Umbrellas of Authority: Protection from a Hideous Reign

In “Questions” a poster called “Incredulous” expressed her grief with the “Umbrella of Authority” teaching that Bill is well known for.  The “umbrella” concept is an analogy for the way that he believes God’s authority functions, fundamentally to protect us from forces or temptation greater than we can bear.  And we must be so clear that such temptations exist . . . if we do not avail ourselves of the “way to escape”, we will fall:

“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 Corinthians 10:13)

The “reign” we are protected from is that of the “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2)  God appointed authorities protect us from his jurisdiction and authority.  Ground zero is seen in this verse:

 “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”  (1 Samuel 15:23)

Witchcraft, as Bill defines it, is “deliberately opening yourself to the control of the devil”.  Apparently rebellion does exactly that . . . allowing his “reign” come right into my heart.

If the authority that functions as the “umbrella” gets a tear in it – from personal compromise – or the one under the authority umbrella moves out from underneath, then forces both moral but primarily infernal – Satan and his minions – have a far greater freedom and effectiveness in getting that previously protected one into sin.

Trying to pick the conversation up, her comments:

“Gothard’s gospel is as I summarized above:  It’s fascism for implementation by anyone wanting to take the reigns in ruling over any social structure. If Gothard were intellectually honest, he would be shaking the hand of the closet-Gothardite while slapping him on the back; after all, this guy was merely following what is taught in the Basic. Especially since this closet-Gothardite lost his job for his Umbrella-implementing (& subsequent lying about this to his elder board). Seems like Gothard shouldn’t be distanced from such a one who took one for the team (team Umbrella).“

My reply:

“So, here are some God quotes:

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands . . . For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands” (1 Peter 3:1, 5)

“Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.” (Eph. 6:1)

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves” (Heb. 13:17)

Are these statements, in your mind, subjugation to fascism? If not, why not?”

Her reply:

“No, these Word-of-God quotations are not fascism. Neither is the Hebrews verse you quoted about reverencing earthly fathers “chastising us unto their own pleasure” which is, in this verse, contrasted with God’s way of it being for our good. (The contrast here is that God’s way is for the child’s good VERSUS that of earthly fathers). Yet, God says to reverence earthly fathers even in light of this contrast. But:

(A) He doesn’t say to grovel before them on one’s hands & knees, either as a result of being struck down or,- as Gothard instructs-, in going back to them as an adult to beg for direction for one’s life.

(B) He doesn’t say that an authority structure itself begs any submission as the final rule. He doesn’t even say that all COVENANT relationships do, as a FINAL rule, only as the rule: husband/wife, parent/child. But Gothard, in his saying that those in authority positions inherently deserve the submission reserved for covenant relationships, has challenged Scripture in inventing a marketable “hidden wisdom” of his own. The cautions against associating oneself with religious leaders “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:14, as well as Jesus’ command to do what these say but taking care to never imitate what they do (as opposed to “Imitate my faith”, & “Imitate their faith” which is what God instructs us to do concerning Paul & other legitimate pastors), as well as the “Do not be unequally yoked” admonition all strongly suggest that having a non-covenant authority does not entail any need for subjugation. Nor does it entail going all out to make such a one successful. Rather, God says to watch & see which church leader is successful & then imitate their faith so as to be successful in the faith ONESELF. Big difference.

(C) He never says that making an appeal is the way to go, although does provide ample examples in Scripture of godly subordinates doing so. One thing about making such appeal: it’s only the reasonable & just leaders who would adjust their M.O. in accomodating one. Thus, it’s those who are good to “be under” in the first place who would make favorable arrangements for their subordinates. Whereas appeals are not even heard by tyrants. People with Borderline Personality Disorder, for example, have their self-worth in imagining that everyone in their life thinks that everything they do is perfect. So, making an appeal to an authority with this disorder means only one thing to them: the “I do everything perfectly” “status quo” is being challenged by the one making the appeal. Because making a suggestion presumes upon there being room for improvement and, since people with this type of disorder depend on others’ opinion being that they hover above the threshold of perfection, it is therefore “a personal attack” to make an appeal. A “personal attack” on an authority equals rebellion that must be punished. As Gothard’s Umbrella reinforces. So, if you’re “under” a tyrant, you’re not only never going to be heard regarding a particular situation. But, also, the overall experience of being under such a one is that of living in bondage to a person who is untrustworthy due to their mental imbalance. In family relationships there is little to be done about this until one reaches adulthood & can break free to make one’s own decisions (although this also is contrary to what Gothard teaches). There is no reason to extend such a relationship, or to enter into one. And care needs to be taken; like felons & guns, it’s always these types who try to illegally (illegitimately) obtain what others lawfully (by covenant) gain.“

So this is a great point to launch this separate topic thread.

125 Comments

  1. Tyler Tyler
    May 29, 2016    

    Does Gothard speak about what to do when your umbrella is not serving to protect you, but is actively harming you? Say, a physically abusive parent?

    • Moderator Moderator
      May 29, 2016    

      Does Gothard speak about what to do when your umbrella is not serving to protect you, but is actively harming you? Say, a physically abusive parent?

      Scripture is full of examples of authorities that are not operating the way God intended. Bill has a number of recommendations for that situation, including making a wise appeal (finding out what the authority really wants and figuring out how to meet that need in some other way, “win-win”), appealing to higher authorities . . . and basic preparation to suffer unjustly, like Jesus did. There are clearly also situations when one has to flee, hide . . . like God directed Joseph when confronted with an evil Herod who wished to kill Jesus, or like Amram and Jochabed, when dealing with an evil Pharaoh who, again, wished to kill baby boys.

      • Tyler Tyler
        May 29, 2016    

        Okay, thanks.

      • Tyler Tyler
        May 31, 2016    

        “The ‘umbrella’ concept is an analogy for the way that he believes God’s authority functions, fundamentally to protect us from forces or temptation greater than we can bear. And we must be so clear that such temptations exist . . . if we do not avail ourselves of the “way to escape”, we will fall:

        “‘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 Corinthians 10:13)”

        Is there a text that identifies the “way of escape” as your umbrella of authority? Because it appears that Gothard (or I guess you here :) make the leap of saying:

        1.) There are temptations too great to be handled on our own.
        2.) There will be a way of escape.

        But then it appears you take those two statements and come to the conclusion that:

        3.) The way of escape is through a shielding by our authorities.

        The first two points do not necessarily lead to the third. So can you provide either some Biblical references or some backing to your/Gothard’s claim that our authorities are that way of escape?

        I just wanted to also say thank you for running another site where conversation and discussion regarding this stuff is welcome. It’s been very good to me to see both sides of the logic and use of the Bible from both sides… thank you! I’ve learned a lot.

        So I guess I’m asking for more evidence that the

        • Moderator Moderator
          May 31, 2016    

          But then it appears you take those two statements and come to the conclusion that:

          3.) The way of escape is through a shielding by our authorities.

          My point is that many people – Christians – would today freely admit that they fell because they were faced with temptations that overwhelmed them. Scripture denies that possibiliity. We have the ability in any situation to stand without the need for sinless perfection . . . as long as we exercise the “way to escape” God has for us. Since rebellion is like witchcraft, and stubborness is like reverencing idols, it is a simple step to conclude that a massive “way to escape” is to get back under authority that we are stubbornly rebelling against. There are many “ways to escape”, including, like Joseph, putting on our “running shoes”. This is just one, but one much overlooked.

          • Tyler Tyler
            May 31, 2016    

            I feel like this is working off of a presupposition though that your authority is, in fact, telling you to do right. A godly authority, a just authority, or something, and that to avoid the temptation, get back under them. Certainly, there are those cases where staying under your parents as a teenager (as I am) protects me from certain temptations. But without differentiating between God-honoring authorities we are to obey (Eph. 6:1-2) and worldly authorities that when they come into conflict with God we are to defy (Acts 5:29), the statement certainly implies that regardless of your authorities or what they’re telling you, get back under them!

            That was the reason for my previous question… the way Gothard quoted it, it appeared that if you are out from under your authorities (without specifying whether you fled abuse, ran from temptation within the home, or are truly in rebellion), you’re automatically wrong and vulnerable to temptation… when in some cases it is by getting out of a tempting situation in regard to authorities that can be our means of escape from temptation. I would feel better about Gothard’s statement if he at least addressed the other alternative that your authority may not be acting to protect you from temptation but might actually be tempting you.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 1, 2016    

            I feel like this is working off of a presupposition though that your authority is, in fact, telling you to do right

            Not true. God works through all authorities He has set up, even against their knowledge and will. Which, of course, does not mean every intent of theirs is right nor does it mean that we are to obey unrighteous decrees. But it does speak to our reverence towards them.

            Case 1:

            “In those days, while Mordecai sat in the king’s gate, two of the king’s chamberlains, Bigthan and Teresh, of those which kept the door, were wroth, and sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus. And the thing was known to Mordecai, who told it unto Esther the queen; and Esther certified the king thereof in Mordecai’s name.” (Esther 2:21-22)

            Mordecai reverenced his authority, King Ahasuerus, who was by all historical records, one of the most vile, churlish rulers the world has known (THAT is the Persian king in the brutal movie “300”). It is small wonder that smart people wanted to assassinate him. Mordecai believed that God knew how to work through evil rulers and trusted in Him . . . and, Oh, how wise he was.

            Case 2:

            “And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” (John 11:49-52)

            There was nothing nice or even legitimate about Caiaphas . . . he was high priest, not because of a legal lineage, as commanded by the law, but because he had bought his way into that position. Yet, stunningly, BECAUSE he was high priest, God had a job for him to do . . . to prophesy. Did he do it? Absolutely . . . because God can make rulers do anything He chooses. And He chooses to work through the rulers HE put in power. This one example alone seals the deal.

            Let’s be clear: NOBODY gets into ANY position of authority except by God’s decree:

            “For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.” (Psalm 75:6-7)

            “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (Romans 13:1)

            God takes care of His own affairs. And He makes rulers do whatever He chooses:

            “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” (Proverbs 21:1)

            “when in some cases it is by getting out of a tempting situation in regard to authorities that can be our means of escape from temptation.”

            Again, we are never allowed to sin. If Potiphar’s wife was an “authority”, then, absolutely, fleeing was the correct move. Of course, in that case, he was following the wishes of her authority, even though that authority – Potiphar – was unaware of what was going on.

            But . . . there are not too many ways to quote 1 Samuel 15:23. “Rebellion”, whatever it is, is like witchcraft. So, in that case, Joseph fleeing temptation was not rebellion. Makes sense, as indicated, since he was obedient to a higher authority. Rebellion always has as its bottom line . . . me . . . as the base authority, a line in a sand that I, personally, have drawn, and no mortal will ever make me cross it. When we are not in rebellion we have no such lines. We instead obey God and man in the pecking order He has established. What looks like a “line in the sand” for us to one authority is inevitably merely us obeying a higher authority, specifically the Lord.

  2. rob war rob war
    May 30, 2016    

    I remember Bill in 1979 using the hammer (father) and chisel (mother) on the child (diamond in the rough). He originally did not use the “umbrella” analogy until too many were objecting to his original diagrams and views on family structure. None of the verses you quoted earlier that talk about “obedience” suggest or mention “umbrella of protection”. It is a bogus analogy not found in the Bible but used to cover up his abusive teaching on total obedience to authority. Bill took his ideas that to obey God, one has to obey their authority (parent, teacher, pastor etc) and if one didn’t “obey” their authority, they basically were not obeying God is straight from Watchman Nee who taught such ideas that were popular in the later 60-70s. Bill also took his body, soul and spirit views as well as his charts directly from Watchman Nee. The other groups during the 70s that used Watchman Nee ideas on authority was in the charismatic shepherding groups which like Bill has resulted in abuse of power and authority over others. I clearly remembering Bill starting out Tues session stating that if one wanted “great faith” one had to understand and obey authority, using the example of the Centurian. The problem with that is that the Centurian wasn’t having faith in authority as Bill cast it but faith in who Jesus is and that all authority stems from Jesus because He is God. It has nothing to do with umbrella of protection or realigning family structure like the military. The Centurian’s great faith was in Jesus and who Jesus is. Once I realized this and that this story from the Bible was manipulated by Bill into something that it isn’t, I was totally free from Bill’s “umbrella”.

    • Moderator Moderator
      May 31, 2016    

      I remember Bill in 1979 using the hammer (father) and chisel (mother) on the child (diamond in the rough). He originally did not use the “umbrella” analogy until too many were objecting to his original diagrams and views on family structure.

      Now, tell the truth that that “hammer and chisel” diagram NEVER involved Dad pounding on Mom. The point was simply that they are tools in God’s hands to put pressure on young people who need some fixing. And, also, the Umbrella was a part of the Basic Seminar from the getgo. Both diagrams were in the Basic Seminar I attended in 1973.

      As to a basis of the analogy, there are many examples where authority protecting those under authority from spiritual forces. A couple of positive examples:

      Job 1:9-10 “Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.” — Because of Job, his 10 children were protected from Satan . . . as opposed to their personal moral authority.

      Luke 22:31 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:” — “desired” is a Greek word “to demand” . . . Satan had to get permission from Jesus to get to Peter, under authority.

      And a couple of negative examples:

      Mark 3:27 “No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.” — Context is Jesus casting out demons . . . the Pharisees said it was by Satan’s power, but Jesus made it clear that it was because He had “bound” the strong man, i.e. Satan, and hence could freely plunder his house, i.e. kick out the demons.

      Daniel 10:13 “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” — Michael, the archangel, was kept from getting to Daniel to deliver his message for 3 weeks because the “Prince of Persia” withstood him, under whose authority Daniel was.

      “Watchman Nee”

      I suppose, if that were true, I would have heard a lot about WM . . . but I didn’t. So . . . since I do not trace anything I hold to him, let’s keep the discussion squarely on Scripture. The perspectives we presented focus exclusively on God’s Word . . . so, that would be the think to critique and consider.

      “The problem with that is that the Centurian wasn’t having faith in authority as Bill cast it but faith in who Jesus is and that all authority stems from Jesus because He is God”

      Let’s have a look at this:

      “8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.” (Mark 8 ESV)

      First of all, whatever he said was greater faith than Jesus had even seen in His own disciples. What was this amazing insight? The key is in the word “too” . . . “I TOO am a man UNDER authority”. Too, like Jesus. The point being that authority in the spiritual realm flows down through subordinates, JUST like in the Roman army. If Jesus wanted God’s angels to go and heal someone, He exercised the authority vested in Him by God . . . to command those invisible, powerful forces . . . vs. using His personal moral authority. Tremendous insight from enormous faith, God’s “chain of command”.

      Coupled with some examples just given for the same effect with Satan’s “chain of command”, the umbrella comes into clear focus. It is the exercise of authority, not personal power, virtue. Earthly authorities are vested by God with power to affect the physical effects of spiritual forces.

  3. Moderator Moderator
    May 31, 2016    

    ” (A) He doesn’t say to grovel before them on one’s hands & knees, either as a result of being struck down or,- as Gothard instructs-, in going back to them as an adult to beg for direction for one’s life.”

    What does “grovel” mean? If that means “reverence”, well, that IS commanded.

    Leviticus 19:3 “Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.” — That word “man” is the Hebrew Ish . . . can be nothing but a grown man.

    Ephesians 5:33 “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

    As far as asking direction, clearly no person on earth is the be all and end all of wisdom for us. But is is also crystal clear that, especially with parents, failure to follow the direction they give is guaranteed to incur trouble from God’s hand:

    Ephesians 6:1-3 “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” — Failure to obey and honor will result in things not going well . . . and a shorter life. SO . . . if we have failed to do so, we have not sinned against just people but against God . . . and, yes, going back to seek to correct that might be absolutely key to things starting, again, to go well with us.

    “The cautions against associating oneself with religious leaders “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. “

    Clearly we are instructed to NOT be like evil authorities . . . while at the same time being commanded to obey them in every area where they are exercising their God-ordained jurisdiction:

    Matthew 23:2-3 “Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” — We respect the position, God ordained, and obey because of that, not based on their character worthiness.

    ” One thing about making such appeal: it’s only the reasonable & just leaders who would adjust their M.O. in accommodating one.”

    Absolutely not true! Even the most evil of people have that which motivates them that is actually quite legit. Jeremiah appealed to Zedekiah . . . David appealed to Saul . . . Paul appealed to Caesar . . . Joseph of Arimathaea appealed to Pilate

    • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
      June 1, 2016    

      You and “Incredulous” both make a good point, so long as you insert a qualifier into the Incredulous claim. Consider if we soften the Incredulous claim to make it less absolute, “it’s usually only the reasonable and just rulers,” etc. Of course reasonable and just rulers are more likely to yield to appeal than harsh, arbitrary tyrants.

      But as the ads say, “your results may vary.” And we are left to speculate how things would have played out if Paul took his chances with Festus and the Jews. The outcome was favorable for Joseph of Aramathea with Pilate. David had mixed results with Saul. Jeremiah’s positive reputation served him well in the clutch. There are plenty of both positive and negative examples to support a case for and against appeals, if we judge only by outcomes.

      Of course the same rule applies to love. Dare we give or withhold love based only upon our estimate of the outcome? Sometimes love “works” and sometimes it flops.

      Your brother,
      David K

  4. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 2, 2016    

    I appreciate your almost-complete acknowledging of my concerns here but may I point out that the non-bullet-point quoting of me in the opener to this thread is out of context. The non-bullet-point quote concerns the closet-Gothardite taking one for team Umbrella. The context is that he implemented the Umbrella by granting a job & official leadership perks to an ordained pastor who had already been fired/removed/banned from 4 other religious organizations for “inappropriate conduct” as determined by internal AND external investigations, each in their turn. Of course, when this closet-Gothardite had to bring numerous reports of extremely inappropriate conduct before his elder board for review, he lied to them & said he knew of no such previous reports ever having been made. Hence the “closet” aspect of his Gothardism. Had his elder board been Gothardite, as well, he would have felt no pressure to lie. Because they would have come to the exact same conclusion he had: the pervert was an authority, therefore nothing could be done with him, & not only this, but those that things CAN be done to (subordinates) -as so amply proven by the pervert himself- should most definitely have things done to them(me) again. (Also, this way, they could be addressing this situation that landed on their conference table). And just what should be done to these(me)? Oh, in the mind of the Gothardite, that’s easy: Rub their(my) nose in the fact that they(I) have a problem submitting to authority. Easy to do, since these(I) evidenced this by reporting negatively on a superior!!! Double easy, since what they(I) reported involves aledged harm, which, according to the Umbrella, automatically proves that they(me) were already in rebellion when it happened!!!!! Which is exactly what the closet-Gothardite had already done on his own. It’s just that the elder board wasn’t Gothardite, so they didn’t concur with his methods, especially not his method of giving the pervert a job in the 1st place in light of his 4 previous firings/removals/bannings. “My” organization showed the pragmatic difference between non-Gothardite administrating versus a Gothardite one: A non-Gothardite administration, in light of reports of sexual inappropriateness, chooses not to regard the credentials/career of such person so as to instate them to a position awarded by this authority status in complete disregard of the bulk of evidence concerning their relationship with the Lord & others. Whereas, Gothardite administrating instates “authority” to actual authority based only on such person’s claim to right to authority. All they have to do is cite the Umbrella gospel & any level of position that they’re ever attained so as to claim this as their “right”. And, once instated, a Gothardite admin. does everything else concerning such person based on this person’s position. All dealings with them, & with everyone else, including all dynamics (inappropriateness) effected by this person themself, are dictated by a center-focus on his position as an authority figure. So, when I say that Gothard, to be intellectually honest, should be shaking the hand of this closet-Gothardite for taking one for the team, it’s not only for handling a situation that came up in a way polar opposite to what the gospel says. (The gospel says that BIBLE-DEFINED sin & righteousness are the 2 deciding factors between which every person is either wrong or right before God). And not just for the lying. Or for the blame-shifting. It’s for having instated an investigated-&-found-guilty person in response to his request to attain yet another authority position based on his “right” to being “an authority”. And it’s also only fair for Gothard to shake hand & slap back over this since, if it weren’t for the elder board’s power to override such administrative decision, the pervert & the closet-Gothardite would still be there doing their respective Umbrella-ing. (Perversion, lying & blame-shifting, respectively). Which I’m sure is an end that you, Alfred, & also Gothard himself think as being only just so as to hold true to the pattern expressed by you all throughout this thread & detailed in my specifics. This a desired end in & of itself without the “elder-board-should-have no-power-aspect” even entering in. Not hoped by you to have an M.O. of perversion & lying (although the blame-shifting part is YOUR M.O.!!!), but, if these are how they roll, then certainly. It’s might-makes-right all the way, &, as long as it’s an authority doing it, such things are par for the course. What’s 1st in order -for any spiritual success of subordinates- is for them to submit to it.

    Concerning the opener of this thread, & also with this above Moderator reply:

    “My point is that many people – Christians – would today freely admit that they fell because they were faced with temptations that overwhelmed them. Scripture denies that possibility. We have the ability in any situation to stand without the need for sinless perfection . . . as long as we exercise the “way to escape” God has for us. Since rebellion is like witchcraft, and stubbornness is like reverencing idols, it is a simple step to conclude that a massive “way to escape” is to get back under authority that we are stubbornly rebelling against. There are many “ways to escape”, including, like Joseph, putting on our “running shoes”. This is just one, but one much overlooked.”

    These both together make my case. (The opener plus this Moderator reply; the last 2 sentences in this paragraph quoted above are so schizophrenic to the basis for all the rest of what you said that I can only assume it to be a foil to deceive me into thinking that the last 2 sentences are somehow compatible with all the rest). What you say, which has the bulk of it’s content being consistent, has already made my case. My case being that the Umbrella mandates taking abuse by any Umbrella, even though thus perforated. This taking abuse is the “way of escape”, as Tyler observed in his earlier comment above. Tempted??? Run straight into your authority’s arms!!!! If this isn’t your initial response to the temptation, it’s a sign that you’ve ALREADY rebelled, which means you’ll NEVER resist the temptation!!!!! Have to submit to them as first priority to overcoming temptation!!!! I’m just paraphrasing you here, Alfred. Where does Scripture ever say there’s this (or any) step other than having previously come to believe the gospel before being provided the promised way of escape???? Plus, you highlighted IBLP teaching quite well in demonstrating that there is no other way of escape, as promised in Scripture, inasmuch as God’s Word is read under the canopy. Which stipulation supercedes what the Bible says with this teaching about the canopy. You yourself said this best.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 3, 2016    

      “the non-bullet-point quoting of me in the opener to this thread is out of context. The non-bullet-point quote concerns the closet-Gothardite taking one for team Umbrella”

      I was quite sure I would not do you completely right, but figured to at least get the discussion going. I was having a hard time following your example – I doubt that your “Umbrella Man” would be expressing positions that Bill would concur with, even while touting Gothard for backup. Bill is routinely embarrassed by zealots that make people hate him for positions and statements he would never suppport. That is kind of my bottom line.

      “Rub their(my) nose in the fact that they(I) have a problem submitting to authority.”

      That is a sign of weakness . . . immaturity . . . and, yes, I have been guilty of it.

      “Have to submit to them as first priority to overcoming temptation!!!!”

      Being under authority is quite significant in the battle against the devil. As demonstrated by the Scriptures quoted, attacks in the spiritual realm are regulated by authority . . . Satan must get permission to attack, and being out from under authority – rebellion – is an open door for him . . . to “reign” on us. When your life is taking hit after hit of fiery darts, temptations, one of the absolutely first things you should do is get to shelter. In this case the shelter of God ordained authority. Why is this so offensive to you?

      “Plus, you highlighted IBLP teaching quite well in demonstrating that there is no other way of escape, as promised in Scripture”

      I have never said that nor would I imply it. There are multiple components to the armor we are to “put on” so we can stand the devil’s onslaught. Revelation 12:11 suggests that being willing to die for Jesus is one of the biggest keys to overcoming the devil. But . . . if you knew that there was a condition that you had control over . . . that absolutely guarantees that the devil will be able to launch a million more attacks at you than otherwise, would you not be an idiot to ignore it? Rebellion is the devil’s “middle name”, as the colloquialism goes . . . it defines him, and those that he controls. The more rebels he can groom and create, the easier time he has.

      1 Cor. 5 details the steps that Paul went through to see that an erring brother was restored. In this case the move was to “deliver such an one to Satan”, unprotected out into the “reign”. Weird, huh? Paul deliberately turned him over to the devil. How did he do that? By kicking him out of the church, removing him from the protection of that spiritual authority. What was the purpose? It was that, by being knocked around by the devil, the “flesh” would be destroyed, but the “spirit” would be preserved. Sometimes you have to hit the devil’s “rock bottom” before you can be delivered. God hates “lukewarm” far worse than “cold”.

      Confirmation is found in 2 Corinthians 2:11, where Paul is telling the church to take him back, since there is a point where getting “beat up” further was going to serve no righteous purpose. This was to be done “Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.” The solution to keeping Satan from actually gaining the victory . . . was to get the believer back under the spiritual authority of the church.

      Don’t be “ignorant” of the devil’s devices. Rebellion is never your friend, always your enemy. Spend less time worrying about bad authorities “getting away with it” and focus on you getting out of it all unscathed. God will judge the authorities.

  5. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 8, 2016    

    So, do you concur with my individual action (as well as that of other individual young women) in biting the bullet by reporting to the closet-Gothardite (who oversaw the pervert in the job he’d given him), or do you condemn this action? This closet-Gothardite tried & tried & tried to find some “rebellion” in each of us but finally had to resort to persecuting us for our lack of acknowledgement of authority in each having reported what (respectively) was done to each of us by the pervert. Do you agree we should have been condemned for reporting (in-house)? And methodically persecuted? (One woman, a secretary, was fired for the confrontation with the pervert that she had begged his/her boss for so that he would be an arbitrator present. Some neutral arbitration, ehhh? ). You say it’s wrong for any time to be given in dealing with the perversion of both authorities (the pervert & his Umbrella-drawing-wielding boss). You say it’s better to spend our time “getting out of it all unscathed.” I personally am very grateful to this dear lady. Had she done as you said, & merely given her notice without saying anything, she would indeed have reduced the scathing she went through (the scathing would have been limited to the manipulative cruelty of the physical attacks themselves, not including the subsequent persecution). I’m glad she did what she did instead doing as you say ought to have been/ be done.

    With regard to your question about “hit after hit of fiery darts” so that “one of the absolutely first things you should do is get to shelter. In this case the shelter of God ordained authority. Why is this so offensive to you?” It wouldn’t be offensive to me at all as an isolated statement coming from anyone else. In fact, this statement perfectly describes what myself, & the aforementioned secretary, & 24 others indeed did. And, had we rather NOT sought protection under this authority who took Gothard at his word & practiced IBLP’s most basic tenet, we likely would not have been systematically persecuted as we were. In which case, the board’s discovery of the closet-Gothardite’s lying to them & subsequent firing of him would not have lifted this persecution from us; in this you are very right. Do you believe that the secretary’s getting fired for the reason stated & me & others being methodically bullied where instances of undergoing “hit after hit of fiery darts” (from Satan)? Because I definitely believe that to be the case. Our direct authorities acted out of sync with the integrity of the organization, as well as the clear ethics of the Bible; thank the Lord that the pervert’s & the closet-Gothardite’s authority did not. Where/when the buck stopped- that’s where/when we finally had protection. To me, all the persecution was worth it, since this aspect of all the cruelty was entirely the result of speaking truth to a closet-Gothardite who got routed-out by his authorities; the domino effect was reached by his reaction to the truth. Kind of like those of us who’ve been sexually attacked underwent this as one aspect of a pervert exposing himself for what he is. When the truth comes out, there are always witnesses, & we all are responsible to handle the realities we are made aware of. Fortunately, when it comes to the offense of sexual assault, the Bible presents God Himself as being quite gracious to the one assaulted, & equally gracious to the assaulter in not letting them escape His imminent punishment…….. on THIS side of eternity.

    I am curious as to whether your admonishment about getting under authority also applies to the pervert’s having been fired 4 times for his perversion? Because my thought on that is that, rather than his firings being “hit after hit of fiery darts” so that “one of the absolutely first things you should do is get to shelter. In this case the shelter of God ordained authority”, the pervert’s deficit in respecting his authorities (his boss as well as the board of elders) was NOT due to “hit after hit of fiery darts”. Rather, I see his apparent need to get under authority as being made apparent by the decisions themselves made by his authorities (at 4-5 different organizations). Decisions by authority as opposed to being of Satan – “hit after hit of fiery darts”- instead of being handed down by God though this authority. Perhaps your indication that this was of Satan is not what you meant, but it’s sure what you say seems like to be…….

    I’m glad God rescued me & avenged me of the sexual assault I experienced every bit as thoroughly as He avenged those who experienced it before me (Judges 19 & 20). I know you deny the presence of verses 20:18, 23, & 28. I know you also deny that 2 Peter 2:7 sheds any light whatsoever on the Old Testament passage narrative of this same man Genesis 13:10,11, Gn. 14:12,16, Gn. 19 whole chapter. When you get to heaven, YOU can be the one to tell the Lord that he made a mistake in saying this about Lot. YOU can tell God Himself that you think Lot’s greed & then getting abducted (what a warning!) were precursors to his being sexually assaulted in chapter 19. You can say again -to God this time- how deciding (twice!) to go live in a hell-hole meant he was in for it. And that the way he handled the assault itself meant he wasn’t availing himself of God’s help & was therefore at fault for bargaining by offering the defiling of his daughters. YOU can tell God how bravely he should have righteously defended himself against a force well able to dominate him personally. And how the 2 Peter 2:7 verse is no less important for us Bible-readers, but only because it must point to things about him not mentioned in the Scriptures, because there’s no way to cross-reference this particular verse.

    But I thought you just told a commenter above that you over there are all about the Bible. Isn’t the Bible itself allowed to be about the Bible? I’m just saying that, if 2 Peter 2:7 is only permitted by you to concern only what the Bible DOESN’T say about a particlar person (Lot)…….. then what is your real reason for it’s having no bearing on what it DOES say about him?!?!?

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 9, 2016    

      “So, do you concur with my individual action (as well as that of other individual young women) in biting the bullet by reporting to the closet-Gothardite (who oversaw the pervert in the job he’d given him), or do you condemn this action?”

      I must confess a third time that I am having trouble tracking on all of the details. But let me assure you that I do not believe that authority should not be confronted. Women should come forward to report abuse. In fact, failure to report it is a crime, and one of the reasons perverts often sail along for many years untouched. That is the principle of Matthew 18 . . . go to the one, or, if that is not reasonable because of the danger, get help to go to him, then take it as high as necessary so it is addressed.

      “Do you agree we should have been condemned for reporting (in-house)?”

      As a general rule, no. Every situation has its nuances so I have to be careful. The leadership being reported to is commanded, by Scripture, to not accept an accusation against “an elder” without 2-3 clear witnesses. But if it rises to that level then leadership has the responsibility to act on it.

      “You say it’s better to spend our time “getting out of it all unscathed.””

      You know, it depends on the situation. In the end the Lord will make it clear. Vengeance cannot be the motive, that never ends well. God executes vengeance – when we saddle ourselves with the need to hurt someone who has hurt us, we accept bondage that will hurt us . . . and so often the guilty party never gets what is coming to them anyway. On the other hand, as stated, we all have a solemn responsibility to address sin in others, to be part of God’s plan to see them fixed . . . or restrained. But there comes a point with such things where we must leave the ultimate resolution to the Lord.

      ” It wouldn’t be offensive to me at all as an isolated statement coming from anyone else. In fact, this statement perfectly describes what myself, & the aforementioned secretary, & 24 others indeed did. And, had we rather NOT sought protection under this authority who took Gothard at his word & practiced IBLP’s most basic tenet, we likely would not have been systematically persecuted as we were.”

      I am frankly finding little to disagree with you on. I am not sure there was anything you did wrong. I mean . . . if I were a “Gothardite”, what would I find wrong? I have little sympathy for men who get away with even minor abuse of women. I know that surprises you given my role here . . . and maybe would give some emphasis to the fact that I have thoroughly examined Bill – and watched him intently for the last two years – and just do not find him in the category. That aside for the moment, if the “abuser” was causing problems, you did the right thing to elevate it. There is just no excuse for that. Help me understand – short sentences :-) – why you think a Gothardite would side with the pervert against you.

      “When you get to heaven, YOU can be the one to tell the Lord that he made a mistake in saying this about Lot.”

      My memory is short. Are you the one that was arguing that Lot – and the unnamed Levite of Judges 20 – were RIGHT to offer their wife/daughter to perverts for abuse? I am trying to catch up on that. I see both accounts as proving how much worse than rape homosexual sex is, as reasonably righteous men saw it. I also believe both men to be cowards . . . and I am grasping to understand your interest in all of this.

  6. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 10, 2016    

    I appreciate your stated stance, as coming from from the Moderator-ship over there at DG. I believe that your stance stated in your last post, should you be in leadership in an organization that had allegations of this nature brought to you concerning one among the lower ranks, constitutes a Biblical attitude. It is very non-Gothardic. I say this, not according to some notion in my own mind of what Gothardic-sexual-abuse-allegation-handling is, but because of actual experience with the Umbrella-pounding of this abuser (the pervert’s boss). I will not repeat my narrative of his witch-hunt of me to find in what way I was in rebellion against authority so as to cause this to have happened to myself, or his having as the 1st step of my first “counsel” session for this having drawn the Umbrella with the stick figure of me being outside of the Umbrella with each pictured fiery dart raining down on “my” head described as “what you feel __________ [the pervert’s name here] did to you.” Like I said, I still have this…….. I’m not sure why you are asking me to hypothesize “how (I) think a Gothardite would handle it” when I’ve already used so many sentences to report to you how a Gothardite DID handle it.

    When the Umbrella was substituted for the gospel, there was……….. No bottom line of sin itself being objectively identified as the basis for conclusion of who might be identified as a sinner (it’s the subordinate, never the authority, who needs to come under greater subjection among their society & thus is the de facto “sinner” who needs to change!)………….. No realization that any failure to adequately defend myself was no more my omission of effective defense than there was put to me a crafted offense; judging my lack in defense banked only on the necessary presupposition of offense. (Isolated, the Umbrella teaching itself presumes offenses caricatured as “fiery darts” that, if they hit you, are your fault because you’re told how to prevent them from hitting you: be under your human authorities!) [This doctrine regarding Satan’s attacks is the bottom line my abuser was operating according to. It’s what he looked through to view the reports of the perversion.]………… No power of the gospel which “transforms us from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light” in a transaction so complete, fast & thorough that it’s just between you & God, but rather a week-long seminar in which human interjection defines how to “learn” success with Him. Which, even though there is no week-long indoctrination -by any teacher other than the Holy Spirit!- in order to be subscribing to the true gospel [which IS authored to build our lives on as zealots to this purpose], the gist of what all takes a week to learn is rather NOT something to carry to it’s obvious conclusions. With anything close to the same zeal, anyway, according to you. Hence, the abuser I speak of was merely “expressing positions Bill would never agree with,” perhaps not realizing that he was never supposed to have re-approached life according to what he’d learned in a week-long seminar. My opinion is, it’s not intellectually honest that you’re doing the David-to-Uriah elimination technique with regard to this guy who took such a hit for team Umbrella.

    My references to Judges 19, 20 and to Gn. 19,20 refer to the sexual assaults of both the Levite & Lot. They were overpowered in that they were being DOMINATED by clear sexual threats. This is sexual assault. They were sexually assaulted. Lot, in chapter 20, was raped after his attackers each gained dominance by chemically altering his senses. I have no reason to believe that the Levite & Lot are rare exceptions amidst the percentage of humanity that has undergone similar domination, not only being exclusively granted complete immunity from any blame for such happenstance, but also avenged by God Himself of the assaults/attacks they experienced. I have no reason to believe that their accounts ended up in Scripture due to God having departed from His will’s implementation of His M.O. for dealing with instances of sexual abuse. Rather than discounted as rare exceptions, I instead think that what Scripture says concerning sexual assaults/attacks can be looked to as a window to God’s heart on the subject, as well as taken as His word on both these & on one of the victim’s level of personal integrity.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 10, 2016    

      the 1st step of my first “counsel” session for this having drawn the Umbrella with the stick figure of me being outside of the Umbrella with each pictured fiery dart raining down on “my” head

      So . . . what would he have done if you had drawn an even bigger umbrella above the first one, one that you are under (unless there is a hole in it), which is the bosses “Gothardite” boss, i.e. him?

      have no reason to believe that the Levite & Lot are rare exceptions amidst the percentage of humanity that has undergone similar domination, not only being exclusively granted complete immunity from any blame for such happenstance, but also avenged by God Himself of the assaults/attacks they experienced

      Well . . . righteous or not (yes, righteous), Lot is in no way one you and I would want to follow, be like. He lost EVERYTHING, which was a judgement from the Lord for his carelessness. And the Levite, although avenged through the death of 100s of 1000s, including the almost anihilation of an entire tribe, has the dubious distinction of having his tale of abandoning his wife to the attacks of perverts told for millenia. Me, I don’t want to be that guy. Me, I don’t see either with God’s blessing. There is NO WAY either case presents something we are to emulate.

  7. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 10, 2016    

    I correct myself that Lot’s actual attacks occurred not Genesis in 20, but rather Gn. 19, right before 20.

  8. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 10, 2016    

    I had no need of drawing a bigger Umbrella above it on that paper- he was acting on his authority over me & the situation.

    Where do you get the idea that I promote emulation of either the Levite or Lot? Believe me, even if this were possible (& these Bible records indicate that it isn’t), no one would have sexual assault done to themselves. Let alone so as to copy-cat the victimization of another.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 10, 2016    

      he was acting on his authority over me & the situation

      My point . . . is that if he were accusing you of being out from under your authority umbrella, you would point out that, while you were out from umbrella #1, you were most definitely not in rebellion since you were appealing to, and under the authority of, umbrella #2. Him.

      Believe me, even if this were possible (& these Bible records indicate that it isn’t), no one would have sexual assault done to themselves.

      Scripture clearly states that God will protect those that verbally identify with him – confess Jesus, cry out to the Lord.

      Luke 12:8 “Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God” Why do angels exist? To serve and protect Christians: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14)

      Do you know of any instance where someone did so . . . and was still so abused? Of course, Jesus cried out to His Abba Father for deliverance . . . and He had to endure the cross . . . but, I read the most astonishing thing:

      “In the days of his flesh, Jesus[a] offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” (Hebrews 5:7-8)

      So . . . He WAS heard, and that which He endured was better than not enduring it. So . . . God gave Him the very best . . . in which case you would NOT wish it to be possible.

      • Sandy Sandy
        June 10, 2016    

        So what is the remedy for my mute friend? And are you sincerely saying that anyone and everyone that has ever audibly called on the name of Jesus in an attack has been spared from harm?

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 11, 2016    

          And are you sincerely saying that anyone and everyone that has ever audibly called on the name of Jesus in an attack has been spared from harm?

          How was your friend saved, then? I read:

          “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:9-13)

          That is a “cry”, a call on the Name of the Lord “with the mouth”. However that worked for your mute friend to be saved from hell, the same applies to the engagement of the angels to protect.

      • Incredulous Incredulous
        June 11, 2016    

        Alfred, do you LIKE IT that I was under the authority of that goon who had knowingly put a total creeper in charge of me & a bunch of other women?!? Was my submission to him somehow merit-worthy on my part?!? Believe me, if I had known he’d knowingly done that, I would’ve bypassed him & gone straight to the board of elders to report what happened & to report his facilitation of it’s happening, too. And about the time he did the Umbrella drawing to me was the moment I should’ve realized he stood to lose an awful lot for one reason or another. And beaten my tracks right out of there. Instead of affording him what he stood to gain by ensnaring even greater submission.

        REGARDING YOUR PERSONAL STIPULATION THAT DIFFERS FROM GOD’S PRINCIPAL & PRACTICE:
        The Authorship of our salvation was Jesus’ mission that He knew & understood in detail before He ever underwent his own murder. Furthermore, inasmuch as humans do not realize that it is our sin that murdered Him & thus fall at the cross in repentance, all such humans will be justly damned for this. Remember, bowing at the foot of the cross is simultaneous with bowing at the feet of the One on it Who is now the risen Lord; a good thing to do when He’s the only one Who can pardon for the sin of having taken His life. His role as victim at the hands of those physically murdering Him, though, was in this one respect a reverse-role with a rape victim & the rapist: only Jesus knew it was an atonement/murder whereas His murderers thought they were obeying Moses/Caeser’s laws concerning an outlaw. What rapist thinks they are executing justice by raping somebody? And whose salvation is anyone authoring by God allowing them to be raped? And how is such a victim “let in on” such a plan that is their personal destiny?

        So, Alfred…….. since what happened to both the Levite & Lot was avenged BY GOD HIMSELF, even though NEITHER of these “offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence”, I would like to know (A) Why you feel they were spared (at least spared from the full extent of the threats) (B) Why you feel you have the right to judge others for not incurring their own deliverance (specifically by way of crying out). These were/are not under any blame in God’s sight even though they did not do so. Since God spared each of them, you are obviously wrong in insisting that this is necessary for deliverance. And, in so insisting, you make God out to be unjust in imposing this on others as “necessity” for declared innocence in light of the Bible’s declaring the Levite & Lot as non-punishable in the course of God avenging them of their assaulters. You are much like a person who is shown Bible passages stating that Christ’s propitiation is fit to save Lot & then the line-up in Hebrews 11 but who then defines salvation in insisting that everyone else must -for instance- keep the whole law in order to be saved. (C) Why do you denote what the Bible calls “complete” concerning these as instead being “incomplete” on their part? God saved all these without them having done as you insist be done. (Crying out for deliverance so that the angels would necessarily HAVE to rescue them. By “saved”, I refer to God saving/avenging both Lot & the Levite of the threats as well as saving Lot & the Hebrews 11 crew for eternity). Are these illegitimate each of their respective salvation? (D) On what Scriptural basis do you make God out to be so “unjust” in light of the “just” expectation that you insist He holds all other people to?

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 12, 2016    

          Believe me, if I had known he’d knowingly done that, I would’ve bypassed him & gone straight to the board of elders to report what happened & to report his facilitation of it’s happening, too.

          And I have no problem with your doing that. I am still somewhat bewildered, truth be told. There is no one size answer to every authority situation. There ARE times where the “next step” is orders of magnitude more complex and consequential, notably with young people and parents. I think the Lord expects young people to be able to take a lot more from family authority than work or even church . . . but that has its limits too. No issue with you going to the Board of Elders.

          What rapist thinks they are executing justice by raping somebody? And whose salvation is anyone authoring by God allowing them to be raped? And how is such a victim “let in on” such a plan that is their personal destiny?

          Agreed! So if there were ever a time for the Lord to want to intervene – unlike Jesus suffering – this is it. Folks, we need to take the Lord SERIOUSLY! IF He cannot protect His child that cries out to Him for help and confesses Him before men as her Lord and hope . . . what can He do?

          So, Alfred…….. since what happened to both the Levite & Lot was avenged BY GOD HIMSELF,

          What about the poor woman, the wife of the Levite? This is a MESS. I just can’t take any meaningful lessons from this, other than what not to do. Goodness . . . the avenging of Levite and wife cost 100,000 people, the tribe of Benjamin . . . and this is a win?

          he Bible’s declaring the Levite & Lot as non-punishable

          Non-punishable?! Lot lost EVERYTHING! Twice, plus had to endure the indignity of his daughters getting him drunk and fathering his own grandchildren. Wake up!

          • Incredulous Incredulous
            June 12, 2016    

            So….. you’re saying it was GOD’S dealing with Lot that he “had to endure the indignity of his daughters getting him drunk and fathering his own grandchildren”????? Because, what the Bible says is, sexual assault/attack is sin & God is the one punishing the one(s) who did it. Avenging the victim that it was done to! Lot never had to see Moab & Ammon develop into the evil, evil nations that they became; his daughters (attackers) did. And why do you switch back & forth between talking about eternal hell-fire as one’s sure destiny for not preventing oneself from being sexually assaulted & then also saying that natural consequences of losing all one’s possessions is somehow “God’s punishment”, also? Are these on a par? btw there were those whom Paul & Jesus witnessed to who would have been entirely closed to the gospel before ever hearing it if either of these men had ever been raped. God takes into account human prejudices that He Himself does not harbor, not because he condemns victims right along with the prejudiced doing this, but because he loves the prejudiced & wants them to know Him. And he wants those who know Him to know Him ACCORDING TO WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HIM. Even as He is described concerning matters of sexual assault/attack.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 12, 2016    

            talking about eternal hell-fire as one’s sure destiny for not preventing oneself from being sexually assaulted

            At times we are like ships passing in the dark. I said no such thing. My point . . . is that crying out for deliverance is precisely how we received God’s gift of salvation from eternal destruction. And is is exactly the same was God expects us to cry out for deliverance from physical dangers . . . and He honors the cries of His own in exactly the same way.

            not because he condemns victims

            It is foolish to believe that any sinner of Adam’s race is ever a “victim”. Justice for any one of us is the worst abuse imaginable, starvation, deprivation . . . death . . . and then hell.

            Romans 3:9-18
            9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
            10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

  9. Outraged Outraged
    June 11, 2016    

    If you aren’t trying to say that anyone who has been raped simply didn’t yell loud enough then you are going about this all wrong because that is exactly what it sounds like you are saying.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 11, 2016    

      I am saying that God is real, and angels are real, and there is much in Scripture about crying out to the Lord in trouble and the Lord never failing to answer His own.

      Psalms 50:15. “And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.”

      Psalms 107:6. “Then they cried unto the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them out of their distresses.”

      With respect to rape, the scream separately was the legal poof of non-consent: Deuteronomy 22:24. “Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.”

      Bill taught for that reason that a believer under attack should cry out – out loud – to the Lord. And provided numerous stories that bore the truth of it out. Besides the direct intervention of the Lord, he cited the fact that an attacker, in order to gain the energy for the evil deed, must shut God out of his conscience . . . And a cry to Him out loud shatters that. Also advocated by secular counseling . . . You know, that those that resist and scream have a dramatically higher success rate. And the cry even highlighted in the recent movie “War Room”, as the older woman Miss Clara refuses to turn over her cash as she resists the attacker in the name of the Lord.

      My question: are you aware of any instance of someone verbally crying out to the Lord while under attack that was not delivered? As I stated, I know Jesus cried out . . . And it appeared He was not delivered . . . But Scripture states He WAS heard, and that attack was reduced to exactly what Jesus wanted to have happen anyway.

      • Outraged Outraged
        June 11, 2016    

        So one must presume that everyone who has been victimized by rape pretty much gave the guy consent because otherwise it wouldn’t have happened? That is what you are indicating as the flip side of your question to me.

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 11, 2016    

          When you are ready to state that God does not, in fact, supernaturally intervene to protect His children that cry out to Him, then I will walk this path with you.

  10. Outraged Outraged
    June 11, 2016    

    I only know the unfortunate ones who did not yell loud enough or word their plea for help correctly.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 11, 2016    

      That SOUNDS like an indictment of the Lord? Who should dispense with such things and just save everyone? I know many who believe that of hell as well . . . No loving God would throw people into hell for not calling out to Him loud enough or wording a plea correctly, hence He will save everyone. But not everyone is saved from physical attacks and not everyone will be saved from hell. Bill is seeking to accurately report what God says on both matters, both relating to faith.

      Again, do you know of anyone who, trusting the Lord’s promises, cried out to Him for deliverance during an attack that was not heard and helped?

      • Incredulous Incredulous
        June 12, 2016    

        No person can be raped except by another’s sin directly against them. In your correlation that you make here, is it because you suppose that no one can go to hell except by another’s sin directly against them, Alfred? Can you actually make a case that all rape victims who go there do so compliments of the sin of their rapist, for not calling on the Lord when he presented them with this opportunity to be saved, & that all such who will “make it” to heaven unequivocally have to pass muster whereas all other heaven-bound do not? Exactly what evangelism technique does the rapist use in providing this are-you-saved opportunity to this test-candidate? And, -should the victim fail this test- what verses do you cite for this corporate responsibility for sin, by which she goes to hell for this other person having raped her?

        btw, your treatment of Deuteronomy 22 is contrary both to what it stipulates & God’s wisdom behind this. Also, in view of the fact that it is an ENGAGED/or married woman who must cry out, it seems that one whose “date” hinted at marriage throughout the 10 years that he ran every aspect of her life but nonetheless “defrauded her”- in his own words- deserves extra points (A) For communicating that she needed help in resisting sexual assaults even before the attack actually commenced (which is certainly more than the Bible says for either Lot or the Levite). (B) For doing this even though she not only was not engaged, but even though she’d had an engagement chalked-up to her by the defrauder that she was therefore minus-of at the time she sought help. The Bible only speaks of a non-engaged woman- it says nothing of a woman who is minus an engagement that was once implied. And with regard to any person, anywhere, who hears of such notice of distress under such pressure: IT IS ASSUMED THAT RESCUE IS ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE THEY HEARD HER. And I dunno Alfred……. do you think that the reason that the impetus to cry out is ONLY on an ENGAGED/or married woman because it might just be that her FIANCE/husband is the sure-fire resource for her defense? Maybe Gothard’s change of the rules of what Lev. 22 stipulates has much more to do with an aversion he’s had to hearing one who did speak than it is to those who don’t .

        I went through a lot of authority-abuse as well as negligence-garbage at the hands of Gothardism, Alfred. Now that I’ve learned that I’m not the only victim of both, I am thus very, very interested in all the documentation there is of Gothard’s acknowledgement of a certain secretary’s crying to him for help from her assaulter. Especially since none of it came in time to accomplish the deliverance that Lev. 22 says that it must.

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 12, 2016    

          06/13 INCREDULOUS – This is the only post deleted . . . because I thought I had lost it (iPad burp) so I recreated it . . . and then deleted the first one.

          ========================

          No person can be raped except by another’s sin directly against them

          If someone were getting ready to sodomize Jesus, would that rape have happened? How about Paul . . . if some pervert – and that world was full of them – wanted to abuse him, would they have been allowed to do so? I don’t think so. Why? Because GOD TAKES CARE OF HIS OWN. Do you not have enough faith to believe that? This is not about the sin of the perverts . . . but of the Lord’s protection of His own. IF abuse happened, one is just to ask why God allowed it to happen. And I ask you again: Do you know of any instance of a child of God crying out out loud in the Name of their Lord . . . where the abuse was permitted? I know that if Jesus was allowed to be attacked, there must be times where the Lord deliberately wants to harm the body to further His work. In those instances that is exactly what one would want. But I also would expect those instances to be very few. And I would expect many stories of God reaching in and stopping inevitable things supernaturally.

          extra points (A) For communicating that she needed help in resisting sexual assaults

          You are SO hard for me to follow, I am sorry. Are you referring to Ruth, “the secretary”, that communicated to Bill that she was being tempted by Steve? I am hazy on the details, so should not comment a lot. For the record, Bill told me he then recommended that she go home . . . and she pled with him to stay. Had she bit the bullet and done that she would have been spared what followed. Even when it was all over, she did not blame Bill for the things that Bill’s brother subsequently perpetrated on her.

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 12, 2016    

          “No person can be raped except by another’s sin directly against them.”

          Of course . . . that is true of all assault. What we are concerned with is the Lord’s intervention against the intent of that sin. Psalms 76:10 “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.” DOES He restrain the intentions of evil people?

          If someone were getting ready to sodomize Jesus, would that rape have happened? How about Paul . . . if some pervert – and that world was full of them – wanted to abuse him, would they have been allowed to do so? I don’t think so. Why? Because GOD TAKES CARE OF HIS OWN. Do you not have enough faith to believe that? This is not about the sin of the perverts . . . but of the Lord’s protection of His own. IF abuse happened, one is just to ask why God allowed it to happen. And I ask you again: Do you know of any instance of a child of God crying out out loud in the Name of their Lord . . . where the abuse was permitted? I know that if Jesus was allowed to be attacked, there must be times where the Lord deliberately wants to harm the body to further His work. In those instances that is exactly what one would want. But I also would expect those instances to be very few. And I would expect many stories of God reaching in and stopping inevitable things supernaturally

          “one whose “date” hinted at marriage throughout the 10 years that he ran every aspect of her life but nonetheless “defrauded her”- in his own words- deserves extra points (A) For communicating that she needed help in resisting sexual assaults even before the attack actually commenced”

          You are SO hard to follow, sometimes. I presume you are referring to Ruth, “the secretary”, that confided in Bill that she was tempted by Bill’s brother? For the record, Bill told her she should go home, leave the ministry, for her own good . . . and she pled to remain. In hindsight, that is exactly what should have been done.

          • Incredulous Incredulous
            June 12, 2016    

            So…… her only way out of the Northwoods was to become jobless & homeless? After 10 years of busting her butt “to make her employer successful?!?!?” I know Bill had the concept of a “transfer” well under his belt because he’d already transferred her to the Northwoods. It’s pitiful that he didn’t whisk her right back out of there in response to her request for help. It’s even more pitiful that he didn’t flat out order his brother the same thing that he outlined to her. That’s rape culture, all right. And where in Leviticus 22 does it say that, when a woman has been heard in her plea for help against someone trying to take advantage of her sexually, she is then to go ahead & meet the hearer’s demands that she give up her wages, her 401k, her health insurance & her housing in order to rescue herself? Tell me the specific verse that says that. Is that what 911 dispatchers tell the caller on the other end of the line? “Give up everything you have & go live under a bridge. That way, you’ll have humbled yourself before God so He’ll have to protect you- besides, that’s the only way your stalker/assaulter will ever bug-off.” If there actually is a 911 dispatcher who takes Bill’s stance in matters of safety pertaining to those under their jurisdiction, I seriously hope you get this one if you ever call in a robbery, a hitting driver, an abductor. Then maybe you’ll reevaluate how you judge whomever experiences such things as well as what you say they reveal about their eternal destinies.

            No, I don’t know of any assault that commenced into full attack against a child that God did not prevent, even though the child invoked His name at the top of their lungs. Then again, although I’ve been confided in by a lot of childhood sexual abuse survivors, I’ve never heard of one crying OUT LOUD directly to God. Inasfar as I know, even the full-grown women who’ve suddenly found ourselves hemmed-in & being touched inappropriately only yelled at our assaulter; we didn’t scream for Jesus to come save us each in our turn. I don’t think I’ve ever screamed at Jesus to make Him do anything for me, for that matter. Although I certainly wouldn’t judge anyone for doing this WOF thing in such a dire instance. I rather wish I had; maybe it would have worked. (The Angel of the Lord striking the pervert as commanded by my calling on Him). With regard to your other reason, though: As is with most perverts, the pervert himself does not respect the fact of you yelling, period. Because they’re not assaulting you out of respect. By the time you can see the need to abruptly command respect, they’re already well underway with their disrespecting of you- all the months of grooming, the setting-up of their assault- as well as with the assault itself. How else do you even to realize it to be happening, if it isn’t underway so as to be happening? I don’t know a lot of people who suffer from schizophrenia, Alfred. Such a disorder may well be a blessing in such instance: you know, the tendency to suddenly scream “You’re not my parent/leader/coach! I’ve never seen you before! Get away from me!” To be able to detach from the orientation built up for months by the assaulter himself with such an abrupt assertiveness would meet with your ideal. But, as with the others I know, we do not suffer from schizophrenia. Things are maintained in their contexts in our minds & hearts, & this includes the trust built by the grooming; also the habit of respecting our authority. Which is not immediately erased by getting disrespected by him.

            Are you going to answer MY questions now?

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 12, 2016    

            So…… her only way out of the Northwoods was to become jobless & homeless?

            First of all, the interchange to which you refer occured in Oak Brook, as I understand it. Secondly she had a loving family to return to, so no “out on the street”.

            we didn’t scream for Jesus to come save us each in our turn.

            That makes no sense to me. Your body belongs, not to you, but to Jesus, His Holy temple. How is it that the Living Lord of the Universe, with whom you walk moment by moment, is not the first person to cry out to for help? In Scripture we have an example of a king who was sick . . .

            2 Chronicles 16:12 “And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians.”

            Instead of crying out to the Lord, he called out to his doctors … and thus the Lord left him sick, and he died. Sometimes the Lord gets offended when we look EVERYWHERE first . . . except to Him, like He doesn’t even matter.

            We all have the same challenges. We face the same situation in the first seconds of an accident. Where our heart turns first speaks much to what is in it.

  11. rob war rob war
    June 11, 2016    

    Alfred,
    again you are reducing God and the Bible to a formula. If one does X then God is going to do Y and if that doesn’t work then you are the problem, not God. The issue isn’t whether someone being attacked didn’t cry out, the issue is basic Christian morality in that sex is for marriage, not before, not with others out side of it and that rape is sex outside of marriage. The perpetrator is immoral. This has nothing to if someone did or didn’t cry out. There are just as many examples of people who did “cry out” that ended up being sexual assaulted as much as you “claim” Bill has testimonies of examples that are supposedly support your hypothesis and Bible twisting. You never address here that rape is immoral sex. I wonder why. You just keep going around in circles with others here about Bible promises that you think support Bill’s ideas and teaching. Quit the victim blaming here. Quit supporting immorality here. When I read the David and Bathesba story, king David is held responsible by God, not the woman.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 11, 2016    

      If one does X then God is going to do Y and if that doesn’t work then you are the problem, not God

      I have to ask . . . are you SURE you are going to be in heaven? I guess I am ignorant enough of Catholic theology I have to ask. You personally: Has God personally made you any promises – you do X, I will give you Y – that form the basis for your assurance that you will be His throughout all eternity . . . or are you just hopeful . . . that God will like you . . . just because?

      The issue isn’t whether someone being attacked didn’t cry out, the issue is basic Christian morality in that sex is for marriage, not before, not with others out side of it and that rape is sex outside of marriage.

      The morality of a physical assault – sexual or otherwise – is not in question. Of course it is immoral. The question is whether God will be moved to protect an innocent victim . . . or if He is aloof and doesn’t care . . . is largely uninterested and uninvolved in our lives . . . ALMOST like as though, well, He really doesn’t even exist. Paul warns us to have nothing to do with people who claim to be Christians . . . but deny any practical effects, power in it:

      2 Timothy 3:5 “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

      There are just as many examples of people who did “cry out” that ended up being sexual assaulted as much as you “claim” Bill has testimonies of examples that are supposedly support your hypothesis and Bible twisting.

      Can you name me one?

      You just keep going around in circles with others here about Bible promises

      That is correct . . . I am all about a living God making real promises that affect our daily lives if we believe Him. That sort of sums up what I like about Bill, although he is far from alone in believing and teaching that. If He is not real enough to protect me down here, where other people can see it . . . He is not real enough to protect me from the far greater horrors that await on the other side of death.

      When I read the David and Bathesba story, king David is held responsible by God, not the woman

      David was clearly guilty, as he openly confessed. But what gives you the right to absolve Bathsheba in this adultery case . . . just because she was a woman? Come on . . . she willingly committed adultery against her husband with the king. No record of her screaming . . . because I bet she didn’t. No, sorry, she was most definitely fully guilty of adultery, just like David was.

      • rob war rob war
        June 11, 2016    

        Alfred,
        I am always amazed that people that call themselves “Christian” have the audacity to question someone else’s salvation or “if they are saved”. That’s skating on thin ice. You have always made a big deal Alfred about people questioning Bill’s teaching and accuse other pretty easily that they “never attended”. So, if you don’t know much about “Catholic theology”, I have a couple of suggestions for you. 1. stop reading the junk from fundamentalist and those that are anti-Catholic and to educated yourself go to Catholic web sites and blogs or even get books by Catholics about Catholic theology and educate yourself since you in your own words ” you don’t know much”. 2. maybe Alfred, even go and talk to a Catholic priest for once in your life and even attend a Mass and find out for yourself, not what others who know nothing but claim they do, what it is all about. That is what you have accused others doing, they never attended Bill’s seminars so how dare they accuse Bill of heresy. I can say the same to you and since you are a proud Fundamentalist, I would suggest the book by Karl Keating “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”. You read that book and then tell me what you think.

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 11, 2016    

          I am always amazed that people that call themselves “Christian” have the audacity to question someone else’s salvation or “if they are saved”. That’s skating on thin ice

          No, the ice is quite thick here. I read:

          1 Peter 3:15 “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”

          Asking each other for the reason of the hope within us is completely appropriate. You should be ready to give me an answer, because I asked. Do you have hope of eternal life, and on what basis? The context is “Do X and get Y from the Lord”. What is your X and Y, or do you not have X and Y?

          The reason this came up was that you challenged me for having confidence in Y based on X as I read it in Scripture. My basis for claiming earthly protection based on trusting and confessing and crying out to my Lord is based on the same type of promise that gives me the hope of eternal life.

          BTW, this was what Paul said about his experience in such things:

          2 Timothy 3:10-11 “But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.”

          • rob war rob war
            June 11, 2016    

            Alfred,
            the context of “do X and God will do Y” is in the conversation about rape and specifically, Bill’s claim that if someone is about to be sexually assaulted, if they “cry out” which Bill claims is a literal “crying out”, then God will always and never fail to “deliver” the person about to be assaulted. Again, that is reducing God to a formula as in WoF teaching which Bill has more in common with than what you are willing to admit. I am not sure what all the other verses you just quoted here have to do with either sexual assault (the current topic in this thread) or even if a Catholic is saved or not. You didn’t respond to my other suggestions here, you have avoided them. I could care less what you think or not if I am “saved”. I personally have no doubts about salvation or my faith at all, in fact I am very confident in both which if makes me wonder about you.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 11, 2016    

            if someone is about to be sexually assaulted, if they “cry out” which Bill claims is a literal “crying out”, then God will always and never fail to “deliver” the person about to be assaulted.

            The part you are not addressing is that is precisely what the Bible gives us at the basis for being saved . . . crying out in the Name of the Lord . . . confessing Him as Lord, audibly:

            Romans 10:9-13
            “9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

            I had quoted that earlier. Same confessing with the mouth, same Lord . . . same promise. If this is not an “X gives Y”, then neither is the other . . . or they both are. So . . . which is it? You cannot claim the verses about confessing Him before men – crying out to Him before men – mean nothing in terms of “X gives Y”, Y being earthly deliverance, and yet claim that the same crying out produces eternal deliverance from hell as a Y based on other Scriptures.

            I quoted a verse that makes it clear that we need to be ready to give the reason for the hope in us. I asked for yours. Mine is that Jesus died for me on the cross, and there was a day where I confessed Him as my Lord before God . . . and before people, which I am even doing as we speak. I also believe He is alive, i.e. God raised Him from the dead. Romans 10:9 has three “shalts” in it: “Shalt” confess + “Shalt” believe (in Jesus resurrection) = “Shalt” be saved. X+Y=Z

          • rob war rob war
            June 11, 2016    

            Alfred,
            the verses you are quoting speak about general salvation, not specifically addressing the way you (and Bill) are trying to use them in that if someone doesn’t “cry out” with a loud voice if they are about to be sexually assaulted, then God won’t “save” them from the assault and they are responsible for their own assault. That is it in a nutshell. You can quote the Bible all you want but the verses you are quoting are about general salvation and nothing about what you are trying to defend in Bill’s teaching about sexual assault and responsibility for it which is on the perpetrator NOT the victim.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 11, 2016    

            the verses you are quoting speak about general salvation, not specifically addressing the way you (and Bill) are trying to use them in that if someone doesn’t “cry out” with a loud voice if they are about to be sexually assaulted, then God won’t “save” them from the assault and they are responsible for their own assault.

            If the Lord is not faithful in keeping His promises with physical assault which can be seen, proven, He is not worthy to be trusted with spiritual danger we cannot see. That is and will remain the bottom line. You have been given plenty of Scriptures to demonstrate that that is what He says. We either take Him at His word, or we don’t.

            Psalms 91:7-12

            “7 A thousand shall fall at thy side,
            and ten thousand at thy right hand;
            but it shall not come nigh thee.
            8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold
            and see the reward of the wicked.
            9 Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge,
            even the most High, thy habitation;
            10 There shall no evil befall thee,
            neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
            11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee,
            to keep thee in all thy ways.
            12 They shall bear thee up in their hands,
            lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.”

          • rob war rob war
            June 11, 2016    

            Alfred,
            It is curious that you just quoted Psalm 91 which is the same verses that satan used on Jesus when he was tempting Jesus to jump off a building. Only in your black and white, cut and paste world. Are you saying that no bad things, accidents, assaults etc etc etc should ever happen at all for a Christian? Because that is what you are really saying and promoting here. It’s name it/claim theology at it’s finest Alfred. That is what you believe? So if bad things happen to Christians, it must be their fault because of the Bible verses you are quoting here. I trust God because He is God no matter what happens. That is real faith, not what you are trying to imply and quote the Bible. So Job then, who suffered and lost etc was do to Job not God? I really don’t think you have really carefully thought through the implications here Alfred. You have joined the ranks of WoF people.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 12, 2016    

            Are you saying that no bad things, accidents, assaults etc etc etc should ever happen at all for a Christian? Because that is what you are really saying and promoting here.

            And you DO know that this is first prophesied of Jesus. If it was true of ANYONE, it was true of Him. So . . . did bad things happen to Him? Well, He WAS protected from most things . . . even to the point of “hiding Himself”, i.e. becoming invisible, or walking right through rabid mobs . . . while they watched. When it was time for Him to suffer, then He COULD have cried out . . . and had 12 Legions of angels immediately protecting Him . . . but He declined. It MEANS what it says. For my part . . . my testimony is that so far there has not been a time where I have cried out to Him . . . and He did not show up and do something.

            I sense we are basically not going to get anywhere here.

  12. reader rabbit reader rabbit
    June 12, 2016    

    So sorry for all the children who were violated before they could even talk or those mentally handicapped who cannot speak or do not realize what is happening to them in an assault. It’s unfortunate for the innocent girls who had drugs slipped into their cokes and were not even aware they were being violated. Never mind that the normal response to sexual violation by someone known to the victim is shock which might prevent them from audibly saying the magic words. Too bad for them that they didn’t know the magic formula of audibly crying out to God or they would have been delivered. Yep, definitely all their fault.

    Too bad the Sovereign, Just and Loving God of the universe wouldn’t come to their aid even though He saw their plight because they didn’t follow the secret steps to success. Wonder what went wrong with the rape victim in Deut. 22:27- “When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.”? She actually cried out, but she must have done it wrong or in the wrong language. It is surely her fault as Gothard’s God would have rescued her if she responded perfectly. Is that the kind of God that he has forged into his own likeness? One that responds only to those who do it all perfectly? This victim-blaming teaching ignores truth relating to God’s very nature of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience and is offensive to those who love Christ. It’s about as Biblical as “God helps those who help themselves.”

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 12, 2016    

      This victim-blaming teaching ignores truth relating to God’s very nature of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience and is offensive to those who love Christ.

      So . . . . what DO you tell a rape victim about her loving Heavenly Father in the wake of an assault? Jesus loves her, this we know, but He is too busy or weak to help her? I want to know. No wonder our children are losing their faith in droves . . . because their parents really don’t believe in Him themselves.

      • Incredulous Incredulous
        June 12, 2016    

        Well, telling her anything at all would be better than what you’ve said about her: that her failure to invoke the name of Jesus so as to magically prevent the assault proves that she is not eternally saved, either, since this is by ‘calling on the name of the Lord.”
        You’ve taken the “calling on the name” that saves from hell & projected onto every assault, making each a dual test-case both for adeptness-of-defense & for salvation; it’s apparently not for you to know how far the saving arm of Yahweh reaches. So why don’t you instead tell a defiled person what all the Bible says about sexual assault/attack. After you come to accept it yourself.

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 12, 2016    

          Well, telling her anything at all would be better than what you’ve said about her: that her failure to invoke the name of Jesus so as to magically prevent the assault proves that she is not eternally saved, either, since this is by ‘calling on the name of the Lord.”

          In my way of thinking you are getting amazingly close to blasphemy. The Lord is the one who told us to call on His name.

          Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved(delivered)”

          • Incredulous Incredulous
            June 13, 2016    

            You said it, not me; I was just paraphrasing you.

            Elsewhere, you said in response to my saying that none of us cried out to Jesus Himself:

            “That makes no sense to me. Your body belongs, not to you, but to Jesus, His Holy temple. How is it that the Living Lord of the Universe, with whom you walk moment by moment, is not the first person to cry out to for help? In Scripture we have an example of a king who was sick . . .

            2 Chronicles 16:12 “And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians.”

            Instead of crying out to the Lord, he called out to his doctors … and thus the Lord left him sick, and he died. Sometimes the Lord gets offended when we look EVERYWHERE first . . . except to Him, like He doesn’t even matter.

            We all have the same challenges. We face the same situation in the first seconds of an accident. Where our heart turns first speaks much to what is in it.”

            First of all, if you think that the process of coming down with an illness is similar to being sexually assaulted, then you do not have a clue as to what is even being discussed here (sexual assault). Next of all, if you think sexual assault is an “accident”, then it’s no wonder you don’t have God’s perspective on Judges chapter 20. Last of all, you haven’t answered my questions, A-thru-D, higher up in this post, nor those about Ruth. Maybe I got the location’s name wrong, but it was wherever she was transferred to that she then specifically communicated her state of distress from. Lev 22 makes clear that ANYONE hearing such a cry for help is commensurate with the prevention of a full-blown attack. Whereas this same passage makes clear that the victim “crying out” does NOT prevent it, unless human ears hear; it presumes that an attack IS prevented if a cry for help is heard by human ears. The impetus of prevention that YOU transfer onto the one being assaulted is actually another human’s responsibility, Alfred; it’s on the hearer. According to what God’s Word says, anyway.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 13, 2016    

            Maybe I got the location’s name wrong

            Location is pretty important. If this happened before she chose to go up to the Northwoods. I know for a fact that Bill told her she should leave the ministry prior to the nightmare unfolding. Based on her lack of animosity towards Bill in the wake of what followed – citation I have provided several times – that does seem to bear that out. If she was crying out for help and was rebuffed . . . I am thinking she would feel a lot differently, don’t you?

            Deposition

  13. Pegasister Pegasister
    June 12, 2016    

    “When it was time for Him to suffer, then He COULD have cried out . . . and had 12 Legions of angels immediately protecting Him . . . but He declined.”

    Interesting that you would say this, Moderator. Elsewhere on this website you, or another member of the moderating team, have used Christ’s example as an example of the need to cry out. You say He cried out for help on the cross. Problems with that aside, now you claim He “declined” to cry out? You can’t have it both ways and prove either point you were trying to make here. Plus, by your logic, if Jesus really didn’t cry out, then He carries part of the blame for what happened to Him. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before but I can’t do that now. You wonder why so many people call Bill’s teachings unbiblical? How about blatant contradictions like this one, or the logical conclusions that many of these teachings lead to?

    @Rob War Help me out if you’re willing. I’m pretty sure you saw the initial conversation I’m referring to.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 12, 2016    

      You say He cried out for help on the cross. Problems with that aside, now you claim He “declined” to cry out?

      If you read what I precisely wrote, I did not mention the cross. He cried out in the Garden of Gethsemane . . . . THAT was where he was heard . . . and that was where He knew He must go through the cross.

      Hebrews 5:7 “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in [the thing] that he feared”

      That is why He did not cry out on the cross, for:

      Matthew 26:53 “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”

      Any time He wanted, He could have. Instead He was delivered from death by rising from the dead, and so purchasing eternal salvation for all that put their trust in Him.

      • reader rabbit reader rabbit
        June 13, 2016    

        Well, I would not blame the victim, tell them it was their lack of faith or conduct an ad hominem assault of their character.
        Hopefully, any response I would have to a rape victim would parallel what I might prayerfully say ( in the right timing) to anyone who has found themselves under the curse of sin in this world. It is no comfort to tell the mother of a drowned child or the husband whose wife was murdered or the young lady scarred with burns that God was unaware of their plight or not strong enough to aid. These are hard situations that demand faith in the nature and purpose of God and a hefty dose of humility as we ponder our finite abilities to understand the One whose ways are higher than ours. Unless personally connected, there is more likely a chance that I would only offer comfort and seek to direct them to source of all comfort. Surely in time, we eventually come to see that God transcends over all things- even the hardest of things. It takes maturity to trust His plans and purpose when we don’t understand His ways. I have plenty of those situations in my life and they have served to eventually strengthen rather than weaken my faith, though it was often hard fought. I find myself drawn to those who have struggled transparently in a hard place and have yet come out trusting Him afresh.
        As shared on another thread, I found myself years ago in one of the abusive situations I mentioned and have been grateful to see 2 Cor.1:4 come to fruition with being able to comfort others with the comfort I have been given.
        It seems a shallow belief that can only trust the Lord when He “shows up and does something.” I find that often God does not do what I want. Though He is faithful to answer many prayers “yes”, there are quite a few “no” and “wait”responses. Isn’t it His prerogative as GOD of the Universe to determine what momentary light affliction He will us in preparing for us an eternal weight of glory?

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 13, 2016    

          It seems a shallow belief that can only trust the Lord when He “shows up and does something.”

          You know, this is what I read:

          Hebrews 10:36-38
          36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

          Waiting for the Lord to deliver us is exactly what faith is all about. Again, if God does care to or can’t in fact deliver us physically, HOW in the world is He to be trusted to deliver us spiritually? This is “pie in the sky bye and bye”, a delicious fairy tale. What Paul said:

          2 Timothy 3:5 “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

          If there is no real power in it, it is fake.

  14. Sandy Sandy
    June 13, 2016    

    It may seem foreign to you, but I’m not going to put God in the box of having to “show up [or] do something” for me to believe in Him, to trust His goodness or wisdom, to know that He hasn’t left His post, or to have confidence in my salvation.

    As far as my mute friend, you imply here that she has no means of salvation. Really? Smh.

    You ask for examples of people under attack crying out to Jesus without immediate relief. In the case of rape, I am no expert, and would defer to those who work with victims of this type of violence. In the case of any number of other kinds of attacks, I’d have to do likewise. I’ve been graciously spared as the victim of or witness to much physical violence in my lifetime thus far. However, I can imagine that there have been any number of sincere cries to Jesus in kidnappings, hijackings, beatings, terror attacks, and the like, with tragic endings. More to the point, I can’t imagine that there haven’t been.

    I do not doubt the Lord’s supernatural ability. I don’t recall specifics, but I feel sure I’ve heard testimony to the effect of an averted attack when one has called to Jesus. But while you ask me and others here for real-life examples of ANY believer that cried out and did not get immediate relief, all YOU can come up with is a cinematic case study?? A Word of Faith-laced one, at that. You’re really gonna have to come up with something better than Miss Clara, Alfred, but as long as you view victims of rape as “wanting it,” don’t bother.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 13, 2016    

      It may seem foreign to you, but I’m not going to put God in the box of having to “show up [or] do something” for me to believe in Him, to trust His goodness or wisdom, to know that He hasn’t left His post, or to have confidence in my salvation.

      It IS foreign to me. So . . . you are slipping into eternity . . . and you wake up in hell. Are you OK with that? He, in other words, didn’t show up, fulfilled his promise as you allegedly were trusting Him for. My point is that a promise of earthly protection is given in the same way as heavenly. At SOME point we need to be brave . . . and actually believe Him, stick our necks out, confess His promise, be prepared to look like an idiot if He fails . . . or, frankly, we believe nothing and nobody.

      As far as my mute friend, you imply here that she has no means of salvation.

      Didn’t say that. I said: HOW did she get saved? Scripture says it was by confessing WITH HER MOUTH. Obviously there are other ways to perform that step if you have no voice to speak with. At the very least, the angels see what is going on in the heart, which would be in the mouth if the mouth could speak.

      I do not doubt the Lord’s supernatural ability.

      *I* am inclined to not believe you.

      “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:14-20)

      You claim to believe in God’s supernatural deliverance . . . but when cornered where people can actually see if He does or doesn’t, you don’t. That is the definition of “faith without works”, i.e. there is no instance where you do anything differently because of your faith in His deliverance . . . than if you had no such faith.

      • Sandy Sandy
        June 13, 2016    

        So I have no faith and am slipping into eternity in hell. No words.

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 13, 2016    

          So I have no faith and am slipping into eternity in hell.

          Your faith is before the Lord, although Scripture encourages us to examine each other to see whether we actually are “in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5/1 Peter 3:15). My challenge remains: If we profess an Almighty and Allknowing and All-Loving God yet . . . when it comes to the nitty gritty of what happens when we are sexually attacked, we do backflips to avoid involving, implicating Him, instead describing a either a weak, unknowing, or uninterested Being that, for all intents and purposes, might as well not be there . . . do we really believe?

          • Sandy Sandy
            June 14, 2016    

            If I were attacked sexually or otherwise, no, I would not implicate God. Neither would I accuse Him of not knowing, not being interested, nor least of all not loving me – even for a millisecond. ***He has already proven Himself.*** He has given me the gift of His only son, and continutes to sustain me every moment of every day. There is nothing that can ever happen to me to justify doubts that He is my redeemer, sustainer, protector, and provider.

            I believe that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and is able to prevent or intervene in an attack. I have no idea how many times He’s prevented me from danger … although I do believe once was this mornng on my way to work! I’m not sure why you deduce that I’m faithless. I’m NOT going to prescribe what I believe acceptable behavior is for the God of the universe and hold HIM to it. He is God and I am not. He is utterly able to do anything He chooses. He protects and blesses me according to His whim, most certainly not at my beck and call. I absolutely come out on the good side of that equation. That is, given an option to be blessed when I do “good,” and being able to stimulate blessings at will, versus being blessed when He so chooses, whether I be doing “good” at the moment, or distracted, or disparaged, or whatever – I am infinitely better off with blessings according to His schedule. What He provides for me is far more than I could get produced on demand, even if I worked 24/7 doing it.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 14, 2016    

            I’m NOT going to prescribe what I believe acceptable behavior is for the God of the universe and hold HIM to it.

            Forgive me, but you sound way too much like wicked king Ahaz:

            “Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?” (Isaiah 7:10-13)

            See, the Lord not only wants . . . but expects us to prove Him. That is how He glorifies Himself:

            “Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. . . . Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.” (Psalm 50:14,15,23)

            See it? “Conversation” is old English for “way” . . . if we “order” our ways to please Him, He WILL show us deliverance in very practical ways. The purpose is to glorify Him.

            Here is another verse, the one that George Muller took as his “life verse” and motivated him to build those orphanages without ever once asking anyone for money or making the needs known, except after the fact:

            Psalm 81:10 “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.”

            God wants us to open our mouths REALLY WIDE, expect great things of Him . . . so He can in turn prove to the unbelieving world that He is real and does what He says.

  15. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 13, 2016    

    Moderator, I think you deleted at least a part of one of your own posts on this thread; I just read through them all & distinctly remember reading where you had wondered how a so-called victim could call on the Lord to be saved if they didn’t likewise do so concerning imminent danger here on earth. And now I don’t see it.

    At any rate, about Ruth’s “lack of animosity” towards Bill: did Jesus have animosity toward those who crucified Him? Does this lack mean that NO ONE will go to hell? (Since the sin of us all did it to Him?) If animosity or lack of it the only Biblical measure of whether a wrong has been done by one against another?!?

    You say that the only absolute determiner of the prevention of a sexual assault/attack is if the one it’s happening to cries out to Jesus. Lev. 22 says otherwise; it assumes that any assault outside of human earshot will be commenced by the pervert. Thus, screaming DOESN’T “suck their energy away so as to thwart the attack”, or force God to intervene. It is a variable as to whether or not the victim cries for help. She is guilty if there was one to hear of heard nothing (in the city). But, if it was in a field, she can be examined to prove she was physically violated & God says she’s innocent. Because He puts no such test on His own defenses as compelled by screams. After all, “the gifts & calling of the Lord are irrevocable” & sexuality is both a gift & a calling. It’s not unreasonable for Him to leave the course of human sexuality to the human race that He vested this gift/calling in. The girl is responsible to get other human(s) to help her if she’s threatened. She may or may not do so. If not, & there’s witnesses to her silence (in the city), then she’s guilty. This is a variable. You say it’s an absolute, just between her, God, & the angels He’s somehow obligated to dispatch. If you read Lev. 22, Alfred, you’ll see what the absolute (non-variable) is. It’s the event that, if her plea for human help IS heard, this being heard prevents the assault by changing the “because there was no one to save her” to there being someone to save her. THIS is the one absolute concerning response to sexual assault/attack that the passage assumes as the prevention of it.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 13, 2016    

      Moderator, I think you deleted at least a part of one of your own posts on this thread; I just read through them all & distinctly remember reading where you had wondered how a so-called victim could call on the Lord to be saved if they didn’t likewise do so concerning imminent danger here on earth.

      I deleted one comment . . . which was a duplicate of another . . . but maybe I will restore it with a message to you at the beginning. That comment I have made several times, however. Are you trying to “catch me in my words”? :-) Yes, I do hop over and see what comments go on on RG from time to time. I bit my tongue on the “Bill never calls God Lord” thread, which was uproarious. Just Google “Bill Gothard” and “the Lord” . . . besides 50 years of seminars.

      At any rate, about Ruth’s “lack of animosity” towards Bill: did Jesus have animosity toward those who crucified Him?

      Oh, yes! How about this:

      Luke 19:27

      “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

      or

      Matthew 21:40-41

      “40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.”

      or even this:

      2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

      “7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”

      He forgave them, like David forgave Shimei and Joab . . . but when the day of reckoning came, they, who had never gotten their hearts right, were brutally killed.

      “Lev. 22 says otherwise; it assumes that any assault outside of human earshot will be commenced by the pervert.

      It doesn’t assume anything. It simply, in a rape trial, gives the benefit of the doubt to the woman in any instance where no one could have heard her screams. It establishes for us that a scream is the sign that the crime is enormous to the woman . . . the same as when someone attacks with a club. Screams are largely involuntary when horrible things happen. It would vote against the incredibly broad automatic definition of “rape” in our modern culture . . . but still with full protection for the woman, since all she needs to do is 1) Avoid being alone with men in place far from others, and 2) Scream at any hint of unwanted action towards her.

      There are many other Scriptures outside of Lev. 22 that speak to God protecting His own that cry out to Him when attacked. Here is one:

      2 Chronicles 18:31

      “And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, It is the king of Israel. Therefore they compassed about him to fight: but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart from him.”

  16. Outraged Outraged
    June 13, 2016    

    The John Troyer family, huddled together desperately on a chilly and dark Guatemala night, pled for their lives and called out to Jesus to rescue them in their time of trouble. Shots rang out and that young father was shot dead before the very eyes of his wife and little children.

    Why? According to you this could not be possible.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 13, 2016    

      “John Troyer . . . Why? According to you this could not be possible”

      First of all, I do not know this story. A couple of stabs at the Internet have not provided much info. Do you have a source?

      Secondly, we KNOW that people die for Jesus . . . Hebrews 11 is full of examples, even being cut into pieces, stoned to death . . .

      Hebrews 11:33-37
      “33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;”

      Balance, right? Some escaped gloriously, some – by God’s decree – did not . . . and some even choose to NOT escape torture because they were looking for a “better resurrection”.

      So . . . what is the testimony of this family? The key is . . . do they blame the attackers, bitterly, or do they praise Jesus because of what He did through it? Faith says that Jesus, who loves me, is fully in charge – and if He chooses to not deliver me, it is because there is more blessing and glory going through it.

      • Pegasister Pegasister
        June 14, 2016    

        It’s possible that family was targeted for their faith, and would thus be martyrs. However, as of now, we don’t know that. They could have been just living there and murdered by people who just wanted to kill. But murdering a Christian and martyring a Christian are two different things. Just because the murder victim is a Christian, doesn’t mean they “died for Christ”. Suppose I’m driving to work and I’m carjacked, murdered, and left dead on the side of the road. Note that my van has no crosses, bumper stickers, or any other indicators of my faith in Christ. From looking at me and my car, the attacker wouldn’t see a Christian who must die because she loves God. He just sees a young woman on her way to her part-time job, a vulnerable target. And you can bet I’d be screaming Jesus’ name if someone’s trying to kill me. That doesn’t make me a martyr anymore than eating at McDonald’s makes me a Big Mac. I’d be dead, and in heaven, and communing with my Savior…but not receiving a martyr’s crown because my death had nothing to do with my faith. Association doesn’t always lead to cause, and your continual uses of the Hebrew verses really have no bearing in such a situation.

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 14, 2016    

          Just because the murder victim is a Christian, doesn’t mean they “died for Christ”.

          Beg strongly to differ. Consider this:

          “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. 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. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:4-9)

          If we cannot die without God commanding it . . . how can a believer die or even be attacked (which would dislodge a hair)? By God’s explicit permission. How was it that Job’s children died and he was so brutally harmed? Because Satan – who hates God’s people – asked permission to persecute him. So EVERY such act on a Christian walking with Jesus is because Satan obtains permission to hurt us . . . because he hates us. That is being a martyr for Jesus . . . because of the extreme focus of God on His children.

          Of course . . . Of we are NOT walking with Jesus, even denying Him before men . . . NOT confessing Him before men . . . maybe by not crying out to Him when a potential attack presents itself . . . the implication is that the angels may, by God’s permission, take a pass . . . Satan also given the go-ahead. In that case, correct, no martyr honor.

          • Pegasister Pegasister
            June 14, 2016    

            You’re giving Satan and his minions far more credit than they deserve. There’s plenty of cases where direct demonic intervention is hard to deny, but certain cases don’t meet that description. Crediting Satan for every bad thing that happens essentially grants him knowledge and power that belongs only to God, and distracts from the immediate perpetrators here on Earth. If I punch my little brother, I can claim that it’s Satan’s fault since God gave him permission to tempt me. I guarantee you that will not save me from punishment! I would agree that Satan is ultimately behind the fall of man because of his temptation of Adam and Eve, but I would not agree that he is therefore directly responsible for every bad thing that happens on earth now. By the logic you’re using, I’m suffering for Christ’s sake if I unknowingly touch a hot stove and burn myself. Honestly, that just sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself and God that you’ll be rewarded for anything bad that happens to you, no matter the cause.

            So about crying out…one thing I’ve never heard you or Bill explain is what happens when the victim can’t cry out. And I’m not talking about being frozen in fear because I know you’ll reject that, validity aside. Especially in date rape scenarios, it is common for the victim to be gagged and restrained, or (more likely) drugged and unconscious. The recent case of Brock Turner is an example–the victim was unconscious and didn’t remember anything of the assault. She was physically unable to cry out. What advice could you offer to a girl in that scenario? “Sorry Sue, you didn’t fight the drugs you didn’t know about hard enough to wake up, realize what was happening and scream. Guess you wanted it and therefore you’re not saved.”

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 15, 2016    

            If I punch my little brother, I can claim that it’s Satan’s fault

            Your world is a world with a teeny tiny God in it. If not one hair of your brother’s head can fall to the ground but by God’s permission . . . how do you expect to punch him unless God is wanting that to happen? You can plan anything you want, but you will do in the end exactly what God pleases:

            Proverbs 16:9 “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.”

            if I unknowingly touch a hot stove and burn myself

            That will only happen by God’s direct command . . . if you are a child of God:

            Psalms 91:11-12 “For he shall give his angels charge over thee,
            to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands,
            lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.”

            How big, and how much in control, is your God? Is He a big God … or a litle one?

            She was physically unable to cry out.

            And the Lord will not forget His own that cry out day and night to Him, even then:

            Luke 18:7 “And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?”

            When Abel was dead, he was still crying out . . . and remembered:

            Genesis 4:10 “And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.”

          • Slippery Slope Sandy Slippery Slope Sandy
            June 15, 2016    

            You point out a great Gothard tenant – a dividing line between Christians “walking with Jesus” and those who are not. I just think of myself as a helpless sinner that Jesus loves dearly; my love and devotion are based solely on that, not to get myself placed into (and have to maintain) a walking catagory. Again – it’s all to my benefit to rely on Him rather than on my own accomplishments. His yoke is easy, His burden is light. Sad for those that have been given the impression they have to step it up to be worthy.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 15, 2016    

            Sad for those that have been given the impression they have to step it up to be worthy.

            Be worthy? Worthy of what? See, the problem with those that have been given that impression . . . is that you have to stop reading the Bible to avoid that problem. Take just a minute . . . and read the following . . . starting with your “worthy” comment:

            Ephesians 4:1 “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called” —- Excited, urging Christians to “walk worthy”. Colossians 1:10 “That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God” —- Some do, some don’t . . . does it matter? “As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.” (1 Thess. 2:11-12) Revelation 3:4 – “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.” —- Just a few believers in the church . . . worthy?

            How about this – Philippians 2:12 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” —- We must be so focused on getting where God wants us to be . . . that it makes us shake with intensity. Do you read it any other way?

            Or this – 2 Peter 1:5-7 “And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” —- we don’t get to just rest on our faith, but need to give “all diligence” – intense focus – to add to it . . . godliness.

            So . . . let’s get some balance. Do we rest in Jesus . . . or do we work hard for Jesus? Here is a verse . . . that ties it all together:

            “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” (Hebrews 7:9) Work to rest? Apparently . . . there is work to be done, then we rest . . .

          • Sandy Sandy
            June 15, 2016    

            Yeah … the difference to me is where the power or ability to walk worthy comes from. Not from within myself.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 16, 2016    

            Not from within myself.

            Agreed. THAT is the grace that Bill highlights . . . the desire . . . and the power . . . to walk worthy. God gives that grace to the humble, withholds it from the proud . . . we can ask Him for it . . . we even minister it one to another as stewards.

  17. David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
    June 15, 2016    

    Okay, I just noticed the pun in your subtitle (“reign” vs. “rain”). Was that intentional? If so, congratulations for lightening a heavy topic, if only a little.

    Singing in the reign,
    David K

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 15, 2016    

      Thanks. It actually matches well. :-)

  18. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 15, 2016    

    You see so much moral significance in crying out, & indeed it is presumed that one hearing an assault victim crying out would at least testify to having heard this, even if not able to come to her defense due to their own fear. Given your emphasis placed here in this medium (DG), it’s kind of ironic that you’ve (in the past) used this same medium to negate what Lev. 22 says about such a hearer being counted on BY GOD HIMSELF to testify accurately as to what they heard or did not hear. The bulk of recorded evidence proves to any thinking person that Ruth let Bill know she was being sexually assaulted by his brother/subordinate. Maybe Bill was, for some reason, unable to save her in response to this cry for help. But to not give whatever this reason was, but instead lying about what he’d heard firsthand, is not only AGAINST the due course of the Law; it usurps God’s clear intent in specifying the whole course of His expectations in Lev. 22.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 15, 2016    

      Ruth let Bill know she was being sexually assaulted by his brother/subordinate.

      I know Larne reads this from time to time . . . this is new information for me. I was not aware that Ruth ever relayed to Bill that she was being sexually assaulted by Steve. She did at one point disclose that she was tempted by him, before any trouble ensued . . . if I recall that correctly. But that was all.

  19. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 15, 2016    

    “She did at one point disclose that she was tempted by him, before any trouble ensued”
    He was her superior, Alfred. Steve’s temptation of her, that she apparently resisted so as to be able to continue resisting it by trying to get help by reporting it to Bill, was sexual assault in the context of Steve’s holding higher rank than her in that place of business. Judges 19 & 20 & Gen. 19 make clear that dominance wielded to pressure another one with regard to sex is punishable by God & that the victim of it is innocent- whether they make appeal to mutual authority regarding their plight or not. If you’re talking Bible, “trouble ensued” as soon as Steve started sexually assaulting her by leveraging his position over her to this end.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 15, 2016    

      Steve’s temptation of her, that she apparently resisted so as to be able to continue resisting it by trying to get help by reporting it to Bill

      So, let’s get some clarification before we go too much further. Where are you getting your information from? If you can point me to it maybe it can help catch me up. There was a point where Bill suggested strongly that she leave the ministry, for her own good . . . I thought this was the instance, but I am unsure.

  20. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 16, 2016    

    The links were posted by Larne under “the Shepherd of the Hills” article. And even without those, you should be realizing that it’s wrong to tell an employee to resign in retaliation for their reporting of being sexually assaulted at work. The person being told to resign in response to this information should be an assaulter whose assaults have multiple witnesses.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 17, 2016    

      The links were posted by Larne under “the Shepherd of the Hills” article.

      I took an hour of precious time (sleep) before leaving @2AM for a plane . . . to search the entire “Shepherd” thread. I was looking for statements from Larne . . . and in coming back here, I see you reference “links”. IF you happen to have those handy to post, I would deeply appreciate it. Otherwise . . . I will continue my search when I am able. Or . . . is it the reference below? From “Ruth’s Story”:

      “After years of working as Bill’s personal secretary, Ruth fell out of favor with Bill after an emotional breakdown. The psychological control he held over her and the way he kept her reliant on him and his “rhemas” were taking their toll on her mentally and emotionally. As a result of her breakdown she told me she felt like she was punished by being demoted. She was given a choice: she could work as a clerk in the registration department (an entry level position) or leave Headquarters and go to the Northwoods property and work for Bill’s brother. Ruth writes, “Even after I told Bill about the moral pressures I faced from previous visits to the Northwoods, he pressured me to relocate there.” This was a fateful decision that would have her working with an immoral man and land her in the middle of one of the most grievous cases of widespread sexual harassment and abuse in a Christian ministry.”

      This has the expression “moral pressures”. Every single young person experiences some degree of “moral pressures” – THAT was, even as is implied, not a reference to any failure. That did happen afterwards. The big difference of understanding: Larne insists that Bill urged Ruth to go to the Northwoods; Bill is adamant that he urged her to go home, after which she pled with him to stay. And according to him, Ruth was the one who wanted to head up to the Northwoods if she could not stay and be Bill’s secretary.

      you should be realizing that it’s wrong to tell an employee to resign in retaliation for their reporting of being sexually assaulted at work

      I absolutely guarantee that that conversation did not happen. Assuming I finally found what you are referring to. There was no “Sexual Assault” leading up to Ruth being urged to leave the ministry.

      • rob war rob war
        June 17, 2016    

        You can’t guarantee that any conversation did or didn’t happen because you were not there. It is sickening that you keep bringing up Ruth who is no longer here and now with the Lord. All you do is take Bill’s side of the story on this and everything else. If Bill is or was so innocent, then why hasn’t the board brought him back? I really think Alfred that you need to drop bringing up Ruth. It is unfair to her memory, to Larne and their children. There are a number of others that are still alive from that time period, why do you focus on someone that is no longer here? Why don’t you go ask Steve for his side of the story? Why do you just use Bill’s side which appears to be dishonest to everyone else but you.

        • Moderator Moderator
          June 18, 2016    

          I really think Alfred that you need to drop bringing up Ruth

          Well, Incredulous has kept bringing her up as proof of Bill malfeasance. We do need to respond to that. Ruth and Larne asked everyone to not reference them for decades – the Veinots left any reference to her out of their book. Years later Larne felt it was time to go public and lifted the request to not discuss her story. As she figures heavily in many of the 1980s allegations, including the Cabin Story, it is appropriate to discuss her involvement. Hopefully in a respectful way.

          • rob war rob war
            June 18, 2016    

            Ruth is not mentioned at all in the “cabin story” for one thing and you have spent an incredible amount of time on RG questioning that story as being bogus. I think it has been pointed out that the cabin story is probably a conglomeration of different stories between Gary, his wife and your all time favorite, the “agent of Satan”. Whether the Cabin story really happen or is a conglomeration of different stories by different witnesses, the fact remains that the girl in the cabin story is un-named and it is wrong to keep saying it is Ruth.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 18, 2016    

            the girl in the cabin story is un-named and it is wrong to keep saying it is Ruth.

            There are no other stories. The Cabin Story has one (1) source, and that is Gary Smalley. Gary confirmed to me it was Ruth. No point dealing in generalities.

          • rob war rob war
            June 18, 2016    

            You have picked apart the Cabin story as bogus, you have made a big deal about approaching the late Gary Smalley and claiming that he has told you that this story was not true. So either you believe the Cabin story as false with an un-named girl or now you are stating that the story is “true” because Gary Smalley told you that it was Ruth. You can’t have it both ways here. Two of your sources are now in heaven. Unless you can post or prove by letter or email from Gary Smalley that the woman in the “Cabin Story” is Ruth and that this is true, I think you are making it up to bash Ruth and now that she is in heaven, that is pretty pathetic on your part. You have made a big deal about the fact that the “cabin story” was pulled for wikipedia and according to you was a sign that this whole story was not true. Now it’s true to you because you want to saw it’s Ruth? You can’t spin this any better Alfred because you are beginning to spin out of control and you can’t keep your excuses straight.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 19, 2016    

            Two of your sources are now in heaven. Unless you can post or prove by letter or email from Gary Smalley that the woman in the “Cabin Story” is Ruth and that this is true, I think you are making it up to bash Ruth and now that she is in heaven, that is pretty pathetic on your part.

            I just KNEW that was coming, now that Gary is with that Lord :-) So let’s quickly go back over this:

            1) There is only one source for the story, Gary Smalley. He put a version of that in his notes in 1980 and reaffirmed pieces of it in emails to Tony Guhr in the early 2000s. There are no other accounts in play here.

            2) Because the tale as he put it forward did not make sense to me I emailed him directly 6/19/2014 and asked for any clarification he could provide. He replied the same day – after expressing his grief with the way Bill treated him back in the 1970s he said:

            Regarding the girl who I caught sitting on B’s lap, my wife is now telling me that she
            talked with this girl the following week and that the incident happened in B’s office
            in Oakbrook. She must have come to the office after she was ready for bed in her
            winter coat and that’s when I saw what I saw. I had told me wife about it the same
            day and as I said, my wife talked with the girl. I’m sorry but I don’t remember the
            type of bed clothing she was wearing. I just know that I was shocked.
            Hope this helps. Blessings, Gary

            Other comments – emails that I have – confirmed that it was Ruth.

            3) Because the notion of a secretary in any night-wear out and about at HQ was incomprehensible from any number of perspectives I asked for clarification on what she was wearing. At that point he told me – in two other emails – that he has NO recollection of what she was wearing, coat or no coat, etc. Other testimony made it clear that, for Ruth, it was beyond possibility that she would be out of her room in anything but full “business” attire.

            4) Others confirmed that Gary and Norma told them the same thing, that the account that he had put his name to was not correct – so in that way you are right that I picked the “Cabin Story” apart as bogus, for there never was a “Cabin Story”. THE CABIN WAS NOT EVEN BUILT UNTIL AFTER GARY LEFT THE MINISTRY – it is simply impossible.

            I have the emails in my possession. And corroborating written testimony from others.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 19, 2016    

            Rob: Had you pondered that there are those that could and would quickly contradict me . . . on the facts so stated . . . if I were wrong? Some that personally spoke with Gary face to face to confirm the facts I have in emails. Doesn’t the fact that they have not . . . in two full years . . . give you a clue?

        • Lisa A Lisa A
          June 25, 2016    

          Let’s be clear, Alfred. You can’t claim that Bill was aware of some wrongdoing regarding the sexual exploits of his brother but not aware of the extent. He either knew nothing or he knew enough to see the need to ask questions and get to the truth. The testimonies of his long counseling sessions with young women and wanting to hear all of the details of their moral failures are evidence that his claim of ignorance don’t hold up. If he didn’t know the details, it is because he didn’t want to know the details for plausible deniability. Why was he interested in details of the young women and not the details of his brother?

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 25, 2016    

            You can’t claim that Bill was aware of some wrongdoing regarding the sexual exploits of his brother but not aware of the extent.

            I guess I will have to wait to see why you think this is true. This was at the height of the ministry, Bill was literally in two different cities every week, speaking every night. His brother confessed that he had “kissed and hugged 4 secretaries”, which was scandalous – and swore up and down that there was literally nothing else. The level of sin described by those that came to him from his staff was simply beyond the realm of reason. He and his father interviewed the one woman who had claimed to have sex with Steve, and she immediately recanted. The whole thing added up, not to an unthinkable moral failure by a trusted brother, but to envy and jealousy of staff vying for power and influence in what was then one of the largest ministries on the planet. So he went with that, punished and demoted Steve by removing him from HQ . . . and mistrusted and forced out those in leadership that had alleged that. No, it is quite easy to claim that.

            The testimonies of his long counseling sessions with young women and wanting to hear all of the details of their moral failures

            First of all, there are a number “testimonies” on RG that I know for a fact are exaggerated at best. One person says it, others pick it up. Bill had an open policy – fellows and girls alike – to seek to get all of the “puss out” . . . not leave any hidden secrets which we all know Satan uses to ensnare and compromise us downstream. As he often said, someone coming for counseling will typically confess to some things, not the worst, maybe to see how things go. A wise counselor will continue to ask, “Is there more?” . . . until it is all out there. That was the only reason for pressing for full confession. As he has also often said, there is danger for the counselor in hearing every titilating detail, quoting:

            Ephesians 5:12 “For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”

            Alleging that Bill has some sort of vouyerist pleasure in hearing messy sexual details is at best a misinterpretation of his counseling. Quite the contrary. For him it was like being forced to swim through a sewer to save a drowning victim.

            This – getting full confession by asking for it – only works with those that really want to be free . . . liars will continue to lie and cover up. And Steve was caught instead of coming for help . . . so his level of motivation to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” was compromised. And Bill had every motivation to believe him . . . and not to hear any more than was absolutely necessary.

          • Sandy Sandy
            June 26, 2016    

            “For him it was like being forced to swim through a sewer to save a drowning victim.”

            That’s his story and you’re sticking to it. Okaaaay.

            “. . . liars will continue to lie and cover up.”

            We finally agree.

            I admittedly have no real point this time.

          • Moderator Moderator
            June 27, 2016    

            I admittedly have no real point this time

            Ok :-)

  21. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 17, 2016    

    RUTH TOLD BILL SHE WAS UNDER PRESSURE TO COMPROMISE MORALLY.

    I’m not referring to YOUR definition of sexual assault. I’m referring to the Bible’s definition of it (both old & new testaments). By the Bible’s definition, there was sexual assault/attack leading up to what is Biblically classified as the resisted rape of Ruth, & what Bill knew of these was more than Ruth’s appeal for help. She made this appeal when the assaults against her were commenced & before the full attack took place. I just copied & pasted this from the “Shepherd of the Hills’ article comments:

    “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. ”

    You have the truth right in front of you, ranging from what the Bible says sexual assault & sexual attack are, what the culpability is regarding all involved, as well as what many have witnessed about this situation & other similar situations. I remember a bunch of links on here of documentation of what Bill knew of his brother’s sexual harassment & raping sprees & will search it out after I leave & come back from where my work is sending me for the next 10 days.

    btw, I don’t know why you’re so adamant that Ruth herself needed to understand the Bible’s definition of a rapist in order for what the Bible says about rapists to be able to apply to her situation. It says what it says. Are dead victims of terrorist bombings not murdered if they don’t know the Biblical definition of murder?

    PS. have a good Father’s Day weekend, you probably deserve some time off from this.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 18, 2016    

      RUTH TOLD BILL SHE WAS UNDER PRESSURE TO COMPROMISE MORALLY

      There are many ways in which “moral pressure” is experienced. It is not clear what exactly she was referring to, but at that point Steve had done nothing to her. I just need you to acknowledge my understanding of that discussion, based on what Bill told me.

      You have the truth right in front of you

      And I would like you to also acknowledge that Bill is adamant that he did NOT know of the full extent of Steve’s moral failures despite Larne’s insistence that he did . . . until after the scandal with the 7 women in the Northwoods broke. He heard this and that . . . and, again, had Steve confess to kissing and hugging 4 girls. That is the extent of what he believed to have actually happened. The information that came to him was far from clear, not at least until after the big scandal in 1980.

      PS. have a good Father’s Day weekend

      Hey, I really appreciate that. I ended up getting no sleep last night, rushed to the airport, missed our 5:40am flight due to the nightmare of security . . . and spent some time in San Jose I wasn’t planning to to finally get to LA. The Lord is good, we made it. I need some sleep :-) Part of the late night was the dinner and “show” the kids put on for father’s day, complete with world class comedy, magic, singing. Downside, wife and I will spend Father’s Day away from the children at a work vendor conference.

    • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
      June 18, 2016    

      Dear Incredulous,

      May I shove my oar in for a word of praise? That was gracious of you to wish Brother Alfred well for Fathers’ Day. We both see that he has weathered plenty of indignation on this site. Though I do not always read his replies to others very closely, they usually seem pretty reasonable to me. But what man is so thick-skinned that he does not appreciate a break now and then?

      Peace and love,
      David K

  22. Incredulous Incredulous
    June 27, 2016    

    I’m glad you had good Father’s weekend festivity in the enjoyment of the myriad of talents of your offspring. That is only right & deserved, going both ways between you & them. Brother David K., I believe you to have children so I hope your time was just as enjoyable.

    Back in the Ring (just for today as I’ve gone itinerant with a career change):

    OUTRAGED:
    “I only know the unfortunate ones who did not yell loud enough or word their plea for help correctly.”

    Moderator:
    “That SOUNDS like an indictment of the Lord? Who should dispense with such things and just save everyone?”

    I’m not saying that God needs to save anyone from sexual abuse, & therefore I’m certainly not saying that anyone needs to save themself from sexual abuse by “crying out” to HIM. As Leviticus 22 makes clear, God is not the cast & crew of the playing-out of the gift/calling of human sexuality. We are the cast & crew. The fact that only human ears hearing any “crying out” is factored in by God in His law concerning the process of a sexual assault is not arbitrary. What DOES, however, separate the dynamics between rest of us from that of an assaulter, is his entering of a sexual assault onto the scene; this assaulter is neither cast nor crew because God authors no such act. (Although the assaulter’s existence as one of the players IS cast by God). Such a one casts themselves way off of God’s script by introducing assault onto the set. Proverbs 18:20 says “as for God, His way is perfect.” So, God is not the playwright of sexual assault. The victim & those within earshot are the cast & crew of HIS production. The assaulter could have remained as one of these, too, if not veering off on their own. God who knows all things saw the evil done to the victim in His foreknowledge of them & He went ahead & casted them for this aspect even as for HIS ordinances: their birth-date, parentage, genes, etc. His production isn’t sabotaged by aberrant damage done to His players.

    “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell……… & did not spare the ancient world……. when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; & if He condemned the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter, & if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw a heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, & to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement, & especially those who indulge the flesh in it’s corrupt desires & despise authority.” 2 Peter 2:4-10

    In response to what you say it SOUNDS like to hear what OUTRAGED posits, it doesn’t sound at all as though such are indicted by the Lord. In fact, Lot is included among those “rescue(ed) from temptation” who also did not “indulge the flesh in it’s corrupt desires” in being compared against those who did NOT get “rescue from temptation” who DID “indulge the flesh in it’s corrupt desires.” In the Scriptures we clearly have it;
    (A) a person does not need to cry out at all when sexually assaulted
    (B) does not need to refrain from bargaining with his assaulters by way of offering gratification to them
    (C) Is not in any way tempted, even when raped (twice) with any temptation to “indulge the flesh in it’s corrupt desires” throughout this process
    (D) Therefore is not counted among those who are not rescued from temptation who DO “indulge the flesh”, since such as Lot are not in any way tempted to indulge the flesh.
    (E) It is the assaulters of such as Lot who are not rescued from temptation & who indulge the flesh in it’s corrupt desires.

    I do realize that it is me who has brought up Steve Gothard’s wallowing in temptation & indulgence of the flesh with regards to Ruth, specifically, amongst the other 6 victims of his serial raping. However, since the Bible clearly states that she was not dealing with temptation of any kind, but was merely the victim of Steve’s capitulation to temptation, I fail to see how delving into what the Bible says about him is in any way disrespectful of her memory. In fact, as we see with Lot’s bargaining with his assaulters by offering gratification of their sexual desire in the form of TWO MARRIED virgins, I believe the Lord’s commendation of him as righteous in spite of this speaks volumes to the actual responsibility HE sees concerning sexual assault. And Alfred, I don’t think he likes it that you’re disregarding what His Word says about Lot in order to pin false accusations of being “tempted”, & un-rescued-from-this-supposed-temptation, & moral testing with regards to Ruth. This was not the case with Lot, or so we read; so it most definitely is not the case with Ruth. When did Ruth ever bargain with her sexual assaulter by offering up anyone’s virginity? Even if she had done so, we have Lot & the Levite as proof that offering up someone(s) for rape under such pressure does not render the bargainer as being in any way culpable. And we know that Ruth did no such thing that Lot & the Levite did; rape was the object of Steve’s own design, not anyone else’s. The sheer volume of his victims proves that his was the mastermind by which he lay hold of all that he took. No desperate recourse of any victim (e.g., Lot, the Levite) there!!!!!! Please stop falsely accusing Lot (Genesis 19 & 20). And the Levite (Judges 19 & 20). And Ruth. And the other 6. And all the girls were supposedly supposed to “cry-out” even though Ruth had already done so well-above-standard &, despite of her high functioning, gotten ignored. And, in my own experience with Umbrella-implementation, myself along with the other 24. Although I take solace in affinity with Lot even though you condemn him with all the rest of us & continue in this assurance before I would ever abandon the company of such a righteous one even if somehow given the opportunity to move into Ms. Clara’s camp that you have set up for whom you deem the guiltless & worthy of God’s approval.

    • Moderator Moderator
      June 28, 2016    

      “I’m glad you had good Father’s weekend festivity in the enjoyment of the myriad of talents of your offspring.”

      Thanks so very much. Means more than you know.

      “God is not the cast & crew of the playing-out of the gift/calling of human sexuality. We are the cast & crew.”

      Again, God controls, allows or vetoes every sin, this included. The cast and crew can be fired any moment He desires. “God authors no such act”, but He can cut each scene in any heartbeat He desires. Do you believe that? This is why His involvement in all such horrors remains the top matter of concern.

      ” such as Lot are not in any way tempted to indulge the flesh.”

      That remains so bizarre. Lot was more righteous than the Sodomites. But he was not perfect. In fact, he was far less righteous than Abraham. What he purposed to do to his married daughters was and always will be despicable.

      “Steve Gothard’s wallowing in temptation & indulgence of the flesh with regards to Ruth, specifically, amongst the other 6 victims of his serial raping.”

      And let us be crystal clear: to my knowledge Steve NEVER committed rape, not even statutory. All acts he engaged in were completely voluntary between consenting adults.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
        June 30, 2016    

        Dear Incredulous,

        Thank you for the mention. Yes, I am very fortunate to be a father for more than three decades. And Mrs. K is a fine mother. Our Fathers Day included our adult children who have their own households, and also the minors yet at home.

        How about you? Any young Incredulous ones? Perhaps there ought to be a Pixar flick about the Incredulous family?

        Sincerely,
        David K

      • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
        July 1, 2016    

        I hope this is not moral hair-splitting, but I agree that we have to distinguish between sins of coercion and sins of consent. Sins of consent are bad enough, but coercion against our neighbor makes things far worse. Fornication is bad, but we mustn’t make it a synonym for rape.

        Better still, let’s not sin at all. Here is a memorable tip from Bob Newhart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow0lr63y4Mw

        David K

        • Moderator Moderator
          July 1, 2016    

          To state the obvious, Rape is a criminal offense, demanding a conviction, jail time, punishable by death under God’s law. Fornication between unmarried folks – the man seen as “beguiling”, tricking the woman under the law of Moses – was punishable by a fine . . . And by marriage, without the possibility of divorce. U.S. law couldn’t care less. The level of crime is orders of magnitude different. What Steve did was horrible, especially at IBLP, damaging the work of the Lord, devastating lives, but it was not rape.

          • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
            July 2, 2016    

            Ha! “Punishable by marriage,” eh? What if your wife finds out you are using such terms? But I see your point.

            Life sentenced to matrimony,
            David K

          • Moderator Moderator
            July 2, 2016    

            :-) Yes, that is precisely the point. The fellow looking for carefree fun is suddenly shackled with the responsibilities of a wife and family . . . and, again, overtly, by law, never allowed to divorce her. By other parts of the law, he cannot withhold sex from her . . . or money. That shifts all of the “power” to the “beguiled” woman, for life . . . there is no greater punishment for the Romeos and playboys. If he is smart, he will become the most faithful, responsible spouse around, which, I think, is the intent.

          • Incredulous Incredulous
            July 3, 2016    

            So, do you consider Judges 19 & 20 to be incorrect in it’s clearly stated definition of the rape of the Levite’s concubine? Do you consider the Levite to be guilty of “fornication” for his “consent” to “fornication” as evidenced by his suggesting to his assaulters that it be committed in the body of his concubine? And do you disagree with God about punishing their culpability versus His complete avoidance of blame of the Levite in this matter?

            All the same questions to you, Alfred, regarding Lot’s hypothesis that he proffered in response to the attack on him. Because it was only the angels snatching back his daughters from the doorway in response to him making this similar offer to HIS assaulters that prevented the exact same thing from happening. (No rules about doing like Ms. Clara applied to THAT scenario for God’s rescue!).

            Am just trying to see what you have to say about a dominating force that has his victim(s) isolated & totally surrounded before suggesting what you insist on calling “fornication.” And how on earth bargaining on the part of the victim in light of this can in any way be construed as “consensual fornication.”

          • Moderator Moderator
            July 3, 2016    

            Do you consider the Levite to be guilty of “fornication” for his “consent” to “fornication” as evidenced by his suggesting to his assaulters that it be committed in the body of his concubine

            So, I am still in a learning process to catch up to where you are. As near as I can tell, you believe the two incidents – Of the Levite and of Lot – to prove that when somebody uses overwhelming force to threaten someone else, all actions of the “someone else” in response are instantly absolved of guilt, regardless of what they do. Am I roughly correct?

            In any case, the Levite was never guilty of fornication. He was guilty of cowardice in surrendering the life of his wife in exchange for his . . . and for flat out lying about the details of what had been done to her and why. The Israelites should have verified the facts before running with it and attacking the Benjamites. There can be no other explanation for the devastation that Benjamin was able to execute on them . . . other than that the Lord was rebuking their carelessness in judgment.

            the angels snatching back his daughters from the doorway

            To be accurate, they snatched one person, Lot, out of harm’s way. Lot offered his married daughters as sex bait to keep the men (angels) from being abused sexually . . . which, BTW, along the lines of “Chain of Command”, is interesting . . . that he wielded that sort of power . . . to offer adult, married daughters, with authority.

            Am just trying to see what you have to say about a dominating force that has his victim(s) isolated & totally surrounded before suggesting what you insist on calling “fornication.”

            So . . . you are saying that unmarried folks having sex – if the man dominates the woman psychologically to get laid – is NOT fornication? And these accounts are your basis? I find no such loophole in Scripture. There is one standard, and one alone: If she screams, it is non-consensual . . . if not, she has given consent. If she gave consent under durress, and she is unmarried or unengaged, the jerk has to marry her and may never neglect her and never divorce her the rest of her life. If she did not scream and she is married or engaged, she is put to death. These is no other option, no out. She must care enough about the holy things God has entrusted to her that she resists with every means she has, at the very least screaming at the last second even . . . otherwise she has given permission for those holy things to be destroyed, and she is guilty.

  23. Incredulous Incredulous
    July 1, 2016    

    Alfred please read 2 Peter 2:4-10 again. It is a contrast of the godly whom the Lord rescues from temptation & do not indulge the flesh, among whom Lot is a prime example, versus those who are NOT rescued from temptation who DO indulge the flesh. As the Bible says, with regard to the sexual assault & both rapes he endured, he was not in any way tempted with regard to these nor did he indulge the flesh with regard to these.

    And what is with the Lot-bashing? Do his assaulters who were capitally punished for their assault (& who brought down 2 whole cities along with themselves by what their assault revealed to the fact-seeking angels) really need their own culpability shared with Lot? Do Lot’s rapist daughters really need their culpability shared with him, too? God’s word sure doesn’t say so. The sexual coercion of sexual assault is not a “temptation” of the victim that the victim is or else is not “rescued” from by the Lord. Nor is it indulgence of the flesh by the victim to undergo this experience.

    Unless people are being struck by lightning or having spontaneous combustion, either of which ended in death (which these rarely do), NOBODY gets “fired”. What kind of God would just strike a person dead when that person started to violate Christians? That would definitely be happening in the Sudan right now to prevent all the rapes of Christian girls/women…….. if that’s how God works. Exact same thing with your “cut the scene” description of His administration. And, since He is El Roi (the God Who sees), (1) there’s nothing we can do to bring Him into a situation, &, (2) there’s no stipulation (except by you) that His attentiveness has to involve righting wrong(s) done by free will agents (us).

    Your Lot-bashing is one and the same with your pretending that Ruth was not completely overtaken by the intimidating control of assaulters/attackers. You deny this fact about both Lot’s & Ruth’s (& the other 6) situations. God clearly states otherwise about Lot. If the Bible were still being written today, He may have instead replaced him with her as prime example of a godly person contrasted against those whom God DOESN’T rescue from temptation to indulge the flesh.

    To Brother David K.: I like your play off “the Incredibles”. No, there is no “The Incredulous'”. I’ve always been single & so no mini-me(s). I’ve quit my other job & so live in motels now (put up by my company ’cause I work too much to drive home for just a couple hours before I hafta drive back to wherever they send me). I’m very blessed to get paid to do what I love. I don’t to go online apart from work much anymore, don’t like using motel or coffee-shop wi-fi (hackers), can only use the computers of contractors for business. I will always check-in with Recovering Grace whenever I can & also check in on here inasmuch as I can stand it :/

    • Moderator Moderator
      July 3, 2016    

      Am so sorry for the delay in releasing this. This required more than a “Drive by” response – and I too was living of hotels the last two weeks. I will stop finessing and put out the response as it is. I see you have another comment pending . . . I will send through and then respond.

      “And what is with the Lot-bashing”

      What is with the Lot-honoring?! He is NOT the example to pattern our lives after. Contrast Lot and Abraham . . . . Abraham, the Father of Faith, who kept himself and his family out of the compromising situations that Lot put himself into. Sure, Lot was saved and kept out of the horrible sins expressed around him . . . but . . . again, it devastated his family, taking his wife, and convincing his daughters that, well, incest was preferable to barrenness. Righteous people lay down their lives for their own . . . instead of offering them up as a bartering chip.

      “What kind of God would just strike a person dead when that person started to violate Christians? “

      You ARE kidding, right?

      Acts 12:1 “Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church . . . (verse 23, some time later) And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.”

      Consider Haman, who started to go after the righteous . . . got hanged . . . Pharaoh vs. the helpless Israelites . . . got drowned.

      2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power”

      “(1) there’s nothing we can do to bring Him into a situation, &, (2) there’s no stipulation (except by you) that His attentiveness has to involve righting wrong(s) done by free will agents (us).”

      Tell me . . . . what difference does the Living God make in ordinary life? The way you express it . . . the tribesman that prays to a black rock (they do) is as well off as you. Am I right? NOTHING we can do to bring Him into a situation?! Here is what I read:

      “O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.” (Psalms 65:2)

      “And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.” (Malachi 3:17-18

      “pretending that Ruth was not completely overtaken by the intimidating control of assaulters/attackers.”

      This, of course, makes Steve – and Bill by negligence – solely responsible for her fall. It is not right to ever blame anybody else for our own sin. Adam tried to blame Eve, Eve tried to blame Satan . . . God heard each complaint and judged the other, but in the end . . . Each blamer was found guilty. Otherwise this verse is a lie:

      1 Corinthians 10:13

      “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.”

      • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
        July 3, 2016    

        I see your point, brother. Every soul is responsible for his own sin. But we must also remember that in he-she relations, the man bears a greater responsibility for morals. The initiative mainly lies with us males. Not absolutely, but mainly. I have not followed the Ruth story very closely, as it sounds too R-rated, and I have no personal knowledge of those involved.

        “Completely overtaken” may be too absolute a term. But dudes ought to behave themselves.

        Your well-behaved,
        David K

        • Moderator Moderator
          July 5, 2016    

          Agreed. There is a vast chasm between “greater responsibility” and “sole responsibility” . . . is my point, I guess. You point is enshrined in Scripture . . . in that an act of “fornication” is assumed to be a man beguiling – tricking – a woman. In that case he gets to pay a fine, the father of the woman gets to decide whether he has to marry her, and, again, if the decree is “marriage”, is has to treat her with respect and may never divorce her. Also in that if she is engaged or married, a scream from her instantly condemns the man to death for rape while she goes free, regardless of the role she may have played in progressing to that point. My point is enshrined in the fact that if she does not scream . . . she is put to death as well . . . because adultery is a crime for both parties.

          • Incredulous Incredulous
            July 5, 2016    

            Well it sounds like Bill should have taken Steve out back & dueled-it-out with him as soon as Ruth told Bill she was “tempted to compromise morally” because of how Steve was. Or at least have sent a pistol along with her when he sent her to work directly under that creep. According to how literally you say the Law should be taken, that is. In a world where no guy ever gets shot anymore when the woman expresses to a mutual authority that he’s a source of “temptation” to her (& believe me, that is the WRONG WORD; beguiling is more like it) it just means that such a guy gets more & more crafty & manipulative with each conquest. Yet…….. SHE is still held to having to keep the Law in the strictest sense even though it hasn’t been kept concerning him 6 times over by the time he gets to her. Even though she did submit her plea of distress to the most relevant authority in attempt to have a stop put to what was intimidating her. I’m just sayin’. Bill should seriously have ran his brother off the farm circa 1976. And that would have been the merciful way to deal with him- way more merciful than the Law says to do to him, which is also what you nonetheless hold all his victims to in the strictest sense.

          • Moderator Moderator
            July 5, 2016    

            when the woman expresses to a mutual authority that he’s a source of “temptation” to her

            It is not clear to me – and others may correct me – that she ever named Steve as the source of the “moral pressure” she was feeling, nor that she felt herself close to “giving in”. There were other males there . . . an environment of mixed single males and females will inevitably have moral pressures, especially when rooming in close proximity. There were women that travelled with the disciples and Jesus . . . it was incumbent on the men and women to keep their “flesh” in check so as to not fall.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            July 6, 2016    

            Alfred you are either grasping at straws to protect the Gothards or Bill is feeding you another line. Ruth made it very clear she was referring to Bill’s brother in our conversations and in conversations with Bill that I overheard. After all he was the one Bill sent her to work for. You would be much better served not second guessing Ruth’s or the other women’s words and actions.

          • Moderator Moderator
            July 6, 2016    

            You would be much better served not second guessing Ruth’s or the other women’s words and actions.

            Thank you, Larne. As I mentioned several times, I did not know the source of this account. So . . . some time before Ruth went up to the Northwoods for the final fateful stay that resulted in her being compromised, she told Bill that Steve was a temptation to her, sexually? Do you recall when that would have been in the sequence, i.e. was it right before she left? What did she indicate was Bill’s response to her?

          • Moderator Moderator
            July 10, 2016    

            At this point this is all I have, from your account on RG:

            ““Ruth writes, “Even after I told Bill about the moral pressures I faced from previous visits to the Northwoods, he pressured me to relocate there.””

            I spoke with Bill about this again tonight. He was adamant that it was he that began to notice an unhealthy emotional attachment in Ruth towards Steve after her trips to the Northwoods and asked her to see him. She acknowledged that this was the case and they prayed that she be released from this. At this point she went home to Seattle as he felt this was in her best interest. Subsequently she called Bill from home, pleading with him to let her return. Ruth indicated that she would work this out with Steve, that it would be OK. Bill, however, was firm in his response that he felt that not in her best interest, at which point she left the conversation very distraught, going to the bathroom to vomit. Her mother came on the phone and made a direct appeal to Bill to allow her to return. . . . and in the face of all of this, Bill relented. Bill was very clear and firm in his recollection of this sequence of events.

            BTW, I asked him specifically about the “pajama hugs” again. He did tell me that hugs happened from time to time, initiated by others . . . but said several times, pointedly, that “pajama hugs” between he and the girls did NOT happen. You have been fairly focused that I not speak to any of the other women, reacting quite a bit when I emailed and had a brief interaction with one of the others at Bill’s request. If there are others that would want to tell me something different, I would be glad to hear it. As you know, the only woman that I was able to speak with was Linda, who stated several times that she was also authorized to speak for one other secretary. She, adamantly, with anger, denied that this ever happened.

          • Larne Larne
            July 10, 2016    

            Alfred,

            I done debating Bill’s version of Ruth’s story. Every time Bill opens his mouth his version changes, that’s the first clue of a lie and these versions are no different, this relates to both of your above paragraphs. If the other women want to tell their side of the story that’s up to them and not my place. I know the truth but more important God knows the truth and that’s all that matters. I truly hope Bill repents before he meets The King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

          • Moderator Moderator
            July 10, 2016    

            God knows the truth and that’s all that matters

            The Lord does know the truth, as do those that were there. Bill was there – this does sound like what he told me last year. If you have another version he provided at a different time to pass on to me, please do so.

          • Sandy Sandy
            July 11, 2016    

            Alfred. Larne just said he was done debating versions of the story, yet you ask him to submit additional details. As if he needs to back up his version, which hasn’t changed, or provide additional detail. All this after you said a few days ago that you weren’t even sure that Ruth mentioned Steve specifically. Please, man … there’s nothing Larne can ever say that won’t be countered or shot down by the one accused, the one with a self-preservation motive.

            Yes, God knows the truth, but so do the people involved. No, that’s neither you or me. You’re an intelligent person, yet you consider the accused in the (whole, larger) story to be a credible witness in his own defense. Just because he was there. Just because he “recalls with clarity.” Just because he sounds convincing. Just because he’s adamant. Just because his name is Gothard. You KEEP going to him for explanations that he’s way too happy to give you. In his own defense, Alfred.

            Bill Gothard has an answer for EVERY question you ask him. Duh. HE is the accused. HE has something to cover. HE will say whatever it takes to convince you of his pure motives and send you back out to defend him. Can you really not see the bumfuzzling he’s done just to get you to question at this point whether Ruth ever specifically mentioned Steve? Look up notes and reports of the Denver meeting, as well as other previously documented information and explain to us why he’s making you question NOW, out of the blue, if she ever mentioned him specifically.

            It’s what they do, Alfred … it’s how liars buy time, hoping to bumfuzzle you into chasing yet another red herring, so they don’t have to get pinned down on anything. Last week I read an online article, 20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths and Psychopaths Use to Silence You. I’m awfully familiar with all 20 from personal experience. Of course, Bill could be the most unfortunate and misunderstood martyr on the planet, but if you read the list of tactics with an ounce of discernment, you may begin to see how that man is treating you. As well as what he’s getting out of it. Not that you will … just a suggestion to help you identify bumfuzzlement when you’re hit with it.

          • Moderator Moderator
            July 11, 2016    

            Well, Sandy, I am sure you understand that just because he is Gothard doesn’t somehow mean that he is not telling the truth. And the fact is that a number of the well polished stories, told over and over – even with first hand witnesses, thinking of “The Cabin Story” – have completely come apart when someone, FINALLY, actually investigated them.

            I recall with some clarity a case in the city I worked in in the 1980s involving the alleged abuse of children at the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, CA. It captured the attention of the nation for something like 6 years, the most expensive trial in US history.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

            Hundreds of children were interviewed producing a mountain of graphic accounts of ritualistic sex abuse. They had a confession allegedly given by Ray Buckley in prison to a cell mate. The amount of evidence was overwhelming. In the end, after two brutal trials, the prosecutors were unable – thankfully – to obtain a single conviction. Because NONE of it ever happened. Terms used in the aftermath were “False Memory Syndrome” and “Daycare Sex Abuse Hysteria”. The one who started the ball rolling has been subsequently described as “seriously mentally ill”, later dying of alchoholism. The Buckley cellmate was later proven to be a liar. A nation accustomed to repeated reports of horrible crimes at the hands of trusted providers had just gobbled it up. Prosecurers needed a big win for a number of unrelated reasons. Reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials and other such black eyes in our nation’s past.

            See, sometimes there is a psychological need among large groups of people for certain things to be real . . . and a spark will set it off. In the end the people who – despite much reviling and opposition – persist in actually doing the dirty work of examining the allegations are right . . . and the vast majority of active, angry opponents or even silent supporters . . . are wrong.

            The blog exists to try to do just that. We are not afraid of the truth, but those that have had an almost unimpeded platform to continue to repeat the damning stories about Bill need to understand that it is time to examine this in meticulous detail. I really love and respect Larne – what he experienced with Ruth, both of love and joy as well as the unthinkable tragedy of losing her so young to that horrible disease deeply moves me. But . . . we believe with increasing confidence that a great wrong has been committed against Bill due to some of these same psychological aspects that drove some of these other grave miscarriages of justice. If we are wrong, it really should not be hard to prove in unquestionable ways. Our blog is open. When, on the other hand, we have clear evidence to provide a different narrative than that one previously given, we will present and defend it. There is nothing evil or “bumfuzzling” about any of this.

            The fact is that Larne was not there when these conversations took place. Bill and Ruth and Ruth’s mother, to some extent, were. Bill’s recollections of events are checking out, time and time again. The reason I continue to press is . . . that it is not unreasonable to accept his side of this story until we have some sort of corroborated evidence to the contrary. If, for example, Bill routinely gave pajama hugs to girls at the Northwoods, a majority of witnesses would testify to this. At this point I have Ruth’s account through Larne that says they did, and noone else. Ruth said the woman “across the hall” would confirm. I have one woman, Linda, that adamantly says he didn’t, and she claimed authority to speak for one of the other women that had so deputized her but wished to remain anonymous. Linda says, in fact, that she was the “woman across the hall” and provided some corroborating evidence for that. And we have Bill’s – I allege consistent – testimony, who is unequivocal. He never dodges me . . . I emailed parts of the conversation to him with a promise of a followup up call to him . . . he immediately called me back to talk about it. That is how he has always been, from the first time I contacted his office 2005 to ask for an appointment – and suddenly found myself talking to him directly. At times my wife and I have been with him at his kitchen table until the wee hours of the morning, going over and over things in excruciating detail. We are not evil in presenting what we know and persistently asking for any backup that is available for those that insist otherwise.

            If someone of Gary Smalley’s stature and reputation had to come along after 45 years to retract the damning elements of an eyewitness account he provided, corroborated by his wife and testified to by multiple witnesses including myself, you can understand that there may be powerful psychological, even spiritual, forces at work here that are compelling even some good people into some bad places. On that note, we hope in the following days to present some other statements that Gary made in writing directly to Bill to confirm that he was, personally, convinced that Bill had committed no moral crimes in his many years dealing with thousands of women.

      • Incredulous Incredulous
        July 4, 2016    

        I will answer more as soon as I get home again, especially about my view of God & His power, but am headed out now again for over a month & have no phone upgrade until Aug. 25th.

        But I will point out: sexual assault victims are not enticed & tempted by their own desires; the word “own” is the kingpin in temptation, by the Bible’s definition of temptation James 1:13-16. Every motivator-type knows this; you can’t reasonably get anyone to do anything until THEY’VE decided that THEY want it (based on whatever motivation drives them). Again, in 2 Peter 2:4-10, Lot is contrasted AGAINST those whom the Lord does NOT rescue from temptation. Makes sense, since the rescue that he & his daughters experienced (by the angels striking the assaulters with blindness) was a rescue of Lot from his temptation TO A FEAR OF OTHER’S EXPRESSED DESIRE, NOT ANYTHING OF HIS OWN DESIRE, as evidenced by his offering of his daughters. God rescued him from THIS temptation without him doing the Ms.-Clara-thing. God had not rescued his assaulters from their temptation to assault his angelic guests & then Lot himself, so, even though Lot was pulled back from their launch of an actual attack, they were already guilty in light of not being rescued from that in which they were tempted & they were struck blind, then were burnt dead, & are still “kept under punishment until the day of judgement” for it. The temptation that Lot was rescued from was a totally different form of temptation than that if his assaulters. The last of the 2 Peter passages elaborates on this difference: Lot is contrasted against “those who indulge the flesh & despise authority.” [And no, God is not talking about following the Umbrella here! He’s talking about God-given authority versus the dominion that Lot’s & the Levite’s assaulters wielded so as to get what they wanted by overshadowing these 2 guys]. So……… even though Lot’s temptation to fear caused him to offer “That which (he’d) been entrusted” over to satiate the evil indulgence of perverts………. God still makes clear that he is the prime example of righteous, godly contrast against those who were intimidating him. Neither Lot not the Levite were in any wise guilty of the indulgence of the flesh of the perverts. And I am positive that the Levite’s concubine was sodomized as well as raped, so, the Levite was not trying to prevent God’s law against sodomy from being broken. The fact that the only word from the Lord (3 DIFFERENT TIMES!!!) was “Go up against them”, even when all they had was the Levite’s lie-ridden tale, proves that the high casualties of those “going up” was not due to their having done so. God wouldn’t have said “Go do it” if they weren’t supposed to do it.

        Last of all (for now):
        If a man has not advanced his connected-ness to a woman based on clearly stated romantic intent, such as if Steve Gothard had asked out some woman from church, then whatever dominance he has by any other means needs to not be used for sexual intent. For instance, if Steve Gothard had been granted the permission to spend long hours alone with a woman after having gotten her to leave all her family & friends & move to his family’s estate, then any sex that happened would likely be consensual fornication because every step closer under his realm would have been taken by her in an awareness of his sexual attracted-ness to her. What wouldn’t be consensual fornication, though, would be if he had been swearing to everyone around him concerning this woman, as well as to her, that he wouldn’t disregard her personal moral standards & had gotten her to come to his family’s estate & spend time alone with him based on these claims to never violate her/her morals. After all, this woman he met at church is taking him at his word to even be living at the family estate as well as spending time alone with him……… so it’s not really fair for him to break the main word by which he’s already convinced her to take the rest of it. Deceit like that is totally condemned in the New Testament even if it is not delved-into in the Old Testament. Now we know full well that it was not some woman that Steve Gothard approached with clearly stated romantic intent whose innocence he got in either of the processes that I’ve described above. It was 7 women who were preyed upon by him violating them only after they each were utterly dominated by him & his brother to an extent far beyond that of any Christian boyfriend or fiance. There was no knowledge on the part of any of them that they were opting to live with & work with someone who was subsequently going to get in their pants. I cannot imagine what Scripture or other piece of information could be presented to me that would alter my understanding of the Bible making clear that Steve Gothard raped those women & that they are no more culpable for this than Lot or the Levite were for what happened in the assaults against them.

        • Moderator Moderator
          July 6, 2016    

          “I will answer more as soon as I get home again, especially about my view of God & His power, but am headed out now again for over a month & have no phone upgrade until Aug. 25th.”

          We look forward to your comments.

          “Lot is contrasted AGAINST those whom the Lord does NOT rescue from temptation”

          Vines: “peirasmos (πειρασμός, 3986), (a) “a trying, testing,” (b) “a temptation,” is used in sense (a) in 1 Pet. 4:12, with the preposition pros, “towards” or “with a view to,” rv, “to prove” (kjv, “to try”), lit., “for a testing.””

          This is not focused on “temptation” per se, stuff that enflames our passions . . . just trials that the Lord puts us through. Getting through trouble. Lot is set up next to Noah . . . again, trials, trouble, bad people trying to do bad things to us. God did rescue righteous Lot, who was not involved in the evils that Sodom was . . . but, again, there is NO implication that Lot was perfect . . . no more than Noah was perfect. Both had major failures they had to deal with.

          “God rescued him from THIS temptation without him doing the Ms.-Clara-thing.”

          That is not a point to take . . . the Lord rescued him before he knew he was in over his head. And, of course, the Lord will rescue us at times for no reason other than it brings Him glory . . . or, more importantly, OTHERs are doing the “Miss Clara-thing”. You can be sure Abraham was crying out for his nephew constantly.

          “Neither Lot not the Levite were in any wise guilty of the indulgence of the flesh of the perverts.”

          So let’s nail down that I am in complete agreement.

          “God wouldn’t have said “Go do it” if they weren’t supposed to do it.”

          You have some things to learn of the ways of God! He most definitely tells people to do things that He knows are for their destruction . . . as He seeks for the heart and spiritual discernment. It is a pattern that if He tells us something, and we reject it . . . and ask again . . . He will command us to do what we want . . . and then try to destroy us in it. Example is Balaam . . . He asked, “Shall I go with Balak?”, and God say, “No way, don’t go”. When Balak came back with more money and honors, he foolishly asked God again. This time God said, “Go for it” . . . then tried to kill him three different times on the way. He sent a prophet to King Jeroboam to curse the altar built to the golden calf, commanded to not eat until he was back home. He rested along the way – instead of hurrying home as commanded – and another prophet told him in the name of the Lord to eat. After which the prophet told him he would die by lion attack, never getting home. Here is the principle:

          “And he gave them their request but sent leanness into their soul.” (Psalms 106:15)

          “I cannot imagine what Scripture or other piece of information could be presented to me that would alter my understanding of the Bible making clear that Steve Gothard raped those women & that they are no more culpable for this than Lot or the Levite were for what happened in the assaults against them.”

          One of the reasons we have problems is that we go with what we think instead of what Scripture says. If we want to decide if Steve raped the women we would need to apply God’s definition of rape. When we do we discover that rape only applies to married or engaged women. The rules are completely different for the unmarried. AND . . . if you were a priest’s daughter and slept around – there was an actual death penalty for that, burnt to death:

          Leviticus 21:9

          “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.”

  24. David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
    July 5, 2016    

    Incredulous sounds pretty old-fashioned. I sense a pistols-at-ten-paces honor code in place. Or if we take the honor code halfway farther back, we arrive at 17th Century rapiers and first blood.

    Zounds!
    David K

  25. Moderator Moderator
    July 14, 2016    

    As mentioned in a sub thread above, we have obtained some additional documents relating to Gary Smalley. We have published one of these, a signed affidavit he prepared in http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2015/10/19/did-he-do-it-the-cabin-story-and-more/

  26. Moderator Moderator
    July 21, 2016    

    A sub thread here has to do with “Crying Out” to the Lord for His protection. Really needs to be its own topic post. In any case, this is a small thing . . . but it made me teary. Fox News story about a 9 year old boy who sang a Gospel tune nonstop to an abductor as he was driven around for 3 hours . . . when the man cursed and told him to quit . . . he kept going . . . and in the end, for no reason, the man just let him out. That was a boy that feared God more than he feared the man . . . and I believe the Lord rewarded his courage: https://www.facebook.com/naycrumors/videos/1148030645269132/

    • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
      July 22, 2016    

      Yes, that was a nice story. Isn’t it gratifying that stories like that seem to surface now and then? Just when apathy and despair begin to creep in, we get a hopeful reminder.

      Inspired,
      David K

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Categories