The Suit is Made Longer

image

The action today in Dupage County Circuit Court in the ongoing lawsuits against IBLP and Bill Gothard was not what we wanted, but know the Lord is firmly in control.

1). The judge denied the motions brought by IBLP and Bill to dismiss the lawsuit “with prejudice” based on statute of limitation barriers and other concerns. The plaintiff team sought for a narrow foundation of possibility to stay within the statue laws based on each plaintiff claiming a medical condition which kept them from understanding or remembering the “abuse” until – in most cases – decades had passed. The judge is allowing them the ability to proceed with that possibility remaining to be proven. This would have been an ultimate “slam dunk” conclusion, not typical for a major lawsuit. The fact that the defense lawyers were quite hopeful the motions were going to prevail could shed some light on their perspectives on the relative strength of the claims being made.

2) The objection to the “bundling” of a group of plaintiffs not in a class was denied. Rationale was that this is sometimes done for expediency in the early stages of multiple lawsuits with similar concerns, with the understanding that each plaintiff will eventually stand alone in trial in his/her own complaint, should their cause get that far.

3). Ruth Copley Burger’s charges were dismissed “with prejudice”, meaning they cannot be retried – each side handles their legal costs. This drops Dr. Ken Copley from the lawsuit. We have no idea what actions he may wish to take, but he has been savagely slandered over many years, most recently at the hands of Recovering Grace. He has suffered loss of employment and open hatred from those that believed the published accounts, which include the hastily withdrawn allegations by Jane Doe 2 against him. Dr. Copley had at his disposal testimony of those whom Ruth had told early on that she, with the encouragement and help from others, had fabricated allegations to get even with her parents. Simple objective fact checking would have clued the RG “team” in that the accusations were likely false . . . But instead she was simply considered acceptable fodder for the overall objective of harming IBLP generally and Bill specifically. Our justice system is not set up to allow personal vendettas to be furthered with lies and frivolous lawsuits. It does protect those that are so defamed.

4). Matthew Heard’s case lags the others as he just obtained counsel. We believe he also filed for dismissal, hearing early March.

5). All references to “criminal sexual assault” as a charge were stricken from the lawsuit.

Next steps involve examination of each remaining count in the suit, challenges from the defense, responses from the plaintiffs, with a status hearing March 2nd, 2017. Thereafter depositions will be taken from each plaintiff, witnesses as discovery proceeds.

There were mixed feelings praying for a speedy cancellation of the suit. On the one hand the flow of tons of money into legal firms would be stanched, but Bill guilt or innocence would never have been addressed. As it stands now the claims will be examined under bright lights, getting brighter the further it goes. And that is a very good thing.

138 Comments

  1. David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
    January 10, 2017    

    About the Copley dismissal: I infer from the text that attorneys for Copley and his daughter agreed to terms of a dismissal with prejudice. Am I reading that correctly?

    Wow, a lawsuit on phony charges to get even with your parents? That sounds pretty staggering. Talk about bad blood! Something in the Copley house overruled the Fifth Commandment.

    But I don’t understand the influence of money. Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams says that experts work for money, not truth. That probably applies to lawyers and judges.

    But how to follow the money? It flows from whom to whom? Where are the deep pockets? The plaintiffs are probably middle-class or professional-class. They could probably not afford $200/hr. for a protracted case, even if they were very motivated. Or are the plaintiffs’ attorneys working only on contingency in hopes of eventually picking the much deeper pockets of IBLP?

    David K

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 11, 2017    

      About the Copley dismissal: I infer from the text that attorneys for Copley and his daughter agreed to terms of a dismissal with prejudice. Am I reading that correctly?

      Dr. Copley relayed to us a few weeks ago that his daughter’s counsel chose not to counter his lawyer’s motion to dismiss. She never should have been included in this effort from any number of perspectives. With no chance of prevailing, this was likely the least damaging option. We can say with absolutely certainty that there were no “terms”, other than that both sides pay their own lawyers.

      Or are the plaintiffs’ attorneys working only on contingency in hopes of eventually picking the much deeper pockets of IBLP?

      Of that there can be no doubt. Bill has no money, and everyone knows it. The entire focus is to prove “negligence” on the part of “IBLP”, which will then reap a large cash reward.

      And, don’t forget . . . David Gibbs is still planning to get paid somehow as well. All that money . . . is hopefully coming from the great Cash Cow, the IBLP ministry.

  2. David David
    January 11, 2017    

    I just did a complete google search of Recovering Grace, and they have never once mentioned Copley.

    Are you sure you aren’t confusing them with this site?: http://incongruouscircumspection.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-great-deceiver-being-primed-for.html

    Or this one?: https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/06/13/the-hammer-drops-dr-kenneth-copley-exposed-adoption-into-a-family/

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 12, 2017    

      No . . . they didn’t mention Copley. http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/04/its-all-my-fault/ But since the account mirrors those other accounts cited it is easy enough to figure it out. And matches, of course, her account in the lawsuit. Defamation is held for unnamed individuals . . . if the identity is relatively easy to spot.

      • rob war rob war
        January 12, 2017    

        Alfred,
        You just accused RG of directly sullying the good name of Dr. Copley. The link to the article doesn’t mention his name at all and it is presumptuous on your part to claim that it is. RG had nothing to do with brining up Dr. Copley at all, his abused adopted daughter did.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 12, 2017    

          Recovering Grace, and organization allegedly run by lawyers, should know better than to post salacious attacks on private citizens without vetting. And I am not talking about gossip magazine vetting. But they have done so. Because Dr. Copley was part of Bill’s organization, and a conservative pastor, he was an elephant, and everybody knows elephants don’t have any feelings. Or rights. A time for accountability has come.

          And, as posted in reply to “David”, read “Rebekah’s” account for yourself. Read some of the links he posted and read her statement in the lawsuit. Somehow these RG lawyers assumed that if you just don’t use the right name, the person being slandered has no rights. It just doesn’t work that way.

          • rob war rob war
            January 12, 2017    

            This was published in 2012 and someone reading it, isn’t going to at all associate that with Dr. Copley until now that you have pointed it out. RG is run by a bunch of different people and the two founders are not lawyers. The bigger damage to Dr. Copley are the other blog articles that mention his name directly such as HA. You need to stop making threats to RG about dragging Dr. Copley’s name in the mud. His own adopted daughter has done that and if this is her on RG, initially wrote it under an assumed name. All this stuff about Dr. Copley is now out there and the damage is already done that you are so worried about. Dr. Copley is really the side show you can focus on right now as some sort of victory for Bill. But it is not any victory for Bill or IBLP at all.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 12, 2017    

            RG is run by a bunch of different people and the two founders are not lawyers.

            Kari Underwood IS a lawyer, as is her husband. She is a member of a law firm in some capacity.

            But it is not any victory for Bill or IBLP at all.

            Well, in this day of “fake news”, RG has published other personally damaging accounts which they, with minimal research, should have known were . . . fake. This is simply another example, and so it is a victory. And it SEEMS like you are sure you have yourself judged the situation justly, condemned Dr. Copley, and concluded that any and all consequences against him, even if built on lies, are just. That, frankly, is disgusting. God’s ways are often to allow us to personally taste things that we carelessly and callously dismiss as inconsequential for others. Are you prepared to stand to that?

            I have personally spent hours with Dr. Copley, talking through these things, hearing his pain, grief, that of his wife. Ruth has sinned against God, let alone her own parents in this matter. The Lord is merciful, He is gracious, He loves each one . . . but lies carry His strongest condemnation. And “talebearing” is also condemned in the harshest of terms. RG is emphatically guilty, willing to publish account after acount that are substatively false. Guilty of a complete lack of love toward the “elephants” they blame for harming themselves and their families. And a consistent unwillingness to correct accounts when new information is presented to them, unless the subjects themselves request it. That is most foolish. Every day a false account is posted starts the defamation statute of limitations clock anew. And with private individuals, the motive and circumstances are completely irrelevant – if it is damaging and false, it is libel. And if you can easily figure out who it is, as folks will do when faced with a horrible affair that has not been resolved, it is most definitely counted as defamation.

      • rob war rob war
        January 12, 2017    

        Someone reading the article on RG, isn’t going to put that initially at all with Dr. Copley. Only now that you have pointed it out, can that be done. The article on RG which looks to be written with assumed names and doesn’t mention what family or father and doesn’t look to be written out to get Dr. Copley. Even though his name has been dropped “without Prejudice”, I’m not seeing where the other articles on the web, will be taken down, so the account of abuse by him will continue and is out there. I highly doubt that Dr. Copley is going to sue to have them taken down. If he did these things, I really don’t feel sorry for him at all and in the court of public opinion, the damage is already done. Maybe he told you personally that he is innocent, but really Alfred, do you think he is going to admit to being a child abuser over the phone to you? I think not.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 12, 2017    

          If he were guilty of even half of what Ruth alleged, do you think she would have left the suit “with prejudice”? If people were told by Ruth she “made it up” would you feel differently?

          BTW, while Dr. Copley DID have an affair as Ruth alleged, it was emphatically not covered up. It was publically addressed, confessed . . . He was placed under a multiple year program with a team of pastors and other men of God to work through it to the satisfaction of his wife and his church. A fairly simple fact to verify. That was one of many untruths in her account(s).

          See, if you come into some knowledge of facts of sin against a brother, let alone an “elder”, a leader in the church, what are you supposed to do? You are to make it your personal mission to check it out, and confront the individual with it. The purpose is restoration immediately, and clearing the name of Jesus long term. That is exactly how some of us got involved personally with Bill, purposing to show him the love of Jesus and hold him accountable in the light of published accusations against him. If anyone on the RG team had loved Dr. Copley at all, they would have gone to him, checked out her story, checked out his story. Ruth’s account would never have been published. That is a crime against him, a crime against Jesus, let alone legal defamation “per se” in the eyes of the law.

          • rob war rob war
            January 12, 2017    

            RG had nothing to do with Dr. Copley’s current problems. His own daughter that he adopted did that in the law suite. An article written in 2012 doesn’t look like it was “out” to get Dr. Copley if it was him or not and the fact that it was written under pseudo names mean more like it was to protect all those mentioned in the story. RG’s account was more about the negativity of the adoption views and teaching coming from Bill and how they were applied in life in real time situations. I think you are making the assumptions here about RG. HA and the other sites mention his name much more aggressively and openly than RG. And in fact my husband and I have had experience with going to a Bishop about a problem at a particular parish we were at. The problem didn’t involve sexual sin but we carefully went through the chain of the Church, documenting everything and did approach the auxiliary bishop. Needless to say, that person along with another eventually did get fired from that parish school. Justice does work slow but it does work and in the end we were satisfied with the results. If Dr. Copley even had an affair that you are admitting to, it would seem to me that he couldn’t keep it zipped up and lends to the credibility of the other accusations against him.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 12, 2017    

            An article written in 2012 doesn’t look like it was “out” to get Dr. Copley if it was him

            You have much to learn about defamation. A published damaging account about a private individual is considered libel simply if it is false. If it involves certain classes of accusations, such as sex abuse, the libel is “per se”, instantly condemned. And publishing about an anonymous individual is no protection if you can figure out who it is. In this case, it is crystal clear.

            If you cared about Dr. Copley, if you knew him, you would not be so quick to condemn him, accept the witness of his daughter. There is ample evidence to not take Ruth’s accounts at face value, even more than I have disclosed here. There is no redress for the lies published and then retracted as “Jane Doe 2” in the third iteration of the report. That account did him incalculable damage – being included in a legal action shields the individuals from defamation lawsuits. But, in the Court of Heaven, the absolutely just Lord will weigh it all, and those who are guilty will bear their sin before Him.

          • rob war rob war
            January 12, 2017    

            An unnamed man in an article using pseudo names is not defamation, especially 5 years ago and no one reading it is going to know if or if not it was Dr. Copley or not. Only you pointing at it as your “proof” that RG was going after Dr. Copley make any connection to him. Dr. Copley being mentioned in the current lawsuit which now he has been dropped which everyone and their mother could read on the internet due to freedom of information has brought him this so called great shame. I think Dr. Copley own immoral actions which may seemingly include his one daughter and her abuse seems to have brought him “great shame”. Alfred, you are really grasping here. If he lost his job do to immorality which you are admitting to that he has been unfaithful to his wife should have caused him to loose his job with any Church or Church organization. If he was hired back, the IFB Church which already has a worst reputation in hiding perverts than the Catholic Church, then people really should avoid him and those that hired him back. He is suffering from his own immorality. The article on RG mentioned that he brought into the home and hide pornography and then blamed it on another young girl for brining it in. If this is really Dr. Copley like you saying now it is, those idiots that hired him back ought to be ashamed.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 12, 2017    

            An unnamed man in an article using pseudo names is not defamation, especially 5 years ago and no one reading it is going to know if or if not it was Dr. Copley or not.

            “A matter for a jury to decide”, I suppose. My understanding of the law differs from yours.

            If he lost his job do to immorality

            No, he lost his job because people read the lawsuits – and RG – and were incensed. Actually marched on the church, etc. The particular issue that was clearly in the forefront were the allegations of rape by Jane Doe 2. All “backed up” by the other accounts. Like was stated, the adultery was and is out in the open, fully and Scripturally dealt with, so that was not the issue. Had the false accounts not been published, he would not have been fired, which was noted by his boss when brought back on.

      • David David
        January 12, 2017    

        Wait, so your only evidence of “savage slandering” is an anonymous post from nearly 5 years ago that may or may not even be about Copley? Logic would dictate that if they were out to savagely slander him, they would have used his name.

        I also find it interesting that two other sites (one which is every bit as prominent or even more prominent than RG) DID in fact use Copley’s name and DID go after him with a vengeance. SIX MONTHS AGO. Yet, your words were, “most recently at the hands of Recovering Grace.”

        Methinks the only slandering taking place around here is what you are saying about RG.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 12, 2017    

          Logic would dictate that if they were out to savagely slander him, they would have used his name

          If someone is a complete idiot, maybe. If you wanted to defame someone – and get away with it – well, you would do something with some deliberate built in protections. The piece was aimed to hurt IBLP as much as anything and so may become of greater interest over there. But from where Dr. Copley sits, it lends RG’s reputation to the veracity of the tale, for anyone who cares enough to look. Posting lies about private individuals is a crime. That account is not accurate, which could easily have been confirmed.

          The “savage” part of the comment was made primarily with the other sources in view, some of which you cited. These fine folks posted his whereabouts, his employer . . . and got him fired . . . for a while. Once his situation realized the nature of the accusations against him, information available to anyone serious enough to care, he was reinstated. Posting false information along with private details about a private individual with the goal to see him hurt, and directly responsible for him losing his employment, is a textbook definition of malicious libel.

          • rob war rob war
            January 12, 2017    

            who did he “lose” his employment with? If it was a Church or connected with a Church, then yes, I absolutely think that he should loose his employment, especially if he has access to young women and girls. He shouldn’t be back in ministry whatsoever and there are consequences to immoral actions and there should be.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 12, 2017    

            True if he is actually guilty of published crimes. He did not do ANYTHING immoral with his daughter, neither did he or his wife engage in the bizzare discipline Ruth alleged. “Jane Doe 2” (not Ruth) said that he raped her (as a 7 year old, if you add the dates up), along with Bill, her father, and countless strangers as a sex slave. That was completely false – her claims were investigated by law enforcement in the US as well as the nation her family lived in and found to be unsustantiated. But it made it all over the news. Because that is what irresponsible media outlets do. If YOU were the innocent subject of such slander . . . and YOU heard someone self righteously condemning you and welcoming consequences as a result . . . HOW would you feel?

          • rob war rob war
            January 12, 2017    

            Where there is smoke, there is fire.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 12, 2017    

            Often true . . . but stunningly not always. Sometimes the smoke comes from the fury – dare I say “hell fueled” – of those who, given an unrelated agenda, are determined to take someone down “no matter what”.

            “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7:1-2)

            “And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

            For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

            But wisdom is justified of all her children.” (Luke 7:31-35)

            LOTS of smoke . . . wild laughter, melodramatic weeping, loud accusations . . . The Lord knows, and He doesn’t miss a thing.

          • rob war rob war
            January 12, 2017    

            Alfred,
            You do have a big heart, but you have just done more here now to sully Dr. Copley’s “name” or reputation than an pseudonym article on RG from 2012. You have just stated the Dr. Copley had an affair, that none of the rest of us would know or even have access to. That in it of itself should have caused him to be removed from ministry than anything RG or HA or the law suit/dropped charges did. Just because talking to him and listening to his sob story is really just another manipulation of your desires to try and do him some good. I feel sorry for his wife more than Dr. Copley who was unfaithful to her and his vows to her. That’s where some of sympathy should be and your own concern in this matter be.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 12, 2017    

            You have just stated the Dr. Copley had an affair, that none of the rest of us would know or even have access to.

            If you didn’t know it you either did not believe Ruth when she said so in multiple accounts, or you didn’t read what has been written. Which is what we are discussing here. So I wanted to clarify that that FACT of the affair was correct in Ruth’s allegations, but the suggestion that there was a cover-up was completely and verifiably false.

            I feel sorry for his wife more than Dr. Copley who was unfaithful to her and his vows to her.

            If you feel for his wife, who has completely forgiven him for that and supports him, then feel for her as her own daughter has lifted her heel up against her. There is more to the story which is not mine to publish.

          • rob war rob war
            January 12, 2017    

            One more things Alfred, you keep calling him “a private person”. If he is a minister or pastor in a Church, any Church, he is no longer a “private person” even if his range is just local and at a local Church. He is a public ministry, even if it is in one locale. Due to that, he should be held to a higher standard than the average person sitting in the pew, listening to him. Looks like he was some big shot in IBLP which again is a world wide ministry at that, not just some local mocal church.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 12, 2017    

            Then you also have much to learn about what is a “private person”. Dr. Copley is NOT a recognized public figure . . . I know you know the difference. His notoriety comes because of the accusations of his daughter, as well as a lengthy published account about the affair. If he is a public figure, then, say, Lourdes, the young woman who accused Doug Phillips, is also a “public figure”.

          • David David
            January 13, 2017    

            “Posting false information along with private details about a private individual with the goal to see him hurt, and directly responsible for him losing his employment, is a textbook definition of malicious libel.”

            I completely agree. Then why are you going after RG in your blog post and not the other sources who have actually committed malicious libel?

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 14, 2017    

            That little tale of lies posted on RG has been damaging the reputation of IBLP and Dr. Copley for 5 years now. It was irresponsible and negligent to post it, along with any number of other falsehoods. Nobody else did that. Recovering Grace is responsible for that, and if, in a court of law, it is proven to be lies, that is defamation “per se” against Dr. Copley . . . and if proven to be posted with malice toward IBLP and Bill, defamation against them. Proving personal malice against Bill by RG principals is a legal cakewalk.

            Other sites come and go . . . RG is solely dedicated to taking Bill and IBLP – and his associates, like Dr. Copley – down. So they get the attention they deserve.

          • David David
            January 14, 2017    

            Alfred: “Proving personal malice against Bill by RG principals is a legal cakewalk.”

            If so, then why hasn’t Bill/IBLP gone that route? Seems like that would be the easiest way to put an end to it all if the lies are as easily disproven as you say.

            “RG is solely dedicated to taking Bill and IBLP – and his associates, like Dr. Copley – down.”

            If this is true, then logic would follow that they would have tried to take all of Bill’s associates down, and there are many. Who else can you name that has been an alleged target of RG?

            On a related note, I personally have spoken with two former training center directors who know members of the RG team and have verbalized appreciation of their work and gratefulness for their even-handed approach to these difficult matters.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 14, 2017    

            If so, then why hasn’t Bill/IBLP gone that route? Seems like that would be the easiest way to put an end to it all if the lies are as easily disproven as you say.

            That is never the first solution, right? I would say . . . stay tuned.

            Who else can you name that has been an alleged target of RG?

            Associates as a whole are “small potatoes” compared to Bill, right? But how about Bill’s family . . . recall anything on them? I do recall bad talk about the likes of Dr. Stanley and McLario, pro-Gothard. Come on . . .

            former training center directors who know members of the RG team and have verbalized appreciation of their work and gratefulness for their even-handed approach to these difficult matters.

            And we have spoken with several – more than two – former training center directors who are deeply grieved with what RG is doing. Former board members, associates . . . current IBLP leadership. Even handed? Who are you kidding? The Lord is the ultimate judge of that. Present your cause to Him, as will we.

  3. rob war rob war
    January 13, 2017    

    Whether you want to split hairs over the definition of private vs public figure, you are defending Alfred an admitted adulterer as some godly man which he is not if he has committed adultery. It also doesn’t look like with the dismissal of him from this case that the previously published accounts by Ruth are not going to be recalled because they have not. While you want to quote the verse from Matthew 7 of “judge not …” the following verse is “you shall know them by their fruit”. Dr. Copley’s fruit looks to be adultery and a broken relationship with his daughter Ruth. Not really good fruit there. Any Church that has him on staff and proud of it, ought to be avoided at all costs. I have not clue why you need to carry on in defending him. If he is so innocent, he can do that himself.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 14, 2017    

      you are defending Alfred an admitted adulterer

      I am gasping a tad. Really?! David was an “admitted adulterer” AND a murderer . . . only evil people did not defend him when his time of trouble came at the hands of Absalom. There are testimonies of admitted sinners all over RG . . . that are being defended. Boy, for your own sake, I hope you correct your words . . . lest you stand and have to defend them before Jesus.

      • rob war rob war
        January 14, 2017    

        King David also greatly suffered and paid the consequences of all of that. He lost the baby, his son caused a civil war and he ended up as an old man shivering in bed in his later years. Not such a great way to end one’s life. I am speaking about responsible moral behavior in Church leadership and when that is violated, that person should not be in any position where that person has access to others to repeat the behavior. Secular groups sometimes seem to have higher standards in this, than what many Churches do. If a teacher is caught having an affair, they are gone. If a therapist, Psychologist, Psychiatrist, social worker, counselor is caught having an affair, they are done, they lose their license, it’s over. The same for Doctors. Yet, too many Churches just shuffle people like Dr. Copley around. Look at the big scandal involving Billy Graham’s grandson which is much bigger than one woman. Whether Ruth’s account it true, partially true or not, you yourself has admitted and according to you, his wife has “forgiven” him of immorality. Then you are crying that Dr. Copley has suffered so much because he was fired from one Church, yet picked up by another. RG had nothing to do with Dr. Copley not keeping his pants on. Other blogs have named him openly in all of this. RG has one article from 5 years ago that doesn’t even name him and everyone has forgotten about but you and you want to turn around and make your usual threats towards RG that Dr. Copley may (in your mind only) go after RG for slander and defamation. You are gasping after the wrong things here. I’ll even further support my point with a couple of Catholic examples where the priests were caught in affairs and they are now gone. One, Fr. Corabi was a very popular ETWN priest and had a widely followed program on. It turned out that he actually didn’t leave his previous playboy life style and a number of women came forward to complain. He was immediately pulled, his videos and books pulled even though he was a very popular priest and people still complain about him being gone. In NY diocese, an auxiliary bishop had a pretty hot affair with his married secretary a number of years ago. They even had pictures of them going in and out of hotel rooms together. They repeatedly denied it but it turned out to be true and resulted in a nasty divorce for the woman and this priest resigned in disgrace. Likewise, he was also on TV and all his programs were pulled. If you are gasping Alfred, you are gasping over the wrong things and wrong people. Even if Ruth’s accounts published all over the place are not true, Dr. Copley likewise signed off on suing her back, the accounts are not pulled at all on the other blogs AND Dr. Copley should not be in any ministry with any Church what so ever because and according to you, he is an admitted adulterer and that should be enough.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 14, 2017    

          I am speaking about responsible moral behavior in Church leadership and when that is violated, that person should not be in any position where that person has access to others to repeat the behavior.

          Well, that is interesting. Interesting it is that God quite deliberately placed the following in the earthly lineage of the Savior:

          – The perpetrator and product of an incestuous gettogether (Judah and his daughter-in-law)
          – Prostitute (Rahab)
          – Descendent of a daughter and Dad getting together (Ruth, the Moabitess)
          – Murderer, Adulterer and his mistress (David)

          David ended his life fully in charge of his “ministry”, despite his failures. The God I serve says, “The glory of the latter shall be greater than the former” (Haggai 2:9) Your opinion is a minority opinion.

          because he was fired from one Church, yet picked up by another.

          Same church . . . after the initial knee-jerk reaction and they finally sat down and thought it through based on what was known. God bless them.

          But you are barking the wrong tree. The rejection of the church had nothing to do with the affair, which they knew – it was out in the open. Try, just for a moment, and visualize a scenario where nothing of substance in his daughter’s or “Jane Doe 2″‘s allegations are true. “Fake news” that deeply harmed the family. If it were you or a loved one, I KNOW you suddenly would understand why your comments are neither righteous nor helpful.

          • rob war rob war
            January 14, 2017    

            This has nothing to do with a whose who in the genealogy of Jesus. I’m not defending like you are immoral behaviors of those in Christian leadership. Just because there is a Moabite Ruth, Rahab, King David, and even Judah and his daughter-in-law in does not mean or justify any of those behaviors. After Rahab and her family were saved, it looks like she was no longer a hooker but seemed to have settle down and married and became the mother of Boaz. That sounds like conversion, not a continuation of immorality. Ruth likewise was a convert. While David confessed, he still was never the same and problems continued till his death. You have not offered anything to disprove Ruth or Jane Doe II story but that they are lies according to you. Whether they are lies or not, Dr. Copley’s problems that he has admitted to you has been unfaithfulness to his wife and that in it of itself should exclude him from further Church ministry. But IFB type of Churches have become infamous for hiding and shuffling around immoral pastors and one of the worst records in this area. For someone that doesn’t even attend IFB Churches yourself, I’m not sure why you are so concerned about Dr. Copley. Defending immoral people like Dr. Copley and even Bill Gothard doesn’t really sound like righteousness to me.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 16, 2017    

            That sounds like conversion, not a continuation of immorality.

            Then consider me mystified as to your point. Your demand that a single properly confessed and corrected offense bars a man from future service . . . Is not supported, scripturally. Not even by you.

          • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
            January 15, 2017    

            Fake news! Now that is a funny use of terms now that it has come into common usage. Maybe there really is nothing new under the sun.

            Under the winter sun,
            David K

        • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
          January 15, 2017    

          Dear Rob,

          You are making strong claims about how professionals police their professions. By your account, churches need to be like professional cartels which disbar attorneys, de-license physicians, etc. to punish adultery. Perhaps you are correct, but do you have any evidence that these professions really apply drastic sanctions for adultery? The code of military justice forbids adultery, but it is rarely enforced, at least during 1981-1992 in the army. I have also known situations where adulteries among professionals was pretty common knowledge. There were the usual smirks and whispers, but no professional sanctions.

          But apparently ETWN and the Diocese of New York are pretty hard core. Perhaps the morally lax professions should follow their example.

          Don’t you think the Copley situation was decided by people who were more qualified than you and I? They had personal first-hand knowledge. They had access to facts which we don’t. They reap the rewards for getting it right and suffer the consequences of getting it wrong.

          Sincerely,
          David K

          • rob war rob war
            January 16, 2017    

            The military has never been known to be a bastion of morality. I have sat in on many an ethics classes with my husband to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that those in the helping/counseling/therapy professions if they have an affair with someone they are trying to help will end their career and license. Likewise in the teaching profession and any one that makes the news in scandal, the affair will end their teaching career. Dr. Copley had a long term affair as talked about on other blogs with someone he was counseling. That not only violates professional ethics and standards in counseling, it should end it as well in any Church. I also know in many a police department that will fire police officers if they are caught having affairs. But again we are talking about IFB Churches and they have the worst reputation among all Christian groups in hiding, excusing and shuffling around immoral pastors. There is a big difference in the handling of Dr. Copley and how ETWN pulled the plug on one of it’s most popular priests, Fr. Corapi. EWTN did the right thing and a brave thing as well because they did get a lot of flack for it. But, if that is “hard core” to you, that says something more about the standards you hold dear than mine.

          • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
            January 18, 2017    

            Dear Rob,

            I saw your 1/16 reply to my 1/15 post.

            I don’t know any more about ETWN than what you wrote, but we were both praising them, albeit with different terms. I called them hard core, while you called them brave in the face of flack. Bill Gothard might have said they had high standards. These are all distinctions without a difference, as the saying goes.

            But here is a distinction with a difference: You claimed that certain professions expel their members for adultery. But I wonder if you didn’t mistakenly conflate some professional groups in your example. Of course some professions must deal firmly with adulterers in their ranks. We might call these the social priesthood because they help people with sensitive personal problems. You called them the helping/counseling/therapy professions. Of course they must be scrupulous about adultery. Medical and other professionals like architects, engineers, and military, maybe not so much.

            So I am skeptical about your claim that adulterous cops get fired. Can you cite an example of one who did? Wouldn’t the police union close ranks and defend their wayward man? Of course adultery will be condemned in an ethics class as you say. But whether professionals get expelled for it is another question.

            Anyway, back to Ken Copley. Because charity hopeth all things, perhaps you and I can hope together that all hurts are healed, all trespasses forgiven.

            Sincerely,
            David K

          • rob war rob war
            January 18, 2017    

            “hard core” is not a compliment in my book. I do not consider Bill having “high standards”. Billy Graham had high standards, Bill Gothard does not. Nor do I share in “hope” for Dr. Copley. Any Christian man that commits adultery with someone he supposedly is “counseling’ is not a Godly man, let along the other accusations against him. My hope for him is that he is out of ministry, he should be done.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 19, 2017    

            OK . . . for the second time . . . you have stated your vindictive judgments repeatedly of a man you do not know. That is probably enough, if you have nothing else to add. I shake my head . . . again. “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7:1-2)

  4. Sandy Sandy
    January 16, 2017    

    So Alfred, you’re saying that *your* assessment of the 2012 story – a woman’s (by the name or pseudonymn of Rebekah) personal account of abuse by an unnamed perpetrator – has changed since your April 11, 2012 comments, “This simply must stop. Yes, abusers can be articulate, spiritual, reasonable . . . and liars.” ?

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 16, 2017    

      Not at all! We’re it true, as I suspected it to be in 2012, my expression would be the same. But now that we know it to be fundamentally false, of course my opinion changes. Just because a person makes an accusation does not somehow make it true. Once again, we check into a tale . . . And find something completely different than alleged.

      • rob war rob war
        January 16, 2017    

        Alfred,
        it is incredible presumptuous on your part to claim with certainty that the 2012 account on RG by “rebekah” was about Dr. Copley. What solid factual proof do you have for your current assertion ?

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 17, 2017    

          Read it through – an adopted girl from Korea, whose parents are on staff at IBLP? The details, the timeframe. There are no other options.

          • rob war rob war
            January 17, 2017    

            Ok Alfred, the detail of being from Korea which is only mentioned at the end of the RG article and mentioned in the other blogs that give rather graphic details of her abuse could someone possibly put that together. But the RG article was not written in a way or manner that identifies him specifically. Only since she came out in the open, using her name and details was a finger ever pointed at him. The dropping from the lawsuit of his abuse of Ruth which you are calling lies, doesn’t mean that they didn’t happen and he can’t counter sue her for defamation and all these other statements by her are still out there for the world to read.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 17, 2017    

            This is Ruth. You will notice no one authoritative has stepped forward to deny it. Beyond that, we know some of the history she did not include, as well as statements she made to indicate that the salient parts were fabricated. And if you read the other articles written in support of her, you will note that she has approached authorities at many levels to file criminal charges . . . And failed to even get that kind of traction. She even sent a petition to the governor of Indiana pleading for help. Either they are all colluding against her . . . Or knowledge of the types of facts that combined to have her dropped from the lawsuit “with prejudice” were before those authorities as well.

            Just because a woman alleges abuse does not make her truthful or brave. Just like the proverbial “race card” it can in fact be used as an all too convenient cudgel to beat up men that someone dislikes. Or parents. In the Doug Phillips case the woman in question was forced to retract her public allegations against the man as part of her settlement, “with prejudice” That means . . . She lied, at least in that venue. And those that unreservedly championed her because they despised Doug are guilty of aiding and abetting. At times I just thank God that He knows and is so incredibly just, fair. My greatest prayer for the pending lawsuit is that the truth about sexual abuse will be known, and all liars will be brought to public light. If that is Bill or IBLP . . . Or any or all of the remaining defendants.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 17, 2017    

          You are entitled to your opinion and have been allowed to express it. I think Scripture would support another approach, as evidenced in the life of David and others.

          • rob war rob war
            January 17, 2017    

            Are you talking to me?

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 17, 2017    

            Yes, the responses did not interleave well.

          • Pam Pam
            January 17, 2017    

            Moderator,
            You reference a lot of Old Testament scriptures. Now, I’m not saying they aren’t for us to learn from and we shouldn’t look to the OT for perspective etc, however, when Jesus came, He changed things. Maybe some New Testament examples would be more relevant.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 17, 2017    

            Here is how things changed:

            Matthew 5:17-18
            “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil[“fill up”]. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled[“filled up”].”

            To fill up . . . Means you take something partial . . . And go “all the way”. In this case you can see this in His examples. “Don’t murder” is filled up to “don’t hate”. “Don’t commit adultery” is filled up to “don’t lust”. “Don’t do evil to people” becomes “don’t stop them from doing you evil”

            Paul sums it up:

            Romans 3:31
            “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

            That all having been said . . . There is no deliberate attempt to favor the OT. But when it comes to the practical affairs of life, the OT contains way more data. So . . . It may come up more.

          • rob war rob war
            January 17, 2017    

            LOL! done with this debate I suppose. That’s Ok.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 17, 2017    

            Not necessarily. But . . . if you say the same things several times . . . I get it, and I run out of ways to express our side.

      • Sandy Sandy
        January 17, 2017    

        I didn’t think I’d need to point out the irony, but here it is …

        Based on your own knowledge, you now say that the abuser in the story is Dr Copley, although when you read it in 2012, it was an unknown father of an adoptee. I have no personal knowledge to the contrary, so it’s no problem if we just assume it was Dr Copley.

        You state that Dr Copley has flatly denied the accusations made by the article’s author, and you declare him innocent. That is well and good for yourself, if that is your own deduction from your own experience or observations. But you take it a couple steps further by voluntarily revealing the identity of the accused in the story AND declaring his innocence to the rest of us, insisting there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hawaii that the author’s account is truthful. (Good luck with that defamation thing you keep talking about, btw.)

        But if we go back to WHAT YOU SAID in 2012 when the accused was an unknown to you, YOU SAID that ****abusers can be articulate, spiritual, and reasonable, and that they can lie.****

        I can’t say which it is since I have no personal knowledge or dog in the fight, but the way I see it, either:
        (1) Dr Copley is innocent and he has told you he is and you believe it and we can all go home, OR
        (2) Dr Copley actually did what the author described AND YOU WERE RIGHT (!!!) ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE CAN BE DEAD-PAN SPIRITUAL AND ALL, AND LIE TO COVER IT UP.

        If your argument is that certain charges have been dropped from the current law suit, that means absolutely nothing except that they won’t be heard as part of this court case, or ever, or whenever. There’s a big difference between that and innocence. Far more injustices have ever happened than have ever seen their days in courts for any number of reasons.

        But I’m gonna go out on a limb here and state what I *think* *might* be the case, and the reason you cannot, will not, and probably will never give credence to the author’s claims, now that you say you know who she was talking about. Based on a history of going back and forth with you about the basis on which you believe any given thing to be true, I’m guessing Dr Copley’s innocence has been cemented in your mind by your friend Bill’s rock-solid, good-as-gold, never-to-be-questioned guarantee.

        I just bring you back to YOUR OWN STATEMENT – that abusers can be articulate, spiritual, and reasonable, and that they can LIE.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 17, 2017    

          If you read all the way to the bottom of the comments in the story you may come across another comment by this random unknown individual named “Alfred” making the connection to Dr. Copley. Apparently it was not that hard to figure out for someone who knows the personnel at HQ.

          To make such statements, yes, we are quite confident in our information. Ruth told a partial truth about Dr. Copley’s affair, but completely mischaracterized it. Given the list of individuals that were in on the restoration – whole team, public names you would know, folks that have given us permission to involve them – well, there is no way she got confused on that.

          Given Ruth’s quest for “justice”, what reasons can you come up with for her accepting this ruling? Her lawyer and Dr. Copley’s lawyer jointly agreed to this. You may draw your own conclusions.

          You know, whether you realize it or not, you MAY be being used by The Enemy to continue to further his agenda . . . on the assumption that what we have put forward here is the truth. Fact is, you know far less about this than we do. God forbid that this insane hatred of Bill and all he stands for should drive those that claim to know Jesus to do evil, while believing they are doing good.

          • rob war rob war
            January 17, 2017    

            You mean there are two Alfreds? I thought one was enough! :)

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 18, 2017    

            :-)

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 17, 2017    

          Here, check out count 457 from the lawsuit:

          457. In that recovery process, Ms. Burger anonymously posted the story of her sexual abuse at the Indianapolis Training Center online in 2010 or 2011. With treatment, as Ms. Burger’s condition improved, she was able to post a more graphic version of the facts of her sexual abuse in 2012. Ms. Burger’s abuse was brought to the attention of IBLP’s current Board of Directors, as a result of these posts.

          More coincidences?

          • rob war rob war
            January 17, 2017    

            The graphic version was on one of the blog links supplied by Dave. That was in 2012. Her post on RG was done under assume names and is not at all graphic and that was also 2012, not 2010 or 2011. I’m not sure what your point is but just because Dr. Copley was dismissed without prejudice doesn’t mean what so ever that he did not abuse her. Likewise, he cannot go back and try to sue her for defamation, which seems to be something you want to happen. The very graphic, almost pornographic account published by others are still out there. Wasn’t this brought into the case by the previous lawyer G III, that you got kicked off the case? I mean, I really think that did the plaintiffs a favor, not Bill and the IBLP buds. After reading about Jack Hyles, Schaaps and the other IFB abusive perverts that have been convicted and thrown in jail, it seems like Dr. Copley is cut from the same sick cloth. Maybe you ought to ask G III why he would include this in the case originally if it was all lies according to you. At least Alfred, you belong to PB church which doesn’t seem to be run by a bunch of abusive perverts. You do realize that when false teachers are described in different places in the NT epistles, there is usually an outward image of “godliness” but underneath are immoral abusive greedy evil people.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 18, 2017    

            I shake . . . my . . . head. No ability to be objective here? ANY desire, even? We should know by now . . . If, after any number of proofs, from the very source now, signed affidavit, that the “Cabin Story” is “fake news” . . . it is till there, it is STILL believed! So . . . why would we expect anything different here?

            Dr. Copley did NOT do the things he has been accused of. There is a God in heaven that will not “snuff the smoking flax or break the bruised reed” . . . and will set all things straight. May his daughter have the grace to set things straight.

          • rob war rob war
            January 17, 2017    

            Alfred, the fact that RG only stated at the end of the article that she was from Korea didn’t cause you when you first read it to think of Dr. Copley? I think that the stock picture that RG put with the article of a blond haired, clearly caucasian girl would have thrown most people off of that. If RG was “out to get” poor old Dr. Copley, I think they would have posted a picture of an Asian looking girl, not a blond haired girl. The Korean detail in only buried at the end and what sticks in most peoples minds is the visual which was a caucasian blond haired girl. That doesn’t sound like people out to get poor old D.r Copley. It sound like they wisely wanted the basics of the story to be told while protecting all of the identities of those involved, both the victim and the accused.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 18, 2017    

            There are several motivations to come forward anonymously. One of them is to not be examined. Are you even capable of beginning to doubt the story that Ruth told? I just don’t want to keep saying the same things over and over again.

          • rob war rob war
            January 18, 2017    

            Yes, I’ve been very objective here. You have not proven at all Dr. Copley’s innocence in the abuse of his daughter. A 2 hours phone conversation where he has denied it, is not proof for anyone except you. The fact that Dr. Copley has never gone after Ruth since 2012 for defamation supports Ruth more than him. The fact that Dr. Copley is an admitted adulterer to even you certainly proves he is not or has not been a moral man. The fact the that IFB teaching and theology which seems to attract abusive people to it’s ranks as documented by many books, articles, blogs etc, not done in pseudo names but real time support the fact that the environment for Ruth was abusive than not. The fact that Bill’s teaching which is a part of IFB culture and theology which is a heavy handed abusive authoritarianism support Ruth’s side of the story than Dr. Copley. The fact that his part in the current lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice does not prove that abuse didn’t happen just that BOTH sides have agreed to not go further.

            Since you seem to be stuck on “fake news” and want to take the cabin story as “fake news” and use this as proof that Ruth’s accounts of abuse fall in the “fake news” category is another grasping at straws. While maybe the total of the cabin story is not reality, taking it apart in pieces is reality. Bill had secretaries sit on his lap pre-1980s. That has been attested to by secretaries and eye witnesses that walked in on them. The fact that Bill went around to cabins at night to give “good night” hugs which the girls there tried to avoid and lock their doors has been attested to by them in many ways in documents, phone logs etc. While you have always wanted to lump that story as one big lie, the bits and pieces of that story are not and are not “fake news”.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 18, 2017    

            The fact that Dr. Copley has never gone after Ruth since 2012 for defamation supports Ruth more than him.

            Armchair quarterbacking at its finest. Come back to me when you are prepared to explain how you would sue your own penniless daughter, spending $100,000 or more on the hope of clearing your name.

            Bill had secretaries sit on his lap pre-1980s. That has been attested to by secretaries and eye witnesses that walked in on them.

            We have one (1) account of Bill with a secretary on his lap . . .

            1) Bill says she was being playful and jumped on as a lark
            2) Bill apparently said he was “dating” her, several people stating he said that to them. They also went on canoe rides and lay on the roof, gazing at the stars.
            3) The one (1) person – Gary Smalley – who observed it signed a witnessed affidavit (you will find that up at http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2015/10/19/did-he-do-it-the-cabin-story-and-more/) that he pointedly asked her if Bill had done anything “inappropriate” with her, and she stated repeatedly that he had not. Said the same thing to others, unsolicited comments.

            The fact that Bill went around to cabins at night to give “good night” hugs which the girls there tried to avoid and lock their doors has been attested to by them in many ways in documents, phone logs etc.

            Ruth (Gabriel) made the statement in a phone call, saying that the secretary across the hall at the Northwoods would verify that. We have spoken to the secretary and she became rather upset . . . stated that Bill’s brother most definitely did that, but not Bill. That is the only record I am aware of on that. BTW . . . the only cabin there was Bill’s, for whatever it is worth. We have no testimony – 0 – that anything untoward ever happened there.

            So, yes . . . you are repeating back “fake news”.

            “Judge not lest ye be judged”. You have no idea what you are talking about, taking all of your confidence from a website that has certainly not been entirely truthful. And if there is any chance that either of these gentlemen is on God’s list of people He really cares about, I would limit or at least balance my comments.

  5. David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
    January 19, 2017    

    Dear sister Rob,

    re: your 1/18 post. Please don’t discard your charity so cheaply. Remember the burden of proof lies exclusively with the accuser, because charity “thinketh no evil.” No man bears any burden for proving Ken Copley’s innocence. But the burden of proof lies with his accuser. Apparently Alfred doesn’t think any accuser has met that burden. I have not followed the accusations as closely as you, so I don’t have an opinion on the topic.

    But we mustn’t rule out the possibility that Vladimir Putin ordered it!

    David K

    • rob war rob war
      January 21, 2017    

      I think the best answer is to pray for peace, healing and wholeness for all involved since the legal aspect is over for them in a dismissal.
      I’m not sure if a full reconciliation could ever occur but healing and wholeness still can.

      • Moderator Moderator
        January 21, 2017    

        Appreciate that, we would be in hearty agreement. We forget who the real enemy is, ultimately, and if the one we are fighting has flesh and blood, we got the wrong target.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
          January 22, 2017    

          Me three!

          David K

  6. Moderator Moderator
    January 23, 2017    

    An addendum to the allegations made by Ruth Copley Burger against her father. She launched her allegations back in 2004 or 2005, going to the Hamilton County Police department in Indiana. The police launched a full scale investigation, meticulously interviewing all members of the family. They found her allegations to be without merit and closed the investigation without charges. That was the beginning of this process that appears to have finally come to an end with her dismissal from the lawsuit a decade later. That fact seems to be missing from all of the accounts that have been made from and about her.

  7. rob war rob war
    January 23, 2017    

    Alfred,
    Dr. Copley wrote a book along with Logan in 2001, “The Great Deceiver, unmasking the lies of Satan”. Per our debate on “public vs. private” person, doesn’t being an author of a book make Dr. Copley a “public” person per say?

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 23, 2017    

      A “public person” is someone who is a “public servant”, or someone that lives in and benefits from the public arena. Being the author of a book – unless accompanied with a lot of exposure, again a “public life” – is in no way a public – vs. a private – person. We are no lawyers here, but . . . I would not bet on that as a means of protection for playing fast and loose with the truth.

      • rob war rob war
        January 24, 2017    

        The legal web site http://www.defamtionremovallaw.com/defamtion-public-official-vs-private-person/ give an legal analysis of what is public vs private in relationship to defamation. They do point out that public figure isn’t always clearly defined and in some of the other legal web sites and blogs I’ve looked at talk about there is a semi-public in that someone is locally or publicly known in a limited circle or location. Yes, there is a different between Bill Gothard being a public person in that he has an international ministry. Dr. Copley is much more limited in the tight night IBLP circle of fundy followers. His published book had a limited readership but one can still buy it on Amazon. He would have the burden of proof for defamation against any of the web blogs that have talked about him but it seems like he has signed off on that with the dismissal. Most of the people reading RG really would not have seen that article as about him until you have pointed it out.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 25, 2017    

          He would have the burden of proof for defamation against any of the web blogs that have talked about him but it seems like he has signed off on that with the dismissal.

          To prove that he is not a public person? That would not be hard to do. Sort of like the “expectation of privacy” test when people complain about pictures being taken of them, let’s say . . . at a ball game, come on . . . in your back yard, yup.

          To prove defamation? Maybe not. There is a standard of “per se” which is applied against certain things which are simply considered damaging without proof required. And, yes, allegations of illicit sexual activity with a minor is definitely in that category. All he has to do to gain a conviction is . . . demonstrate that he is a private person, that he was publically declared to have done such things, and that the charges are false or negligently reported. If someone is a “public person”, like Bill, the added standard of malice must be proven, i.e. false information reported with deliberate intent to hurt.

          I did not understand the “signed off” statement. Copley has not relinquished any rights in any context. He cannot sue for stuff presented in the lawsuit alone, but if separately published, absolutely yes.

          • rob war rob war
            January 25, 2017    

            A hypothetical question for general discussion and not really related to this case; with today’s social media and most everyone and their mother on things like Facebook etc., is there really any “private” person or even privacy any more? With most everyone out there letting it all out there, what is or is not privacy and private persons really mean?

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 25, 2017    

            An excellent question. The “right to privacy” is, according to Supreme Court rulings, enshrined in the Constitution. Or at least became the explanation for the unbridled scope of abortion. Regardless, it is a prized American value. That means that this is the default position for individuals. What forces them into the “public” arena is not completely perfectly defined. Again, it comes down to an “expectation”, I expect . . . what a reasonable person would expect. Tom Brady has no (0) expectation of privacy as virtually every aspect of his life wil be discussed all over the world (obviously with some limits) . . . hence he is a public person. A “public servant”, government official, is by definition the “property” of his/her constituents . . . to some extent. My employer knows a lot about me that others do not . . . because of our special relationship. Similarly, a “public servant” enters into a special relationship with the people he is serving . . . and privacy expectation is decreased.

            Dr. Copley would have an expectation of privacy comparable to what I expect. Bill Gothard in his worldwide ministry has inserted himself into public consciousness deliberately and willingly. A good clue . . . if you get your own Wiki . . . you might be a public person.

          • Butterfly Butterfly
            January 25, 2017    

            If any public figure ever had a case against people using deceit with the intent of malice, it would be Bill. This whole situation is like malice on steroids. Also, too, taking advantage of someone’s kindness, like Bill, by pummeling them publicly, with the sky as their limit, is ethically wrong and not “Christian” in any way.

          • rob war rob war
            January 25, 2017    

            Well, trust me, the LAST thing I would ever want is a Wiki page! :). However, the thought I was thinking is the complete thoughtlessness people seem to have about themselves in what they put out there on the internet for the world to see. Usually, it’s the young, but older people that should know better can act like kids. While what people put out there on social media is voluntary, what you attach your name and face to can’t really be taken back.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 26, 2017    

            That would be a boon for a PI or for an enemy . . . but does not make your a “public figure”. Unless you do that for a living :-) Some do

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 27, 2017    

            A very interesting article in Politico, discussing Melania Trump’s $150 million defamation lawsuit against a blogger . . . who claimed she used to work as a “high end escort”. Discussions of “public” figures and the “malice” test, which she appears to have passed. Also a discussion of SLAPP defence against lawsuits which some on this website claimed could be used against a Bill action . . . which was also batted down. This is real, and it relates very directly to Bill’s and Copley’s concerns. Allegations of sexual misconduct – say that you were a prostitute or Ken raped a counselee or Bill fondled girls – are defamation “per se” if proven false. That means immediate conviction.

            http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/melania-trump-libel-suit-blogger-234263

          • rob war rob war
            January 26, 2017    

            Yes, some have made it their “living” like the Duggar kids. It seems out of control for them. How many baby bump picture do we need of Jessa and Jill? Do we really need to watch them brush their hair before a wedding? A lot of people are out of control on social media etc. but reality TV even ups the ante. Maybe they like or must be addicted to all the attention and money it gives them but I don’t see anything “Godly” about it and it’s not living “quite and peaceful lives” as St. Paul exhorted us to live as Christians. Is this the best that IBLP has to offer? Is this what ATI education leads to?

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 27, 2017    

            If reality TV is a problem, it is because people like it. When ratings drop . . . adios. Putting up with the hassles of that process has supplied the family some decent cash . . . and provided platforms for several of them to do things they would otherwise not have been able to do.

          • rob war rob war
            January 27, 2017    

            The problem with reality TV is that it really isn’t “reality” but a highly edited version of it. The Christian families that have gotten caught up doing it which includes Bates and the bigger Duck Dynasty family convince themselves that doing this, they are doing “outreach”. But there really isn’t “outreach” for Christ, it just makes the families that do this into another set of stars. Look at the DD guys, they have turned themselves into looking like cartoon characters with their hair, beards and clothes. The shows end up taking over their own lives. It just another advancement of our celebrity culture but because many of these people have “Christian” in front of their names, people think it’s ok and Christians that should be avoiding the celebrity culture all together, get caught up in watching and supporting this. No one is saved by watching any of these shows and the latest Jessa baby bump instagram picture does nothing for Christ, only continues her self-absorbed life.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 27, 2017    

            Hopefully they pull us up, which is the intent, I think.

  8. David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
    January 26, 2017    

    I like the point Rob raised about modern privacy. The Edward Snowden revelations raised it too. People want privacy. We wear clothes to cover our “privy” members, etc.

    Fortunately, technology is a two-edged sword. The NSA uses technology to spy on everyone, but I expect the market to produce consumer encryption technologies to restore privacy. As the 55 mph speed limit in the 1970s was countered by the CB radio, some technology will help the common man get recover his privacy from the NSA. So we mustn’t despair for our privacy, even in 2017.

    Klingon Cloaking device David K

    • rob war rob war
      January 26, 2017    

      I have no clue how you came to your conclusions from what I wrote above. Is Snowden a hero for you, someone that broke laws, sold secrets and fled the country is someone you admire?

      • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
        January 27, 2017    

        Dear sister Rob,

        Okay, I’ll explain the connection between Snowden and your 1/25 post. You raised the topic of privacy, which made Snowden a household word. Snowden revealed that the NSA was violating everyone’s 4th Amendment guarantee of privacy. Whether Snowden is a hero or villain depends upon whose side you take in the dispute between him and the NSA. But you make a claim I have not heard before. Have you seen any evidence that Snowden sold secrets? Snowden’s enemies have probably accused him of this.

        But accusations and evidence are two different things. Isn’t that the central point for Snowden, Gothard, and Copley?

        Let the accusers meet their burden of proof, then decide. Meanwhile, enjoy whatever privacy remains to you.

        Yours,
        David K

        • rob war rob war
          January 27, 2017    

          Currently Snowden is hiding in Russia. Copley and Bill are not hiding in Russia being charges with theft and espionage. Only a twisted mind would even link all three together. If Snowden is so innocent of theft and espionage, then he wouldn’t be hiding in Russia and come home and face the serious charges and then prove his innocence that you apparently consider about him.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 27, 2017    

            Snowden is hiding in Russia. Copley and Bill are not hiding in Russia

            In a non-consequential twist of irony, Copley’s son and wife used to hang out with Snowden and his girlfriend during their time in the Marines. Not even worth bringing up . . . except that somehow Snowden and Copley are being discussed in the same conversation.

          • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
            January 28, 2017    

            On the contrary, sister. Snowden is not constrained to prove his innocence. His accusers bear the burden of proving his guilt. Have you seen any facts which prove his guilt? His physical location is irrelevant. If his accusers had any facts to produce, they could produce them whether Snowden is in Moscow, Maryland, or Mars.

            Yes, I know the NSA’s evidence is classified. How convenient! I retired with a Top Secret Clearance. You can trust me.

            That is an interesting fact about Copley and Snowden which Alfred slipped in. I inserted a comparison to Copley because I felt constrained to return to our original topic.

            It is too easy to wander off topic. I’d love to divert us to controversies like Donald Trump’s energetic beginning in the White House, but that would be yielding to temptation. Perhaps in the coming months it might even be worth mentioning the Cubs’ title defense. I hope so!

            Your eclectic brother,
            David K

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 30, 2017    

            Yeah . . . let’s keep/get focused on the reasons the blog exists here.

  9. rob war rob war
    January 27, 2017    

    Just curious, isn’t it a little concerning and would you Alfred have one of your daughters at 31 marry a man 15 years her senior? Not only that but your 31 very nice, never been kissed virgin marry a man that sodomized his former room-mates stripper live in girl friend? Now supposedly this man who is now nearly 50 years old has changed his life around by prayer according to him and attributes God for getting him out of serving time and being put on a sex offender’s registry for the rape. Something seems very amiss. Of course, I would think her father on the board of IBLP wouldn’t allow his very nice never been kissed 31 year old daughter to marry a man that is nearly 50 and has done totally disgusting things to another woman. It’s no wonder why people on the outside of the IBLP world look at this, shake their heads and think there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 27, 2017    

      Please catch me up, as I am not tracking on the obvious actual example you must be referring to. Or is this about Steve Gothard? Two comments:

      1) I believe in the recovery by God in complete terms. I happen to not believe in “once a pervert, always a pervert”, if that is the point. Otherwise the power of God and blood of Jesus is, once again, proven to be terribly ineffective, if it even exists at all. On the other hand, I assure you that coming to a conclusion that a specific scenario fits that would require a great deal of prayer . . . and would generally not be advisable.

      2) Marriage of a much older man to a much younger woman is NOT a problem per se. Quite Biblical, as demonstrated over and over. It comes down to modern social morès . . . which is non-trivial, in terms of pressure, stress . . . but is not a spiritual or Biblical concern.

      • rob war rob war
        January 27, 2017    

        Sorry, this involves the live in tutor for the Duggars, daughter of the Paines that just got engaged to this man. She is 31 and he is 46. I think my concern is not so much the age difference ( but it is a little curious) but the fact that he assaulted the girl friend of his roommate in this manner. The Duggars just threw them an engagement party which really isn’t surprising but it’s all over everywhere that there is “another” Duggar sex scandal. Sorry, but a man that has done that, even in the past would never get near my daughter.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 27, 2017    

          Well, I went and looked it up, this was all news to us. I read his testimony, which appeared to stop short of affirming that the event actually occurred, a confusing evening apparently drenched in a lot of booze and drugs. He was afraid and made a plea bargain, thus avoiding jail and eventually clearing his record. If he really got saved has been furiously involved in the Lord’s business since then with no issues, I personally would not share your condemnation.

          Again, the age difference is a non-issue as far as I am concerned, especially if family is on board. And that magazine has a lot to answer for to God, delighting in the slandering of others . . . for a buck or two.

      • rob war rob war
        January 27, 2017    

        Again, just because the Bible records older men marrying much younger women doesn’t make it “Biblical” any more than polygamy and endogamy and a host of other things that are likewise recorded in the Bible. The bigger the age difference, the bigger the problems of control in the marriage relationship. But considering your views of husband’s owning their wives, fathers owning their daughters I’m not at all surprised. I’m not sure how far you want to go down this road. Child brides is a big deal in Islam because Mohammed married a 9 year old. I’m surprised the Paines would approved of a man that’s “been around” especially in that manner, but maybe they were running out of options for their 31 year old daughter.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 27, 2017    

          just because the Bible records older men marrying much younger women doesn’t make it “Biblical”

          What Biblical precept do you see violated here? No, polygamy is not condemned in Scripture. Personally, I think we are far wiser to rely on the testimony of Scripture than the perspective of our own hearts or the opinions of our culture. Only one thing will survive the fire of the end of life, and that is God’s Word.

          • rob war rob war
            January 27, 2017    

            So you are saying polygamy is ok because it’s in the Bible?

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 27, 2017    

            Haha! The only “per se” condemnation in Scripture that I see is that a leader in the church is required to be the “husband of one wife”. Missionaries that have dealt with polygamous cultures have not felt compelled to require a new Christian to shed all but one wife, as though that were a sin. Because it isn’t. It is illegal in this country, and it certainly is not a great idea . . . but God tolerates a great many “not a good idea” things in life as He deals with us gently.

          • rob war rob war
            January 27, 2017    

            I am wasting my time here.

          • rob war rob war
            February 1, 2017    

            Ok, prayer break over. Any time in the OT that records a number of polygamist situations, which include Abraham, Jacob, King David, Solomon, Hannah etc. all the problems that come with polygamy which are conflicts between people in the family are all there as well. The fruit of polygamy is repeated jealousies and fights between especially the children, and somewhat the wives. The consistent teaching from the beginning of the Church from the apostles is that marriage is between one man and one woman and that bond is unbreakable. None of the recorded OT polygamist situations are happy and just because these situations are honestly recorded in the OT does not imply God’s approval or blessing. Unless you want to end up in fundamentalist Mormon camp and religions like Islam, you can be my guest is trying to support polygamy. But if one is trying to support their point blank literalist fundamentalist Bible interpretations and use, then that is how someone like you would come to such conclusions. I think I’ve read where even Martin Luther flirted with the idea that polygamy was ok, but was pulled back by the consistent historic Christian teaching and views that marriage is between one man and one woman in an unbreakable bond. Now maybe when polygamy comes as a legal option because we now have SSA marriages as a legal option, your thinking and reasoning expressed here should cause you to be supportive of such things. You do realize that the pro-polygamy crowd is waiting in the wings for this. Is that something you want because in your mind “it’s Biblical” because “its in the Bible”?

          • Moderator Moderator
            February 2, 2017    

            Rob: In this I am a Biblical literalist. I have to follow the Scriptures where they lead. Modern “Christianity” is awash in so-called “believers” who, in fact, believe their own hearts and pull the name of Jesus in to support their viewpoints. The Bible is like a law text, very precise and absolutely true. Polygamy IS a bad idea, in that we are in full agreement. But the reality is: Scripture does NOT define it as a sin, in fact making provision for it. I am not afraid of the precision of God’s Word . . . God loves His Word as well, and I wonder what He thinks when we are forever declaring ourselves smarter than He is. I will NOT be supporting it, any more than I support divorce which I also believe to not be God’s will, just permitted “for the hardness of our hearts”.

        • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
          January 28, 2017    

          Dear sister Rob,

          No need to build a straw man of ownership. Give your neighbors credit for being reasonable. We should own our loved ones in one sense though not in every sense.

          In Holy Matrimony we vow to “have” and hold our spouse, but no one takes that to mean we may trade up to a newer model a few decades thence.

          So ownership of our loved ones is one thing and ownership of the stuff we trade on Craigslist is a different thing. We may speak of “our” children without diminishing their dignity. Jesus is “your” savior, but you dare not trade him in for Baal.

          I am not following Duggar affairs, but we can agree that everyone ought to own his loved ones in the wholesome sense, not the corrupt sense.

          Yours wholesomely,
          David K

          • rob war rob war
            January 30, 2017    

            I have no clue what you are saying. You are making no sense whatsoever. There is a saying “quit while you’re ahead” and I think that is good advice which I plan to follow here. I’m wasting my time, I’m done.

            ” Answer not a fool according to his folly, least you be like him” Proverbs 26:4
            related verses Proverbs 23:9, Proverbs 29:9, and Matthew 7:6

          • rob war rob war
            February 1, 2017    

            No one should own no body. We all belong to God and are responsible to God and answer to Him. This idea that husbands’ own their wives or parents own their children is backwards and leads to the abuse that other complain about all over the internet. Parents don’t own their children. Parent are temporary custodians of their children given that responsibility by God, not the other way around. Parents have the responsibility to raise the children they are entrusted with from God to become healthy adults on their own. Honoring one’s parents doesn’t mean blind life long obedience either. This idea that you hold that people own each other is not a healthy one or even historic Christian teaching. But what can I expect from people steeped in authority teaching of Bill Gothard and even the patriarchy/complimenartian movement.

          • Moderator Moderator
            February 2, 2017    

            This idea that you hold that people own each other is not a healthy one or even historic Christian teaching. But what can I expect from people steeped in authority teaching of Bill Gothard and even the patriarchy/complimenartian movement.

            I remember the line from “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” where Paul Varjak passionately and furiously tells the fleeing Holly Golightly, “But you belong to me!”. To “own” is to be responsible for, in this case in the best possible way . . . as an expression of love and commitment. So . . . I disagree. You provide 9 authoritative statements, none of which you grounded in Scripture. I disagree with a number based on my own authority :-) If we want, we can take each statement up point by point and compare with Scripture.

            1 Corinthians 6:20 “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
            Ephesians 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

          • rob war rob war
            February 3, 2017    

            This is highly unusual for you to refer to movies. I have not seen this movie although I have heard of it. I’m not against movies but I am not a big movie buff at all even though I think this was considered a cult classic from the 60s. I think we are talking past one another. I am talking about people possessing others like objects and heavy handed authority teaching that stem from Bill Gothard and others as well leads to these ideas that husbands own their wives, parents own their children etc. I’m not talking about that there are not relationships between people. My children are not my objects. I am not an object of my husband. We are all self autonomous to God. Children are a gift from God. Parenting is a responsibility from God. The verses you just quoted really don’t support what you are trying to say. Submitting to one another does not equal people possessing one another and that I what I am trying say. We all belong to God even if we are in exclusive relationships like marriage and parenting.

          • Moderator Moderator
            February 4, 2017    

            Well, I gingerly point out that the Bible nowhere condemns “people owning people”, in fact making clear provision for it, even in the NT. The entire book of Philemon dealt with a runaway slave . . . coming back voluntarily to his believing master after he got saved. That flies in the face of our loud modern culture, but . . . there it is. We are called “bondslaves” of each other . . . that implies “ownership”, right? Otherwise, use some other word.

          • rob war rob war
            February 4, 2017    

            We are talking past each other again.

  10. David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
    February 3, 2017    

    Breakfast at Tiffany’s! Now that’s a blast from the past! It’s a rare man who can quote from it. But it’s a good flick.

    I’ll let Alfred work the point-by point reply to Rob’s 2/1 post if he wants to.

    Meanwhile, I’m calling out Rob for her complaint against authoritarianism. Authoritarian pots are calling authoritarian kettles black. The Church of Rome had a long history of authoritarianism before IFB churches emerged from their 16th Century roots. It took them a while to catch up with Rome. So no denomination has a monopoly on authoritarianism. There’s plenty to go around.

    David K

    • rob war rob war
      February 4, 2017    

      I think this blog is about Bill Gothard not the Catholic Church. If you have questions or issues with the Catholic Church, you need to go to those blogs and forums that deal with it. You are not defending Bill’s teaching on authority by attacking another Church that has nothing to do with Bill Gothard and his teaching. That is a deflection and cheap shot attacks, not a true defense.

      • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
        February 4, 2017    

        No, sister. I was defending neither IFB authority teaching nor Rome’s. IMO, neither needs defending. I like them both. And both have been questioned where they deserve it. Authority is a good thing where it is justly exercised. Don’t you agree?

        And sometime soon we will get to see whether Caesar’s court will do justice for Bill Gothard and his accusers.

        Yours,
        David K

        • rob war rob war
          February 6, 2017    

          Nice try but you have equated the authority teachings found in groups like IFB and taught by Bill Gothard equal to teaching authority as understood and taught by the Catholic Church. They are not the same and you are confused. Bill Gothard on Tues. night and I clearly remember it and still have my “red notebook” that in order to have great faith in God, one must obey their authorities in their life which was either one’s parents if unmarried or the husband if a married women. One had to obey their authority as if they were God themselves. The Catholic Church does not teach that one is to obey without questions their parents. In fact some of the biggest named saints disobeyed their parents in order to obey God or what they thought God was telling them to do. They is a huge list and their examples definitely helped me understand the error of heavy handed authority teaching.

  11. rob war rob war
    February 3, 2017    

    I’m responding to your above comment about being a Bible literalist. I think Alfred we would both agree that the Bible is the Word of God in written form. But what I find almost sad Alfred is that you are reading the Bible as some kind of legal point blank manual and I am reading the Bible as God’s love letter that everything in it points to God incarnate Jesus Christ. The NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is revealed in the NT. Likewise you made a statement about “modern” Christianity. Now I think what you were trying to talk about is liberal Protestant theology which takes too much liberty with understanding the Bible as more allegory that more literal. However, fundamentalism which is what you consider yourself is a “modern” movement and theology. The views you hold only developed in the 1800s. They are not historic Christian teaching and theology even in the Protestant world. The Bible is made up of many different kinds of literary modes and while yes, a good chunk of it is recording history that is literal, certainly many sections of it are not such as Psalms. One cannot read books like Psalms which is the biggest book in the Bible using point blank literalist legal mode that you are talking about. Likewise there are many cultural idioms and expressions that will be lost and misinterpreted if one follows your point blank literalist mind set. Jesus Himself, spoke in parables and idioms in order to teach. The book of Revelation likewise uses symbolic language and has been interpreted as such until the rise of dispensationalism in the 1800s. (the pre-tribulation stuff). Anyway, I’ve given you enough to chew on and argue back with but I honestly think that the literalist type of approach sells yourself short and lead one to conclusions that the Bible doesn’t really teach.

    • Moderator Moderator
      February 4, 2017    

      The “symbolic” argument is used to wholesale ignore large portions of God’s word that is very much binding on us today. And, yes, I see it as a legal document. Yes, there are “literary modes”, such as commands (imperatives), poetic writing, proverbs, parables, accounts (“judgements”, what happened in God’s universe and what He did about it) . . . Still, it says what it means, means what it says. We can, as Jesus pointed out, miss the deep meaning because we are focused on the immediate reading:

      Matthew 23:23
      “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and NOT TO LEAVE THE OTHER UNDONE.”

      See the point? Don’t miss the main point . . . and do NOT leave the obvious surface interpretations “undone”, while you gain that.

      • rob war rob war
        February 4, 2017    

        Many of Bill’s detractors do consider that Bill misses the “main point” and instead becomes obsessed with the “little” points. Jesus repeated issues with the Pharisees was that they were missing the “main” point. I’m not sure what you are trying to say in that there are “large” sections of the Bible that you feel and believe that are “binding” on us today. I think you are meaning a number of OT laws, am I correct in this? The OT laws cover and number of things, not just in eating which is something Bill just focused on and even with that he ignored or over looked the biggest part of dietary laws which was not to eat the blood with the meat but kill the animal in such a way that the blood is drained out. The Counsel of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts only mentioned an extremely short list of things Gentile believers coming in should do and one of them was not to eat the meat from strangled animals. They also did not require circumcision either, something Bill did make a big deal about in his seminars. Now Bill did make a big deal out of the eighth day and the reasoning I remember Bill giving was due to maturity of the blood’s clotting system. But again, a hyper literal interpretation missing the meaning of the eighth day as the new beginning. Jewish web sites explain it very well. Jesus also rose again on the eighth day or the beginning of the new week. Just looking at circumcision only as a literal function misses the deeper and connected symbolism and between the old covenant practice and the new covenant of Jesus death and resurrection. Likewise the OT laws talk about different holidays that the Jewish people were suppose to keep. I don’t remember Bill ever suggesting that Christians ought to keep and practice these things.

        • Moderator Moderator
          February 6, 2017    

          Jesus repeated issues with the Pharisees was that they were missing the “main” point.

          No argument. And He had repeated issues with the Sadducees because they were not taking the Bible seriously enough, literally enough. Troubles on the right and troubles on the left. We want to be in the middle. That is, in this case, understanding the principle of ownership and love and discipline and commitment found in the “tithe”, making sure to take care of widows, AND not to stop tithing the mint . . . and rue (interesting herb, BTW . . . in modern use for medicinal purposes and food flavoring in Latino countries, called in Spanish “Ruda”).

          an extremely short list of things Gentile believers coming in should do

          And those were ONLY because they all lived close to practicing Jews, and it would deeply offend them if they didn’t keep those – to them – “big” items.

          They also did not require circumcision either, something Bill did make a big deal about in his seminars.

          Boy, I get tired of this! Bill NEVER made a big deal about circumcision in his seminars. He DID bring it up in the medical context, and published a booklet about it . . . which I have somewhere. Makes a compelling case that God designed boy’s foreskins to come off. As seen in things like the optimal blood clotting on the “8th day”. All found in the old book, “None of These Diseases” by S. I. McMillen. And that there is a big lesson to be learned from the type. That was the only place I ever heard about it . . . and I went to a lot of seminars and meetings. It has the same significance as some Christians find in practicing a type of “Passover” – Seder meal – with their children. It is all about Jesus, NOT getting to heaven.

          • rob war rob war
            February 6, 2017    

            Yes, I’ve read that book a long time ago. It seems like Bill took many of his health ideas from that book and that book blamed a number of diseases on things like anger and other emotions. The book was from the 1960s. One simply cannot take diseases such as arthritis and cancer etc and make blanket blamed statements about their causes which in that book usually blamed the person for anger etc. I worked for a Rheumatologist in his office. There are over 100+ arthritis diseases and there is a big difference between something like Rheumatoid arthritis which is an auto immune disease and Osteo arthritis which is the wear and tear or due to injury to the joint. One simply cannot take all arthritis diseases and lump them into one cause which that book did as “bitterness”. Bill Gothard just copied the ideas from the book. Look at something like Juvenile Rheumatoid arthritis and tell me that the child that suffers with such a thing was due to “bitterness”. It’s ridiculous. While I’m a critic of the “Matters” book, the chapter I though they were spot on about was the chapter about “Bill the medicine Man”. I remember clearly on Thursday night of the seminars, Bill talking about circumcision. I’ll go look at my old “red note book” if you want. I think circumcision is the least of the issues here will Bill. There are bigger fish to fry with him.

          • Moderator Moderator
            February 6, 2017    

            One simply cannot take diseases such as arthritis and cancer etc and make blanket blamed statements about their causes which in that book usually blamed the person for anger etc.

            Why not? A great many non-Christians . . . believe that “wholistic” medicine is the only way to go. Treat the spirit and the body together. Science is replete with examples of how bad attitudes, negative thinking, even negative talking, affects your health. It ain’t no different when the Bible says it. And in this case, we literally have our “Maker” making the rules. It would seem that the manufacturer of the car is the best equipped to explain design and present solutions to various problems.

            Look at something like Juvenile Rheumatoid arthritis and tell me that the child that suffers with such a thing was due to “bitterness”

            Probably true. But . . . exceptions are just that . . . and rules are just that too. If 80% of people observing a certain procedure see results . . . medical science considers that a home run.

            I’ll go look at my old “red note book” if you want.

            You aren’t going to find it, other than in passing, along with other examples of seemingly arbitrary “rules” that have been discovered to have a sound scientific basis.

          • rob war rob war
            February 8, 2017    

            Did you read what I said? The term arthritis covers about 100 types and they are not all the same. Likewise, the term “cancer” has a number of different types, based on where it is in the body. There is a different between skin cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer and leukemia which is a cancer of the bone marrow. Cancer can be caused by a number of things like exposure to a carcinogen like in lung cancer and smoking or over exposure to the sun as in skin cancer. Breast cancer can be exasperated by abortions and has a genetic component. Leukemia is likewise complex. Likewise things like diet, genetics, one’s weight, stress, etc. play a role. In other words Alfred, one can’t make point blank statements about broad based diseases and boil down the causes to simplistic emotions like anger or bitterness or fear. Holistic medicine of which I have a sister very much involved with does not treat different diseases as if the blame is solely on emotions. Only people like Bill that have not background in anything that is real science and medicine cook up ideas like this while misquoting the Bible to try and prove their point. There is a documentary coming out about Bill called the “Cult Next Door”. In one of the trailers, they have Bill taking about fear and that fear causes diseases like Asthma and that kids from broken homes have more asthma. Bill have no proof and anyone I’ve known with asthma has not come from a broken home at all. All of this is voodoo medicine. It’s sad because it puts guilt trips on people in dealing with illnesses. I’ve worked 30+ years in the lab, I have a brother who is an MD, his wife is a nurse, my one sister is totally into alternative medicines. I look at the healings Jesus did and they are all different and He never blames those coming to Him for anger, bitterness and fear. Only the paraletic did Jesus start out with “your sins are forgiven”.

          • Moderator Moderator
            February 17, 2017    

            Apologies for the delays. Death in the extended family, a whole lot of activity. God is so good.

            Medical science has no cure for cancer. There are a great many causes, even “pairings” of causes, like exposure to a chemical plus a genetic disposition. God is HUGE :-) . . . and He is big enough to give us massively big problems to solve, for which there are simple solutions. We would expect no less from the Maker of All than to bury special secrets in His Word to honor those that take the time to dig it out and take Him seriously.

            “Cult Next Door” . . . from a clip or two I saw, boy, I thought they did Bill credit. And for you to say he “has no proof” . . . what proof do you have of that? I have taken issue after issue of this type back to him . . . sometimes it took a while, but he would produce backup for it.

            AND . . . . there were at least two paralyzed folks that were forgiven sins, and thereafter walked. A woman stooped over because of a demon. And illness as a spanking?

            Psalm 107:10-22
            “Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron;
            Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High:
            Therefore he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, and there was none to help.
            Then they cried unto the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them out of their distresses.
            He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder.
            Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
            For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder.

            Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted.
            Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the gates of death.
            Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses.
            He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.
            Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
            And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing.”

          • rob war rob war
            February 8, 2017    

            The Sadducees were not “liberal” as we would think of the term. They only considered the Torah as the canonical and did not accept the writings of the prophets as part of the cannon of scripture which the Pharisees did. Since there were more literalists with the Torah and the Torah does not mention the resurrection, they therefore did not believe in the resurrection of the dead which the Pharisees did. That is one reason why they were asking Jesus in order to trick Him about “whose wife” a widow would be who married 7 brothers, Jesus responded from the Torah with quoting God from the burning bush “I am the God of Abraham …” Jesus in one swoop turned their “literalist” interpretation of the Torah upside down. Likewise, St Paul played up on this divide in Acts when he was brought before both groups and St. Paul proclaimed that he was being tried for belief in the resurrection of the dead. This then divided these two groups and they started to argue among themselves. So Alfred, you probably have more in common with “literalists” Sadducees that read the Bible like a legal book, only focusing on the law.

          • Moderator Moderator
            February 17, 2017    

            Nah. The Sadducees were the pragmatists . . . making alliances with Rome, amassing wealth . . . buying their way into positions. Paul confirms this “liberal/conservative” divide:

            Acts 26:5 “Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.”

          • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
            February 11, 2017    

            You make a good point, brother. During my many years in ATI, the topic of circumcision never came up. Bill Gothard made a case for it in a medical bulletin, but that was all.

            David K

    • David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
      February 4, 2017    

      Rob, you ought to give Alfred some space and not build a straw man of extreme literalism. He has not wandered outside the boundaries of the Apostles’ Creed, has he? If so, I have not seen it.

      Within the boundaries,
      David K

      • rob war rob war
        February 6, 2017    

        You are also getting “bossy” again. I don’t take orders from you. This is as charitable as I can be and at the moment I’ve reached my limit so I will stop.

  12. rob war rob war
    February 6, 2017    

    Alfred is perfectly capable of handling my questions. He is an adult and has repeatedly stated that he is a black and white literalist fundamentalist and reads the Bible like a point blank legal document.

  13. Moderator Moderator
    February 7, 2017    

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/07/blogger-forced-to-pay-substantial-sum-to-melania-trump-in-defamation-lawsuit.html

    We have mentioned the recent lawsuit by Melania Trump against a blogger who said she had been a “high priced escort”, i.e. a prostitute. This would be a falsehood that the blogger believed to be true about a public figure. As indicated, Melania won the case, the blogger was forced to publically acknowledge his error, and pay a “substantial” amount to her.

    This for those that believe that public figures – like Bill – don’t win defamation lawsuits. The standard is – Is what was published false, even if believed to be true, did it cause damage, and was it done “with malice”, i.e. published deliberately to hurt the public figure.

  14. David S. Knecht Sr. David S. Knecht Sr.
    February 18, 2017    

    re: Bill and circumcision

    Here is one possible explanation for Rob’s recollection of circumcision in the Thursday evening Basic Seminar material. When Bill was in afriendly live venue, he liked to ad lib. If circumcision was a fresh topic in his personal studies, I would not be surprised if he deviated from his usual script in order to discuss circumcision.

    I never heard circumcision in the Seminar because I always attended the taped version. I also never read the Veinot book. But I would not be surprised if Veinot sniped at Gothard for speculating in medicine.

    Just a guess,
    David K

    • Moderator Moderator
      February 18, 2017    

      Yes, the ad libbing was common, always interesting. I think that is how he “tried things out”. Some things survived, others did not. It remains that the medical side = MTIA = was all I recall. It was for him a design principle, “how God made us”, plus he was very impressed with the type, the symbol. The “circumcision” that Paul reacted to was the “package” of “coming under the law for salvation”, a symbol in Judeaism akin to baptism. But, as has been often pointed out, Paul, who circumcised Timothy himself as a young man, had no problem with Christians being circumcised. Just not as a symbol meaning “I will keep the whole law from this point forward”.

      • rob war rob war
        February 18, 2017    

        St Paul circumsized Timothy because Timothy was considered a Jew since he had a Jewish mother. Someone even today is considered automatically Jewish if their mother (not the father) is Jewish. Timothy’s father was not Jewish. The controversy surrounding this issue as recorded in Acts was that Gentiles were coming into the Church. Bill seemed to make this a health issue that Christians should still follow.
        I am curious how Bill would see a connection between baptism and this because this was always done on 8 day old boys. I would think Bill would have been against infant baptism being a life long Baptist.

        • Moderator Moderator
          February 18, 2017    

          I made the analogy, just in terms of meaning. Baptism is for most a symbol of a complete new beginning, death to the old self, resurrected with Jesus to new life. I never heard Bill made the connection, because that is not what he held as far as circumcision. The Judeaizers treated it that way.

          The reason for the circumcision of Timothy is secondary. Paul states clearly elsewhere,

          1 Corinthians 7:17-19
          “17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.”

          Intersting, BTW . . . “Circumcision is nothing” . . . but what is “something”? The modern Christians would say, “Grace”. But instead he says, “the keeping of the commandments of God”.

          Back to the point . . . that by that rule Timothy should stay uncircumcised. The “state” of circumcision is compared in that same passage to the “state” of marriage. Clearly there is nothing wrong with being married, although Paul says elsewhere it is better to be unmarried, all things being equal. Circumcision is simply . . . “No Big Deal”. Which tells me that if there are perceived medical advantages, or even if someone feels it would honor those that were circumcised, like Jesus . . . Paul . . . all twelve apostles . . . David . . . Moses . . . Abraham . . . no big deal. Every Christian male, at least in the US, was routinely circumcised for centuries . . . considered it an honor. NOBODY considered it an act of law keeping.

    • rob war rob war
      February 18, 2017    

      That is an accurate assessment. All the seminars I attended which include the one time advance in1986 were all live with Bill. Currently in sunny Fl. but when we return home, I will look at my Red basic which I still have. I do remember Bill talking about it clearly on Thursday night.

  15. rob war rob war
    February 18, 2017    

    No apologies are needed. Taking time off to attend to family needs (as well as your own) is perfectly understandable considering the situation.

    The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as their cannon of scriptures. Yes, they were political pragmatics in which they cut deals with the Romans which resulted in power and wealth for them. But because they only accepted the Torah as canonical and rejected we would call the rest of the OT, they did come to some inaccurate conclusions by their point blank reading of the Torah and one of them was a rejection of the resurrection which the Pharisees did believe in. That is why Jesus replied to their hypothetical from quoting the Torah when God spoke to Moses from the burning bush with “I am …” Jesus in one swoop showed them how off the mark their understanding of the Torah really was and basically shut them up.

    Again, I’m not sure how quoting Psalms 72 proves that all diseases are punishments from God for violations of the Torah. Again, taking Psalms which is poetic literature and reading point blank literalism into it in that you are taking Psalms 72 and applying that to all diseases and physical ailments is not correct. If you are going down this road, then you will have to ascribe to God feathers and wings which are spoken of in a number of the Psalms. I don’t think you literally believe that God has feathers and wings correct?

    • Moderator Moderator
      February 18, 2017    

      There can be no doubt of the connection between physical disease and sin throughout Scripture . . . agreed? Also agreed that it is not so in every case. Bill made this distinction clearly . . . that there was a “Sickness unto Death, a Sickness unto Chastisement, and a Sickness to the Glory of God”. The first you don’t want healed, and neither does the Lord . . . the second will let up if the sin is corrected . . . and the third is there specifically to prove that God is awesome in power, to master it in a dramatic, public, powerful way.

      Yes, He has feathers and wings as much as He has hands and feet. Got absolutely no problem with that. He takes many forms . . .

      • rob war rob war
        February 18, 2017    

        Yes, there are certainly some direct sin relationship to some diseases. Interestly, the Mass readings for this Sunday, one of them is from I Corinthians 3:16,17 “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you. If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person, for the temple of God which you are, is Holy.” St Paul also stated that immorality is a sin against one’s own body. So considering the above verses, repeated and direct immorality will cause serious health problems. Using artificial contraception will cause health problems. Abusing one’s body with substance abuse (alcohol, drugs, smoking) will cause serious health problems. Now this gets more tricky because many diseases are also caused by poor diet, being over weight, lack of exercise etc. The biggest killer at least in the US is heart disease which is often caused by being over weight and poor diet and poor exercise. I think Bill had a poor view of physical activity. The next biggest cause of handicaps in the US is strokes. Strokes are often caused by the same things as heart disease. Diabetes can be caused by a number of things but often times with later onset adult type II diabetes, being overweight, poor diet and lack of physical activity play a role. So while, yes direct sin particularly immorality do cause consequences in one’s body, it’s not so clear cut and it’s complicated. Many things play together in different diseases. It’s not just one thing and diseases can’t be just boiled down to one cause based on one or two Bible verses which was promoted in the above mention book. So yes in part, I can agree with you on some things but I am not looking at this subject like I think you are based on what Bill Gothard taught. BTW I do not consider being overweight as “sinful” or even abusive of one’s body. That again is a complicated subject but it is a big root cause to many common physical diseases.

        • Moderator Moderator
          February 18, 2017    

          Having a hard time disagreeing with any of that. Very balanced approach.

          One of the biggest problems with Bill’s critics is focusing on a few statements while sort of ignoring the main thrust. The one thing is that Bill takes the Lord and His word very, very seriously. Like a legal document written by the Maker and Controller of the universe. Whose unsleeping eyes see all, He knows all . . . and He will judge us according to our deeds. Who expects us to diligently study, meditate on His words day and night, nonstop, love and follow Him with all our might, soul, strength. He does misfire on some details, but the core of His perception and purpose is, I believe, right on.

          • rob war rob war
            February 20, 2017    

            There are lots and lots of Christians that take the Bible “very seriously” and do not at all come to some of the conclusions that Bill has. It’s not a matter of taking the Bible seriously. It is a matter of how the Bible is being interpreted and then used and applied. Reading the Bible as a point blank legal document which includes yourself is really a set up to using the Bible the way Bill has. It is short changing and misses the point of the Bible which the story of God’s salvation for man. If God is love which is stated in a number of places, I’m not sure how reading the Bible as a point blank legal document leads one to see God is love. When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment, He pointed to the “Shema” from Deut. about loving God with all your…then Jesus stated the second commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself. That boils all the law and prophets according. to Jesus.

          • Moderator Moderator
            February 20, 2017    

            There is a difference between “very seriously” and “I commit my very existence to this”. In one case you still have the right to veto and do something else . . . if you commit your life, your eternal existence to something . . . in a very literal way . . . as in, if the Bible is wrong, I go down in flames . . . THAT is “faith”. It is scary, right? It is not outside the realm of reason that the Bible might direct me to abandon father, mother, right to marry, children . . . even my own life, money . . . in favor of eternal treasures. Things you can’t see. It becomes a “Book of Life” in the sense of a book that controls life . . . and it behooves one to chew on it, meditate on it day and night, nonstop . . . last thing on your mind at night, wake up pondering in the middle of the night . . .

            I see a big difference. There are lifelong Bible scholars . . . like lifelong Shakespeare scholars . . . that I am quite sure don’t see it with that kind of intensity. Even desperation, if you will.

            Psalm 119:148 “Mine eyes prevent [await] the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word.”

Leave a Reply

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

Categories