not go without consequences.
Your state:
“Spiritual authority doesn’t work that way. A person becomes an authority, the “father” by virtue of the way the Lord allows them to be used. Including those that led us to the Lord.”
Hypothetically, lets look at what your are saying, did the quirke Sunday school teacher that might have led a theologian like Spurgeon to the Lord had spiritual authority over Spurgeon till he died? How about something more relevant to the modern era Rev. Jim Bakker, Rev Jimmy Swaggart, Rev. Ted Haggard, Rev. Doug Phillips, Bob Jones (BJU), Rev. Bob Moorehead (Bill used to hold his pastors seminars at his church) Rev. Don Crossland (worked for Bill) if you want to get extreme Rev. Jim Jones Guyana fame. Do we follow blindly without testing the spirits, 1 John 4:1-6. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”
How about the sexually or physically abusive parent? Do we allow our children to be cared for by them when they insist? Do we allow our children to ride with an alcoholic grandparent, when they insist? Do we follow the absurd spiritual tangent a “Spiritual Father” is now proclaiming? Do we have to accept the ridiculous “Inner Brain” theology or following the example of a “spiritual father” who counsels by playing footise, touching the face, hair and limbs of young women, if he did it, is it also OK for us? Should we emulate their example, is that what you are saying? Try that with most men’s daughter or wife and see where it gets you!
You further write and include the following verse from the KJV.
““I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.” (1 Corinthians 4:14-16)””
Personally I favor the English Standard Version wording;
“I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you have countless[a] guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me.”
John, an Apostle, a witness to the Living Christ, His Transfiguration, His Miracles, His Death, His Resurrection and Ascension had spiritual children, but throughout the Biblical record there is no mention of inappropriate behavior. Nor is there any mention of unrepentant sin. We assume that while he was still human and still a sinner, John and the other Apostles lived rather “clean” lives. Any accusations against the Apostles had to do with proclaiming the Gospel of Christ and that Christ was the Messiah which was in the face of the Jewish religious leaders. Yes we can have spiritual fathers and physical fathers but that does not mean we are under their authority when they stray. In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus quotes from and confirms Genesis 2:4 by saying;” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” This command is mention four times in scripture, these two examples and again in Mark 10 and Ephesians 5. The wording here is very clear, first to leave his father and mother (authority) and second to “hold fast” to his wife. This union becomes a new unit not under the authority of the former. Through out scripture the example of our relationship with Christ is discussed in the context of human marriage.
When we have unrepentant sin we fall under our Church’s arm of discipline and Matthew 18:15-17 can be applied which could lead to being expelled from that fellowship of believers. If we repent we can be readmitted. The same applies to the Church if they have unrepentant sin or doctrine we also can apply Matthew 18:15-17 to them and because of the laws of the land we physically can’t expel them from their fellowship we can warn other believers of their heresy. We have done that with Bill.
I never look at Bill as my spiritual father, yes I was able to apply some aspects of Christ’s teaching to my life from him but that is true of every pastor I sat under, Christian mentor and Life Group. We learn from others. But in my 66 years I have seen many that played a part in my life fallen away from Christ or gone off on some tangent. I am not under their authority, Paul often talks of those that have fallen away. This is the crux of the matter regarding Bill, he has fallen away because of his unrepentant sin. But back to Bill authority, he was my boss, yes there was a spiritual component to the job that was required to be followed but it was a corporation not a Church! Within a month of my employment I saw the hypocrisy of the ministry. My spiritual leaders were the pastor of my home church and the pastor of the church I attend in Wheaton. My spiritual mentors on staff were men like Rev. Wayne Donaldson who worked in the finance department and he and his wife were the house parents of Heritage Manor, Rev. Melvin Upchurch who ran the black pastor ministry and Rev. Chuck Lynch who ran the pastor’s ministry. These three men exhibited Christ is everything they did. The inconsistencies in the whole Gothard family were appalling.
God gave me a brain to think with, God gave me abilities as only He could, God gave me opportunities that were miraclacous, and everything I have I owe to Him and Him alone. Some of the people God put in my path were amazing. I am grateful for all the people God has put in my path, some good, some not so. As I have said in other post when I started learning to fly my instructor told me “when you stop learning you need to stop flying.” The first time I flew with a bad pilot I asked myself what could I learn from him? The answer was quick in coming; I learned what not to do or how to act. I also learned that this could be applied to my whole life. So I seek to learn what to do and what not to do and sometimes it takes a 2X4.
Unfortunately most of my lessons with Gothard have to do with the latter, what not to do! I stand fast on my statement that Bill was never my spiritual authority or was he ever meant to be. As I look back on all the intricacies of my involvement with the Bill, it is very evident that God in His infinite wisdom, had a plan for me to rescue Ruth from the oppressive leadership and false doctrine of the Institute and to help in her healing. God knew that I could never believe or understand what happen unless I experienced it too. I also believe that He had a plan for what I am doing today. That is to proclaim truth! Part of that truth is that ALL HONOR and GLORY must go to HIM and HIM alone.
Lastly you state:
“Bill poured himself and God’s word into a great many young people. Efforts that were sought out and received. Those that can objectively point to blessings that the Lord gave because of it. Like we can point to the blessings our parents were the means of providing, imperfect as they may have been. To rebel and revile and speak evil of such . . . it in some respects a crime that will not go without consequences.”
I love Matthew 7 and all of it applies to this discussion of Bill and his ministry and his fruit. In verse 15-20 it says “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Bill’s fruits are not the couple million who attended the seminar, it is also the lives and faith of those he is responsible for destroying. In verses 21-23 Jesus gives a chilling warning and tells of the consequences of those that bear bad fruit: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”
In Luke 12:48 Jesus say: “…Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” The whole chapter is worth reading as it too applies here but this verse “to whom much was given, of him much will be required” goes hand in hand with Matthew 7. Bill can only attribute his fall to himself; he is solely responsibility for it. It wasn’t his brother, his father, his Board, the girls or anyone else he has blamed in the past, it is Bill and Bill alone. But the really sad part it was so easy to fix, simple confession of his sin and repentance which is acknowledged with the asking of forgiveness. If he would have done that in 1980 he would have a ministry the whole world would have been clamoring for. Instead he joined the long list of those who sully the name of Christ and turn masses away for the gospel of hope, healing, peace and forgiveness through the unmerited Grace of a loving Savior Jesus Christ who is coming again to judge, to reward and to rule.
(This is written by a sinner who does not deserve any of God’s unmerited Grace, but by His Mercy of His shed Blood I have forgiven for my sins and my only hope is in Him. For that I thank Him every day and rejoice in that hope. I know I am a dirtbag saved by Grace.)
Good point. But this authority is not what a parent provides to a small child, but, again, someone who “watches for our souls”. A servant. I would hope the random preacher preaching the night Spurgeon was saved would keep up with him and pray for him and encourage him. Those “less gifted” can be very effective “watchers” for the famous and gifted.
Working backwards from Scripture, WHO do you think is being referenced here? HOW do you identify them, the ones we are to obey, that watch for our souls?
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17)
I think it is a job that some assume, sometimes because we ask them to, sometimes because they are directed to us, like those that see us saved, counselors.
In any case, the command is quite firm . . . “Submit” ourselves, “Obey”. So . . . whom do you obey and submit yourself to according to this command? It is presumed you know who has the “rule over you”.
No, is it in the many that experienced lasting blessing and fruit from his ministry, as they will testify today. I am one of them.
Larne, I appreciate and respect you. But I would not be hurling out these condemnations and curses, essentially condemning Bill to hell. God is judge, He alone knows his heart and He will judge righteously.
And I take my place alongside you as you said, not deserving of His shed blood . . . dirtbag saved by grace.
Alfred said:
“again, someone who “watches for our souls”. A servant. I would hope the random preacher preaching the night Spurgeon was saved would keep up with him and pray for him and encourage him. Those “less gifted” can be very effective “watchers” for the famous and gifted.”
Being a prayer warrior for someone does not make one an authority over them. I pray for lots of people including you, but I am not an authority over you. You are correct a “less gifted watcher” could be effective, last year when you were trying to get Bill to make a public statement how effective were you? How often have you seen Bill accept an interpretation of scripture other then his own? I specifically remember several discussions with him, one involved wine; Bill flatly stated Jesus did not drink wine because it would defile the Son of God because of decay. (Something to that effect) he said Jesus drank grape juice. In the desert with no ice or refrigeration Jesus drank grape juice???? His first miracle was making wine and the whole issue of new wine in old wine skins, how about the wine offering in the temple, or Paul discussion of having a little wine for you stomach (maybe he meant Inner Brain), then there is not drinking wine to excess. I could go on but I think you got my point. Most people who view themselves as experts or leaders don’t readily accept other’s views.
Alfred said:
“Working backwards from Scripture, WHO do you think is being referenced here? HOW do you identify them, the ones we are to obey, that watch for our souls?”
I will accept my government as my authority as long as it does not violate my Christian values, and then I have to be willing to accept the consequences. That also does not stop me from trying to change the laws. Regarding spiritual authority I am not going to submit to just anyone who claims to have a calling of God. Not being a Catholic I would not submit to the Pope, nor would I call him Your Holiness, that I would reserve for my Savior.
Alfred said:
“In any case, the command is quite firm . . . “Submit” ourselves, “Obey”. So . . . whom do you obey and submit yourself to according to this command? It is presumed you know who has the “rule over you”.
The question here is what I submit to whom? If my government tells me to do something contrary to Scripture I will not do it! As I said Bill was my employer, I submitted to my employment contract by following the corporation’s rules, “I didn’t smoke, drink or go out with girls that did.” But Bill was not my spiritual leader; we disagreed on too many issues that were his personal beliefs or preferences. I saw too many inconsistencies in his leadership and ministry. I was there to serve the Lord not Bill and as I said before I know I was there for a specific reason. Just because he believed Jesus didn’t drink wine did not mean I had to accept his beliefs even if it cost me my job. In your job you have an authority over you. If that authority asks you to fudge the records, or something unethical do you comply?
Alfred said:
“Larne, I appreciate and respect you. But I would not be hurling out these condemnations and curses, essentially condemning Bill to hell. God is judge, He alone knows his heart and He will judge righteously. “
Alfred your loyalty to a friend is admirable whether I agree with what you are doing. I am not Bill’s judge or condemning him to hell, I am only speaking the truth of what I have observed. I buried my hatchet a long time ago but God keeps pulling be back into this mess. There is nothing more I would want to see then for Bill to accept the responsibility for his sin, confess and repent, then ask forgiveness and make restitution (not necessarily financial). But that is not what I see or have experienced, his time is short just by virtue of his age. We have pleaded with him to solve this problem now before it’s too late and he stands before an Almighty God who knows his heart, his intent, his thoughts, his secret actions, his lies, and what he has done that is good. Scripture is clear whether it will be Matthew 7:21-23 or Matthew 25:21 will be up to the perfect God to decide. We are just plain vanilla Christians that have given our time to make a friend aware of the consequences of his actions.
That is so funny. My wife and I were discussing this very topic with him tonight. I told him I disagree with him 🙂
You dodged that one. How will you or anyone else know who has “rule over you”? Based on your choice? Does that make sense? Just asking . . .
Do you see a problem here? Bill has been decried, reamed up and down allegedly for not being under spiritual authority. You have yourself just danced around the issue for yourself, telling all the people you can’t submit to. And Bill is wrong, because he finds it hard as well? Double standard?
Matthew 7 is written to godless sinners who are cast into hell. You applied it to Bill. No, I disagree that you are not acting as Bill’s judge.
My cyber-friend Larne does extremely well on his own and doesn’t need anyone, least of all me, taking up for him. He knows his own heart and the error of your accusations, Alfred. I just want to speak up to say that Larne hasn’t condemned or cursed anyone to hell, and if there’s anything being hurled, it’s the false accusation that he has. How many times have YOU quoted that exact scripture passage at how many others, sir?
And you’re trying to twist Larne’s personal statements about spiritual authority. He mentioned whose authority he wasn’t under, but he never said he wasn’t under any authority; he did even specifically mention spiritual leaders and mentors. So the question of Bill’s spiritual authority stands. The “you’re not right so I don’t have to be right, either” argument wasn’t valid anyway.
One question, though – did you catch his observation of various people he got to know during his time with IBYC? “These three men exhibited Christ is everything they did. The inconsistencies in the whole Gothard family were appalling.” I don’t detect any ulterior motive to exalt some and denigrate others, but just a simple, generalized, honest observation. Speaks volumes, really.
Never in a context of someone I believed to be saved. So, yes, Larne has repeatedly suggested that Bill is going to hell, because Matt. 7, that section, deals only with those kinds of lost people.
That is incorrect. He mentioned picking and choosing those he would submit to, reserving the right to make final decisions as to direction coming from those he did choose, should he feel that they were no longer spiritual. With that kind of independence from any kind of clear, God ordained authority – not Larne picked – It seemed ironic to condemn Bill for, well, exactly the same thing.
The whole Gothard family was used by God to do amazing things, see thousands if not millions delivered from bondage to sin. We got the following note just yesterday, get these all of the time:
We see tears of gratefulness expressed by some, deep emotion.
For Larne or others to declare the entire family evil is simply wrong. We just think it is inappropriate at best. We respect Larne . . . just does not seem worthy of him.
Alfred writes:
“You dodged that one. How will you or anyone else know who has “rule over you”? Based on your choice? Does that make sense? Just asking . . . “
I have not dodged anything; in other discussions you have argued the point of what is the Church in relationship to Matthew 18:17. That applies here too, Billy or the Institute are not an assembly of believers as in a NT Church, it is a para church organization, a corporation. Bill was my employer. Are you under the spiritual authority of your employer? It’s the same thing! I submitted to their rules, but was under the spiritual authority of those I mentioned on staff that I trusted, the church I attended and my home church. My father was also a mentor. We are told to test the spirits and in doing so I submit to those I trust and are true to the word of God as I was taught. I did not see that with Bill. If I recall you come from a Brethren background, are you going to go into a Pentecostal Church and start speaking in tongues or another denomination and accept sprinkling baptism? As I stated I know beyond a shadow of a doubt God called me to work at the Institute, but for a different reason then most. It was to rescue the woman that God had planned for me.
Alfred writes:
“Do you see a problem here? Bill has been decried, reamed up and down allegedly for not being under spiritual authority. You have yourself just danced around the issue for yourself, telling all the people you can’t submit to. And Bill is wrong, because he finds it hard as well? Double standard?”
There is no problem or double standard; I was under authority just not to Bill. Regarding Bill he was not under any authority even his board except when it became an excuse to hide behind them. He used to tell Ruth his board was a rubber stamp. Ask former Board member Dr. Ed Brown, see what he says, Bill could point you in the right direction, he lived in Indianapolis. Ruth and I spent a day with him in our home many years ago, it was quite informative.
Alfred writes:
“Matthew 7 is written to godless sinners who are cast into hell. You applied it to Bill. No, I disagree that you are not acting as Bill’s judge.”
My Bible reading today took me to Revelation 21:8 “ But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and ALL LIERS, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Now Bill has lied to us for years, so how am I to interpreter verse 8 in light of Bill unrepentant spirit? Well I’ll answer that; It does not matter what I think it’s up to God He knows Billy heart and is the final Judge. But that’s why we have worked so heard to get him to repent so we can spend eternity together.
When you look at 1 Peter 1:13-25, is continual unrepentant lying the act of an reborn man who is called to be holy like Christ. Is that the evidence of salvation talked about ins these verses? Again that’s up to God to decide not me.
“13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, 23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24 for
“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
And this word is the good news that was preached to you.”
You do not see the irony in your statement. You declare your independence from authorities you disagree with or feel are unscriptural, then decry Bill for declaring his independence from authorities he disagrees with or feels are unscriptural. Because you simply cannot find a “Board of Directors” in Scripture.
There it is again. Bill is going to hell – no other conclusion is possible. Brother, I love you. The “unpardonable sin” was – mistakenly – ascribing a work of the Holy Spirit to be a work of the devil. Am I right? I can play this game too – you are ascribing the spiritual blessing that has come though Bill to many as the work of a godless man motivated by the devil. Just dangerous ground, even though I am absolutely sure you cannot lose your salvation. You can believe as you wish, but we would ask you to please refrain from this sort of suggestion, here.
Alfred writes:
“Never in a context of someone I believed to be saved. So, yes, Larne has repeatedly suggested that Bill is going to hell, because Matt. 7, that section, deals only with those kinds of lost people.”
BTW thank you Sandy. Quite frankly you could say the same about me, while I have quoted Matthew 7 often I have also quoted Matthew 25:21, including in our failure to repent letter to Bill this past summer. I have continually stated it’s for God to decide not me. I only report what I see and what I know. I truly believe Bill’s unrepentant sin and continual lies puts him in danger of God’s wrath. Matthew 18:1-14. We have made that very clear to him, much the same way if you saw someone about to walk off a cliff. Would you warn them?
Alfred writes:
“That is incorrect. He mentioned picking and choosing those he would submit to, reserving the right to make final decisions as to direction coming from those he did choose, should he feel that they were no longer spiritual. With the kind of independence from any kind of clear, God ordained authority – not Larne picked – It seemed ironic to condemn Bill for, well, exactly the same thing.”
This is where we have a huge theology difference regarding God ordained authority. I live in the United States, in Washington State, in King County, in Kirkland, regarding civil law Jesus say to render to Cesar to what is Cesar so I follow the rules of those God ordained governmental bodies. I was born to Ward and Jane Gabriel so I followed those God ordained authorities till I left home. Regarding my God ordained spiritual authority and do we have a choice. Rev. Al Sharpten and Rev. Jesse Jackson are ordained pastors do you follow their spiritual authority, how about Rev. Jimmy Bakker or Rev. Rick Warren, Rev. Jimmy Swaggart? I’m not saying any of those men are bad, just controversial. You see we do get to pick. “You pick” your fellowship/church. In picking your fellowship/church you are picking your spiritual authority and when you disagree you move on.. Bill was my employer not my spiritual leader, I had a specific skill set they needed and was not there to teach, just a “bus” driver and all it’s related duties. Just like your boss in not your spiritual leader. I was under the authority of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; I was under earthly “spiritual authority” of those I mention above. Bill did not interpret scripture for me or tell me God’s will for my life although he tried in 1977! I was serving Christ in my employment not Billy.
Lets talk about God ordained authorities, and those called by God. Bill was “ordained” by the LaGrange Bible Church, but twice 1980 & 2014 they failed to deal with Bill’s sin. In 1980 the pastor told Dr. Chuck Lynch they were in a building program and it was too controversial to deal with Bill. (I posted the documentation earlier). I heard a sermon by Dr. Swindoll and he talked about the difference between men “called” and men “who just went”. Ordination is not just a spiritual qualification it has a political component as well. I’ve seen it too many times. I remember in the 1973 Advanced Seminar (UCLA) Bill talking about a great many men who chose to be pastors because it was easy work with little accountability. Was Bill really speaking of himself?
If we go back to the very early church there were no theological schools for leaders they were taught by fishermen, sons of carpenters and other common people. The exceptions were Luke, a physician and Paul who was probably trained to a higher Jewish religious standard. In other words anyone can be called by God. For me there is no doubt that God has called me to proclaim truth and to warn the flock. I would say that is the same with the other men I work with. We are called for different reasons based on our God given gifts.
Regarding Bill and his Board, he chose his board, led his board, and picked men he could control. He fed only the information he wanted his board to hear to them, thus deceiving them. Again call Dr. Ed Brown, and remember Dr. Schultz finally resigned in disgust. It is also interesting, on the Wheaton history page, that in the list all Dr. Schultz’s accomplishments there is no mention of his involvement with IBYC, I think that says much about Dr. Schultz experience.
Alfred writes:
“The whole Gothard family was used by God to do amazing things, see thousands if not millions delivered from bondage to sin. We got the following note just yesterday, get these all of the time: For Larne or others to declare the entire family evil is simply wrong. We just think it is inappropriate at best. We respect Larne . . . just does not seem worthy of him.”
Let’s see, we know about the one brother who was the Executive Vice President of the organization and his weaknesses for women. We have his other brother who in 1979 was asked to take over the finance department, but turned it down and in the 80’s was imprisoned in California and his wife divorced him, you might ask Bill why. He is also currently being sued by the State of Florida https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1385613-gothardsuit.html to save you the trouble to look it up, on page two, item 2, under Introduction it says: “The Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering and other illegal activity in Florida from at least 2003 until the present, stealing millions of dollars from people across the county. The Defendants transferred patents between themselves, solicited investors based upon numerous false representations about these patents, the companies, and the Defendants’ products (which to date have produced no sales or revenue), then stole investors’ money, and repeated their scheme. Defendants then created fraudulent documents in order to operate what is known as a “patent assertion entity” operation, collecting millions in illegally obtained monies from those third parties based upon false pretenses and fraudulent documents.”
I could not find if this has gone to trail yet but they are fairly serious public charges by the state of Florida. You might ask Bill if he has ever endorsed his brother’s investments opportunities or if his brother has every used Bill’s name and Bill was aware of it.
No, I never said there were all bad, but the pattern of behavior above along with the complaints against Bill that begs the question why? I have been told by respectable sources that Steve is repentant and while I have not had contact with him I rejoice in that report and forgive him! There was turmoil in the family as with most families even mine. Some of his family I would still call friends even if I haven’t seen them in 30ish years. They might have a different opinion of me, but that’s OK, I know I will see them in heaven and we will have fellowship there again. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
You have thus condemned yourself. His home church, the people he was actually accountable to did in fact address Bill’s sin. They disagreed with you. To this day they appear to hold Bill in loving favor, evidenced by Bob Wood’s interactions with him last year. So, not only do you get to choose your authorities, discarding the ones you disagree with, but now you get to pick Bill’s authorities, as long as their care for him meets your standards. Is there any point where you can actually let God do His job within the framework he set up?
That also appeared to be a blatant political attack by an attorney general needing to look tough. Now I only have one side of the story, but there is a reasonable possibility – I am being given certainty – that this will conclude far differently than she desired. On the matter of jail and divorce, I will ask Bill.
And . . . I know the two sisters, dear women.
Samuel Wesley, father to John and Charles, spent time in debtors prison. I know he cut off conjugal relations with his wife for a time over some political disagreement – someone else here is claiming she left him for a time over some disagreement. Horrible family, yes? I thank God that He works through people with past problems. I did not put words in your mouth, I think I have represented you fairly well. I see maturity in you from experience that you know that as we condemn others, the Lord begins to examine us in the very issues we judge others on, evidenced by your willingness to humble yourself as we go. But, again, I cannot speak for the Lord, but your attitude really grieves me.
When you talk to Bill don’t forget to ask him:
“You might ask Bill if he has ever endorsed his brother’s investments opportunities or if his brother has every used Bill’s name and Bill was aware of it.”
I will.
You write:
“You have thus condemned yourself.”
So what have I condemned myself to? Are you saying I am condemned myself to hell for not being under Bill’s spiritual authority? I’m confused when I give a warning from Matthew 7 and you say I am suggesting Bill is condemned to hell and it is not for me to judge which I have agreed with. Yet you seem to be condemning me to hell for saying I was not under his spiritual authority even though I admit being under others spirituality authority. What is so special about Bill that I need to be under his spiritual authority and by not doing so am condemned? Personally if I were you or Bill I would be more concerned with 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, “and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” The context of the chapter is speaking of the man of lawlessness/sin and these verses address his followers.
More on the rest of the comments later. Last time I checked Bill does not walk on water, oh wait I saw him waterski one time, mind you he was righteously dress in a collared shirt and slacks, does that count?
So we are clear, one of the definitions of “Condemned” means: “sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially DEATH”, it can also be used in a lesser degree but based on previous comments this seem to be the one you are using.
Ok, bad choice of words. You have proven yourself unjust, by first condemning Bill for not being under Scriptural authority, then acknowledging that he was in fact under Scriptural authority, but suggesting that it doesn’t count because that authority exonerated him. Nobody is condemning you to hell.
“So what have I condemned myself to?”
Alfred writes:
Ok, bad choice of words. You have proven yourself unjust, by first condemning Bill for not being under Scriptural authority, then acknowledging that he was in fact under Scriptural authority, but suggesting that it doesn’t count because that authority exonerated him. Nobody is condemning you to hell.
“Ok, bad choice of words. You have proven yourself unjust”
Yes very bad choice of words but since I know I am proclaiming truth it doesn’t matter and you are forgiven even though you didn’t ask.
Just how have I proven myself unjust? I don’t follow your logic. I have not condemned Bill, that your words again which you keep putting words in my mouth. I have stated Bill was not under the “Authority” of his Board.
To quote an earlier post:
“Regarding Bill he was not under “any authority” even his board except when it became an excuse to hide behind them. He used to tell Ruth his board was a rubber stamp. Ask former Board member Dr. Ed Brown, see what he says, Bill could point you in the right direction, he lived in Indianapolis. Ruth and I spent a day with him in our home many years ago, it was quite informative.”
In another post I stated:
“Regarding Bill and his Board, he chose his board, led his board, and picked men he could control. He fed only the information he wanted his board to hear to them, thus deceiving them. Again call Dr. Ed Brown, and remember Dr. Schultz finally resigned in disgust. It is also interesting, on the Wheaton history page, that in the list all Dr. Schultz’s accomplishments there is no mention of his involvement with IBYC, I think that says much about Dr. Schultz experience.”
I did not mention “Spiritual Authority” regarding Bill and the Board, just that he was not under “any authority”. I will agree to accept your wording. You have stated else ware, Boards are not mentioned in scripture, but as you know they are required by ‘Caesar’ so Bill had to conform to Illinois State law. And since IBYC/IBLP was not a church, I presume Bill would state, a Spiritual Elder Board would not be required. That would also be a good choice of not having an elder board, especially since there is at least one member on the corporate board of IBLP who would not qualify based on Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. When we brought this up to Bill in Denver he stated, “but the man gives $1,000 a day to missions. I must have missed that exemption in the Bible. All that to say Bill had a corporate Board not a “spiritual elder board” that he was under spiritual authority to. We know that Bill will never select someone who was unqualified based on scripture that he was accountable to.
So we determined only a corporate board was required which Bill was not accountable to. Since he did not have a spiritual elder Board and was not accountable to corporate board for spiritual matters, just who was he accountable to? How do I know he was not accountable to the board, just look at the Board minutes from 1980. Tell me where you find the names of all the funds approved and checks written to the departing staff whether by dismissal or resignation. There were a few but not all, Bill signed checks without the Board’s approval. It’s not in the board records. Bill, Steve and Mr. Gothard, Sr. ran the show and did what they wanted. Again have you checked with Dr. Brown, Ed Martin, Mike Laramie or Gary about my questions.
And I have stated that a Board of Directors is not a Scriptural authority construct . . . other than as a fulfilment of a government mandate. A church authority like Lagrange Bible Church, IS a scriptural construct. The church that ordained him. And he was definitely under their authority.
He was accountable to those that watched for his soul in his local church. They stepped up then in that role . . . and to some extent seemed to have stepped up again here recently. What am I missing? What more do you see that Scripture requires?
Have you heard back from Bill on my question yet?
When you talk to Bill don’t forget to ask him:
“You might ask Bill if he has ever endorsed his brother’s investments opportunities or if his brother has every used Bill’s name and Bill was aware of it.”
On the investments, Bill said that his contacts were used but not by his permission let alone aware. In fact he said that when he heard of it he doubled back to urge his contacts to not participate.
One more question to ask Bill about this brother.
Did Bill ever hold “a shortened live version of the Basic Seminar” at his brother’s church, in I believe Naples, FL or some place close by and then introduce his brother to the attendees? (So there is no confusion in this word war, “a shortened live version of the Basic Seminar” might need to be expanded slightly but Bill would know what to call it) The second part of the question did his brother coordinate either the seminar or Bill being present. Just wondering.
Am forwarding this to Bill as we speak.
Since you know nothing about Sharia Law, my suggestion is that you read up on it before you make your over the top comments. I had an older brother that lived in Saudi Arabia for a year. His first hand account of what life is like for women and children under Sharia law which includes all the fact that women are blamed for being raped, 9 year old girls being forced to marry and all the rest. Bill’s views and attitudes line up with Islamic teaching NOT Christian teaching. If you don’t like that, then I would suggest reading any of Robert Spencer’s books. Bill is not just “out of step” he is out of Christian teaching and understand and compassion.
And I am not interested in continuing the attempted comparison (Sharia). So let’s move on.
Men love to quote that verse in Ephesians 5:22-24 but when taken into context of the whole chapter regard husbands and wives especially 25-33 it takes on a whole need meaning or understanding of the word submission. One of example, modeling, caring, supporting and loving. Not one of domineering or overbearing.
“25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
If you look at verses 15-21 it sets the example of how we all should act reinforcing the meaning of submission. So this also applies to Christian leaders and how they treat their followers, but maybe that is a bad example because we are to be followers of Jesus not man. In previous post you have condoned Bill’s overbearing nature with other Christian leaders but this scripture when taken in context condemns those action by Bill and others. There is no excuse for that behavior because it does not model Christ and is a produce to satan’s influence.
“15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Moderator, you seem to fail to be becoming wiser than your teacher, Bill, in his teaching that a person has Bible-ordained obligation to scream at some point during a sexual assault. Because the law clearly does not mandate this, nor has God ever reinforced such an interpretation as this which the IBLP seminar teaches. God’s covenants with man includes the no-fornication mandate that stretches from Genesis 2:24 all the way to now (whole NT as reference).
The Genesis 19 account occurred after the Noahic Covenant had been instated. Genesis 6:1,2,3 makes clear whom this covenant would NOT apply to in it’s description of those being eliminated and for what reason. It then describes with whom and for what purpose the Noahic Covenant was made. And it was inclusive of all mankind (Genesis 8:20 through 9:19). The Noahic Covenant strictly applied to the upholding of the principle spelled out in Romans 7:1,2,3 in the Genesis 9:6 requirement of eye-for-eye/tooth-for-tooth for the shedding of human blood described in Gen. 6:11,12,13. This, in the same context as Gen. 6:1,2,3 that comes right before it, definitely includes sexual perversion as God sees it: Gen. 6:5,6,7.
With the Genesis 19 account occurring under the Noahic Covenant which applied to all mankind, one would be tempted to think of Lot’s action the same as you do, Moderator. Especially since both his virgin daughters were betrothed (Genesis 19:12,13). Except that, according to God, it was not sexual sin for Lot to fail to resist a sexual assault even after God’s plan to rescue him and his whole family was underway. His effectively handing over his daughters would have ruined this plan’s whole success. In remembering Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt for defying the plan, thus nullifying it in the case of this one family member of his, one would think God took it seriously when human failing foiled His rescue. God could have done the same to Lot when two of his family members were nearly destroyed by his decision. But Lot was not guilty for how he dealt with him and his family being assaulted.
Same with the Levite in Judges 19 and 20. Even though she was his concubine, and had broken her marriage vow and gone out from under this God-ordained authority, this couple was still avenged of the assault on them. And the only reason they were even in Gibeah was because of this sin that was not that of their attackers. God ordered punishment for the attackers, and not the victim, even though all parties were under Abrahamic & Mosaic Covenants in all the fine points of Dueteronomy 22:19,20 & 22:23 through 29.
No failure on the part of a victim lies in any need to resist a sexual assault. Any resistance has to happen to keep another’s will from surrounding one’s own in the first place. Lot’s wife was punished because she disobeyed God Who had gotten her out of where they had been surrounded. Any sin on the part of the victim is in being in a place where their will is overpowered by another who may well then use that power to sexually assault. Or, as in the case of Lot’s wife, wanting to go back after being rescued. And none of this means that the assaulter is not to be confronted so as to surrender either their habit of or their means of surrounding.
I went to a place where MY house was soon surrounded when I first submitted to IBLP seminar heresy. The real sin would be in looking back on it if I wasn’t yet free & clear of it’s suffocation of my will with all that it wills that is contrary to God’s will as described in His Word.
I confess to not following all of this.
The victim (concubine) was dead. I agree that no overt punishment was given to the Levite for his lies – but if he came in for counseling, you know, “Why did God allow my concubine to die?”, what would you tell him?
I would tell him that his lack of love for her and pushing her out the door to be raped which resulted in her death is what killed her. It has nothing to do with God. God does not motivate people to lie, people to rape others, to kill others, and to push their spouses out the door for all of the above. Nor does God motive husbands to disrespect her body by cutting it up to be passed around in order to cause uproar. That was a direct violation on top of all the others of Mosaic Law which commanded bodies to be immediately buried.
Agreed, Rob. Some have been laboring to make the Levite a victim, not part of the problem
By the “the victim”, I certainly did not mean the dead concubine could be punished. As the passage makes clear, the Levite was also a victim of sexual assault, as was Lot in Genesis 19. Both their respective decisions would likely have been punished if they each had not been victims of sexual assault but had nonetheless offered their family members for their same intended purpose to some other, non-assaultive, party.
If I were counseling the Levite I would give him grief counseling, including counseling for “survivor’s guilt.” I would not pretend to offer answers as to why she was dead other than the fall of man and people’s rejection of God’s efforts to help us walk with Him that makes these same people godless and evil. And I would make sure he knew that offering up his concubine is not classified as godless & evil, even according to God’s covenants or His law. Granted, it would have been extremely Christlike for either him or Lot to offer themselves under the pressure to do so, but it wasn’t any fail or any sin that they appeased their assaulters in fear. Again, God is not unjust. When “might has made right”, it is because might has tipped the scales so far it it’s favor that resistance simply is not an option; even when might is wielding evil against a person. Tamar did not cry out, either; we all know that Bill holds her guilty whereas God says nothing against her for this.
The Mosaic Law & these precedents set by God’s judgement (& lack of it) indicate God is omniscient regarding sexual assault by a greater party against a lessor party. Do you know of any Scriptures that command role-reversal the instant that sexual perversion is faced by a subordinate? Or do you know of any historical precedents of Him NOT acknowledging the might-makes-right politics of such assault? Because the passages I’ve referenced clearly do not hold the victim responsible to have morally baby-sat their assaulter.
“And I would make sure he knew that offering up his concubine is not classified as godless & evil”
This is the part I am missing. Turning your loved one over to the horror of sexual battery that kills her is OK as long as it keeps you from abuse? How do you justify this? Simple terms
(1) There are two parties (this same phrasing is synonymous with two people, also). One of the parties is stronger and one of these is weaker.
(2) The stronger person has, by extending their resources, cut of the weaker from anyone & anything outside of these encircled resources.
(3) The stronger party says &/or does something sexually perverted to the weaker party.
(4) With the weaker party thus compliant, the stronger goes ahead & monopolizes on their acquired pawn, the meeting of their demands exploited by themself for themself.
(5) After the stronger tires of this, the weaker is discarded. The weaker party is thus freed to get away to another person or people to whom they make their complaint regarding what happened.
(6) God’s Word reveals their should be a unified effort to bring the stronger party to account for the perversion. Confrontation fulfills God’s will of this.
(7) God’s Word reveals throughout this process with no mention whatsoever of any judgement against the weaker party.
Call it what you want, but a point made in these Scriptures is: A dominance-wielding perv is guilty for this perversion & the victim(s) subject to it is/are not.
The missing component in all of this is God-ordained authority to rectify the situation with the strong preying on the weak. That evens the playing field and that is precisely the point being made. The victim must avail themselves of that authority, first by crying out to God who has angels dedicated to exactly that purpose, second to run to the family, church, and government authorities – not necessarily in that order – to get help. It is my conviction that a great many victims will stop being victims at the moment that declare their authority and power in Jesus Christ and confront evil. That is what God commands us to do with spiritual evil – the devil and his minions – and it applies to the lesser physical lackeys as well.
“The victim must avail themselves of that authority, first by crying out to God who has angels dedicated to exactly that purpose, second to run to the family, church, and government authorities”.
This is an opinion. I, for one, personally know someone who was nearly suffocated at 5 years of age by her assaulter for screaming out exactly as this “1st” mandate of yours requires. If it were supported by Scripture I would accept it, regardless of this fact; but it is not. How do you account for 2 Peter 2:7 if Lot was supposedly so evil that he exercised his own will to cut a deal with his assaulters instead of to cry out to God?
“How do you account for 2 Peter 2:7 if Lot was supposedly so evil”
I am really not getting this. “What are you in therapy for?” “My Dad, Lot, handed me over to a bunch of perverts who abused me and almost killed me , just to save himself from humiliation.” Honestly, are the stories of other victims with lifelong scaring from sexual abuse any worse than this.
2 Peter 2:7 is not a commentary on sinless perfection, right? Lot did some stupid things, and this was one of them.
We only know about Lot what the Bible says about Lot. And, honestly, getting 2 daughters raised so as to be betrothed as virgins & showing hospitality to strangers is hardly righteousness enough to off-set the being “as guilty as (his daughter’s) attackers” IBLP seminar-condemnation of a person.
Then, as another commenter pointed out way higher up in this thread, Christ was wrong in what He said (& did) that He explained to Pilate in John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over……” Also, He would have been wrong to not have called the 12 legions of angels (Matt.26:51,52,53) to come & avenge Him of His assaulters/batterers. After all, sin is sin. He implored His heavenly Father to forgive them for it “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” HE knew what they were doing & Who He Is that they were doing it to. He was the only human on earth Who really knew it. According to you, allowing people to sin against you, damaging the temple of the Holy Spirit, is sin on the part of the one not crying out to God. Yet Jesus did not cry out to God until He died, at least, not for rescue. His “not My will but Thine be done” stood all through the passion so as to stay 70,000+ angels from doing what they do best.
But he did not sin.
Hebrews 12:3,4 “For consider Him Who has endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin.”
Christ’s shedding of blood in HIS striving against sin was by NOT resisting this sin of sinners shedding His blood. The ultimate resistance to sin was in this propitiation. He knew this beforehand: John 18:32 and 12:32, Matt. 20:19 and 26:2, Mark 10:33 and Luke 18:32. It is true that pretty much every other assault victim besides Jesus do not know of it beforehand and are not fulfilling any mission for God in undergoing abuse. There was/is no other human mission for propitiation. And we are the temples of the Holy Spirit. However, the statement: “If a [ANY & EVERY] woman does not cry out when she’s raped she’s as guilty as her attacker” is not only unlawful (OT law), it pits her as a rapist; there is much in the Bible that refutes one becoming guilty of rape committed by anyone else. Christ is not as guilty as His murderers, is He? Consider what His body underwent without His resistance (and if He wasn’t a temple of the Holy Spirit, who ever can be?!?)? Christ’s temple was destroyed by abuse. That’s how He came to be raised. 1 Cor. 15:12,13 “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised”. So………. if there is no destruction of God’s temple in the first place without the subject every bit as guilty of it unless they cry out for God to rescue them from their their assaulting destroyer(s)……….. then the same “you say there is no” case scenario applies to Jesus in this, as well.
That is almost funny. They were not betrothed, they were MARRIED. And were still virgins. This is Sodom, remember?
Good to know your Bible: “41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. 43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22)
If you are willing to make that connection, then you have also lost your complaint. For the abuse now becomes the “fellowship of the sufferings of Christ”. Paul experienced that, it was God’s will . . . and so will we. In this case, we are most definitely not “victims” any more than Jesus was: “10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” (Phil. 3)
So…… you’re saying that 12 legions of angels were hovering over the Northwoods? Because, if so, it’s a real pity that IBLP had taught people the opposite of Psalm 118:8 “It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.” But why would 118:8 start to be regarded now by IBLP when they’ve operated for the past 35+ years in defiance of both it & Psalm 62:10:
“Do not trust in oppression and do not vainly hope in robbery [robbery is making captive to coerce something from this captive]; if riches increase, do not set your heart upon them.”
The point is that nobody said anything, not while it was happening, not afterwards, not in repeated events following. That is wrong. It is our responsibility to oppose evil, openly, vigorously, because we fear God and not man.
Not quite so Alfred, again below is part of the document regarding Bill’s knowledge of immorality I posted previously. The various women are given a numbers for privacy and Bill’s brother is #2. The witness are listed along with the time line. Bill’s denial does not change the truth. Check it out yourself, call Ed, Mike and Gary. Remember in the “mouth of two or three witnesses.”
2. Ed Martin in meetings with Bill Gothard in January 1975, clearly stated to Bill “there was
fornication” involved. Ed had details of sexual immorality between one girl and Bill’s brother. He
was made aware of this information by Gary Smalley who had learned it from his wife. She had
met with the staff girl involved who admitted to the failure.
3. Excerpted from the notes taken in Ed Martin’s and Mike Laramie’s meeting with Bill Gothard
May 18, 1980:
Question from Ed to Bill: “Did you have any knowledge of fornication by #2 during the past four
years?” Bill: “#3, “Yes,” August 1979…#10, question…#7, “Yes,” middle of April 1980.
Ed: “Bill, there were four girls involved morally before with #2 and I told you that one went all
the way.” Bill, “I did not know that.” Ed; “Bill, you are lying! You know I told you four years
ago. I can’t believe you would lie like this.” Bill: “#10 was the one who told me she went all the
way not #7.” (Ed had been thinking it was #7 who went “all the way”)
4. After meeting with Ed M, Bill Gothard met with #10 and asked her if she had “gone all the way”
physically with his brother? She responded in the affirmative, “Didn’t #2 tell you about it?”
5. 1969, #3 first seminar at Trinity College, after 3 years of relationship with brother #2, riding
home on Interstate 295 with Bill, #3 told Bill “#2 and I are failing in the moral area of dating.”
6. Feb. 19, 1976, SG told #3 that Bill was told about their failures (which occurred in Mr. and Mrs.
Gothard’s retreat bedroom). #3 then went and found Bill and said to him, “I know #2 told you
about us. I am not worthy to work on the staff. Should I resign?”
….
8. Feb. 1975. Bill Gothard visit with #14 about incidents of immorality.
9. Feb. 1975. Bill Gothard visit with #7 about incidents of immorality
10. Feb. 1976. Bill’s interview of #10
When Bill asked her about any immorality with his brother, Bill added, “It would be tragic if
something like that happened again.”
Larne: I will bring this up with Bill. Prior to that:
Point 2: Was this the incident where Bill and his father met with the woman and she denied it involved fornication?
Point 3: Not clear to me, when did #10 speak to Bill? The key here is what Bill knew before sending women to Northwoods.
Point 4: That sort of confirms that Bill’s memory was spotty, right?
Point 5: How would you interpret that, if you were Bill?
Point 6: Why bring things like that up? A date, a kiss would be things worth resigning over back in the day.
Points 8-10: Once again did the discussions involve sex, or code words, like “defrauding”?
“you say there is no” failure to cry out to God all through-out an assault without the “victim” being as guilty as their assaulter or attacker. There IS a case of this without that guilt, though, so your statement is every bit as untrue as “there is no resurrection from the dead”. Same person, even; it’s Jesus also that proves your/IBLP’s statement to be untrue. He did not cry out to God at all, as you/Bill specify that one must, because the Father had told Him that His will was different from Jesus’ before the assault even started. So, you are wrong to “say there is no”. As with the resurrection, He is a most prominent exception.
1 Cor. 15:12,13 is applicable logic that will endure forever as the Word never fails. If there is a true case scenario, then it’s illogical to make a blanket statement contrary to that; doing so denies that particular case. It makes me wonder…….. do you believe Christ propitiated for sin?!?!?
He willingly did, yet He will judge every single person, since it’s the sin of every one of us that put Him to death. Only those of us who’ve repented & believe in Him will not be damned. We are culpable for being why he was put to death; He is completely sinless in spite of no “crying out” at this, at any point, as it was happening. We are not God, so our only chance to instate justice & righteousness is here on earth; God ordered Israel & the Levite to do so. We are to have dominion over all the earth & subdue it, not to let crimes go unpunished. Where there’s no accountability for crimes, we are to bring accountability; especially if the unaccountable names the name of Christ.
Again, He most definitely cried out as it was developing.
We have found a point of furious agreement. Maybe we have pounded the other into the ground? I think we are getting nowhere.
What Bible do you even read?!?!?
“He oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgement He was taken away………” Isaiah 53:7, 8(a)
It’s pretty clear, in viewing the present-day illuminations of recent oppression, whom it is who is more identifiable with Jesus & who is more identifiable with those mocking Him for not saving Himself (Mark 15:31,32) even though He was able. Also, even as repetition of sin apparently affected the plaintiff’s original overlooking of transgressions against them each individually, so also is the case with Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:26 through verse 31). A continuing habit of sin impacts a condition of “forgiven” once-and-for-all afforded to sinners by Jesus’ silence in accepting abuse. He, as omniscient, knew who would be grateful for this versus whom it is who tramples this forgiveness He has granted underfoot. The plaintiffs, not being omniscient, could not have known that overlooking of transgression was no longer an option due to their being a habit (unknown to them) of trampling underfoot. If knowing a person affects God’s having declared that person “righteous” by the blood of the covenant- and it does- then knowledge of sin should affect our decisions to overlook-versus-confront, as well. The plaintiffs should not have to play dumb, either, about the habitual trampling underfoot that they only now have come to know as being habitual.
My mind registers your words but remains largely “unfruitful” :-). As to the Bible, I read, as I quoted previously, Jesus most emphatically crying out to His “Abba Father” in the garden that the suffering be removed. Nothing you say or quote changes that. He also cried out on the cross, lastly, so all knew where his hope, as a man now, lay.
But I sense you making much more of the “cry” than I am. It is more of a resistance based on trust in the Lord and the ability to get past the fear, the threats, the unknowns that a human attacker provides, especially one you know.
And my comment about knowing your Bible in the last post sounded condescending. Appologies.
That is true. The summary of “crying out” you have provided is, in fact, exactly what I refer to. Being “scared spit-less”- your mouth goes dry, your jaw flaps, you’re holding your breath instead of breathing- can also cause silence as a technical failure.
And, I DID know my Bible- that, for the record, Jesus cried out BEFORE He was assaulted, & right before he expired; not during His murder. It’s at an assault/attack that IBLP seminar demands it. So, any humor-by-sarcasm on your Moderator part had no target to hit.
If you’re going to try to relate to another human being, please try to relate to the girls along with Bill. Honestly, there’s a lot more inviting compassion in what they went through than anything Bill might now be dealing with. At least he’s not having to deal with any problem-person alone. By himself. With just himself with one other who carries much, much, much more clout than himself. Unless this were to happen, the tables haven’t really been turned, won’t ever really be turned.
We most definitely do relate. Among our number are those that were “the girl” working closely with Bill, counseling for years, and experiencing his quirks. There is some anger at what is seen as misrepresentation of his actions and motives, let alone lies.
If you talk about what went on with Steve Gothard or Jim Voller, we have considerable grief, even anger, that this was permitted to happen. We sympathize with those women intently. As well as any girl violated, especially by family members in “good” homes. Have some track record in some of our extended families – it has touched us.
There is also violation, other than what can/should be verified by a physician; molestation is nonetheless a violation that cuts to the very core of the soul and spirit of the one oppressed by it. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if any alleged perv got others to join in with him in calling allegations “lies” in lieu of any medical proof. And I hope that, in the extended families of whomever of all of you that wrong touching has been “permitted to happen”, that there is no fixing of blame on those to whom it happened. Negligence, maybe, on the part of those who let those under their charge be cornered by the perv. But not judgement of the perv’s subject who was already dominated by the perv. Judgement is just reason-to-fear added upon reason-to-fear in what it does to the oppressed. Fearing him as a man more than anyone else- including God- is the goal for which a pervert impresses on his target that he himself is larger-than-life. Or at the very least, that he is God to them. This dominance manipulates the perv’s own God-complex into it’s desired effect on the victim’s perception. The perv usually does this before he ever does anything sexually perverted. The whole process, from start to finish, is of Satan.
Dear Lindsey77,
Four days after the fact, I just noticed your gracious post of December 22. That is a nice gift for the Second Day of Christmas.
Peace and Love,
DSK, Sr.