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.
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.
Okay, thanks.
“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
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.
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.
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)
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.
Any seminar I went to, he did mention exceptions. If a parent wants a child to sin against God, then the child is obligated to God. Bill Gothard cannot cover every and all particulars; his purpose is to teach general principals of guidance. It is not a religion; it is principals. People need framework, because the world has none, and are all over the place with problems.
Even mere men distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders. Military law absolves soldiers from obeying unlawful orders. Moreover, it forbids them to obey evil orders.
Bill Gothard covered exceptions in his material about “how to make an appeal.”
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
That is a sign of weakness . . . immaturity . . . and, yes, I have been guilty of it.
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?
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.
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?!?!?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I correct myself that Lot’s actual attacks occurred not Genesis in 20, but rather Gn. 19, right before 20.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I only know the unfortunate ones who did not yell loud enough or word their plea for help correctly.
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?
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.
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.
========================
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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”.
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.
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.
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 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.”
Can you name me one?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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)”
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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* 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.
So I have no faith and am slipping into eternity in hell. No words.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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?
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.”
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.
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 . . .
Yeah … the difference to me is where the power or ability to walk worthy comes from. 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.
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
Thanks. It actually matches well. 🙂
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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”:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
“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.
Ok 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Thanks so very much. Means more than you know.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
🙂 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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 :/
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.
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.
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”
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
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
At this point this is all I have, from your account on RG:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We look forward to your comments.
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.
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.
So let’s nail down that I am in complete agreement.
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)
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.”
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
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/
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/
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
“Freedom and authority are both fundamental principals of human communal life. Both find their foundation and their ruling principle in God. When this foundation is misunderstood and misused, there will always be a misuse of freedom and authority. During the war (WWI), authority was misused. Since 1918, freedom has been misused. This explains why the people have essentially fallen into blind submission tot he authority of a Fuhrer” by Bishop Clemens August Von Galen “the lion of Munster” 1933.
What the Bishop was talking about was the swing in Germany from abuse of post WWI war freedom to willingness to blind submission to abuse of authority under Hitler. Bill’s emphasis on authority and submission to authority which may be a reaction to social rebellion of the 1960s is leaving one extreme for another. There wasn’t balance in what he taught about authority.
We differ somewhat on the aspect of balance, although, by his own admission, he DID overemphasize the aspects of authority that are too easily discarded. There is much more emphasis on this in Scripture than modern Christianity is comfortable with.
As to Germany, I cannot strongly enough disagree with the notion that “blind obediance” was a characteristic of the German people at that time. Far from it. There was many political factions and splinter groups, street fights, coups, you name it. This was Germany trying to find its way in some very terrible circumstances. Hitler was seen as the only one that could bring order to the chaos, and ordinary Germans decided to give him a try. A minority of Germans, but a plurality at the polls. From that point on he worked the politics to the point of getting absolute authority for himself and the party. Opposing the ruling authority was perilous. Do not imagine that most Germans were comfortable with what was going on. Just like in North Korea – although far from that extreme – the risks of resistance exceeded the benefits until very close to the end. A very public example was made of a man who called Hitler a “scoundrel” . . . he was castrated to make a point. My Baptist pastor grandfather spent 6 months in a Nazi jail because his failure to join the party, friendship with English preachers, and notes to his “boys” on the front that reminded them that their first responsibility was always to God, was considered seditious. I think we have been over that, sorry for the repetition.
In any case, we have lived Bill and the ATI program for many years – this summer marks my personal 44th year linked to the ministry. Any position of authority given to a mortal carries the risk of abuse … but I see tremendous wisdom in all he presented. I mean . . . look at 1 Peter 3 and tell me that is less extreme that Bill. Paul and women silent in the churches, “under subjection” because of creation and the fact that Eve was deceived, not Adam. This is BIBLE. Bible is also balanced, with the “chief” being the bond slave of all . . . Jesus is our example, for husbands. That straightens all the imbalance out, if we care more about doing what Scripture says rather than picking and choosing the things that suit us.
Ok Alfred, game on. Again, none of the verses you just quoted say anything about “umbrella of protection”. In reference back to Luke 11, when Jesus mentioned the house being clean and open, He is referring to the inside of the house or one’s interior not the outside of the house or “umbrella of protection”. in your reference to Job, his wall was God, not his spiritual leader as you are trying to imply. His wall of protection that satan at the time couldn’t penetrate was do to God and Job’s own choices of following God, offers sacrifices to himself and his children, his own high moral standards etc. Likewise, it also was not Job’s own bad choices or sin that caused this “wall of protection” to be broken down and henceforth causing all the disasters and loses that befell him. (despite what his first three friends implied to Job as the reasons for his disasters). Even at the end of Job when God finally answered Job, God didn’t give Job any reason, God just told Job that He is God and how dare you question me. In your reference to Ephesian 6 about the armor of God which is what every Christian can use against the “tactics of the devil”. None of the protective gear mention an external “umbrella of protection” but do mention, truth for a belt, righteousness for a breastplate, feet ready to spread peace, shield of faith, helmet of salvation and finally the sword of the spirit which is the word of God. All those items are personal, not some external “umbrella of protection”.
I am at a loss as to how I Samuel 24 even supports this. That is the chapter concerning David and Saul, where David spares Saul’s life, confronts Saul on why he is trying to kill David and is more about David’s trust in God’s time to when he would replace Saul and Saul even admits to David that he would eventually replace himself. Again none of that whole chapter has anything to do with “umbrella of protection” Likewise I Corinthians 21 which is the somewhat strange chapter of when David decided to number the people of Israel in direct violation of the Torah. As a response to David’s sin, God gave David 3 choices for consequences and the one David choose was a 3 pestilence on the land. David choose the later which he then regretted and then offered sacrifices to stop. Nothing to do with “umbrella of protection” and had everything to do this David’s sin and even choice which he regretted to punish the people under him instead of himself..
None of the sections you are pointing to mention “umbrella of protection” and the one’s that deal with spiritual warfare speak of use of personal items to battle Satan. Nothing in the deliverance sections mention “umbrella of protection” but do point to empty houses as being an opening for demons. I Peter 5-11 mentions that satan is a “roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith …” Again, one’s steadfast faith, not “umbrella of protection” as defined by Bill is what drives satan away. Also James 4:7,8 “So submit yourselves to GOD, resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to GOD and He will draw near to you” James says submit to God, not “umbrella of protection”.
Since you consider Bill Gothard your spiritual leader/father, that is your choice and isn’t going to stop whether he is at IBLP or not. Per you hypothesis you were heading for, Bill does not need to be at IBLP to be your “umbrella of protection”. If he is already considered your spiritual father, he is already that and that has nothing to do with “umbrella of protection”.
We had a vigorous chat on umbrellas starting up in the “Emily” post, so . . . Thank you for bringing it over here.
There are no verses that use the term “Trinity” or “Rapture” or any number of other truths that many of us hold to be obvious in Scripture. So that is a bad way to start. I have forgotten – and sitting where I am in writing this it is hard to check – on points made in this OP. At the risk of repetition, several Scriptures make the concept crystal clear:
Luke 11:21-12: The Savior speaking generally of someone “strong” protecting his belongings until a stronger shows up. Application was to devils protecting their turf as a “strong man”, where Jesus clearly was the stronger one, springing the demon possessed man free. People are the ones protected, or become vulnerable when a stronger shows up, and it is all spiritual, not physical. Lesson: Spiritual “Umbrellas of Protection” are real, and they apply to the infernal world, so they surely apply to us as well.
Job 1:11: Job’s righteousness protecting his offspring and stuff from Satan, by a God-ordained “hedge”. As soon as it was removed, the devil sailed in, easily killed all 10 children, and destroyed all his belongings. Lesson: A godly man’s righteousness produces a spiritual “hedge” that protects his “household” from Satanic attack.
2 Samuel 24: Second, not First. Linked with 1 Chron. 21. David protecting the people, because both God and Satan separately had to get David out of the way before bringing a spanking, or destruction, depending on the entity, to the people. Lesson: Even God respects the authority structure He has set up protecting the weaker. This is proven when it states that Caiaphas gave a God-directed prophecy about Jesus, SOLELY because he was high priest that year. (John 11:51) He bought his way into that position, was about as illegitimate of a ruler as they come, yet it was a position of power given to him by God, and God worked through the position, not the person.
Daniel 10:13
Michael the archangel had a fight with the “Prince of Persia”, a wrestling match, that lasted 3 weeks and held the delivery up until be got through. The “Prince of Persia” was no man, to be wrestling with an archangel on even terms. No, it was a demon that had that as a satanic jurisdiction, an “umbrella” to protect Satan’s business from outside interference. Lesson: These umbrellas do apply to bad authority structures as well as good. If you want to plunder Satan’s house, you need to tie up his umbrella. And so it is in reverse.
Yes, as you say, the journey through that umbrella may not involve failures on the part of the umbrella-bearer. But that represents a deliberate exception.
No, there are no named “umbrellas” in Scripture. It is a modern term to refer to a protection over some “turf”. The battle is spiritual, the protection is spiritual. Satan protects his stuff, the Lord’s entities protecting His stuff, and others protecting their stuff.
When I am saying that the above verses you have brought up don’t have “umbrella of protection”, I am not talking about that the word “umbrella” is not found but the particular teaching that is mostly unique to Bill that one has to be “under” authority for protection. NONE of the verses that you have brought up with Job, King David and even Daniel allude to, imply, suggest or even teach this. Job’s intersession and sacrifices for his adult children were a hedge but it was Job’s sacrifices and prayers, not Job’s authority. The wrestling match between Gabriel and the prince of Persia have nothing to do with umbrella of protection by authority for authority’s sake but had to do with Daniel’s persistence in prayer. I also still fail to see any connection with King David’s bad choices and violation of the Torah to “number is people” has anything to do with “umbrella of protection”. It was David’s own choice out of 3 given to him to have punishment on the people, which he did regret and prayed to end. All of these example are what people accuse Bill of in his teaching which is twisting of different Bible verses to fit his ideas and theories.
Let’s start over. Explain this passage in context: 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.”
Yes, will do. Jesus in that section of Mark 3 is answering the accusations by the Pharisees that He is casting out demons by the power of Satan as well as being possessed by Satan. Jesus answers the first charge by showing the logical absurdity of Satan casting out his own demons and causing a divided house. Jesus is likening Satan as the ruler of the house and what ruler would instigate a revolt against himself. Then Jesus uses the burglary analogy to describe what He is doing to Satan and it is Jesus that is tying up the strong man (Satan) and releasing Satan’s captives or demon possessed people. Jesus is the one tying up the strong man and incapacitating his rule. This fits with Isaiah 49:24-25 prophesy about Jesus. Likewise John the Baptist prophesy that one “mightier” will be coming to bind up Satan and release those that suffer under him. Jesus then concludes his critics with a warning about sins against the Holy Spirit which is often taken to mean either resistance to the Holy Spirit or equating the works of God to Satan. Your quote has nothing to do with being under an ”Umbrella of authority” for protection as Bill has used this verse out of context. Likewise, Bill scare tactics and twist on this that the devil is coming after the head of the household to plunder the home.
There you go. There are spiritual “houses”, and various “strong men” that guard the entities in those “houses”. In order to plunder a house, ravage it, you need to get through the defenses. Let’s call that strong man the umbrella. Can we do that? Job was a “strong man” and because of him, his house was “in peace”. Whatever a strong man with a gun and big fists does for his household’s physical protection, these “umbrellas” do for the spiritual entities under their care.
We are to “wrestle” with demons. Presumably, if we don’t wrestle well, he will gain some advantage, take something of ours and make it his. Like property – “place” – or people:
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Earlier in the book we read:
Ephesians 4:26-17 “Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil.”
Best translation I have seen is, “BEING angered, sin not”. That word for “place” means . . . a spot of ground. A place to call his own, that we gave him. And the suggestion is that fits of anger may be one of the things he uses to “bind” us during these wrestling matches to get control. Confirmation:
Proverbs 25:28 “He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.”
I can only take from this that if I wrestle poorly, if I am given to anger, I will leave my “house” open for plunder. Makes sense to me.
Me thinks you are jumping around a bit. The Ephesians 4:25-32 lists a number of sins one should put away from themselves such as falsehood, anger, stealing, bad language, bitterness, fury, malice and to be forgiving and compassionate. I don’t see the one selected verse out of it as supporting the concept of “umbrella of protection”. The things St. Paul is talking about is one’s own interior and admonishing to clean it up. Likewise the Proverbs verse is talking about one’s own self-control or interior not the broader extrapolation I think you are trying to support. And again, the Ephesians 6 section on spiritual warfare is again dealing with one’w own armor, not a broader being under authority for protection.
Honestly, methinks you are not even trying, Rob 🙂 There are statements in there that take some processing to understand. So, since I directed you there as part of my show and tell, at least try to examine it in maybe a different way than you are used to.
o In what way to we “wrestle” with powerful demons? Isn’t it interesting that it is WE that wrestle, not angels on our behalf, let’s say. WHY are we wrestling? What will happen if we win? The demons has objectives, and we have other objectives. Their objectives are to steal souls, destroy lives, drag as many to hell, or at least to a wasted life, as much as possible. We want to save souls, see them delivered, protected. Demons are “strong men” that protect their turf, Jesus said so. We, wielding the authority, power of Jesus, with His weapons are stronger.
o How do we “give place” to the devil? The Greek word is “topos”, a table, a spot. Surrender a spot to the devil to operate from. What happens if we do that? How does it affect the battle, the wrestling match we are in the middle of? That would appear to focus quite specifically on “holes” in our ability to protect the stuff God has told us to protect. Holey umbrellas.
I’m not following where this is going. The verses quoted about spiritual warfare still do not mention that one has to be “under an umbrella of authority” for protection. The “we” mentioned is collectively “all of us” in the body of Christ. which again is different than teaching that one has to be under an ‘umbrella of authority” to be protected. Even in the Lord’s prayer starts out with “Our Father” and later “deliver us from evil”, so there is a collective prayer as part of being in the Church and the body of Christ and still that isn’t what Bill taught which is that one has to be “under” their “authority” (usually implying the father of the family” to be protected. Our faith and ultimate protection is God. Just read Psalms, 31:1-6, 91 and 144 where God’s protection is invoked and not the umbrella of one’s authority. If you are trying to stretch it here that because plurals are used such as we, our us etc. those plurals do not imply being under an umbrella of authority to be protected. I think that is where you are trying to go with this. The one who protects and delivers is God. Col 1:13 “He rescues us from the power of darkness”.
So . . . the story about the demon possessed man getting free . . . is “all of us”, collectively? HOW did that man get free, when not everybody gets free? For that matter, HOW did he get enslaved in the first place? Random? Bill doesn’t think so. I agree with him. I think the Scriptures cited hightlighted how that can happen.
If you are referring to the passage in Mark 3, I gave you my best explanation not only rereading it myself but consulting both Protestant and Catholic commentaries on that section. None of the commentaries suggested that it meant as Bill has used it as an “umbrella of protection”. I think we have gone around and around on this and have drove ourselves nuts as well as everyone else. If someone has to twist Bible verses out of context and out of reason to support someone’s teaching, then God help them. Anyone can try and quote and misquote the Bible to try and make it support what the believe. It’s done all the time and is a big problem and trap, especially in certain Protestant circles. Think about this, the devil himself in trying to tempt Jesus quoted Bible verses.
Well . . . I hesitantly say . . . maybe that is the point. “Group think”, the body of ecclesiastical knowledge derived from the study of the Bible as a scholarly exercise is exactly what Bill isn’t. And why so many folks the world over have found him to be a breath of spiritually fresh air. Sometimes you just have to open your spirit, open your eyes, and read the Bible as a very personal message from the living God of heaven, real time. That is exactly the point of “meditation”. You soak yourself in it, you absorb it, it reaches every part of you, not just the logical parts. These things are “spiritual discerned”, we read. Our spirits are able to perceive things that our minds are completely “unfruitful” in, to use the King James phraseology. We take this thought up in our series on Salvation.
This makes absolutely perfect sense to me. Maybe you can at least believe that. Gets me all excited. And many others that walk with me. Become a little child for a bit. Read it with wonder and amazement with your spirit, your heart. There is no twisting going on. It is exactly what it says! 🙂
Luke 10:21
“In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
That is one of the most bizarre answers I’ve read coming from you. There are too many quacks out there that claim teachings from the Bible and justify it as being lead by the “spirit”. A lot of Bill’s teaching and use of the Bible is very similar to WoF nuts and Bill seems to have more in common with them based on your most recent comments that he is so lead by the spirit and that is how he comes up with the teachings that he does.
Well, I and those I know could not be further from the “WoF” nuts you decry. I just wish . . . you could drop some of these prejudices and actually SEE the situation. If not, you must conclude me to be a “nut” too. I guess I am used to it.
1 Corinthians 4:13
“Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.”
Here is another crystal clear reference to those umbrellas we all live with:
1 Samuel 15:23
“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord,
he hath also rejected thee from being king.”
HOW is rebellion as witchcraft? That sin is deliberately exposing yourself to Satan’s influence and control. Rebellion is what does it. That is one of the clearest statements highlighting the protection that authority provides, and which is lost when a person removes themselves from that “umbrella”.
Bill quoted I Samuel 15:23 a lot. The context of the quote was that Saul directly disobeyed God by not destroying the Amaleks completely, sparing King Agag and saving the best livestock. Saul’s disobedience was to God. in the whole section of I Samuel 15, there is no mention of disobedience to “umbrella of protection” but to God’s direct command concerning the Amaleks. The mention of rebellion being like witchcraft and stubbornness like idolatry is an example of a similitude. Witchcraft is like rebellion because it goes around God to obtain power and spiritual knowledge. Bill used this often to club others in telling them that rebellion is the same as or equal to witchcraft. Saul gave into the pressure most likely of his troops in saving the best livestock and tried to cover it with the excuse of making “sacrifices” to the Lord when confronted by Samuel. Idolatry is similar to stubbornness because it is persistent rejection of God and worship of idols or in the bottom line oneself. The whole section with this one verse has nothing to do with “disobeying” one’s “umbrella” of authority and is about obeying God directly, which Saul did not do.
I don’t know if you noticed, but you reversed the analogy. We are told that REBELLION is like witchcraft, not vice verse. What is it about witchcraft that is similar to rebellion? Or stubbornness, for that matter? Clearly EVERY sin is not like witchcraft. What is rebellion? It is simply me as the “final authority” in a relationship. If I like what you tell me, will will do it, if I don’t, I won’t. Other sins have to do with fighting an authority on specific decrees. Rebellion declares myself on an even level with the authority. Which, as you recall, is exactly what Satan did, the one that “witchcraft” worships:
Isaiah 14:14. “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be LIKE the most High.”
This is not “rebellion against God” . . . But . . . “Rebellion”. In this case, it could even be rebellion against Samuel, since it was Samuel’s word that he disregarded. Coupled with other witnesses, I think we see a consistent pattern. Under authority is protected . . . Out from under authority – in rebellion – is open satanic season. Like those engaged in witchcraft.
Yes, I know I reversed the analogy. Seeing if you are awake. Saul was King, he was the authority. Samuel was the main spokesman or prophet for God. If you read I Samuel 15 and the preceding chapters, Saul’s disobedience was always termed as against God, not Samuel. This was never described or put in terms that Saul was rebelling against Samuel as his “umbrella of protection or authority” as you are (or really Bill) trying to use this. The analogy to witchcraft is more like the final straw in that his disobedience or “rebellion” at what he was told to do by God reached a point of no return such as witchcraft and idolatry. And since Saul was the king and authority, it was directed to him, not those under him or as under Saul’s “umbrella of authority”. So again, this whole story about Saul is more about “bad authority” that rebelled against God, than those “under authority”. God here as well as through-out all of scripture is the FINAL and ultimate authority, not a chain of command or pecking order or Umbrella that Bill tried to squeeze out of this as well as the other verses you have tried to use to support his teaching.
There are SO many other ways to express what you are suggestion. “Rebellion is like death” . . . “Rebellion is like an incurable disease” . . . “Rebellion is like an insane man”. No, God picks “witchcraft”. Not a lot of witches around. Those that are have surrendered themselves to the “dark side”. Rebellion is like those that surrender to the dark side. I take a lot of meaning out of that analogy.
If you consider the whole story line of Saul, there were several problems leading up to that moment. And afterwards, he began to be haunted or troubled by demons and even at the end, he went to consult a median to conjure up Samuel from the dead (which is interesting because he previously expelled all medians). Not a lot of people who fall into the occult and witchcraft come out of it so the comparison of rebellion to witchcraft looks to be more of a comparison of a final straw or breaking away from God. Bill used this verse as a club or scare tactic to others. To end up like Saul, there would have to be a number a deliberate bad, disobedient choices and decisions, not just a one time accusal to someone telling them that they are ‘rebellious” and then the devil is going to get you because you are now in witchcraft. I understand if someone uses that verse as a warning guidepost, there are a number of them. Jesus said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, but He said that in warning to the pharisees who were accusing Jesus of doing the work of the devil. If someone worries about either rebellion or committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, they probable are not even close to committing either. It’s those that are on the brink of no return and not thinking about either that these warnings are too.
The problem is . . . that “rebellion” is a real and present problem for many people. Children casting off the authority of their parents, wives declaring themselves equal in family authority to their husbands, church members their leaders, those in subjection to the government in clear capacities deciding that they know better, thinking of the likes of Snowden. IF “rebellion” is like “witchcraft” – and he did not say “your rebellion” nor “rebellion against God” – then we MAY have an explanation for why some very weird and horrible things happen to otherwise normal and nice people. Witchcraft is known for a number of things:
o Worshiping the devil
o Pride in special knowledge
o Pride in special powers
o Cruelty, clever plots to hurt, terrify, and kill people
o Fascination with death and dying
o Self harm
o Weird Promiscuity
o Promoting Ugly
All around I see such things. And sometimes reaching in the weirdest places. What is the official diagnosis . . . random mental problems? This actually makes a lot of sense. It is just strange that others find this so onerous. A real God who invented and controls all things would have the answers to the biggest, weirdest, most unsolvable problems. That is how we know He is God.
witchcraft and the occult is seeking spiritual power, knowledge and control outside of God. It is the ultimate form of rebellion. Instead of going to God, one is trying to go around God.
One more thought, sometimes and I’ve seen this myself is that someone gets involved with the occult or things of the occult because they are deeply hurting and looking for answers or even control when the world seems out of control. Growing up, there was a woman in the neighborhood that was afraid to step out of her house. My mother felt sorry for her and had some genuine compassion on her. She ended up getting involved heavily into astrology etc. Now maybe that stuff made her feel in control and meaningful. Likewise, Nancy Reagan after Ronald Reagan was shot ended up going to astrology charts, the same with Mary Todd Lincoln in trying to deal with her grief and losses of children. It’s a false road though and while the promises look like answers, they are not. So while you mentioned “mental illness”, the lure of answers or power or quick fixes is what maybe is the hook that brings in people that are dealing with deep grief, loneliness, and mental illnesses. I don’t always think that bold face rebellion is the starting point for some people.
I think I agree. Mental illness may be an expression of satanic oppression, sometimes it is. I believe Saul was fine, mentally, but exhibited traits of a man oppressed.
The devil brings oppression, like fear, maybe like your neighbor. He also brings a host of other things, a smorgasbord of bad stuff. Your point is whether these things bring a person to the devil or the devil brings them in when he comes. It is a good question. Maybe both. Regardless, *I* think that rebellion itself is a call to the devil, like a wounded animal’s cries are to a predator. That is how it is like witchcraft, summoning the spirits. So, no matter if some “stuff” contributed to rebellion, once embraced rebellion will always bring in more “stuff” . . . And now “stuff” that the individual can’t control.
This is going around on social media:
How NOT to study the Bible.
1. Find a verse you think justifies your beliefs
2. Ignore all other verses around the verse (context)
3. Fight any urge to understand author’s intended meaning. This will come with practice
4. Apply your own meaning to the verse
This fits perfectly how Bill has studied and used the Bible.
Obviously we would disagree. Do you have any examples you would like to lift out for discussion?
It is the overall. The basis of the 7 “non-negotiable” principals are all totally ideas of Bill’s that he has attached Bible verses to in order to make them sound like all of them are found in the Bible. They are not. You won’t get this or agree. The Basic seminar is the basis for his new so called Embassy University according to his own web site. None of these seven principals are really found in scripture. The other word for this is called “Biblicism” and it is the standard method used by the likes of Bill Gothard, Word of Faith heresies, majority of Fundamentalism and the rest. The result is ideas not found in the Bible have random Bible verses slapped onto them to make them sound “Biblical” but they are not.
That doesn’t do much for me. Is it the fact that there are exactly 7 that bothers you? I have heard Bill address that, specifically with the “49 Character Qualities”. He allowed that there are cases to be made for others, but this fits neatly, much like any Bible teacher . . . Who finds “3 Main Themes” in a section . . . The “3 Points” in a message.
That seven principles he highlights are: Design, Authority, Responsibility, Suffering, Ownership, Freedom, and Success. I presume you can see how they are each found in Scripture, correct?
It should be obvious to you why i posted this on this article talking about chain of command and Umbrella of protection. Does the Bible talk about authority? Yes, God is the ultimate authority, Are there God ordained type of authority? Yes, as seen in the apostles, governments, kings etc. Does the Bible talk about chain of command or umbrella of protection as taught by Bill? No, all of this is read into the bible verses Bill quotes to support
the ideas. This list can go on. If suffering talked about in the Bible, yes. Is it as Bill tries to use it to justify abuse and control. No not at all? This list can go on for forever.
Then let’s give some Scripture to bounce off of. These may have been covered in the preceding thread.
Let’s start with the words of the Savior as He responded to those ascribing His authority over demons to being one Himself:
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.”
That is a physical principle that is clearly applied to the spiritual realm. Satan is the “Strong Man” who protects his underlings from harm . . . Until a stronger One comes and ties up the “strong man”. After that anyone can plunder his “house”.
Satan has a “house” he spiritually protects. So does the “head of a house”, i.e. the husband and father. Further example from the Savior:
Mark 14:27 “And Jesus saith unto them, — All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.”
While Jesus – the shepherd – was protecting His disciples, they were spiritually safe. With Him “smitten”, taken away, the Lord guaranteed that they would ALL stumble and sin that night. Interesting, yes?
A last example:
2 Samuel 24:1 “And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”
In order to spank the people, God Himself moved David into a position where he, in his godly authority, had to step aside. When David committed that sin, then the Lord punished the people. We see that also in the hedge that Job’s righteousness was in keeping Satan from hurting his stuff. His family was “in peace”. When that hedge was removed by God’s command, Satan could kill his children and destroy his belongings.
There are other examples, but I see an “umbrella of protection” demonstrated and taught throughout Scripture.
re: seven principles and forty-nine character qualities
I assumed Bill Gothard settled on the multiples of seven for the same reason Jesus used such math. Apparently, men of Christ’s day used sevens. When asked whether to forgive seven times, Jesus replied with a hyperbolic multiple of seven.
Why not use the same pattern? Next to that, many churches acknowledge seven sacraments. Is that more of the same symmetry?
re: Bill Gothard and biblicism
Before we settle whether Bill Gothard is guilty of an error called biblicism, we must first settle what we mean by the term. Otherwise the term becomes merely a smear, unworthy of serious attention. A shallow internet browse turned up several definitions of biblicism.
Is biblicism believing my Bible? If so, then aren’t most Chistians guilty as charged? To escape biblicism, must I disbelieve my Bible and therefore be a contradiction in terms; a believer who disbelieves? So is Bill Gothard a biblicist? It all depends.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Christian+Smith+and+Biblicsm&docid=608001463530303897&mid=D51EBDBF168495E3F518D51EBDBF168495E3F518&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
Here is the man that coined the phrase and wrote a book on it. What he means by it is a hyper-literal interpretation that in the end makes the Bible cut up and inconsistent with itself.
re: Christian Smith, Bill Gothard, and biblicism
A Roman Catholic named Christian Smith wrote a book which argued in favor of Christ-centered Bible reading, instead of “biblicism” which supposedly ensnares us Protestants. This raises the question whether Gothard’s seven basic principles are “biblical” in the same way church creeds are biblical. Creeds are biblical because they summarize beliefs which the Bible teaches.
Bill Gothard’s principles are not Bible summaries, and Gothard never pretended they were. His three favorite adjectives for his teaching were “universal,” “non-optional,” and “life” principles. But Gothard used virtues as bait to orient young people on Christ and their Bibles. Fortunately, many multitudes took the bait. Who knows whether Christian Smith approves or disapproves?
thank-you for proving my point.
the first verse you offered from Mark 3 comes from the passage where Jesus was casting out demons and the pharisees accused him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus was rebuking them and if you read the whole thing, warning them of blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. this has nothing to do with Umbrella of protection as Bill taught it and the strong man could easily be interpreted as Satan and Jesus is binding that strong man to clear out the demons.
Mark 14 is the prediction that Jesus himself as the shepherd was smitten and the apostles were scattered. Again this has nothing to do with umbrella of protection. The 2 Samuel passage also ought to be understood and read in context of 2 Samuel and I Kings and the complications that results from King David and his sins with immorality.
And you prove mine. The principle could not be more prominently displayed. In fact, Jesus articulates it in generic terms, as this being but an application. A strong man keeps his house. A strong man keep his house SPIRITUALLY. That IS the point. Jesus was more strong spiritually than the devil. So those in his house – the demons inhabiting the man – were now fair game to be toyed with and thrown out.
Shepherd: I already gave the context of the verse. It remains – AGAIN – that the Savior was protecting the sheep SPIRITUALLY. They were safe from Satan’s attacks. When He was removed, Satan got to sift them and play with them like wheat.
2 Samuel and companion passage in 1 Kings are both focused on the PEOPLE, whom David calls “sheep”. You have to jump outside of the context, the passages, to conclude it had anything to do with David’s immorality. Why, BTW, is your explanation of this not “Scripture twisting”? You don’t like the obvious meaning, you wave your hand, and pull something out of the air to aim it in another direction.
Unbelievable,
these verses you just quoted do not prove an umbrella of protection as Bill taught it. If anything, sin in leadership does result in harm to those under that leadership is in the case of David. He later regretted his choice which ended up being punishment on his innocent subjects. None of them prove umbrella of protection and if you are not under the so called umbrella of protection, bad things will happen to you. None of them support that. Maybe you ought to re-read the article on RG called “Bury my umbrella at Wounded Knee”. It is an older article written in the hey day of Bill’s seminars in the 70’s. Best take down of Bill’s teaching.
Prove? 🙂 I see proofs in every direction.
How about this interesting statement:
“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” (1 Samuel 15:23)
HOW is rebellion like practicing the occult? Why pick that sin rather than “theft” or “adultery” or something else? God does not waste words. If Scripture is “Holy” EVERY piece is significant. We are all tempted by the devil – witches deliberately seek him out and expose themselves to his influence. HOW is being stubborn toward authority like worshipping a false god?
Who was in rebellion in this verse? It was King Saul, the authority, the umbrella if you want to use Bill’s terminology. He was the one in disobedience, the umbrella. Bill has used this verse to club others into submission to blind obedience to parents etc. As I think you would know, witchcraft, occult etc. is seeking knowledge and spiritual power outside of God. Psalm 62:11 says “God has spoken once, twice I have heard, all power belongs to God…” Witchcraft etc. is the ultimate rebellion against God in seeking power and knowledge outside of God. That is why it is compared in the verse you quoted. That verse does not talk about chain of command, umbrella of authority or all the rest. King Saul disobeyed God and lead others to do so as King, as the authority, as the umbrella. He was the one in serious trouble, not those under him, not those around him. He actually ended up consulting the occult near the end of his life. It should be a sobering lesson. It should not be a club as Bill used it to beat others into submission to himself etc.
It remains that rebellion, somehow, is equivalent to exposing oneself directly to Satanic influence. Satan wants to do things to us, but can’t. Why? Because God keeps him from doing so. Certain things put us in a position where he can, God let’s him. That includes removing a “hedge” of protection unilaterally, like with Job, or with the Lord Jesus being removed in His protective role over the disciples.
Rebellion is taking oneself out from under the authority of someone, and is one of those things that puts us directly under the influence of Satan. An umbrella is a creative analogy that makes a lot of sense. Bill could have called it a “shield” or even a “house”, using a Scriptural term. A house is a protected space. “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.” (Mark 3:27)
Just like the principle of the “strong man”, this is given by the Lord in generic terms, as . . . A principle. It ought to get all of our attention.
King Saul disobeyed God in a number of areas. This verse was directed at him. This has nothing to do with how Bill used, interpreted and read into this verse. The verse does not mention any other authority but God alone which King Saul was responsible to. You did not make the case.
That it was directed to Saul is clear. It was however a statement of fact that applies to rebellion and stubbornness in general. Otherwise he would have said, “YOUR rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft”. This is not complex and it is not a hidden meaning. Explains a lot, why some people deal with soul crushing motivations, urges that simply make no sense. Satan is not all that powerful. If he is having his way with someone there is a reason.
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.”
It is interesting that Saul was subsequently troubled by an “evil spirit” . . . And later thought that consulting with a witch was a good idea. His rebellion opened him up to influences that God never intended him to have.
One can look at the last petition of the Lord’s Prayer that asks “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil”. That is asking for God’s help and protection, not looking to another one’s authority or umbrella. The verse in Samuel that you are trying to use as a lynch pin for Bill’s teaching on authority and umbrella of protection never mentions temptations but likens rebellion (against God , no umbrella mentioned) to witchcraft which is in many ways an ultimate rebellion against God (not an umbrella of authority) because it seeks power and spiritual know how outside of God. Yes, King Saul became harassed by demons and evil spirits and is this due to temptations which is never mentioned in Samuel or is it due to the spiritual track King Saul put himself on due to pride, greed and rebellion against God. The last petition of the Lord’s prayer that Jesus taught Himself is asking for God’s protection from temptations and deliverance from evil. I think that is where one’s focus should be, on God. And with that, no umbrella or chain of command is needed or mentioned.
Of course the primary focus is ourselves on the Lord when it comes to temptation. But . . . This statement is interesting:
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.”
The Lord’s help comes to us by means of a “way to escape”, without which, presumably, the temptation is too strong. So . . . It is back to us looking for that way. There are many tools and “ways to escape” that the Lord gives us, but a primary one revolves around the authorities He places over us. It is the authorities who enable us to live in peace:
1 Timothy 2:1-4 “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
Not only that, but the context tells us that effective authorities, as bolstered by our prayers for them, are key to a lot of people getting saved. We are under their protection, their “umbrella”, and we pray for them to protect us – and the lost ones we are trying to see saved – even better. God says so, Paul “exhorts” us to, seems a big key to everything.
The 1st Corinthians verses that you have quoted again says nothing about authority as a way of escape. You (from Bill) are attaching that idea into that verse to try and support these this teaching. Yes, St. Paul exhorted prayers for those in government. He did so not only in the places you just quoted but also in Romans as well. Did it again occur to you that the earliest Christians were dealing with a pagan hostile government authority and the answer to this was praying for those in government authority. It has nothing to do with an umbrella of protection or expecting that from hostile pagan leaders but for being left alone by them along with conversion
for these different leaders. Eventually the Roman government collapsed in on this self and what was left were Christians. ‘Living quiet peaceful lives” means not being persecuted and harassed. Your explanation of I Corinthians 10 was reading into it Bill’s ideas. Being under an authority or umbrella is never mentioned in that section as a way of escape from temptations. You are trying really hard here to make it work but everything you have tried to quote to prop up Bill’s umbrella of protection is not sticking.
Well . . . There are a number of reasons Bill became so wildly popular in the 1970s and 1980s. The primary one, though, is that he was able to explain, make sense of a great many of the confusing, seemingly contradictory statements of Scripture and life. Authority is highly placed and regarded in Scripture. The FIRST commandment with promise in the Bible is one to children – adult “offspring” as per Leviticus 19:3 – to reverence, fear, obey parents. Given that parents are as flawed and sinful as we and given that no exception is offered anywhere to deflect that command “for cause”, that leaves a suffering son or daughter with a dilemma. Same with governmental authority – Romans 13 also gives no exception “for cause” for compromised authorities. With employers Scripture overtly expects that some will be harsh and evil (1 Peter 1:18) and still commands that submission.
You don’t like Bill’s explanation and furiously counter every light from Scripture that he is right. Given how clear this principle is in God’s word, let alone practically demonstrated in life, this mystifies me. NO other explanation can support the level of respect demanded of us towards authority. Leaving no relief for the conundrum that pokes and prods every one of us mercilessly as we seek to live happy and godly lives in a world of failing authorities.
lots of people claim to have a “high view” of the Bible and then come up with all sorts of things claimed to be found ‘”in the bible” but yet conflict with each other in many and major ways. Popularity is not a sign of Christian orthodoxy or orthopraxy. Quoting the Bible like a machine gun and attaching different verses to one’s ideas with the hope they will stick isn’t another sign of Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Not sure about orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but I do know that this is a powerful theme in Scripture. I want to think right and I want to be right. As I listen to the voice of my Savior in God’s Word I find Him here.
Let’s put it another way. Do you see anything in the Bible that would contradict the idea that human authorities are used by God to protect those under them from Satanic attack?
orthodoxy is right belief. orthopraxy is right practice.
It depends on what you mean by satanic attack? Do you mean temptations? You will have to define what you are meaning here.
There are clearly temptations that are stronger than we can endure. That is implied:
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.”
IF we do not know about or do not exercise the “way to escape”, we will fall. Humbling, that is. We do not have the strength within ourselves to endure every temptation that Satan brings.
I am absolutely convinced that authority is a big part of God’s “way to escape”. If we rebel against that authority, that is equivalent to witchcraft in that we are opening ourselves up to that rain of temptations which will, then, force us, flip us, destroy us.
wow! You keep quoting that same verse from I Cor 10 over and over again. This verse DOES NOT imply what you are claiming and DOES NOT mention whatsoever as a way of escape some kind of umbrella of protection from one’s authority. If anything, the I Cor 10 verse talks about God helping you in temptations. You are reading into this verse the things you think it talks about but does not. All I can say is that you are in my prayers.
Interesting, though, that He says a way will be provided, that through that way we can escape. If He meant to say that He will help us, well, that is unilateral. And in that case, we will NEVER fail in a temptation. The clear implication is failing to find and exercise the way He provides is why we fail. I am rephrasing exactly what it says.
Reread the whole of I Corinthians 10. St. Paul was writing about examples from OT about people falling away from their faith. He writes that we can use their examples in order not to fall away, He ends the thought with the verse that you are trying to use to support the idea of umbrella of protection against temptations. Nowhere in I Corinthian 10 is an umbrella of protection mentioned, implied or alluded to. I would suggest praying the Lord’s prayer if you are dealing with temptations.
The entire opening of 1 Cor. 10 is focused on strong, privileged, dare I say “godly” individuals falling in terrible ways. “Beware” . . . The lead in to our verse is:
1 Corinthians 10:12 “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”
Lesson: NONE of us are strong enough, mature enough, spiritual enough to escape falling into temptation. Which puts EXTRA focus on finding that “Way to Escape” that is spoken of. “Praying the Lord’s Prayer” might be the principle of meditating in Scripture, another favorite principle of Bill’s. It also focuses us on the Lord and into His presence. But when we pray those words we are immediately struck with asking the Lord to not “lead us into temptation” but then “delivering us from evil”. How does He deliver us? By providing a “way to escape”, that we have to “Ask” for (Lord’s Prayer), then “Seek”, then “Knock” to exercise. Many of us have learned the powerful principle of authority in this context – finding, submitting to, and then praying for those God has placed as protections for us from temptation.
How about this truth? Ephesians 5-6 is all about authority. Wives submitting to husbands, children to parents, employees to bosses. We are told at the end of this that God expects us to wrestle with the devil and his minions:
Ephesians 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Unrelated to the prior topic of authority? Not even remotely. It is interesting though that we are not wrestling with the foot soldiers, but with the authorities themselves:
“Principalities . . . Powers (authorities) . . . Rulers . . . High places”
Why is this? Because . . . Once we defeat the spiritual authority, we can plunder their house, just like Jesus said. A spiritual authority protecting spiritual things, in this case souls in bondage to sin and temptation. The principle of spiritual “chain of command” and “umbrella of protection” is CLEARLY on display. There is no other explanation . . . On why we are to wrestle with authorities.
You are also ignoring James 1:13-15, in which in verse 14 says:
“but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their OWN evil desire and enticed.” Temptations start in the head or heart. An Umbrella of authority isn’t going to fix that and in fact that is a cop-out and excuse not to do one’s own due diligence. Fits with what Jesus said in Matthew 15:19 out of your heart come evil thought, murder, unfaithfulness in marriage, vulgar deeds, stealing, telling lies and insulting others etc.. You keep saying that one cannot handle temptations, that one is too weak etc. That is such a negative view based on fear mongering that you have listen to for a long time. There are many tools that one can use to not only resist temptations, but to overcome them but none of those tools (prayer, scripture, practice of virtues, etc.) include the notions of umbrella of authority. Humility ought to be the top of the list. “God gives grace to the humble but resists the proud” James 4:6. Resisting temptations ought to focus on humility which results in grace being given to you, not umbrella of authority which is never mentioned in any sections that talks about temptations.
“Temptations start in the head or heart.”
Back to the “Lord’s Prayer”. Why then to we entreat the Lord to not lead is there? If it is within us to exercise “due diligence” to fix that, why provide a “way to escape” which we must exercise to endure? Speaking of marriage, why does Paul give such focused instructions to all believers in 1 Cor. 7 . . . To “avoid fornication” by means of getting married? He suggests that some can’t endure by muscling their way through . . . Because they do not have an internal “gift” to that end.
1 Corinthians 7:7 “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”
Boy, that sure sounds like some do NOT have the ability through “due diligence” – inward strength – to survive.
Yes, there are many tools, “gifts”, ways to escape to endure temptation. One of the big ones is submission to God ordained authority. Nothing you have stated in this post changes that.
I already know you don’t believe in “Umbrella of Authority”, mostly, I suspect, because Bill presented it. Your only substantive reason given – so far – is that you can’t see it in Scripture. I can see it everywhere, including the specific focus on wrestling with spiritual authorities to overcome the devil. Your implied point here – that we just need to try harder in the moment to overcome temptation with willpower regardless of how many “ways to escape” we have ignored previously – is directly contradicted by Scripture.
re: Umbrella at Wounded Knee
A man named Crosby wrote the Wounded Knee article on RG. Mr. Crosby showed that men who submit to lawful authority are sometimes victims of treachery. Indeed they are. Mr. Crosby even understated his case.
Every man who marries makes himself vulnerable to desertion, divorce, adultery, and bereavement. His spouse faces these same hazards. Did Crosby oppose marriage on these grounds? Is marriage too risky? For many, it is. Spouses bet their flesh, fortune, and future. What more can we bet? But demolishing straw men is not risky. Meanwhile, good things are often dangerous. Spouses need guts, as do all who submit to lawful authority.
Mr. Crosby never mentioned marriage. Did you actually read the article? He was pointing out the flaws of Bill’s teaching not only on authority but the idea of a wise appeal will prevent you from doing something wrong and pointed out several Biblical examples where it didn’t work. Marriage has nothing to do with this. Black Kettle was promised protection if he flew the American flag over his tent. A Sunday school teacher decided to kill them, mostly women and children. It was pure evil and submitting to the authority of the US government didn’t protect them. This was nothing to do with taking risks of marriage which is kinda a sick defense of all of this. Wounded Knee is currently in the news since Congress is going to revoke the metals of honor that a number of the Civil War vets that participated in this were previously awarded. There was no excuse for what happen at Wounded Knee
Resisting temptations in all the verses we have been going back and forth on never mentions an umbrella of authority or being under some kind of umbrella of authority to protect oneself from being tempted. That idea is being injected into the verses you are trying to quote as proof for this. I no longer believe in the umbrella ideas because it is a false teaching whether or not Bill Gothard was the originator of them or not. Watchman Nee was the source of these ideas. He was used by not only Bill Gothard but also those in the Shepherding movement as well. I read some of the books by him at the time I attended Bill’s seminars. The Authoritarian ideas Watchman Nee wrote about were the same as Bill, along with the body, soul and spirit brake down Bill used. I remember looking at the chart Bill had up on his projector and thinking that is the same chard Watchman Nee wrote about and used. Nothing is done in a vacuum. Again, protection against evil, temptation etc. is the final petition of the Lord’s Prayer. It is asking for God’s help and strength and has nothing to do with being under some sort of authority or umbrella of so called protection which is made up and read into all the verses we have been haggling over here.
The information about Watchman Nee is interesting and new to me. Being a fan of his this is not a downside for me. And the matter of the tripartite nature of man would be quickly settled with one proof text:
The Greek word “kai” – “and” – separates those three very deliberately. Separate . . . And each needs special focus to be saved. Taken up in greater detail here –> http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2015/10/13/a-salvation-trinity/
The Lord does not use the term “umbrella” any more than He uses the term “Trinity”. In fact, folks attack “Trinity” with the same kinds of arguments, i.e. the Word of God does not overly teach us that. But it is real, very real. Some truths are there for us to discern with spiritual eyes, comparing “spiritual with spiritual” as Scripture says. Even if you don’t call it by Gothard terms, the principle is there throughout God’s Word. Back to a prior example:
Matthew 26:31 “Then Jesus *said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.’”
How can He say this with such authority? It is not because He sees the future . . . He says it as a consequence of His authority as “shepherd” being removed. GUARANTEED failure. Because of Satan’s temptation and the “way to escape” being momentarily removed. All the willpower Peter had could not get him through that.
re: Bill Gothard wielding a club?
On 7/26 above, Rob employs one of her favorite metaphors, an image of sinister, strapping Bill Gothard smiting his prey with a club, like giant Despair torturing Christian in Doubting Castle. Supposedly the purpose of Gothard’s club was to coerce submission to himself and others. If this were true, it would be heinous and unnatural. But if there is unnatural submission, what is natural submission? We all know obvious examples. Boys and girls should clean their messy bedroom when mother says so, and they should obey house rules which reward virtue and punish vice. Weren’t Gothard’s submission categories like these?
If Bill Gothard had victims, weren’t they weird? They donated much wealth and expended much effort for the privilege of being tortured. Were they being punished by a knuckle-dragging, club-wielding Bill Gothard?
re: club dues and and umbrella don’ts
On 8/11 above, Rob dismissed Bill Gothard’s umbrella metaphor because the Bible is silent about metaphorical umbrellas. Indeed it is.
The Bible is also silent about metaphorical clubs. As noted on 7/27 above, did that restrain Rob from inventing a metaphorical club? Aren’t grim clubs more heinous than benign umbrellas? Perhaps Bill Gothard will repent of umbrella metaphors after Rob repents of club metaphors? Ladies first?
What a bunch of nonsense. If this idea of Bill actually really worked where being under the umbrella of authority is protection against harmful temptations, then what happen with Josh Duggar? How did a 14-year-old boy living in a home of Jim Bob Duggar, under his ever-watchful authority and control with no exposure to TV, rock music, limited internet, evil influence etc. start groping his sisters and became addicted to pornography. If any family was the model of everything Bill Gothard taught, it would be the Duggars and they were, have been and still are featured in IBLP seminars and conferences. So, if Josh is under the Jim Bob authority and umbrella of protection, he would have been protected from the harmful and dangerous temptations such as immorality and pornography. But that isn’t what happen, and it didn’t happen because this whole idea is false and the premier IBLP families of them all, the Duggars prove that this is a false idea because it didn’t and doesn’t work.
An umbrella is effective “when part of a complete breakfast”. For starters you have to be under it, not pretending to be. When Josh first started exploring sexual curiosity with his sleeping sisters he knew he was operating out from under his parent’s wishes. Hence the guilt and confession. Later when he secretly was taking in porn he was, once again, outside the “umbrella”. Those secrets destroyed him – exposing them to the light of his parents in desperation would have saved him. Why is AA so incredibly effective? In large part because it helps an addict establish and recognize clear authorities to be accountable to. If you know anything about it, you can confirm this to be true. That simple program is far more effective with addiction than the medical approaches that are often used because it recognizes the power of the “Umbrella of Protection”.
The protection of authority against spiritual attacks is a given. The prior example of the Lord Jesus as the “shepherd” absolutely demonstrates that as Peter and the others were destined to be “scattered” for a time. Yet Judas was operating in the shadows – rebellion like “witchcraft” – even while ostensibly safe under the Shepherd’s very present authority. He had a “way to escape”, exposing his temptation, confessing his sin to his authority, but he never took it. When Josh was being overwhelmed by temptation he should have exercised the umbrella in his loving, powerful, godly family . . . But he didn’t.
back to ought and is: Natural law says we ought to submit to our natural authorities. If we do, what follows? Hopefully good will follow, but possibly not. What do we mean when we speak of righteousness working? working to what end? Is righteousness the sum of gimmicks we employ to obtain the ends we seek?
Christ’s apostle addressed this topic, beginning in 1 Peter 2. Peter exhorted Christians to do good works. “Honest conversation” might win pagans who smear them with slander. If things worked right, the slanderers would “glorify God the day of visitation.” St. Peter further told Christians to submit to natural authorities for the Lord’s sake. Even so, Peter allowed for the possibility that God’s natural law would not work. He warned, “but and if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye.”
We ought to do right, which includes obeying our natural authorities. This will usually “work,” except when it doesn’t.
I am not sure where that Natural Law says what you claim.
Maybe brush up on what Natural Law is or isn’t https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/natural-law/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
re: Crosby syllogism https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/06/bury-my-umbrella-at-wounded-knee/
Joel Crosby’s Wounded Knee reasoning ran like this.
premise #1: Trust risks treachery.
premise #2: Some men betray their neighbors.
conclusion: Bill Gothard is mistaken about submitting to lawful authority, or his case is at least incomplete.
Is this a rebuttal or a non sequitur? Is there any meaning in life without reposing confidence where it belongs?
re: ought from is
A philosopher once said, “you can’t get an ought from an is,” but we also can’t get an is from an ought. Bill Gothard said we ought to submit to lawful authority. He further generalized (not guaranteed) that this would produce good outcomes, or at least avoid bad ones, just as umbrellas keep their users dry instead of soaked. This rule has exceptions, so Bill Gothard taught material about appealing to authorities, in a booklet which featured a cover illustration of Balaam’s ass.
Unfortunately, Balaam persisted in his folly, despite the appeal from his faithful beast. Much suffering followed. This explains why the principle of suffering complements the principle of authority in Gothard’s teaching.
I have no idea why an agnostic enlightenment philosopher like David Hume is being quoted here. All I can think of is a grasping of straws. Balaam’s donkey was not appealing to Balaam on its own, because it is an animal and animals do not have that kind a capacity on their own to make “wise appeals”. God was supernaturally using that poor animal as a last-ditch effort to reach Balaam. If Bill was using this on the cover, all it says is that again Scripture is being taken out of context to support an idea that isn’t there. You are also justifying abuse. Balaam should not have beaten the donkey and it has nothing to do with some principal of suffering that is being used to justify abusive behaviors by those in authority.
re: Hume and the ass mistaken? justifying abuse or abusing justice?
Was Hume mistaken about the source of ethics? Or the ass about Balaam’s folly? is describing abuse the same as justifying it? If so, then Gothard’s accusers justify him merely by accusing him. Must we descend into nonsense?
I don’t think you knew who you were quoting, it just sounded good to you in a feeble effort to sound sophisticated. If you want to take your ethics from an agnostic atheist, more power to you but I don’t take my ethics from Enlightenment philosophers, most of whom are agnostics and atheists, let alone deists. This attempt backfired. Bill Gothard was very anti-philosophy; he comes from a fundamentalist world that denies any used of philosophy, so I find it just inconsistent that someone that supports Bill no matter what quotes an agnostic to support Bill Gothard’s teachings. The award for being inconsistent has been won here. congratulations.
re: rocks, storms, sand, umbrellas, salads, and metaphors
Unless we translate figures of speech, how can we hope to have communion with humanity? As Jesus used images of rocks, storms, and sand, Bill Gothard used the umbrella, an object familiar to civilized man since ancient times.
With men of good will, we may safely use figures of speech. For him without ears to hear, every metaphor must be a word salad. But that is another metaphor.
re: what is truth?
Pilate’s sneer is famous. Jesus did not dignify it with an answer, because he has already answered it or those who had ears to hear. Among his famous “I am” statements, Jesus identified himself as Truth. But to Pilate, truth was an abstraction which mattered only so far as it served his ambition.
Do we sometimes glean truth from pagans? Yes, even pagans may be enlightened by God’s common grace. (He taketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good.) Pagans are sometimes granted glimpses of truth. Without Truth, how can they be saved? without Truth, how can any of us be saved?
David,
“Do not accept as true anything which lacks love, do not accept as love anything which lacks truth”. St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein), WWII martyr.
I think I would rather quote saints or scripture than quote Enlightenment atheists and agnostics who’s so called truth lacks quite a bit of love.
re: defending Hume or avoiding the obvious?
The pithy “ought-is” quote survived Hume because it is axiomatic. C.S. Lewis devoted a book to showing how true it is. In Miracles, Lewis showed that materialism fails because it cannot account for non-material reality.
On 7/30 above, I inverted Hume for the same reason. Gothard’s seven principles dealt with duties of young people. Therefore they belong in the “ought” category. A common slander against Gothard was that he guaranteed good outcomes (or relief from suffering) to young people who discharged their duties faithfully. The 1973 wounded knee article was one of many examples.
A pagan philosopher once packaged an axiom to make it memorable. If the philosopher was a bad man, does the axiom cease to be axiomatic?
all I have to say is this. ” The witness of a Christian is holding your temper when you want to choke somebody”. Mother Angelica
I have nothing more to say to you.
re: 8/16 links about natural law
The Wall Street Mojo and Stanford links were pretty good. They showed that natural law has enjoyed a broad consensus throughout man’s history. Pagans like Plato and Aristotle agreed with Christians like Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis about intuitive right and wrong. In one of his Narnia books, Lewis lamented the outrage of people “murdering their natural lords.”
Of course there are such things as natural lords. Men of good will agree that we ought to obey them. Children ought to obey their parents, etc. Bill Gothard was no innovator when he taught the obvious. Neither was Jesus of Nazareth.
re: Angelica the strangler?
Did Mother Angelica also divulge whether she strangled or forbore when seized with the impulse to throttle her neighbor? Many mothers know the impulse to choke those who provoke. Did she do it or not? Inquiring minds want to know.
My goodness, can you take a deep breath and see the joke behind this?
How does one breathe deeply while adding jokes to jokes? Deep breaths crowd out the laughter. Lutherans like me disbelieve in Angelica the strangler. That’s the second joke.
David said:
” A common slander against Gothard was that he guaranteed good outcomes (or relief from suffering) to young people who discharged their duties faithfully. ”
Did Gothard make promises of success with respect to his programs and/or principles?
Listen to his own words 24 seconds into his Embassy University promotional video:
“Your success in this program is guaranteed by God”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-mzYlXZK70
And, apparently you can also learn wisdom while you sleep- 19 seconds into the video
Well, now, we have a bit of a problem. Bill didn’t invent the promise . . . The Lord did.
Psalms 1:2-3
“2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”
Joshua 1:8
“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.”
1 Timothy 4:15
“Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.”
Seems like a guarantee to me, three witnesses. Do you think, on that final day, anyone will be able to say, “I did it, but it didn’t work out for me”? I guarantee it won’t happen.
All you have done is proof text different verses, plucked them out of their context, to support success scam which is no different than what prosperity teachers/ WoF types do. On top of that, the implies success is materialistic and temporal. Bill is making (and has made) promises that are not there unless one just plucks out random Bible verses to support this. So if this doesn’t work, then Bill and those like him will just turn around and claim that they didn’t make these promises, God did so any failure is one you, not Bill or not God. The reality is that one doesn’t see all this success in those that follow these ideas. Should I go jump off a building because Psalm 91 promised that angels will be guarding me ‘”lest I dash my foot against the stone”. This is proof texting at its worst. Just so glad and happy that I am away from this heretical use of scripture.
Your prejudices are showing. You keep bringing up “prosperity teachers” even though you know Bill never taught any such thing, as evidenced by the lack of fundraising or flaunting of wealth that is the norm with those teachers.
Here is the challenge: Take my verses and demonstrate a lack of faithfulness to the context. Because I am at a loss as to what more I can do for you. The context in all cases is exactly the same: God is focusing on taking His
Word seriously, of memorizing, meditating on it SPECIFICALLY, with a promise of success and prosperity (exact words used) as a reward. What do you see that isn’t that?
A so-called promise of success and prosperity is exactly what prosperity teacher teach. I just looked at Bill’s web site and one of the featured books is “Get more Money from God”. That is one of his recent books right there on his web site. I have experience with both Bill Gothard and prosperity teachers. It is in all honesty the same message and the exact same use of the Bible, proof texting verses out of context and out of line. So called verses that you are trying to proof text here need to be balanced out with many other verses that talk about humility, that complain about wicked or evil people that are prosperous, that talk about caring for the poor and needy, that talk about “the love of money as the root of evil (St. Paul), that talk about being content with what one has, So maybe the problem here the cut and paste of isolated verses to support and idea that isn’t always supported if one looks at the totality of the whole Bible
Strange . . . That I decry the “prosperity” teacher just as you do . . . And find no commonality with Bill whatsoever.
I will have to insist that you show me how the context (not offering passages elsewhere) would lead to a different conclusion than the one I have come to. I did not break any of the rules 🙂 Dive in – I provided 3 passages that unequivocally state what Bill is saying. I almost believe your objection to be based in experience and “common sense”, not Scripture. “It didn’t work out for so-and-so, so it can’t possibly mean that”. If so, that is a dangerous situation. God loves to ensnare us in our own perspectives once we dare to start thinking outside of the constraints His Word places on us.
1 Corinthians 3:18-19 “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS””
All you did was cherry pick 3 verses. Context is all the verses around it as well as the whole of scripture in total. You also didn’t define success here which is probably very different from what I would consider success. Bill has always taught rote memorization of the Bible as a pathway of success. I would not in any way call Bill Gothard currently a success. And likewise, none of these verses you have cherry picked here mention rote Bible memorization. Your use of cherry-picking Bible verses is the same as Bill which is the same as prosperity teachers which also use the same verses here and claim and promise success. It is the same. The so-called promise of success would be seen by everyone who attended Bill’s seminars in all these years, and we would have a bunch of millionaires and billionaires as proof that this works. You don’t have that among the die-hard followers of Bill Gothard except maybe the Greens, Kimray, Duggar and Bates families and the latter two are rich because they turned over to reality TV. It is false promise.
I did not cherry pick! Those passages are front and center to the discussion. And they all clearly state that the one that “meditates” on Scripture . . . “Whatsoever he does will prosper” . . . He will have “good success”. The context is Scripture, mediating on it. You reject it, not because it is out of context, but because it challenges your received theology.
Rote memorization is NOTHING like what Bill taught, which you should know. “Meditation” is the process of “engrafting” God’s Word into our minds and hearts – to memorize it barely a start to that.
The Lord Jesus is the primary example of success. He had all the money and wealth and acclaim He wanted, more than 12 legions of angels to do whatever He needed done, was the King that won the hearts of Billions and His Kingdom is still increasing. He single-handedly defeated sin and death and hell. The amount of money in Judas’s bag did not even begin to approximate His “success”.
And Bill is similarly blessed. He too has shaken His world and continues to do so. He is friends with the powerful and wealthy, still has thousands that call him essentially “Dad”, because that is the place he holds in their lives and hearts. Our team continues to get unsolicited testimonies from those who search out His Facebook page and send a message. We got two in the last week. One spoke of attending the seminar in the 1970s with his fiancé, now celebrating 50 years . . . “It changed my life”, “What a blessing you have been in my life.” Another said, also speaking of the 1970s, “Your Biblical counseling, the seminar, saved my life . . . I have never been the same again.” We pass them on – How many people do you know that have a constant stream of people seeking them out to bless them . . . 50 years after the fact, in some cases. He is most successful.
Rote memorization is definitely what Bill taught. His repeated claim was that he was challenged by someone around the 8th grade to commit to memorizing a chapter of the Bible a week and when Bill did this, his poor academic performance was turned around he became a successful student when he then turned around and offered as proof that memorizing the Bible was the pathway of success. None of these verses you again are cherry picking here mention or talk about memorization and none of them define meditation nor even what is considered success. Meditation has always been equated to memorization in Bill’s teaching. They are linked in the teaching of Bill. Again, none of the verses you have hung your hat on here mention memorization. Having friends in high places doesn’t mean success. And in current articles and books in the evangelical world, when Bill Gothard’s name does come up, it is mentioned as what is wrong or went wrong in the world of Evangelicalism. IBLP is slowing dying away. ATI is shut down. I don’t see any of this as success, of which you have not defined. Is this success in money, fame and fortune? Or is it success in obeying and doing God’s will which of the later is what i think the cherry-picked verses here are actually referring to.
I have one more final clip here:
https://www.womenofgrace.com/search?term=prayer+of+jabez
While this clip is about the prayer of Jabez, what they are pointing out is that one cannot take a verse out of context and then claim promises that are not there or supported. That is what you are doing with the verses here.
Sorry for missing this – started a reply, the computer hiccuped and . . . I forgot.
If you know ANYTHING about what Bill taught I am at a loss to understand your attestation of “rote memorization”. Indeed, that is exactly what he has NOT taught. His testimony was that he was taught to “meditate”, of which the memory work is but a part. He used to teach “large passages” – more recently he has us focusing on single verses, one each day.
The attached image is right out of the syllabus from the original Basic Seminar in the section on “Success” as guaranteed to those who “Meditate”. This is the 4th step in the process. It begins by memorization (spirit), then study of the context, original words, thoughts of others (mind), then repeating it back to the Lord, even in song, personalized, as a prayer (emotions), and then, in this step, purposing to change my life based on what I have learned (will). Do you recall something different?
I’m not sure what a picture has to do with Bill’s ideas on meditation or memorization but just as you stated, the gateway to so called meditation is memorization and one has to do that first. That is why Bill emphasized memorization as the basis. His own testimony that memorization of a chapter a week caused Bill to finally have academic success after repeated first grade and nearly failing all others. I don’t see how this chart from your original materials supports success in meditation because what I see in that chart is an overly complication bunch of nonsense of Bill’s opinion on how meditation is supposed to work in someone and all of that is pure conjecture. The proven method used from the earliest time of Christianity is Lectio Divinia which is read, pray, meditation and contemplate and memorization is not one of the steps. That is actually what Beth Moore uses and while not a fan of hers, is probably why she is so popular as a Bible teacher to women. Beth Moore has helped women reengage with scriptures teaching and using Lectio Divinia and that has hit a cord with women that have been told just to memorize the Bible and all these wonderful things will happen. Let me ask you this, why should one read the Bible? Is it to have success and prosperity for oneself or is it to know and draw closer to God Almighty Himself? Making false promises of success whether it be Bill Gothard and Bible memorization or praying the Prayer of Jabez for the front row seat into the blessed life appeals to American greed and emphasis on prosperity. That is shallow faith and having been there and done that, I consider myself blessed to be out of all of that.
I hear an ongoing cycle of repeated prejudices. Bill is not teaching, nor ever has taught, what you suggest. Meditation in “God’s law” most definitely does involve memorizing . . . “God’s law”. The Israelites – Jews – as you know have traditionally committed entire books of the Bible to memory. The diagram simply illustrates that Bill is nowhere stuck on “rote memorization”. As stated, as one that is in contact with him and hearing him and reading his newest publications, I can attest that the role of memorization has dropped even further. The current model involves a single verse, one per day, with no pattern of rehearsal of the previously memorized verse after the day has run its course. But the principle of success that is promised emanates directly from the several passages that directly address “meditation”, as quoted upstream in the thread. You can decide you don’t believe it, but it is most definitely taught, directly by the mouth of the Lord, in context.
The chart states at the top, How to redirect your life goals. I have no idea how you think this old chart supports meditation. I am not following you reasoning here. Bill absolutely emphasized Bible memorization. Not only did he do so in all the seminars I attended, the testimonies on places like RG repeated the Bible memorization mantra and emphasis by the former ATI students. If Bill kept up his memorize a chapter a week he promoted, he should have the whole Bible memorized by now but I kinda think maybe not which leads to my own observation. My own observation is that very few people actually memorize the Bible even though they give lip serve to doing so. You made a claim that the Jewish people memorized the Bible. You have no historic proof for this and like a lot of claims by Bill about either the early Church or ancient Jews to be made up conjectures in order to fit his narrative.
I thought it was obvious, perhaps not. Bill focuses on the 4 steps of meditation, of which this is #4, a page for each:
#1: Memorize (spirit)
#2: Research (mind)
#3: Personalize (emotions)
#4: Redirect (will)
These four parts encompass or inner being, our “heart”, with the mind, will and emotions comprising our soul. I did not want to scan and paste the other three but will if it will help you in your response.
Historical claim? I have talked to friends who grew up Jewish who told me that at their bar-mitzvah they had to receive the entire law of Moses. In Hebrew. Which the one friend definitely did not understand. So, yes, this is truly a practice. I can provide more documentation if you like.
As to memorizing the whole Bible . . . Memorizing it is one thing, remembering it all to recite it in one sitting is another. I know of several people who have memorized the entire New Testament. I am not one of them.
Ok, that explains it a little better but again the first step in Bill’s four step is memorization, which in all honesty is done by a few people successfully. I believe Jack Van Impe did memorize I think the entire NT if not most of the Bible. On another side note Thomas Aquinas when he was locked up for a year by his family, spent his time memorizing most of the whole Bible. But when someone is locked up, they have the time to do such a feat. Something none of really have. I did not find setting out to memorize chapters Bill suggested in the basic seminar successful. It was not engaging but laborious, discouraging and resulted in a lack of desire for even reading scripture. Which in observation of others, is I think the same for most people. I find the ancient method of Lectio Divina which is also a four step process but the four steps interlock with each other of reading, praying, meditation (understanding) and contemplation and is a more engaging process and doesn’t include at all memorization. Memorization at least in my experience is passive process due to repeated use, reading and prayer as part of a liturgy of the hours format. Thank-you for your time.
And as has been pointed out twice, Bill has shifted from focusing on the large to focusing on the small. Today, and for the last decade, it spins around a single verse a night. I think that works well. Agreed, some can memorize much better than others. I paid a daughter $100 for reciting the entire 176 verse Psalm 119. Today I would give her three times that amount, as difficult as that is. Few can do that. But I can do a verse a night.
Thank you too.
Again, Bill’s ideas on meditation are based on or as a first step memorization which you have admitted to. While maybe he shifted or maybe you just apply it to a verse a night sort of thing, I didn’t or don’t really see the so called shift in this. One doesn’t have to memorize the Bible, even at a verse a night, to have a meaningful contemplative relationship with scripture. This is how again it works for you and I do get that. thank-you for your time.
And I sidle back over to the 3 references from both the OT and NT that literally attach a promise of “success” to whatever “meditation” is. THAT gets Bill excited. Whatever this success is it is what the Apostles enjoyed. And I want as much of that as I can get. Thank you too for contemplative and respectful disagreement.
Again, I am not sure what “success” you are referring to with the Apostles themselves. All but one died pretty horrific deaths. St. Augustine as bishop in a letter to the pastors under him wrote this: “For if he has been taught to hope for worldly gain, he will be corrupted by prosperity. When adversity comes, he will be wounded or perhaps destroyed. The builder who builds in such mannorr is not building the believer on a rock but upon sand. But the rock was Christ. Christian must imitate Christ’s suffering, not set their hears on pleasure. … but what sort of shepherds are they who for fear of giving offense not only fail to prepare the sheep for the temptations that threaten, but even promise them worldly happiness? God himself mad no such promise to this world. On the contrary, God foretold hardship upon hardship in this world until the end of time. And you want the Chistian to be exempt from these troubles? Precisely because he is a Christian, he is destined to suffer more in this world.” The so-called promises you are hanging your hat on are again proof texted verses taken out of context and do not when considering the whole of scripture, promise success or prosperity you want them to.
Let me put it this way, from an example I heard today. A brother in my gathering spoke on Luke 16:19 and on, about the rich man and Lazarus, and absolutely destitute beggar. As he described this man, covered from head to toe with sores, likely eating out of the garbage, being licked by wild dogs. It suddenly struck me that THAT was exactly the standard of success I am looking for. Everything that beggar did was recorded in golden letters in heaven. His name is in the Lamb’s book of life, his name is also in every Bible with people reading about him and being blessed by him daily for thousands of years. Everything he did prospered, he was an unmitigated success.
We already had a verse tell us to meditate “day and night”. Unless we never sleep, apparently that process of “ruminating” goes on in our subconscious. I often wake up in the wee hours of the morning with a clear solution to a problem I had been chewing on the night before. Does that happen to you? If so, apparently our spirits continue pondering while our conscious mind is shut down.
God teaching us . . . Even while we sleep:
Job 33:14-16
“14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;
16 Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction”
Why is “sleep on it” often considered good advice? Upon waking, many people (including me) find fresh answers to questions which puzzled them the evening before. What changed during the night’s sleep? of all the changes, how do we isolate the one which produced the breakthrough?
re: Bible memory
I have recently taken up the verse-per-week method. My local Christian radio station promotes a memory verse each week. They publish each week’s verse on the lower left of their home page: https://bbn1.bbnradio.org/english/ The verse is easy to print on an index card. I print it with my word processor and laser printer to keep it neat.
This week it is Ephesians 2:10, which reminds us that God created us for good works in Christ. Remembering our divine purpose is a good antidote to discouragement.
What counts as success? or slander?
As Brother James said above, Gothard emphasized success for those who lived God’s way. In fact, it went beyond emphasis. Gothard went so far beyond emphasis that success earned its place among Gothard’s seven Principles.
The slander lies not in affirming success, but in isolating it from the other six principles which balanced it. The Wounded Knee article erred when it pretended that Gothard taught success to the exclusion of suffering.
Thoughts on Natural Law. When I think of Natural Law, I think of this “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” So the basis of the American Revolution was that we have rights that come from God not from the government and that when government takes away those rights, the people have the right to over through that government. That is the philosophical basis for the American Revolution and they used Natural Law (via John Locke and Thomas Paine, Enlightenment Philosophers you like to quote). So I guess I fail to see how David you can use Natural Law the justify authority and submission to it as Bill Gothard taught it. Maybe you ought to read or re-read the Declaration of Independence so you can re think your thesis that Natural Law is supportive of Authoritarianism because the reality is, is doesn’t
re: self-evident truth
Indeed Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence appealed to natural law, because men agreed on a set of self-evident truths. Jefferson used the plural form of “truth” to emphasize how broad the natural-law consensus was. Natural law forbade authoritarianism, which was the very reason for American secession as a final resort.
Let’s keep our sense of proportion. Natural law keeps families, societies, and nations together, unless it is violated so grievously that secession is the final resort. If authoritarianism is bad, its badness must not discredit the goodness of natural authority.
re: Do you Qualify to Get Money from God?
On 8/24 above, Rob referenced a Bill Gothard book which he offers on his website. Although Rob slightly misquoted the title, isn’t the actual title a question worth asking, especially considering that money is simply a medium of exchange? Without money, men are reduced to hunter-gatherers, at the level of beasts. If God created man to rule beasts, how is God glorified if man himself regresses to merely a beast?
From the title, Gothard’s theme sounds like the idea set forth by the popular “prayer of Jabez” book many years ago. The Jabez book was about prosperity, not to satisfy greed for accumulation, but to minister God’s work in the world. That sounds like a noble cause which is better served with more money, not less.
The prayer of Jabez was another WoF scam that blew up in people’s faces. It was a flash in the pan that everyone jumped on and then moved on from. Another fine example of cherry-picking verses out of context and only made those trying to market this to gullible Christians in the form of books, jewelry, decorations etc. rich.
re: picking good cherries
“Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?” So asked Jesus rhetorically, to affirm that good fruit comes from good sources, but evil fruit from evil sources. When I seek good fruit, what better place to look than my Bible?
When I need sufficient blessing to proclaim Christ’s gospel in my vocation, should I ask? “Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find.” When I was a military commander, I had to ask for the supplies I needed to accomplish my mission. Why shouldn’t the Lord’s men do the same?
I think Jimmy Akin gave the best response to the “prayer of jabez”
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-prayer-of-jabez
In his Jabez book, Bruce Wilkinson was writing for illustration, not Bible exposition. Shouldn’t Akin’s review have acknowledged that? Wilkinson gave due weight to the Bible’s tongue-in-cheek treatment of Jabez’s name. Indeed many Bible characters had negative names to overcome.
A much more famous Bible character than Jabez did not merely petition (or cut a deal) for God’s blessing, but actually wrestled for it. Like Jabez, Jacob was assigned a name with negative connotations. But unlike Jabez, Jacob struggled for God’s blessing. What was his reward? a new name, a bad hip, and the honor of being God’s instrument of blessing for the entire world. What greater blessing could we seek from God? Why be shy about petitioning God for the means to work his will? St. James famously warned us not to “ask amiss,” but he urged us to ask.
The book goes well beyond just a petition prayer. He makes huge claims that if one prays this prayer for 30 days, all these sorts of blessing with come your way. This is a perfect example of typical taking verses out of context and making huge promises that are not there. Just like Bill Gothard. Jimmy Akin took one angle, there are many others that raise similar objections about it. The prayer of Jabez does not supersede the Lord’s prayer which is one of the many points brought out in both the article and video.
here are others. I would suggest you watch the video link.
:https://www.womenofgrace.com/search?term=prayer+of+jabez
Rob is correct, there is an awful lot of proof texting going on to support the “promises”.
Maybe pay some attention to these verses:
2 Corinthians Chapter 11
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Proverbs 20:17 Food gained by fraud is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth is full of gravel.
12. Proverbs 21:5-6 The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare. The violence of the wicked will drag them away, for they refuse to do what is right.
13. Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.
I expected some “proof” of the “awful lot” of proof text, but saw none. Why don’t we start there, same challenge given to Rob. We already know you don’t like it. Now demonstrate how these passages are out of context … or don’t matter.
re: Texts which prove, texts which support, texts which illustrate
We protestants insist that God made the Holy Bible perspicuous, in contrast with cipher which must be decoded by clergy before we gain access. Shouldn’t we expect ordinary English rules to operate when we read English Bible translations? If so, shouldn’t we expect to see texts which perform the three functions above? Indeed some texts prove, others support, still others merely illustrate.
The First Commandment proves that God must be supreme in our affections. The Great Commandment proves that neighbor and self rank next after God. Last comes our affection for mammon, which we must not covet. Many other texts illustrate rewards of wisdom or wages of folly.
Job’s friends erred when they presumed that his suffering proved his sin. Proof is a very strong term. Don’t milder terms such as support or illustrate often apply better?
Maybe you “insist that God made the Holy Bible perspicuous, but the reality of this thought is that the Bible doesn’t teach this, and you have 20K denominations and groups that all claim this and disagree completely on what the Bible says and teaches. Luther himself actually backed down from this as more and more people disagreed with Luther and spun off into conflicting groups etc. Luther said at the end of his life that he “got ride of one Pope but made 100 more”. We have already covered this elsewhere here. The Bible wasn’t written in English, not even King James English. Such a phony lost cause idea.
Wiser heads than our have debated perspicuity in detail, so let’s limit ourselves to the obvious. If the Bible means anything to anyone, someone must understand it. Which raises the question, who can understand it? Either someone has a monopoly on understanding, or everyone who knows the language of the text can understand it.
The whole idea behind gospel proclamation and Bible translation is to form a perspicuity chain, extending gospel and Bible understanding to as many people speaking as many tongues as possible. All preaching and all translation is vain gibberish without perspicuity. Must we embrace either linguistic monopoly or linguistic chaos? Why resist the obvious case for perspicuity?
re: does the Bible teach its own perspicuity? how could we know?
If the Bible is not perspicuous, how could we know whether it teaches anything at all? Talk about lost causes! What cause is more lost than understanding nonsense?
re: perspicuity on a lesser scale
Rather than settle the perspicuity of the entire Bible, why not first tackle a tiny subset? Are the Ten Commandments sufficiently perspicuous? Apparently God thought so when he decreed them. Yet men have defied them from the beginning. God speaks plainly, yet men sin. Does the blame belong on God or men?
If men will not submit to the Ten Commandments, how can we expect them to align with the entire Bible? Do the failures of men diminish the clarity of God?
You know David, based on what you just wrote here, that you can read the Bible and figure it out all on your own. Congratulations because heresy is that special moment when you have greater spiritual insight than the Apostles, the disciples, Apostolic fathers, the Church, the magisterium because you have a Bible that they wrote, complied and gave you. You have arrived. You can read your English (probably KJV) Bible and figure it all out on your own. I am glad you are good to go.
When I was beginning elementary school, we learned in small groups reading from primers. The primers themselves were perspicuous, but to attain understanding, our neighbors helped us.
So it is with God’s people. Sola scriptura is a Reformation idea, but solo scriptura is a caricature. Let’s not waste efforts on straw men. Monastic isolation was not endorsed on the Wittenberg door.
re: in defense of rote
Who can speak for geniuses? the rest of us learn by rote or not at all. “Rote” means repeated or rehearsed. Every session of batting practice is learning by rote. Every choir rehearsal is learning by rote. Our fate is either knuckle-dragging ignorance, or learning by rote. Rote is escape from stupidity. Let’s escape while we can.
Eschew Gothard seminars if you must, but learn something by rote or not at all.
re: out of American greed
On 9/7 above, Rob rejoiced at being out of American greed. This raises the question, out of American greed, and into what? foreign greed? who gets the greed monopoly? who makes greed great again? After denouncing American greed, we were treated to an anti-prosperity sneer composed on a computer connected to an internet, both of which owe their existence to prosperity. Where is the sense of irony? or of style? anti-prosperity rants are most sincere when composed by with a stick writing in the dirt. Those who hate prosperity should inform us via smoke signal or not at all.
Speaking of prosperity, what manner of success does God promise? St. James says that God reciprocates when we draw nigh to him. The reward of seeking him is finding him. Jesus promised that “all these things” will be added when we seek first his kingdom and righteousness.
David,
I really don’t see how even the Ten Commandments supports the notion of clarity of scripture. If one looks at the “Shall not kill” which is the standard English translation based on KJV, the Hebrew word is actually tirsah or murder. So the common English translation of kill is actually not so accurate. But there are many Christian groups that use “thou shall not kill” to mean an absolute and use this to support a total pacifism of no war, no fighting, no capital punishment etc. And this is based on a point blank reading of just the English. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount expanding the meaning to include just being angry with an other person. This is just one example I am not sure why the so called “clarity of the Bible” has anything to do with the topics about Bill Gothard and his teaching. This topic has been discussed earlier on the blog, it does not really support the teaching of Bill Gothard and even the proponents of clarity of scripture can’t even agree themselves on what the Bible says or doesn’t say and using the Ten Commandments as something that is clear is actually false because sincere Christian do disagree on meaning and application of the Ten Commandments let alone the rest of scripture.
re: kill? slay? murder? distinction without difference?
Because our language usage evolves over the course of generations, translators update Bible translations to keep pace. Some people insist that “murder” is what God forbids in the Sixth Commandment. They say that neither “kill” nor “slay” translate the term, because these words refer only to depriving of life, and not to wrongdoing. What does it betoken? only that since the 17th Century, “kill” may have lost the connotation of wrongdoing it formerly meant. Was it the correct 1611 translation, but now outdated? Would you rather be killed, slain, or murdered? the result is identical in all three cases.
As for Bill Gothard’s use of Bible illustrations, wouldn’t the same rules apply as for any preacher? If any preacher may use Bible texts to make his message perspicuous, why not Bill Gothard? Will an audience have ears to hear and eyes to see? that’s another question.
You gave an example of perspicuously of scripture aTen Commandments. What is being pointed out to you that even in the Ten Commandments, there is disagreement on meaning and application and the “Thou shall not Kill” is one example where sincere Christians disagree on if it just covers murder, or also covers war, capital punishment, abortion etc. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount expanded it to include anger against others. Clarity of Scripture as taught by Luther meant anyone anywhere can just read the Bible and they will come up with exact meaning, interpretation because the Bible is just so clear and understandable. The Hebrew word actually mean murder and has nothing to do with evolving English meaning or usage. This isn’t a winning argument for the cause of Bill. Not sure why it being brought up.
re: excuses, excuses
What long-suffering parent has not heard blame-shifting for mischief? He catches the mischievous kid in his mischief. Cue the excuses; “You weren’t explicit, I didn’t understand,” etc.
We treat God the same way, don’t we? Even if we concede some ambiguity in what the Sixth Commandment forbids, would we risk damnation on an ambiguity defense? “But God, I didn’t murder my neighbor, I only killed him. You didn’t forbid that, did you? If only you didn’t make the Bible so ambiguous.”
Let God be true and every man a liar. Our excuses ring hollow. God reveals himself and his will well enough.