Last 
Monday Bill Gothard went down to Texas to the 2018 annual Big Sandy ATI conference. Bill is currently estranged from IBLP, the ministry he founded, as the Board of Directors received accusations made against him four years ago by disgruntled former students in his ATI (Advanced Training Institute) The $8 million dollar, 17 plaintiff lawsuit brought against him and IBLP in the wake of that was dismissed a couple of months back as the cases fell apart for the second time. Yet, despite the sudden lack of voices raised against him, the Board has been deliberately indifferent towards him, not even willing to publicly acknowledge the incredible deliverance that God has wrought.
For four years 83 year old Bill has been living alone in the house he was raised in, using his kitchen table as a desk, supported by a mishmash of unpaid volunteers. Besides Social Security against his prior salary of $25,000 he has no income, sustained by gifts from donors and sales of the books he has written since leaving IBLP. To add insult to this situation, Bill was told years ago he was not to set foot on IBLP property or be present at any event “or else we will call the police”. In four years he was allowed back to his office once, with lawyers present, to fetch personal effects and papers important to him, that even years after the initial ban.
His greatest joy in life has been the fellowship of those that have been blessed by his 50 year ministry in venues such as these annual conferences scattered across the country. It is his energy, his strength. Bill apparently decided he had had enough of the isolation. This week he took a young man who had been helping him, climbed into his car and drove the two of them 14 hours down to Big Sandy. When they arrived he registered them as participants, paid the several hundred dollars for them to attend, and walked into the main venue. As folks recognized him they gathered around for a joyful reunion. Many came up to thank him for being the instrument of a saved marriage, saved finances, saved family, and coming to know Jesus in salvation.
Board members Dr. Tim Levendusky, Dr. Stephen Paine, and Gil Bates showed up not long thereafter and insisted they follow them into a small side room. There they demanded that he leave immediately. He explained he had driven all that way to see the people that he loved, and to deliver a message to the Board, which he expected to be allowed to discuss with them before he left. After several other threats to call the police and then a demand that he stay in the small room they were in “out of sight”, they agreed that he would be given the opportunity to meet with them at the end of the evening, let him go and left him alone for the balance of the sessions.
During each break the lines of participants wanting to speak with Bill grew longer and longer, hundreds. It was clear that both they and he were very happy. At the end of the evening Mr. Bates approached Bill and told him to go to the administration building where they would have their chat, overtly refusing much nearer venues. Others around Bill urged him not to leave the public area, cautioning him that it was a trap. Gil Bates told them, “We love Bill, we are not going to hurt him”. Bill agreed to go, as this was the chat he had been promised before leaving. He told his young man, “They finally will talk to me, what I have waited four years for”.
When they arrived Mr. Bates and Dr. Paine were there to meet him – Bill asked where Dr. Levendusky was, as he wished to address the entire board, but was just told that he was “unavailable”. Bill sat down, expecting a discussion, but they remained standing, telling him, “We are not going to talk with you – just present your papers so you can leave”. After several attempts to get them to honor the promise made earlier, he presented his papers, which included an appeal by several previous Board members to the present Board to reinstate him.
As Bill got up to leave, he was confronted by an Alert officer who made a rehearsed statement: “Did you refuse a request from my authorities to leave, Yes or No?” Bill clarified that he was promised a meeting with the Board, and that was why he had stayed. The officer repeated the question: “Please answer yes or no”. After several rounds of this Bill said the words they were looking for, something that started with “Yes, I did not leave because I was waiting for the meeting I drove all this way to have”. Immediately a policeman stepped forward who had been recording the entire staged interchange on his vest video camera. He told Bill that he was guilty of criminal trespass because this – Big Sandy – was “private property” and “these gentlemen do not want you here”. He nicely asked Bill to sign the citation he had there because it was “no big deal” and he, the officer, simply had to document that he was there and had delivered the message. Bill asked that the citation be amended to include the important point that he stayed because he was waiting for his meeting. The officer stated that could not be done, again asking him to sign. Bill refused to sign several times. At that point the officer became frustrated and asked, forcefully: “Are you refusing to sign this citation?!” Bill’s assistant, fearing further trouble, urged Bill to sign, which he reluctantly did.
Bill is charged with “Criminal Trespass” for attending the Big Sandy conference.
The citation, as you can see, makes it clear that, should Bill ever set foot on Big Sandy property again, he will be liable for a large fine and time in prison. As part of this indignity he was forced to have someone else drive him off the property in his own car . . . The property that God had supplied to Bill’s ministry many years before in answer to prayer. And so he returned to his hotel – and a day later, drove himself and his assistant back home to Chicago.
We have held off publishing our account this long because we were getting conflicting reports and needed to speak to all involved. There are several things we would like to note:
- The Board members and IBLP leadership we spoke with repeatedly stressed the need for Bill to “obey” them. We would note that he has not been under their authority at any level for four years. They pushed him out with demands that he felt were Scripturally wrong and they have deliberately had nothing to do with him other than what was forced upon them by the lawsuit. Bill has repeatedly reached out for an opportunity to work things out. A Board member told us during this time: “If we give Bill things to do to reconcile, he will do them – so we will not give him anything to do.” Implication was that they simply were not interested in dealing with him, let along having him “under their authority”. At the same time they were assuring ATI families that they were working to “restore Bill”. Also worth nothing is that a majority of the Board members have openly and repeatedly acknowledged Bill as a spiritual “father” by virtue of the life changing impact he has had on them. Some of us would wonder why these men would not in some manner find themselves in a position to obey . . . him. Paul had such expectations on those that were so related to him (1 Cor. 4:14-16)
- In our discussions with IBLP leadership it was understood that they were concerned that Bill would use the esteem he is still held in by many in the ministry to foment dissent within the organization. There was a specific allegation made to us that he had distributed statements challenging the Board to staff members. One of the reasons for this delay in publishing was to understand what Bill had actually done. This was formally cleared up tonight: Bill never intended to give the papers he had to anyone other than the Board. His assistant, responding to an inquiry made by a senior staff member, gave him one of the sets of papers prepared for a Board member without Bill’s knowledge or permission.
- Bill is 83, he founded the ministry, he has been unjustly accused as evidenced by the the spectacular failure of a major lawsuit backed by 3 respected law firms to even get a single charge of “negligence” from one plaintiff through to depositions, let alone trial. Bill did not tell us what he was planning – we heard about it as others did. We think some amount of frustration bubbled over. We can’t say we are not sympathetic. One cannot help but wonder why the Board, knowing Bill and knowing all these things, could not have headed this off in a much more friendly way that didn’t involve executing their “nuclear” option, to throw him in jail. Board members have repeatedly expressed their love for Bill and appreciation for all he has down for them and for the ministry. Gil said exactly that, even as he was preparing to entrap him in his words and hand him over to the authorities to potentially fine and imprison him. This was the only way they could come up with to make sure their authority was not undermined? We have gone out of our way to not demean a group of men that we sincerely respect and believe are trying to do the right thing in the middle of very difficult circumstances. But there is incredible grief in our hearts over a action that we feel was completely unjustified and, frankly, crossed a line.
- We asked the Board for a statement that we would publish, explaining their side of what happened. They declined to provide that. Our understanding is that Bill’s presence was not even acknowledged to the seminar participants. One of Bill’s repeated statements in the Basic Seminar: “Seeds of a wounded spirit, when pushed underground, produce a crop of rebellion.” Perhaps the Board does not understand the deep grief – wounding – that so many of current IBLP supporters feel about the way Bill has been handled. Pushing that out of sight into the darkness is not wise, in our mind.
We continue to pray that the Lord may intervene and work in hearts on all sides to bring this to a godly concluion. That His name is not damaged, instead His work furthered by all involved. That fellow believers will soon once again walk together in peace, love and harmony.
May 12, 2018 Update: We did receive the media file of the interaction of Bill with the two members of the Board assembled in the admin building, and then the officer that cited him. While it is a video, it is the video of the dash cam of the squad car, with the audio piped in from the officer’s vest. So there is little to see, but lots to hear. The initial faint audio is of Bill addressing Dr. Paine and Gil Bates in what he had understood to been a meeting with the Board, yet with no Dr. Levendusky. So he is presenting his papers that make his case for reinstatement along with the threat of legal action if not. The officer comes in quietly. Once he is there, at the 8 minute mark, the Alert commander comes up and asks Bill if he had refused to leave earlier when asked to which he answers “Yes”. He is not allowed to provide the caveat that he had subsequently been promised a meeting as the condition for him leaving, but is immediately told he was to be cited for trespassing. Immediately the officer, having recorded that, moves in to execute the “Criminal Tresspass Report”, a warning that the next infraction would be followed by a hefty fine and imprisonment. Bill asks repeatedly that the record reflect the important point that the Board had agreed to the talk he had requested as the condition for him leaving, but the officer refuses to alter the comments. Judge for yourself: Here is the video. We believe we accurately reported the interaction and continue to look to the Board to explain how, after 50 years of uninterrupted service by Bill to them and to us, including the procurement of the beautiful facilities in which they all stood, they could allow themselves to entrap him in this way and come to a place where they were willing to see him in jail rather than meet with him to discuss his deeply held concerns.
I read this 3 times to get if right. First of all, the judge did not “dismiss” the case, the plaintiffs voluntarily suspended their case and have a year to re-file if they so choose. Next, if Bill wanted to deliver “papers” to the board, in particular Dr. L. then he could have always sent them to him personally by either registered or certified mail, which has to be signed for. The idea that he would drive 14 hours out of the way to attend a conference that he earlier was told he was totally banned from and then expect that they would let him stay because he drove 14 hours out of the way for, is totally naïve and even bizarre on Bill’s part. The reason you are giving for Bill going are more based on sentimentality and entitlement. He is going because he just misses everyone? So drive 14 hours out of the way was a gamble that backfired on Bill. Is IBLP God’s or is it Bill’s? Did God build this or did Bill? The attitude that you are reporting seems to be that IBLP is Bill’s and he is entitled. It also looks like Bill’s submission teaching to authority came back to haunt him in a big way here and now the tables are turned on Bill.
Finally, if people miss Bill, want Bill etc. there is nothing that stops them from visiting his web page, your blog, buying his new books, sending him emails, visiting him etc. So if there is a big army of people that want Bill, they still can go to him. Nothing prevents this.
I see this whole thing as tragic and sad. But it was totally preventable because Bill didn’t have to drive 14 hours out of way to go to something he has been disband from and I agree with the Board’s concern that this was done to divide IBLP and cause strife. Emotionality and sentimentality are not good reasons to do this.
Well, thar be a number of strongly held opinions. :-). We would strongly discount any notion that the plaintiffs had a choice in dropping the suit. At that point it was “Advantage Team Bill” in some stunning ways, and they knew it. As keeps being pointed out . . . Three (3) major law firms investing a half million dollars only to walk away with . . . Nothing, not even a chance at a trial? You are naive if you think that was “voluntary”.
Bill has asked for a meeting with the Board for . . . Over four years, only to be rebuffed over and over. This was one of the few times where he would actually have direct access to them, all in one place. And, yes, as the founder and 50 year President of IBLP, the one that oversaw the purchase of Big Sandy, the one that, apparently, a great number of ATI members believe is still running things – Yes, yes we do believe he is entitled. Were you a member of any number of the pro-IBLP groups, you would understand that a bit more clearly, about what ATI members even know.
Anyway, let the record reflect that this was not a matter that we had any hand in, so we we are free to report and draw our own conclusions, just as you are.
Alfred writes in the opening monologue; “4. We asked the Board for a statement that we would publish, explaining their side of what happened. They declined to provide that. Our understanding is that Bill’s presence was not even acknowledged to the seminar participants. One of Bill’s repeated statements in the Basic Seminar: “Seeds of a wounded spirit, when pushed underground, produce a crop of rebellion.” Perhaps the Board does not understand the deep grief – wounding – that so many of current IBLP supporters feel about the way Bill has been handled. Pushing that out of sight into the darkness is not wise, in our mind.”
I have a hard time believing you actually wrote this. I see the same thing you accuse the board of, can be applied to Bill’s wounding the plaintiffs of this case and other ex-staff. Thus sowing the “Seeds of a wounded Spirit” perhaps Bill does not understand the deep grief-wounding- that so many of the former staff feel about the way they have been handled. Pushing that out of sight into the darkness is not wise, in our minds too!
So, Larne, do we have a moment of agreement? Not a good thing, right? Of course, we are still having a hard time pushing these folk that called themselves plaintiffs into the category of the wounded and aggrieved. Again, please read the statements in the “Motion to Sanction” if you haven’t.
Oh my gosh…I can’t hardly believe u said what you said!! He has hurt many with his false teaching and authority structure, his lies and hypocrisy, and his betrayal of the trust we parent gave him!! He will stand before God and be held accountable like the rest of us!!
As a fellow ATI parent I would take that most seriously. In what specific way did Bill violate the trust you gave him? We would like to work with you to get this straightened out. Bill needs to hear from those that are hurt so that he can do whatever he needs to to clear it up. You would not believe how few have loved him enough to go to him with their concerns. If you want you can contact us privately through our email – contact@discoveringgrace.com
“Advantage Team Bill?” What kind of humility is this? This man has been accused of abject abuse of power and sexual abuse and impropriety. This has happened more than once,with this man ousted in 1980 and he re-inserted himself in power after that. I was damaged by this man because he was reinstated If he had been put out initially, I would never have suffered the abuse I suffered. Shame on you all of your sin.
Bill resigned in 1980 in the wake of the damage caused by his brother. While there were attempts to pin that on him from a dozen different angles that was never proven. You may recall that also involved two lawsuits brought by former associates for millions – both were dropped almost immediately.
We have spent considerable time researching that episode, speaking with folks from that era. If you have information you want to provide, please do so. Many still live, although the ranks are thinning.
Humility? I think of the humility of Paul, who could take the time to rattle off his accomplishments even while stating that he refused to bask in the well-deserved glory. Or even Spurgeon who, when accused of being “conceited”, said:
“Do you see those bookshelves? They contain hundreds, nay thousands of sermons translated into every language under the heaven. Well, now, add to this that ever since I was twenty one years old, there never has been built a place large enough to hold the number of people who wished to hear me preach, and, upon my honor, when I think of it, I would wonder (am surprised) I am not more conceited than I am.”
Bill has 2.7 million alumni from just the Basic Seminar, plus tens of thousands in ATI, a majority of which would testify that his ministry has radically altered their lives, fruit for God that has lasted for decades. We hear from them almost daily, even with limited venues to express that. Emotion, even tears of gratefulness.
We are sorry for your experience. Bill lives and he will talk to you. Let’s see what we can do to bring about some resolution.
FYI: Just learned of Bill’s 2018 persecution at the Big Sandy conf. -TX. Don’t know current status, but below is my advice to them. I pray they do the right thing to our wonderful brother, Bill. If not, may God be quick to act as mediator on Bill’s behalf. May Bill be peaceful and content knowing God is for us, no weapon formed against us shall prosper. [Moderator: I removed the copy of the other post to Rob, which is below]
Yes, it was hard to take and I, for one, can hardly think of it without intense grief. But . . . It was allowed by the Lord and He has his purposes in it. May we all take the grace to trust Him and keep on doing what we must in the face of very unjust things. The Lord knows every heart and is the most merciful, gracious, detailed judge in the universe.
If Gothard is innocent and so beloved, let him step out on faith, build a new organization with himself as the foundation, and see if God blesses it.
Well, that is already happening. But . . . what to do with the 500 million dollars in resources acquired from funds given by so many whose love Bill and whose heart the Lord touched? They didn’t give to IBLP, they gave to Bill. Feel quite strongly about it.
“Well, that is already happening. But . . . what to do with the 500 million dollars in resources acquired from funds given by so many whose love Bill and whose heart the Lord touched? They didn’t give to IBLP, they gave to Bill. Feel quite strongly about it.”
Actually, legally they gave it to IBLP, didn’t they? If God chooses to bless Bill’s new ministry He won’t need the resources from IBLP to do that.
You know how incorporation works. The “stuff” becomes a new person. Whoever has the stock, controls the person. The incorporation of Bill’s “stuff” was not supposed to change operation at all, just take advantage of the favorable tax status. Technically the BOD has always controlled the IBLP “stuff”, from back in the 1970s. Now, the BOD is supposed to be made up of a group of 5 or more individuals who are not related to each other. They are at this time in noncompliance, both by virtue of only having 4 members but also that two of them are related by the marriage of their children. Three Board members left in the wake of the troubles, two of them claiming that they were forced out. So one could argue that they are not legitimate in constitution as it is.
As stated previously, perhaps the Lord should determine whom He would have running things. By lot. That would settle it emphatically. “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.” (Proverbs 16:33)
Robs theology and logic is twisted . I too am one of Bills spiritual children as are thousands and your false witness doesn’t scare us one bit . It’s not Bills theology it’s clearly in the Bible you are blind to see until judgement day Where you will be looking for him because of your obsession with him and Jesus will be looking for you to explain how you’re so righteous and know it all .
re: Rob’s theology
Brother Jim,
Try to forbear with Rob a bit. You might call her our token Catholic on these threads. Adheres fiercely to her opinions. They are often pretty orthodox, but she has strong negative opinions about Bill Gothard.
You don’t make a case by insults either for Bill or his teaching against those that disagree with Bill and his use of the Bible. The last thing I am is obsessed with Bill. And btw it’s mrs. not mr. One sees this all the time in politics, the losing side, the side that lost it, the side that has no substance resorts to emotional insults to their opponents. That is all you have done in the hand full of posts here directed mostly at me. You have not made any case for Bill and to say that “it’s in the Bible” is just laughable because there are a whole lot more people that say no. If Bill is your “spiritual father”, that is your choice and feelings, but I don’t see those that agree with you rising up enmass in support or defense of Bill. There is just a sprinkling that have done so. But there is a bigger group that talk about the problems with his teaching and how it has negatively affected their lives and that isn’t just RG, but many other blogs as well. To lump them all together as “angry” while you yourself are “angry” undercuts whatever support you are trying to throw Bill’s way.
Yeah, we would do well to keep focused on facts and perspectives that are not necessarily unkind. And this we shall do. In Rob’s defense, she has made about as much substantive contribution to the topics at hand as anyone. Things that a blogger appreciates, even if disagreeing.
As Spock told McCoy in Star Trek II: “You must learn to control your emotions, doctor. They will be your undoing.”
please revisit your comments about driving 14 hours again when you are 83 years old and have spent your whole life one one focus that has been taken away. It is perfectly logical to me why he drove there.
Where is the love? Where is the forgiveness? Who gets to judge?It is all so heartbreaking and how can it not be hurting the cause of Christ. We all sin and make mistakes and I am so thankful I have a Lord that loves me regardless. Let’s pray for all involved even those of us commenting.🙏
Amen
Christians are the only ones who shoot their wounded. That statement I believe is so true.
For those of us Christians who truly have been offended by others , we were taught by Jesus not to run to court , sue them and then plan a fun vacation of parties and drinking as the trial showed they were doing ! We prayed and forgave and restored our offenders as our Lord taught , something the me too movement would do well to do as well instead of running around suing people . Get a real job and make honest money like the rest of us . I too was abused by a nieghbor long ago as a child but Jesus taught me how to restore fully and not ruin my whole life vs taking revenge !
Rob War, where is Jesus? Do you ever listen to yourself and realize what pride and hatred are exposed by your words? You do not talk as Jesus taught. God gives His Church, the true Body of Christ, clear ability in discerning fraudulent Christians.
How can you and your cohorts be so unjust and merciless to one of God’s sons?”
Without holiness, no man shall see God!” Do you not have a clue as to how ungodly and mean-spirited you and your IBLP buddies – including Tim Levendusky, Gil Bates, and Stephen Paine – have become?
“Just because a man is educated doesn’t necessarily make him wise.”; therefore, doctors, you have absolutely no reason to be puffed up as you rob and horde another man’s lifes work. You hold up in your “Mutual Admiration Society.” Then you convict a follower of Jesus of trespassing and phone police to put this dear old man in jail! You are out of your minds; you are manifesting the behaviors of Satan! You need to humble yourselves, and do so immediately.
You must face your evil behaviors against God’s beloved son, Bill Gothard, and bow down in submission before the only Righteous God. You behave worse than uncivilized, high school, teen-aged bullies trying to criminalize a Christian, Bill Gothard, for his obedience to God’s Holy Spirit in coming in the Name of the LORD to reconcile offences he is suffering from your cruelty.
Bill did what God expects of His people according to Holy Scripture. But you and your henchmen would rather fight, hate, have an elder [follower of Christ Jesus] arrested and put in jail than obey God’s laws to love and live peaceably.
Repent … Rob, Tim, Stephen, Gil, and the rest of your corrupt IBLP gang … for only a moron would ignore the warning of Righteous Indignation of God when you mess with His family. I pray all you endeavor to do with Big Sandy and your other greedy endeavors fail for you because of all you have done to hurt Bill. God can strip you of and reconstruct elsewhere what you thought was yours – He really does not need you.
You are a disgrace to Christ’s entire purpose for mankind; Jesus existed on planet earth to manifest God’s pure love and compassion for everyone; but you (with doctorates but not wisdom) think the sun rises and sets just for you. You are so busy robbing and hating this disciple of Jesus (trying to jail him) that you are blind to how you defile your own soul.
This is America; people are innocent until they are “proven” guilty. So STOP your self-righteous, judgmental false accusations against. Start judging your own blatant, anti-Christ behaviors.
1If you knew Jesus, you would know that He requires of us to judge ourselves according to His Word. If you read your Bible this, you would know that Jesus is the only Judge. Read Matthew 7:21-23 or don’t read it and you forfeit Heaven. (BEWARE: the devil is worse than nasty!) I can tell by the spirit in your communication and misuse of Scripture that you do not study your Bible to get closer to the LORD.
Jesus said of braggarts like you, “Woe to you, Hypocrites! You are as whitewashed sepulchres. Outwardly, you seem so knowledgable and beautiful; yet it is evident that inside you are full of all uncleanliness … you manifest death!” – Mt. 23:27
Until you give your entire life to Christ, making Jesus the Savior then the LORD of your entire life [ choose Jesus as King of everything ]; and until such time as you truthfully apologize and fully recompense Bill for all you have stolen and damaged in his life, may you have no Peace … none! … may your sleep be troubled/restless … and may your food/drink be undesireable. You need to get right with God far more than you need these blessings.
A word to the wise is sufficient [period].
I’m wondering if the boards investigation done a couple years ago, which I think was not given to the public, might contain information that would justify the boards current actions. Back when that investigation was done, it was thought of as a biased report that let Bill off the hook. But now, I think there must have been some credible accounts of wrong doing. I sure would like to see the investigation documents. As much as I admire Alfred’s support of his friend (Bill), I think in this case love is blind. There is way too many stories about Bill to discard them all. And even when someone is not held accountable in a court of law, think OJ, it really doesn’t mean they are innocent. The Boards behavior leads me to believe there is more to this than we know. I hope they do provide a statement and provide details or information supporting their decision to keep Bill out of IBLP.
We have actively sought for access to those documents for four years. Indeed, in our role to help Bill reconcile it made complete sense. We went to the Board and asked for their “worst”. We were given two items to work on and meticulously investigated, going back and forth between Bill and individuals. One involved a woman who had already reconciled with Bill, another involved a single case which overtly did not involve any accusation of malfeasance on Bill’s part, but a sequence that the Board had asked Bill to abstain from, the “appearance if evil”. The details Bill provided made sense to us as to why this might represent an exception, involving a potential suicide. We took the added information back to the Board and received no further communication.
It is time to bring the hidden things into the light. It is impossible to address, fix things that are held as secrets. If a public declaration is made that Bill is evil due to “secret information”, there is no righteous way for this to be done if he is not allowed to understand the charges, let alone mount a defense. Nothing in the Scriptures or common practice suggests this is correct, barring national secrets, etc.
Some of the things Bill did that are facts and out in the open are bad enough to ban him from the ministry. The inappropriate touching of hands, feet, and hair (that’s creepy just by itself); his hypocrisy: meeting late at night alone with girls (rarely boys), not adhering to his own standards of conduct; and always surrounding himself with young girls. Not to mention not following labor laws while these young ppl were in his employ. I think the Board has enough issues without having to provide anything “bigger”. “Inappropriate” is good enough. He certainly didn’t pass the standard of “avoiding the appearance of evil”. I agree with you, as Christians this needs to be brought to light. It is not right to keep so much in the dark. The Board needs to let it all out and let the chips fall where they may. Even if it means they look bad too. This whole thing is bringing so much mockery to Christianity. Shameful.
Dads and Moms and Grandpas and Grandmas and Aunts and Uncles and country pastors touch hair, hands, feet with no shame. And if your culture or heritage finds that uncomfortable, you DO know that it is not so elsewhere. See, there is no standard for “creepy” here. “Sexual harassment” is 100% in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line, if something makes you uncomfortable, you let it be known. THEN if it persists, then we have a problem.
Assuming you are an RG participant, check out Wendy Griffin Anderson’s tales . . . On the one hand, condemning Bill for holding her hand it both of his, gazing into her eyes, telling her all of the wonderful things God had planned for her, all while standing in front of the entire assembled staff. THEN she mentions how that when her brother came to visit, they were condemned for walking around campus . . .holding hands. Now SOME people consider brothers and sisters holding hands “creepy”. I mean, there are weird people who do perverted things with siblings. Knowing the woman, if you do, would you in any way imagine that there was anything out of line? I would not. BUT, if I hated her, and believed she was a charlatan to be taken down by any means necessary, why I would tell the tale of her wandering around holding hands with her brother. And if a bunch of other people hated her too, we would have an echo chamber of excitement.
Hypocrisy, not sure how to respond. Other than that, yeah, come older folks get to do things young people can’t in an organization. Meeting late at night, more with girls than boys? Tell me, of all the people YOU know that come for counseling, what percentage are girls vs. boys? Overwhelmingly female? Yup. There are many other reasons for those stats than “Bill likes girls”.
Labor laws? Now THERE is a handle, the most golden one, that lawyers would salivate over, looking for a payday. Did you know that IBLP was also sued in 1980 on the same charge? Then and now . . . No case could ever be built. Either the lawyers are idiots – which they emphatically are not, or, well, it just wasn’t true. It wasn’t. Stop passing on the lies of others.
Charges of “inappropriate” are a death knell for a person in Christian ministry. IF they are going to make the charge, they better support it. It has not, I don’t think it can. But now is the time to do so.
We have interviewed women at length about such things and were told, emphatically, it was absolutely not an issue. It BECAME an issue when aspersions were cast on Bill in article after article back in the 2013 timeframe geared to smear Bill as much as possible. All those accusers have disappeared. And if they had kept going, they would have gotten sued for defamation.
Alfred, the cases from 1980 or so are public record. You misinterpret them, just as you do the current case. You keep proving yourself to be far from trustworthy to provide an accurate account.
We have them. So . . . Enlighten the audience, what did we miss? Class action suit . . . What was it about?
Assume nothing about me please. I’m an observer of this whole affair. Taking no sides but the truth. You are biased but I am not. You simply believe your friend. I simply read accounts on RG that seemed credible to me. I’ve also read other ppl’s blogs and stories outside of RG and those seemed credible as well. You seem to have exposed some activities of RG and the plaintiffs that is suspect in the least. I do not put RG on a pedestal or assume they have behaved honestly. What I can’t believe is that you think Bill is completely innocent of any wrong doing. That just blows my mind. Kudos to your loyalty but not your blinders.
Thank you for kind comments. If you followed RG over the years before they got deleted, you will find comments by one “Alfred” that also stated that he found the stories of the women believable . . . All but “Charlotte”. He also believed the “Cabin Story” based on the testimony of Gary Smalley. Then I – HE – started checking into it in every direction possible, taking them directly to Bill and all individuals with information that would talk. Over the past 4 years he – OK, I – found some stunning things that negated that belief. As you likely know Gary Smalley recanted the key parts of the story, as directed by his wife who was there as well . . . And we found bigger and bigger problems with the other stories. Part of that was interviewing other women that saw the same things complained about completely differently, innocuous, innocent. A second opinion. The clincher was reading 30,000 pages* of Facebook chats between the plaintiffs and members of RG and others that revealed completely different stances than what was projected in public. It stank. Still stinks. Again, Please, PLEASE try to objectively ponder . . . . Three (3) professional, respected law firms spending $500,000 to make $8 million, unable to find anything, ANY hook to hang their wagon on to drive to a payday. There is a reason. There WERE no cases. Trying to hide behind the statutes of limitations is a political cop out; they know it, we know it. The judge let them through a year and a half earlier with full knowledge of those SOL issues.
And to say we simply believe our friend . . . Hurts. Just a little. This blog is laced with all kinds of factual information. Have you, BTW, read the “Motion to Sanction” which contains some of those previously cloaked quotes culled from the discovery documents?
*There really are 30,000 pages, but yours truly did not read every word. Every word was read by someone.
Alfred, as I sit back and watch this whole house of card come tumbling down, I can’t help but wonder how the almighty God, who knows the intent of the heart, looks at all this. A person would be a fool to think that Bill drove 14 hours with papers already prepared to be given to the Board, then finding a seat in the front of 2000 people was anything other than a forced ploy to get his old job back.
Knowing how Bill liked to soak up the admirations of his followers I can see him lingering at registration and soaking up the “love and affection” of “his followers”. Than a slow walk to the front for all to see, as the murmur of the crowd increased and “his followers” flocked to give him the “love and affection” they feel he deserved. Only to be rebuffed by that “nasty BOD”. Now “his followers” being aghast at the treatment their hero was receiving. Even as I write this post, I’m sure there are other computers are feverously being assaulted as emails, texts and letters are buzzing over the airways calling for the replacement of the BOD and the return of their hero to his “rightful” throne or they will withdraw from ATI. Meanwhile Bill is back at his home on Arlington Ave, humbly siting by his phone waiting for the anticipated call. Acting dejected and hurt he knows his plan far exceeded his expectations. But I ask where is Christ in all of this, from both Bill’s side and IBLP’s?
Alfred, I think you might want to be careful with your false statements. Even though you removed the comment You stated;
“Did you know that IBLP was also sued in 1980 on the same charge? Then and now . . . No case could ever be built. Either the lawyers are idiots – which they emphatically are not, or, well, it just wasn’t true. It wasn’t. Stop passing on the lies of others.”
Before you post what you believe to be true, you might want to check your facts first. Because it doesn’t sound like you know anything about the 1981/82 lawsuit. Have you even read the lawsuit? Since you are referring to “same charge” in the singular I presume you are referring to the sexual harassment charge. There are 10 named “Defendants” including some board members, company officers including Bill, his father and his brother. There are “five causes for action”, item four paragraph 2 states;
“2. Defendants have or with knowledge acquiesced in the conduct of other defendants, engaged in outrageous conduct toward Plaintiff and the members of the class which he represents by imposing outrageous standards of personal conduct, by invading the privacy of Plaintiff and the members of the class which he represents, making such private facts known to others, by engaging in sexual misconduct toward female employees, and after engaging in the conduct herein alleged, by directing that employees not disclose such conduct to others under threat of retaliation.”
You will not find Bill specifically mentioned in this paragraph nor will you find any of the women listed as Plaintiffs on the suit, it was a class action. It is obvious who the major player was they are referring to in this count. This suit was dismissed because the one person who represented the class was disqualified based on the questionably testimony of an IBYC employee at the time of the scandal. The case was dismissed 3/7/83 by Judge Milton Shadur “without prejudice”. He wrote; “All class claims are dismissed without prejudice by reason of summary judgement on XXXX’s individual claim”.
Just like the recent case there was not a ruling on the claims of the suit. Alfred, we have had this discussion, but you continue claiming facts that are either false or misleading. Incomplete facts used to make a point are no different at overt lies. If you can’t handle the previous lawsuit correctly or the letters from Radmacher or Dixie how can we trust you with your observation of this case. You can’t pick and choose words out of context to imply guilt, any more than using a verse out of context to develop a theology
Well, there are many perspectives. One we favor is that Bill has repeatedly, with emphasis, with persistence, for 4 years been been asking for a meeting with the Board to talk this through. To face the charges against him, to work it out. When one of the Board members asked us with a hint of exasperation, “So, WHAT do you want out of all of this?!” We said, “START THE CONVERSATION”. But that request from us, the many from Bill, none of that was ever honored. And that explains his comment to his assistant, ‘The moment I have waited four years for has come – they want to talk to me’
That is a most excellent and important question. In the end I suspect the Lord is on neither side, but working events out to favor His side. We happen to think that Bill still has a role to play in furthering the kingdom of God. And that clearing Bill’s name will help undo a lot of evil that Satan has prevailed in, damaging many alumni that, well, believed in Bill. That, ultimately, is Jesus call.
I have not only read it, I have read both of them (Suit #1, Suit #2). Boy, this sure sounds like exactly what I said:.
Alfred, in the “Wood” case, the judge found that Wood had already been compensated for his claims because he signed a release against his former employer.
However, the judge also concluded that the action was dismissed “without prejudice as to all putative class members other than Wood.” This means that other former employees may have legitimate claims about how they were treated or paid. Obviously many made claims outside of court, but they did not want to go through the hassles of a court proceeding, for many personal reasons. Their claims are not invalidated.
As with the current case, the big hurdle was money. IBLP (IBYC) is backed by a treasure trove. Money can intimidate people and force the end of a lawsuit, but it cannot buy innocence.
IF there was abuse of labor laws and that was as widespread as you suggest, that is red meat for personal injury and employment law attorneys. No need for large cash reserves! They work for free! You do know that, right? And, lo and behold, the primary firm handling the nuts and bolts on the recent actions is a local Chicago firm that is highly respected and, apparently, successful in making money off of those kinds of things. We read that they were respected, then we asked Bill’s lawyer and he confirmed it. That these lawyers knew this particular judge and . . . Had his respect.
So, my point stands. IF you are right, there is no way at least one such claim doesn’t get into the hands of a jury. Let alone a bunch. Easy money.
I’m sorry but it is one thing for a parent to hold hands or pat a upset child it in quite another for someone else. I am sure you would not feel the same if it was you daughter, and if you do then you need serious help.
We don’t think we need serious help. Look back at the picture I took and posted above, why the entire audience did not leap to its feet in disgust and condemnation. 40 years of that play. The perversion of our society has cast doubt on some of the most innocent of things. For us to rise up in self-righteous anger would then be a matter of judging according to the flesh, not after God’s unchanging righteousness.
Titus 1:15 is, I think, referring to this corruption of ALL things wholesome as sex begins to run rampant: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”
One of the reasons we lost the “holy kiss”, which is not a suggestion but an imperative in Scripture.
BTW in the last couple of days we have received two different reports from long time staff women for Bill, detailing how girls would routinely seek Bill out, find endless excuses for counseling, inventing ways to find Bill alone which the attending staff was working to ensure didn’t happen . . . grab his hand in theirs. Among the plaintiffs are those who were known for that. Our guess is that was absolutely not a sexual thing, but it was driven by a need for affirmation in a young, troubled woman. Context and motivation is everything. Unless we are prepared to condemn others for surface appearances.
What does “reconciliation” mean to Bill? If he and you for him have always claimed that he “did nothing wrong” then why then the so called “effort” to reconcile if Bill thinks and claims he did nothing wrong? Is he trying to seek genuine forgiveness of things “he did wrong” or is he trying to shut people up in the name of reconciliation? Looking at the history of Bill going all the way back to the 1980’s sex scandal, it never looks like Bill think he ever did anything wrong. Looking at the failed attempts in Denver with the old employees like Larne, it doesn’t look like he thinks he does anything wrong or can admit to it. All these previous “reconciliation” attempts fail because of Bill. The same with attempts by theologians to talk with Bill about his teaching. Bill’s history is not good in this area.
If one person is upset at another, whether he or she did anything wrong or not, they are estranged. They need to be reconciled. Sometimes that involves clearing up a misunderstanding. Sometimes one needs to humble himself before another to acknowledge damage that was deliberately or inadvertently caused. To reconcile means to bring two people together. And, boy do we need that now.
Romans 12:18. “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”
Alfred writes: “To reconcile means to bring two people together. And, boy do we need that now.”
I couldn’t agree more, that’s what Denver was about and the effort in the summer/fall of 2013 that Bill initiated then rejected. Romans 12:18 is the goal. But to me because of the circumstances of Bill’s doing I find the more relevant verses to be Eph. 4:11-16 with special emphasis on vs. 14, or 1 Cor. 5:11, 2 Tim. 4:1-2, James 3:1, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Acts 20:29-30 and I could go on.
Denver was SO not about reconciliation as much as it was for a group of folks from the 1970s and 1980s settling old scores. It basically came down to Bill groveling before them and publishing a statement that said that they were right, and had always been right, he was all wrong, never listened to anyone . . . and that Bill had done something that he told you over and over he did not do and could not with a good conscience declare. If THAT is what you think reconciliation is – the absolute crushing of one individual before another – no wonder we can never get there.
That’s funny Alfred I don’t remember seeing you in Denver, your “SO not about reconciliation” is a clueless comment. All you have is whatever Bill told you, there were five more in the room. Reconciliation first has to start with confession and repentance, then forgiveness and lastly restitution Luke 17:4, Matthew 18:15-35(not necessarily money, and BTW none was asked for or wanted, even when our expenses were offered we refused IBLP’s offer, we paid for our own transportation, the meeting room and lodging, I can’t speak for Gary since Bill invited him). My history with Bill since the scandal is that he wants to go right to reconciliation and skip the dirty part of confession and repentance. His desire is to change the narrative to fit his justification of the offenses so he can continue in his ministry without the restrictions of 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1 and thus be unqualified.
For the record reconciliation was the goal and continued on that path for a year until it became evident that Bill had no interest in truly fulfilling the responsibilities to accomplish that end. (We would still consider it today but it would require much more stringent set of conditions.) It was 5 months later that the lawsuit was filed which came as a surprise to all of us. You can believe that or not, but its still true.
No part of your comment addressed “1970’s and 1980’s people trying to settle 1970’s and 1980’s scores”. Brother, your story is yours and no person can know your bitterness or intermeddle with your joy. But . . . To make THAT the cornerstone of this “reconciliation” effort . . . Ignoring ALL of the current issues that are the reason Bill was pushed out . . . That was not wise. I suspect the Board would have hoped that your friendship/relationship with Bill and knowledge of him would allow you to help them SOLVE the current issues. Contact the women, bring them to Bill, work out the right things to say and do, make sure the real issues are dealt with. Instead . . . I am sorry . . . We have Tony Guhr roar out of retirement and demand that Bill appologize to all of the people that got his “Agent” letter lo these 40 years ago. Which, BTW, he did! All that energy . . . And I am thinking Tony will NEVER be reconciled. Since I suspect he has never reconciled with his church leadership over the issues that got him rejected about the same time. But, again, this is us old people. Why, Oh, why not let go of that, leave it to Jesus to answer on that coming day, and help the Board NOW?!
Maybe he is no more “evil” than any of us. Merely incorrigible. You “explain” his disobedience to authority (one of the two cases) and because they have no right in your mind to expect obedience when he does not think it should be provided, he is then justified in repeated disobedience (going to an event when banned).
I am frankly impressed that the basis for his citation was disobedience to authority. That is the problem with authority as a principle. Eventually, it overwhelms all. That is why Jesus came as a Servant and taught us to be servants and not to lord it over. Authority, as a fundamental principle of religion is the promotion of “lording it over”. Bill was not loving the Board by confronting them. He was trying to take back control. My only surprise is that he hasn’t tried this stunt sooner.
Why don’t you who still would follow him, hold your own conference and invite him to do his good old thing? Wouldn’t that make you all feel better? Lots of energy giving in that scenario! Why does IBLP have to go along? Why have you not had any such gathering in these 4+ years, him being innocent and unjustly accused and all…
If you, sir, cannot see how the scripturally taught principle of “Authority” doesn’t cover this scenario, then you have never understood what Bill taught. If I heard him say this once, I heard it multiple times:
“You can disobey and be respected for it,
You can obey and be despised for it”
The Savior “disobeyed” the rules. The disciples openly “disobeyed” unjust directives. And, again, lines of authority get really blurry here, to me at least.
1). There is NO Scriptural requirement for a “Board” to oversee a man of God. He reports directly to the Savior. George Muller, one of our heroes of the faith, ran his 1,000 member orphanages without a board, huge amounts of money passing through his hands. And back home, in his Plymouth Brethren “Assembly”, he was one of a plurality of elders that governed in lieu of a traditional “pastor”. They being on equal athority footing with each other, you can see he literally had NO spiritual authority to report to.
2). Bill is a “Father” to so many in this ministry, a ministry which is, has been, and always will be his personal ministry. Why should the Board members, most chosen for their status as his “children”, not obey him?
1 Corinthians 4:14-16
“I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.”
3). Frankly, Bill alleges that he was not told to not come “to Big Sandy”. He asked to come to Nashville and was told police would be called. He came as a private citizen to Texas, paid a bunch of money to become a participant, did not cause a ruckus, played inside the lines. When they demanded he leave he demanded to be allowed to talk to the Board. They agree, relented, set a time. Which makes the business with the policeman all the more puzzling. Why we hoped the Board would give us their side of things. Bill’s lawyer is pondering that too.
So . . . It isn’t as clearcut as you think it to be.
So Bill is claiming that he was told that he couldn’t not come to Big Sandy. Alfred, Bill was directly told not to come to any IBLP function or properties and you stated above that he had to have his lawyers with him to clean out his desk. This is so disingenuous that the more you try to defend everything he does, the more crooked and twisted Bill looks. Of course they are going to “take his money” at the check in. They need the money. To bring in George Muller who was of a different time period and even from PB anti-clerical group is not a justification of Bill disobeying orders. As sad as I think this whole fiasco is, it is also ironically funny that he who taught authoritarianism is cited by the police (who act on the authority of the government, read Romans) for disobedience. The gossip magazine InTouch just took up this story on line. Usually they focus on the Duggars. So now Bill has arrived in gossip columns. What a way to go.
OK, you are running with partial info. At this point I do not know what exactly he was told or not told – that is Bill’s version. And the “cleaning out of the desk” never happened. The one trip merely started cataloging things. Again, two years or even longer since he left. He has a desk and an office yet.
I’m absolutely dumbstruck about your comment that a man of God is subject to no authority (like a BOD) except the savior.
How is it that a man who repeatedly stressed the importance of his followers being under authority, is under the authority of no man?
It is, and has always been, a giant Ponzi scheme.
Well, rather than following a man, we ought all to be searching the Scriptures daily to see whether these things be so. Then we would also do well to check into the stereotypes, prejudices applied to Bill and his doctrine, and we might find that, well, the straw men that get continually beat up simply do not exist.
So, what command or precept do you find in Scripture that demands that every man of God be under some eccclesiastical authority other than his local church? Right, I can’t find one either. Bill is responsive to his church authority. But even there I have a hard time finding a requirement for a “Board” that commands him. Common, accepted practice never takes the place of Scripture.
What is the relationship between IBLP, the Big Sandy campus, and ALERT? Back in 1994, IBLP launched ALERT as one of their ATI programs, located at the Northwoods Conference Center. But in 2000, IBLP acquired the Big Sandy campus and moved ALERT there as the resident IBLP program. I get the impression that IBLP still owns Big Sandy campus, but that ALERT is an independent non-profit somehow still within the IBLP commonwealth.
This question determines whether an ALERT officer may issue a command to BG which he has a duty to obey.
ALERT officers have no authority beyond that held by the owner of the property. Police are often the unwilling forced participants in petty spats between individuals, but obviously they carry real authority. It is likely the entire event was choreographed by lawyers somewhere, the people who know how to get you what you want by working the legal system. Police and Alert are players orchestrated elsewhere. It breaks my heart.
This particular ALERT officer is actually an employee (a director) of IBLP. He worked with ALERT for years before IBLP came in and took over the management of the property, and in doing so, most of ALERT staff became IBLP staff (facilities, conference, kitchen, etc.) He still wears his uniform, but that has NOTHING to do with the matter at hand.
Further, a certain post on Facebook on an anonymous page by an anonymous poster recounted events of last Monday in an attempt to get attention and be the first perspective on what took place. The words this poster used were overly dramatic, accusatory, speculative. This kind of post does no one any good. It serves as nothing but to incite chaos and create more battle wounds. I’ll add the fact that a member of your team shouting “Amen!” to it shows me where you stand. We all know that the board is not in it for the money. Personally, I have my own issues with the board because of certain events, but that put aside, they took on a nasty job that no one would naturally want (step into the fire?) and were handed a platter of years worth of junk to deal with. If anything, they’re doing their job out of obligation because someone has to do it and they still feel the message is worth preserving. The idea that they’re doing it to get rich is ludicrous and y’all know it.
As to events on Monday, the police were not “called in” lights and sirens to respond to a threat. That idea is absurd. In Texas, a police officer is actually a “PEACE Officer”. It is his duty to preserve peace. He is not a threat. Bill, regardless of his intentions, was told previously that he is no longer part of IBLP in any capacity. He arrived unannounced at an event for which he should have known better than to assume a welcome reception (given current events and recent history). One truly sad thing here is that Bill felt that he could just walk into the conference unannounced and make himself at home as though it was his great coming back party. This tells me that he is ignorant as to current matters and that people such as the poster on Facebook and those here on DG are insulating him from the truth and brevity of situations. My heart genuinely goes out to him. This post is in no way a judgment of him. It is more a reproof of those who publicly ranted falsehood, off the wall accusations, and emotional manipulation.
In your post here, you give an ABUNDANCE of detail in order to validate claims, but fill it all with defensive attitudes and perspectives – distorting the truth. “Nuclear option.” “Throw him in jail.” Earlier, I read “prison for a year”. Ridiculous.
Having the meeting moved to a private setting (with plenty of witnesses), gave Bill dignity and respect – preventing a possible public scene. It was wise for all parties.
As I said before, in Texas, a police officer is a “PEACE Officer”. He is first a preserver of peace. He is totally third party, charged with enforcing the law. In this case, he was called in to make sure Bill left when asked, simple as that. It was his sworn duty to operate according to the law. No frills, no excuses….and definitely no brutality (as you hint at). To invent a conspiracy regarding the local police is pathetic. The IBLP board may have some issues, but they are not violent men. Your perspective uses emotion and drama and even misapplied Scripture to distort and get the upper hand.
The 3 extensive posts by DG, My Grace is Sufficient (FB), and one other (that I won’t detail as it was done by a named individual) that I have seen regarding these events are all nothing short of “war mongering.”
So so sad. Sad even for Bill, sincerely. TRUTH needs to drive out chaos and bring order. NO ONE wins when people spew words and use them (even Scripture) as daggers. These online posts are shameful.
God’s Word is a Sword of the Spirit, or the Spirit’s Sword. It’s HIS. Not yours to be used as a twisted dagger to wound and destroy to prove your points.
I guess I was miffed when I posted this as well. I was just totally frustrated by the spirit of posts coming from “your” side. I see known manipulations of events. I understand the pressure, etc that y’all have been under and maybe should be more gracious – or even better, keep my trap shut 😉 Please feel free to delete my ramblings and accept my apologies if I crossed a line that I am,asking you to honor.
No, post away. 🙂 Not every statement by everyone on “our side” would be one we agree with. As stated elsewhere, the Board needs to stand up and address this all properly. They all know us, and we do support them. But . . . that act in Big Sandy, that hit really, really deep.
You appear to have inside information. WHAT does this mean? The man that asked the “Yes or No” question several times so the policeman could record the answer they were looking for on his vest cam . . . that is the Alert officer we are discussing.
We assume no responsibility for the posts of others. But you might add “hurt, grieved, shellshocked, angry” to your list of words. Kind of like if somebody tries to force your 83 year old Dad into jail because he got mad at the bank foreclosing on his house – maybe you start getting mad too, a tad?
They were handed a boatload of garbage created by some former ATI students. Our heart goes out to them. But that is no excuse for not properly investigating the matters in play before reacting to them. We can in any case find no justification for the threats against Bill let alone making a move to throw him into jail. Several other Board members supported Bill when this all started, then resigned. Some of them allege that the current Board made life miserable for them. We reserve judgment as we do not have all the facts, but surface evidence suggests that they did not want to leave. Meaning, there WERE others prepared to help bear the burden.
I, that speak to you, believe that you are right. Others on our team are not so sure.
Nope. Can you imagine how THAT would have played out? The Board wanted Bill dealt with secretly, so nobody knew. They know that a great number of ATI families still support him. We are still getting incredulous folks saying, “I was THERE – HOW did I miss this?!”
That is almost funny. WHY does he carry a big gun and practice many, many hours so he can quickly kill adversaries? What would have happened if Bill had tried to push past the officer and go on his way? If not a threat, then nothing. No, policemen are SUPPOSED to be threats, because “he beareth not the sword in vain”. (Romans 13:4)
But that is the interesting part. For hours he was surrounded by happy, adoring folk. He got an unmitigated welcome reception from several hundred attendees, according to my source. Just not from the Board.
WHAT exactly is ridiculous?! The Board has many options at its disposal – hauling Bill off to jail is “nuclear” – nothing worse than that. Yes, the Board members made it clear that they planned to see him hauled off and booked in the county jail had he shown up on Day 2 like he did on Day 1. Were they bluffing, do you think? And, if you read the citation – we posted it – it clearly says “14 days to 1 year” is the punishment that awaited Bill on Tuesday if he had come back.
The only initial option that was presented was a command – with English – to stay in a little back room until the police got there. Later they lured him over to the vacant admin building with the promise of a chat with the Board to find exactly four people – Dr. Paine, Gil Bates, Alert officer, and Mr. Policeman, no chat, just a plan for a forced exit. So, reality does not jibe with your statement. We actually felt that that is what they should have done – put Bill in a room without threat of arrest, let folks know he was there for a visit, on condition that Bill leave by the end of the evening. THAT would have been dignified, and the Board would have lost nothing.
I hope you are right. I would like to hear what they have to say about it.
WELL . . . please have a little grace. These are folks that, frankly, have been the “offscouring of the earth” for the past four years for daring to still support Bill. They have suffered a great deal. The strange refusal of the Board to even acknowledge the stunning dismissal of the lawsuit against their hero, and now the current actions, makes these folks suspicious. Maybe it is time for the Board to hit this head on and remove that doubt. Then people can go back to being normal again.
Always ready to extend grace. You got it! I know it has been beyond hard. I understand personally.
The Alert kid didn’t have a duty to ‘obey” Bill because Bill is not longer in charge and was trespassing to boot.
The “Alert kid” was following orders, from Board members. And Bill was not trespassing. He paid his fee same as anyone else. They agreed to let him stay until the end of the night, then have a chat, then he goes. There are still pieces of this which make no sense. If what I just stated is true, and it is how both Bill and his assistant tell the story, then the Board members basically lied to Bill, then entrapped him with a carefully rehearsed sequence to meet the citation criteria. Have not heard the Board’s side of the story. When we do, we will publish it.
The owner of the property or the representative of the owner can tell anyone to leave private property and if that person does not leave then they are trespassing.
The right of a corporation, home owner to ban whomever they want from their premises is not the issue. The question is . . . If you had a falling out with your 83 year old Dad, would you call the police if he showed up at your home, let’s say, unarmed, not yelling, but demanding to talk to you? Especially if he agreed to leave once he had a chat? You REALLY couldn’t find any other way to handle that? Some people might find that disgusting.
Bill actually was trespassing g ijven that the board told him he was not welcome at any iblp property .
Well, what he was exactly told is in some dispute. But there can be no doubt that the Board did not want him hanging around Big Sandy. Whether that was right before the Lord is the question most on our minds. Legally that was a button they could push. Just because you can get an abortion, legally, does not mean it is right. Just because you can command your Dad to never set foot on your property again doesn’t mean you should.
The “ALERT kid” is a grown man, grandfather, former military (officer, I believe). Just sayin’. He is director over all campus events and housing.
You are likely right. Which makes me feel worse.
It takes a very special kind of obtuseness to refer to sexually molested young women as ” disgruntled former students.”
True. But it is even more obtuse to refer to hand holding and the like as “sexual molestation”. Boy, that is what the law calls “defamation per se”. There is a reason all those charges in the lawsuit to that end failed to even get to stage two in the lawsuits . . . $8 million worth of exactly that. It didn’t happen. And to keep saying it did without any proof, hearsay, is a crime.
And what is the current status of the defamation law suit?
There is no defamation lawsuit at this time. Options remain on the table. That has a very tight one year statute of limitations. Which means the plaintiffs recent declaration that they “recant nothing” in the lawsuit makes that entire document available for that purpose.
So “hand holding and the likes” are justified and above reproach by the leader of a ministry??? By your own admonishion, you’re saying that he engaged in such acts.
In a day gone by, that was a sweet thing. Bill’s world. Too bad our culture has corrupted all sweet and noble things . I trot out my pictures again of the “Shepherd of the Hills” and the young lady that retired preacher is mentoring, one of the all time most popular novels in American history . . . And the cause of the existence of Branson Missouri. Come on. Or don’t. There is a point where people believe what they want to.
From the Branson play:
From the Hollywood movie, with Harry Carey and Betty Field:
Likening Hollywood and an off Broadway musical to a minister of the gospel, who is to refrain from even the appearance of evil, is not an appropriate example at all.
Shepherd of the Hills is a novel wrtitten in 1907. A Bible soaked novel about redemption, recovery of an arrogant big time city preacher – who becomes “The Shepherd” and touches many lives. Including a motherless young waif called “Sammy” whose Dad was a gangbanger. The production was the 40 year run of the continuous play to tell the tale . . . In Branson. Read up a tad, maybe you will see what we see.
Asdf
Asdf
How do you know that the police officer had a body cam on that recorded it? If there is some sort of voice or video recording of this whole incident, I would think you could get it in a freedom of information and post it on line and then everyone can see who is right or wrong in this matter.
Our friend was there. The officer played the video back, as in, “We nailed you!”
Your friend was there? Board member, ALERT officer, one of the guys that traveled with Bill?
My friend was there as Bill’s assistant. The two of them traveled from Chicago to Big Sandy together, and back again.
Got it! 🙂
A Big Sandy Police officer was dispatched to this situation with Bill Gothard and the encounter was recorded on the officer’s dash cam, which is subject to the Texas Open Records Request. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy can make a request to the Big Sandy Police Department by sending an e-mail request to Police Chief Tim Scott (policedept@bigsandytx.gov).
Thank you! We will definitely avail ourselves of that. And will correct any details as necessary. Despite the event that grieves us, we are grateful for the excellent public service provided by your department.
It is my understanding that Christians follow Christ and his teachings. Followers who passionately support a leader the way you have demonstrated here illustrate to me what looks more like a cult. This man is not a prophet or messiah, at least not in Christianity. Why do you worship him? Who is your true God? And why do you even need IBLP… if you don’t like it, don’t be part of it any more. Be a follower of Christ, a friend of this man Bill if you wish to, and be done with it. This zealous desperation toward IBLP and Gothard is something beyond Christianity.
Bill is more than a charismatic leader to many of us. Frankly, at this point, he is a friend. Many consider him a “father”, which is completely Christian and right. So . . . What would you do for your Dad if he was 83 and unjustly accused and savaged by social media he didn’t even understand, and then sued for $8 million for stuff he never did?
Many cult followers believe their leader is their good friend. But I can promise you, if you were being accused of the things Bill has, he would not be as loyal to you as have been to him.
Are you suggesting that lots of loyal folks stuck with Bill? Boy, do remember a lot of empty rooms, solo stands. The trip down to Texas seemed somewhat symbolic of that. We do know that Bill would spank folks fairly readily, but we also know of a number of cases where he misfired and came back later, with great humility, to try to make it right.
My favorite thing about this whole post is how you titled it like “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.” But you mean Texas, of course. And instead of a soul to steal, perhaps Bill’s looking for some gold to steal? 🙂 Or at least take back from the Paine-Bates family that appears to be sitting on the pot of gold that was Bill’s publishing empire. I’m sure he also wanted to be seen by the people there as well, as he probably misses their applause. Which, together with the pictures you posted, brings another solution to mind. Bill could move to Branson and play the doting old man in “Shepherd of the Hills”! It’s a great fit.
So pleased that a bit of humor was not lost completely. We figured that would be where we would end up eventually . . . So . . . Embrace it. Evil Bill . . . Driving his old car 14 hours down to Texas to strike terror in people’s hearts and steal stuff.
re: 20/20 hindsight
The police incident sounds like a really good time to invoke the 5th Amendment and shut up. Next, the 6th Amendment and insist upon counsel from a lawyer before signing what was obviously a pre-printed form. If a cop claims that he needs a 3rd party to document his doings, something is wrong.
There will be legal minds applied. Bill was refusing to sign, then the policeman bullied him into it.
Alfred, you stated above that the “young man” that accompanied Bill strongly encouraged Bill to sign and that is why Bill signed. How is that bullying by the police? All that paper was was an official warning about trespassing which Bill was doing against direct orders from IBLP not to return. Bill was “fired” or “defrocked” or “disband” or whatever term you want to use. Bill has nobody to claim but Bill.
Bill finally got a taste of heavy handed authority that was hall mark of his teaching.
It was a somewhat unprecedented event, for all involved. Read what we wrote. If it wasn’t clear, the policeman did get somewhat aggressive when things didn’t flow through to the conclusion he needed to leave and go back to whatever else he had going that night. He actually said something of the order of, “This is no big deal, please sign because I have to verify that I was here and did this”. When Bill refused . . . He got real stern, no more mister nice guy.
Of course he “got stern”, Bill was not cooperating with the authority of the State, the police. Bill could have been cited for that. It boils my blood when the police are bashed which is what is going on here. You are joining the ranks of “Black Lives Matter” but it is now renamed “Bill’s life matters”. It’s so ironic for a man that made authority the basis of his teaching that he didn’t set a good example of cooperation with the police in front of the young men with him. shame on Bill.
Ah, well. We do have police “peace officers” as family members, so we get the inside scoop. Police have a difficult job, and getting people to comply with tasks assigned to them is the most difficult. Police officers are not beyond bluffing and blustering and even, well, lying to get through to a conclusion that they need. We think that 83 year old Bill got jerked around. Our opinion.
This response regarding police is shameful. Been getting too familiar with MSM perspective on law enforcement have you? I am appalled.
Clarify, please. “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil”.
My apologies. I may have read you wrongly. As I looked over your post, and the various adjectives regarding the local law enforcement and their intentions, attitudes, etc, I got miffed. And, finally, popped when I made that comment. You need a delete option. I guess I picked up exactly what Rob picked up on. But shouldn’t have rushed to post.
No offense taken. Believe me . . . we much prefer folks that are honest and straight over folks that agree with us. And, for a delete, just ask. Or a fix. But no need from our side.
He is going to “plead the 5th” for a citation of trespassing while he is on property that he has been banned from? Is this a joke?
Criminal trespassing is simply a legal communication that you have been formally advised to not return or there will be consequences (an arrest). Its a good move on IBLP’s part to preserve peace and clear communication – and avoid a scene. And the fact that it was handled privately (though before witnesses) was wise and respectful.
A criminal trespass warning is not just for thugs.
-Bill was advised in the past not to return to IBLP property or police would be called.
-Bill (likely advised by people who should have seen otherwise) decided to defy that and make the trip during the campus’ busiest week of the year, therefore causing a scene and likely more pain for himself. 🙁
-IBLP took him aside privately and gave him a second chance in the appropriate, legal way – especially since it was proved that Bill would not honor the previous instructions to not be on property.
Criminal trespassing says: Before the witness of the local authorities, you are formally advised not to return.
Regardless of his intent, Bill was in the wrong in this particular situation. I am sure it was difficult for both sides. :-/
The peace officer’s body cam activates for any situation that may have legal ramifications. The camera is for accountability for all sides – including for Bill’s protection. This officer was perfectly under authority in using the camera.
Legal, absolutely. Police doing what they do. Accepting this as the right response to an unexpected visit by Bill, a most deliberate and rehearsed legal move to strong arm him off the premises, horrid.
Unannounced, but not unexpected. This is why he was told previously not to come on property. Bill knew that and chose his actions.
Can you admit that it was wrong to show up? 🙂
Nope, I can’t. Sorry. Too much water under the bridge, too much agony, too much blood, sweat and tears. We have always sought to help heal. Whether you believe it or not, we do NOT want the Board to lose, lose face, lose anything. But . . . I have been starting to use the term, “good faith”. THAT has been missing, we believe, on the other side. The things we have been told along the way in response to our efforts and tears. This was a line in the sand. Every one of those men reports to Jesus, and He will make them stand, because He loves them. But . . . Maybe, just maybe, He will also have mercy on Bill and on us, and speak to His servants about what they did. That deeply hurt and crushed a great many folks, folks they claim officially to love and protect and assist.
Well, let’s put it a different way. The man who gave up marriage and family, refusing to accept more than $20K/year in compensation in 50 years of tireless ministry, getting not more than 4 hours of sleep a night as he counseled and wrote and prepared, living his entire life in the family home he grew up in, driving old cars (I know of at least two that died in the few years we have been helping him) . . . Whose heart and ministry has drawn and and blessed 2.7 million alumni, 100,000 ATI participants . . . The one whose ministry collected assets worth hundreds of millions of debt free dollars . . . Of whom, to this day, a majority of Board members and current IBLP leadership openly confess as having had a life changing impact on them, still professing to “love” him . . . 83 years old . . . THAT man they positioned to be able to throw into jail because he set foot on in venues he was responsible for creating to meet with people who have been very worried about him and are thrilled to see him. THAT was a run-on sentence my grade school teacher warned me about, but, I am sorry, there it is.
Sorry, there is NO way to paint this in any favorable light for the IBLP leadership. It . . . Just . . . Stinks.
For years, John the Baptist lived out in the desert and ate locusts and wild honey. He had many people who loved him. But then his followers left him for Jesus. Did he try to take back his following? No, he said I must decrease and He must increase. Now I am not comparing the board to Jesus. But I do think John provides a good example for how a Christian should react when his ministry decreases, disappears or is taken for whatever reason. Ministry should be built upon Christ not a man. If the ministry is built upon a man, even if it has done a lot of good in the past, the desperation of the man and his followers to get him back at the top show where their trust is. I have no connection to any of this, but hearing about it from non Christian sources I came to see why another Christian leader is in the news. And I must say, Bill and his following are hurting the name of Christ.
If you had lived in NT times and you heard Paul was thrown in jail, would you have cared? If so, why, or if not, why not? I mean, when he said he was not coming back, grown men cried. Is that appropriate? With Rob I used the example of David. When he was almost killed by a giant, his people called him the “light of Israel” and refused to let him go fight any more. Would that be spiritually healthy or unhealthy?
I would like to add a few other thoughts to what I first wrote.
First of all, if Bill is innocent, then what he is going through would fall under suffering for the sake of Christ. But it almost seems as though his supporters think because he is 83, started the organization and impacted so many lives that he deserves what they see as justice. But is that what God wants? Paul counted it a honor to suffer for the sake of Christ. And Christ did not seek justice when he was unjustly accused, tortured, and killed in our place.
This is not the 80’s, when those first accusations were made against Bill. This is 2010’s when many accusations of sexual harassment, misconduct, and assault have been made against people in all walks of life. Now maybe some of them are totally false, but one of the good things that has come out of this time is the victims finding the courage to speak out. Now we have to find a way to make sure truth can prevail and a way to keep the innocent from going down with the guilty.
I can see where the board is in a very tough spot. Accusations about inappropriate sexual conduct are so very different from say accusations about lying, stealing, and the like. It is easier to give second chances when no one else will get hurt if it turns out the accusations were true. If the board were to reinstate Bill, the board would be taking chances with the innocence of girls. Too often in the past, the church has been quick to forgive and overlook inappropriate conduct, and that is why sexual predators gravitate to religious groups. The church has forgotten that while we are to be as gentle as doves we also must be as wise as serpents.
We used to have a neighbor who when he moved to the neighborhood went out of his way to befriend us and our three young kids. Then we found out that he had taken pictures of little girls dressed as princesses when they came to his door on Halloween. In and of itself, that was not a huge deal, but remembering other odd behaviors, alarm bells went off in our heads. He was divorced and living alone. Yet he had rows of children’s DVDs that he wanted to loan out to us. He would disappear for weeks on end to Southeast Asia he said, and he once told us his grown children wanted nothing to do with him. To this day, I do not know if he was a sexual predator or not. But as a mother, I have a greater duty to protect my kids than to be neighborly, and so without proof, we made sure our kids knew he was not a man we wanted them to be around anymore. We kept up our guard, and we refused to be moved by guilt that we could be snubbing an innocent man.
I hope the board remains unmoved by guilt that they could be snubbing an innocent man. And I hope Bill, his friends and followers stop trying to get his position back. If Bill is innocent, this is his chance to suffer rightly, but if he is guilty, then this ousting is part of God’s justice.
Christ came not to condemn, but to save. The first time. Later, He most definitely will come to condemn, and not to save (2 Thess. 1). It is all a matter of when what is appropriate.
Ecclesiastes 3:7-8
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.
First of all . . . No irony here? You just suggested that the innocent not seek justice, but accept suffering instead. Like Jesus. Explain how this applies to Bill but not to victims of sexual abuse.
And we would like to know what leads you to believe that there are any victims of Bill’s sexual abuse in play here? We are not aware of one. If you know of any, please bring that information forward. And where were you with two law firms were desperately seeking for more plaintiffs, to bring things into the light?
There have been a great number of lies put forward which deceived the Board and lots of others. 17 plaintiffs later, we can be clearer on that.
We have, on this blog, sought to address every single issue that we are aware of. We are absolutely convinced that the Board acted on bad or at least incomplete information. We want to see that rectified. As you said, the innocent should not be condemned with the guilty.
Then you just volunteered to allow the Lord to put you through what Bill has endured. You suffering unjustly, silently, in the shadows while others who could help you, don’t, because they are preoccupied with other things that are more important to them. You will find that you will likely feel very differently. That was a most callous statement.
re: giving up vs. ruling out
It was mentioned here that BG did not do as most men; did not marry a woman and beget children. This is true. But it raises an important distinction. We can give up only what we actually have, not what we hypothetically or potentially have. A man who marries forsakes all others, which means that he rules out marrying another woman. But he gives up none of them (unless he broke a former engagement to take his present bride).
Jesus commands us to count the cost of following him. The cost of BG’s calling was an opportunity cost, as they say in economics. To a family man like me it seems a severe cost.
What a mercy if the cost of our calling is only an opportunity cost. Many of our brethren through the centuries must pay with something they actually have when they offer up their flesh as martyrs.
None of this diminishes the steep opportunity cost BG paid for his vocation, but it venerates our brave brethren who lay down their lives as missionary Jim Elliot and his brethren did some decades ago. They both ruled out and gave up. Makes sexual squabbles and BOD rebuffs seem trivial by comparison.
Please pardon the homily, but it seems a thought worth thinking.
Not going to disagree. And, truth be told, this was Jesus promise to such:
Matthew 19:29
“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.”
A hundred to one? Many ATI families have 10 kids, so that means at least 1,000 that would call Bill “Dad” and fight for him like that.
Malachi 1:6
“A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master:
if then I be a father, where is mine honour?
and if I be a master, where is my fear?”
Reminds me some of Numbers 12. Moses senior staff – OK, his brother Aaron and sister Miriam – found that Moses had acted inappropriately with a woman, a black woman, that he had married, and started finding fault. No idea if that was because of her race, or something else, but it was when Moses was elderly. Read it for yourself . . . God came in out of the blue and called them all on the carpet. He spent 0% of His time on Moses and 100% of His time speaking angrily to the others. Basically the message was: Since you can see that I have favored Moses above you and everybody else around here with the ministry I have give him, why weren’t you afraid to start talking bad about him? And then spanked them hard.
Bill is not Moses, but I can’t help finding an interesting analogy. No matter how you slice it, it was not any of the Board members or other staffers that the world came trapping in to listen to for those 30 hour seminars, going again and again. There is nobody else on staff, helpers, speakers, book writers, material preparers that can start to compare in that department, though some have had substantial ministries of their own. It was . . . Bill. Bill is why they came, why they served, why they donated. As in the case of Numbers 12, the final analysis is God’s, and we drop in line on that as well. But it really, truly ought to take the breath of some away to find themselves in a position of having disrespected a man with those credentials . . . As they have done.
I met – well, saw across the room – Jim Elliot’s parents in my youth. What an honor.
I just read the Motion to Sanction in full. I pray that justice will be done. I hope to see that each one of those plaintiffs pays $18,000+ for filing a frivolous, unsubstantiated lawsuit. It is a very serious matter to falsely accuse someone. 9th Commandment. Walk away from discovery? You better pay the other side. The courts are glutted with too many legitimate suits to be bothered with this type of nonsense. “He gave me a full frontal body hug!” This=sexual harrassement?? I can only imagine what the judge will think reading this case vs. Cases of real sexual assault. Defending an innocent person is not the same thing as “idolizing a man.” Proverbs 31:9
…the Board has been deliberately indifferent towards him, not even willing to publicly acknowledge the incredible deliverance that God has wrought.”
Maybe the Board is exhausted from years of battle and choosing to show Deference to those offended rather than boasting over their “enemy”.
🙂 That is really strange, for something so absolutely material to all the matters at hand. It feels more like, “We were hoping the lawsuit would do the dirty work and solve the ‘Bill Problem’ If ATI families get wind of it, they will be asking when he is coming back”.
And that is why he went, to get back at being at the helm of IBLP and if not cause division among those left with ATI and IBLP.
Alfred, except for you, David K and Robyn, all the other posters and commentators have not been positive about Bill’s visit to Texas. The rest of us see through the stunt which is what this was. If he contained so sort of letter from former board members, big name supporters (who really is left?) etc. is really meaningless because none of these people have any access to GII “investigation”. So they can support and demand all they want but they don’t have all the facts of their decision to release him from ministry duties at IBLP.
I would venture, no say with authority, that nobody outside the Board has ever seen the inside of that “dossier”. Based on 4 years of working this and speaking with Bard members and leadership as they have graciously allowed, I have come away with the understanding that the stuff in there is tamer than the lawsuit. It remains that we don’t reject and speak evil of our elders without 3 times the backup of the rest of us. And every man must be allowed to answer to charges brought like that.
As t why he went, he gave us and the board clear reasons, which did not include “foment a coup”. And please understand that supporters are indeed engaged and speaking up in a great many other venues. Including some big wig types.
Why though would the Board think that the lawsuit would do their dirty work when they were co-defendents with Bill and in fact were the defendants until Bill was added later?
They may well have assumed a partial loss here, even if symbolic. That would have sort of ended any need to engage Bill. That is speculation and possibly wrong. Functional upper management has strongly denied this. Regardless, conservative estimates had this going on for years more. Maybe he would just “go away”, during that time? ATI membership would forget him, move on?
Maybe, in this particular instance, the right thing for Bill to do is to apologize – rather than turning it into yet another legal, chaotic mess and blowing it out of proportion. For example….
“To the Current Board of IBLP and its Staff,
Last week, I chose to travel to the Big Sandy campus in hopes of meeting the Board there during their ATI Conference. I realize now that this was an error in judgment due to previous communication with the Board. I would like to apologize for putting the Board and the Big Sandy staff in an awkward position that required them to take the legal position they did. It will not happen again.
I would like to ask for the Board to meet with me at a scheduled time and place off of IBLP property so we can work towards reconciliation and open doors of communication.”
This doesn’t have to be complicated. 🙂
Yeah, after endless pleas to that end over the past four years, intense efforts over the last several months, the insane reviling he has endured, having his life and character the laughingstock of the world, let alone his “children”, at 83 years old, nah . . . I don’t see it happening. Oh, I could publish any number of letters to the Board from Bill and from others containing precisely such sentiments. Sadly, the complexities are not on Bill’s side.
Has he tried THIS time? Since this matter is public, can he post the apology and appeal on his page and yours? Can he keep it simple, own the mistake, make no excuses, and then let go leaving the results to the Lord?
Beth, there is no stomach at any level for any apologies from Bill at this time. And you are speaking to someone who has drafted a great many such statements over the years in an effort to assist Bill in being reconciled. Try to imagine a family member slapping your Dad across the face, drawing blood and, because he screamed back, now nicely asks for an apology. It will take a bit of time to regain one’s Christian composure.
I understand. I guess if Bill isn’t prepared to apologize for a “new”, obvious wrong, then there’s no chance of moving forward. 🙁 This makes me sad as I am still pulling for Bill and for reconciliation.
As to a “family member” and a “hero”, Bill was never my Dad or my grandpa. He has though had a big impact on my life. Though I am grateful, I would be wrong to assume that that positive impact, excused him from any wrong or entitled him to being my hero for life. Same with the Board acknowledging his positive past influence is respectful, but it doesn’t mean that he’s entitled to “father, hero, mentor” status indefinitely 🙂
Rather, because I have respected him and admired him, I treat him as a brother and love him by encouraging him to keep seeking truth.
At some point, especially if Bill has “no stomach for apologies”, maybe it’s time for both sides to “dust off their feet” and move on to the next thing. Treasures in Heaven, not in Texas.
Well spoken, but as someone not very affected by this. The BOARD did not invent this ministry. It is NOT their life message that attracted people in. It is not their skillful management or wise decisions that folks point to as why they carry the IBLP label. It remains 100% Bill. If you don’t see a problem with the current scenario, it is probably not worth either of our time to keep batting it around.
Also, I guess if you can’t admit that Bill surprising everyone, at their biggest event of the year, and forcing his presence to be known when he’d ALREADY BEEN WARNED AND CLEARLY INSTRUCTED not to come on private property, was a wrong decision on Bill’s part, then I can’t receive your analysis or interpretation on any subject related to Bill. I am sorry that he is receiving this kind of counsel. 🙁
OK, you said that. Believe me, nobody here, or at least as an official position, and nobody that I know about, counseled him to do this. It was not discussed, and Bill generally discusses everything. He may have wanted to protect us, because, yes, if Bill is going to go to jail, he is not going alone.
So, correct – we can’t admit it was wrong because we don’t think it was. The Board completely overstepped their role and responsibilities in the Body of Christ, even if they had the legal right to do so. They have hurt a lot of people, ignoring Bill for a moment. Kind of like a father has the legal right to discipline a child severely for minor infractions. In the process he will crush the child’s spirit, but – boy, Oh, boy – he can say that he did everything legally.
Our opinions are our own – Oh, to be in favor with the Lord. May He make His will and desires clear – we will salute and obey.
Understood. I admire your hanging in there for what you believe is right. And putting up with so much. We both want the same things.
That was sweet. Thank you.
Gee that sound familiar. Maybe just Maybe, God is allowing Bill to feel some of the same pain of being unheard that he has put other through for the past 40 + years, and maybe the past 5 or 6 years have been about getting Bill’s attention to fix his past and maybe the past four years have been a punishment that now is only intensifying with his prideful action in Texas. Everything we have belongs to God and that includes IBLP/IBYC, it is not Bill’s nor does it belong to the current leadership. We are just caretakers. The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Job 1:21, ““Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” In Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” In other word we are all dirt bags, even Bill, bags filled with the dust of the earth, and it is only by Grace of God and His providence that we have anything including the breath of life.
As long as you accept this as your fate and standing as well, then there is nothing much else I could or should say. Of course, if there are times when the injustice of life wells up and grips the heart in anguish despite the fact that we are all dirt bags and caretakers . . . And the Lord taketh away . . . Then we would do better to not judge others so much in their time, and just be content to walk our walk and get our grace and mercy when it is our time.
Things are worth fighting, for even as caretakers. In the eighties (If I remember right) Bill sued the State of Illinois regarding an “Eminent Domain” valuation issue for property IBYC owned on the NE corner of HW 83 and Odgen Ave, that the state wanted to improve that intersection. Again, if I recall, as a result of the lawsuit they received several million more than the State was offering, that’s good stewardship. Bill didn’t walk away from what he saw as an injustice. Just like he is not walking away now from his “perceived injustice” of the accusations against him. In his sanctions (his judgement) he is demanding $18,000ish and other things from each of the plaintiffs. In effect he is judging them for what they feel are rightful accusations. Why can’t he just be content to walk his walk and get his grace and mercy when his time comes, and let God be the final judge? Weren’t they your words?
Remember, Bill was placed on Administrative leave and then resigned after their stories were publish and the Gibbs investigation. In Denver, a couple months after his resignation, he told us he was glad and did not miss and was free of the administrative burden of his previous position. It was another year and a half before there was ever a lawsuit or any of the so-called collusion you claim. So, what happen to his new freedom in June 2014, that he needs to stage a public spectacle in Texas with a shout “I’m Back”!
I’ll tell you a little story. Our Denver meeting started on a Friday night went all day Saturday. Much was discussed, and a plan of reconciliation that included confession, repentance, and forgiveness and in some cases restitution (which included letters, meetings, no amounts of money was discussed and none of us wanted any of their money) was laid out and discussed. Gary started the next morning (Sunday) with a devotional and pray. I then asked Bill for a recap of how he saw his future ahead, considering what we discussed the previous two days. For the first time he got a big smile on his face and mentioned he had a billionaire who would fund his solution to the gang/murder problem in Chicago (You can read about part of it on his website, but it was given to us in much more detail). He than rambled on about his plan for what seemed forever. The five of us looked at each other in utter disbelief that he had not embraced anything from the previous two days. Finally, one of the participants spoke out and address the issue of his failure to see the bigger dilemma he was in. In the following year it became evident he had no interest in resolving either the distant or current past if it involved a complete repentance. What little we did get him to do was watered down and fought for tooth and nail. He didn’t accomplish tasks he said he did. All he cared about was his ministry and “be dammed” past offenses.
Alfred you see this has always been about him and his pride. Our discussions centered around unrepentant sin from our experiences with him, which we felt were part of his root problem. We did bring up some of the current issues he was facing. These were just manifestations of unresolved root problems that went back decades. Or desire and goal was to help in the healing of a man, so that would lead to the healing of those he had hurt and damaged both past and current. We were not there to help the Board or prolong the life of IBLP. We had found the Board and Administration to be completely unresponsive to our communications. (Gary had some contact with the BOD but he was there at Bill’s request.) We felt if the past issues were dealt with in a Biblical manner, then the current issues could follow next. Taking up an offense is difficult at best, so we stuck to our experiences.
Recently I was reading an article written by Ed Stetzer (Wheaton) in “Christianity Today” about a dispute at in the Southern Baptist Convention regarding an esteemed leader. While I am unfamiliar with him or the workings of the SBC, I was impressed by Mr. Stetzer conclusion that I thought was relevant here.
“……We spent more time taking victory laps than really leading. We let our history become mythology. We turned men into heroes, and then we turned our heroes into gods.” (link below)
May none of us turn our leaders into heroes and our heroes into gods. All Glory, Praise and Honor goes to the one who suffered and died then rose again and is coming back, the Lord Jesus Christ, YeShua HaMaShiach.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018/may/paige-patterson-end-of-era.html
You make sound like these are punitive sanctions being sought. They are not. You can read the formula . . . The amount of money wasted on a defense against frivolous lawsuits on Bill’s behalf alone is $200,000 which, when divided by the 11 plaintiffs that stayed in, brings us to $18,000. *I* am having a hard time seeing a problem with this. Frankly it might provide a deterrent for future ventures of fancy of this type, “Hey, join our lawsuit against Bill!! Won’t cost you a dime!!! You can remain anonymous . . . AND get a lot of money!!! And do your part to destroy Bill!!!!”
All that remains true. But he also has started really worrying about the present membership, the millions of alumni, some of which have been devastated, so the willingness of the Board to see him back would be the final confirmation that he is innocent of any action that would be worthy of this kind of rejection. Also, the sale of property, the shrinking of the ministry is like watching his child die a slow death. “Selling your mother into slavery” was words he said to us. He is pretty sure he can turn things around.
And, as I said, settling scores from 35 years prior, confessing that you were right and he was wrong . . . Right? I know he followed up on letters on Tony’s behalf. What else was there? Publishing a statement that said, “Those around me were right, but I did not listen. I was not like David, but I am like Saul.” I remember those words that you wrote for him. Overtly stating, “I sent women up the Northwoods knowing it was likely that they would be sexually abused”, which he emphatically denies to this day. What else should he do? Grovel? That is not a snarky comment. I think that is what y’all were after. “Repent more and we will forgive you” – In contradistinction to this I read:
Luke 17:4. “And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.”
Saying the words, “I repent”, “I am sorry” is all the Savior demands. Our favorite verse in 1 John 1:9 says that Jesus demands the words, the confession to “cleanse us from all sin”. You KNOW Bill stated that. *I* think you were going after things that were frankly not your jurisdiction. Because he would not publish your statement, you openly reviled and rejected him. I have no confidence that the Lord was in any part of that.
Regarding the $18K I see Bill as showing his true nature, his legal bills were paid by the Institute and then he pulls the charade in Texas. I see this attempt the same vengeful act in his writing the “Agent of Satan” letter and to quote you, “I have no confidence that the Lord was in any part of that (both things).”
Secondly Bill did send the women to the Northwood knowing of his brother’s immorality, in at least one case a woman was living in Crazy Bear with in a year of Bill being told of his brother’s immorality in 1976. At least one and possibly two women who had be involved in the 1976 were resent to the Northwood a couple years later. Bill might not have “known” they would be abused, but his extremely poor judgement does not speak to the qualifications of being a teacher/elder in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, Eph 4:11-16, Acts 20:28-31. By Bill’s own words he admitted to his friend Gary Smalley that he was unqualified.
Third, regarding the Agent of Satan letter, Bill fought that tooth and nail and watered it down, Bill agreed to and latter stated that he sent the retractions to all the original people that were still living, and we could find addresses for. A couple of weeks after he claimed he had sent them I followed up with three of the addressee and none had received the letters. Eventually after prompting Bill again he finally sent at least one of the letters. We were never able to verify the second one (which is another story) and the third the pastor had a family emergency and left the pulpit. All toll about 16-20 letters were supposed to be sent, based on our sampling I doubt he sent any other than the one we verified. That’s how the year went.
From my study on repentance and forgiveness I find more than just the simple “I repent” words of Luke 17:4 or Matthew 18:21-22. From Genesis 1 through Revelations the Bible shows examples of sin, confession, repentance or lack of, forgiveness and restitution/penalty in a very public and descriptive manner.
(From a paper I wrote:)
“A perfect example is in Nathan’s confrontation of David in 2 Samuel 12:9, “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.” Nathan just address two specific sins, yet we can be assured David had committed many more sins. In David’s reply to Nathan he acknowledges these specific sins in verse 13, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Psalm 32:5 he says, “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” In Psalm 51 he goes on about his sins and his desire to be clean in one of his most beautiful Psalms. David’s sins are so public, based in their addition to 2 Samuel 12, 1 Kings 15:4-6, Psalms 32 and 51, that we have been all reading about them for the past 3000 years. These are not just sins that should only be confessed to God, as some call for, they are very public sins because it affected the King of Israel, his line of session and possible judgement against the land.
Again, to quote R.C. Sproul above, “Second, there are cases in which discipline should not begin with private admonition. Public sins should be dealt with publicly, as Paul shows us in 1 Corinthians 5.” Often times sin by Christian leaders or influential people are covered up, kept private in order to protect “Christ’s reputation”. That is not what we read in the Bible, the Bible is about sin, repentance and forgiveness, which leads to reconciliation and requires equal treatment for all (Ex,. 23:1-9). Church discipline definitely fits into this category regarding an unrepentant person. This story is repeated from Genesis to Revelations, over and over again. There was only one perfect sinless “man” in the Bible (Christ Jesus) and only a handful of really righteous ones and even their sins were openly discussed. Even in Christ’s messy death was required because He took on all the sin of humanity. In Leviticus 5:1 it says, “If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity;” This is another example of proclaiming truth, exposing wrongs or injustice, we are not to be quiet.”
(One of the themes of my paper is Forgiveness is a messy process)
The Matthew 18:21-22 is another perfect example, the simple forgive 70×7 is followed by a very messy and public example spoken in a parable of good and bad repentance and forgiveness in vs. 23-34. But in vs. 34 the initial forgiveness was removed by the King (who is generally seen as an allegory for God) and severe punishment is reinstated. Believe what you want but the Bible indicates through its examples more than a simplistic “I repent” action.
His legal fees, and those to defend the other Board members, were paid out of the gifts of godly people, given for the furtherance of the Gospel, and out of the sacrificially procured fees of relatively poor families with lots of kids in ATI. So, when you look at it like that, it stinks. The plaintiffs were looking at easy street off the same funds. So, maybe that is OK to you and to those that hate Bill and us, but we feel quite strongly that this is the least that could be asked to rectify this horrific wrong, especially as not a single one has come forward to apologize.
And you do know that Bill strongly disputes that. I recall so distinctly as we were going over this again, and he looking me in the eye . . . That he could not violate his own integrity to sign such a statement, because . . . It was not true. He knew of a problem with his brother that involved a secretary but understood it to be confined to some relatively banal things in the overall scheme. He had unclear and recanted testimony from a woman on the one hand (one of the women, I thought the first, completely denied everything), he had the testimony of staff members that he believed to be motivated by jealousy and that, according to him, did not actually observe but a tiny piece of what we now know was the actual iceberg, and his brother, that he never knew to be deceitful, assuring him of a much simpler event. It was a relatively small problem to solve, as these things go, and he solved it. Not even Bill could have proceeded as he did if he believed what you claim he believed. Of that I am absolutely sure. After 45 years of pounding on this point, given that you are not dealing with someone who is simply too proud to admit a major sin, but actually, truly was deceived, what do you hope to accomplish by forcing him to confess what he, to his dying day, will not believe to be true? At some point that becomes unrighteous. God is so much better at vengeance than we are, with the added advantage of knowing the hearts of all involved.
Anybody that claims, by the highest standards of God’s demands, to be qualified for ministry is a liar. We fail of so many things, starting with the demand of love. Paul called himself the primary sinner because, unlike anything that Bill has ever done, HE persecuted, killed Christians and hated Jesus. Every time you condemn Bill you are asking Jesus to examine your own record and life.
And we were amazed that he sent anything. The fact that Tony’s own church, that knew him better than anyone, acted against him to excommunicate him around the same time for matters completely unrelated to Bill speaks volumes. We can point to a number of the most damaging key distortions, “false facts”, that Tony was solely responsible for disseminating to the world, and he was the primary instigator for the lawsuits against Bill which he then failed to join, surprising and disappointing those that actually stuck their necks out to perform. God is judge of all.
1 John 1:9
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
It is a mortal crime to add to the words of Scripture (which we all like to do). What words would you add to this Scripture? “Forgiveness is Messy”. And that, of course, is why we have endless problems in the Body of Christ. This is what I read:
Matthew 18:32-35
“Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”
The “mess” is failing to do it, for no more reason than that we ourselves were unconditionally forgiven ourselves when we confessed our sins. In fact, there is a dire warning to any that would refuse to do that. We never read of why the one servant threw his fellow servant into jail over the debt he owed. It could have been any degree of “blood money” you wish to imagine. It seemed to not matter much to their common Lord.
So . . . Tell me what messy steps YOU would have servant #1 demand of servant #2 before releasing him of the debt. I was stunned to see that you seem to cite this in your defense. So . . Clarify what you mean. It feels like “Scripture twisting” to me.
Alfred, I don’t recall seeing IBLP pleading for funds for the lawsuit, so I don’t buy your donations from poor family’s sob story. In the past about 10% came from donations the rest from fees, that could be different today. The sale of the donated properties might play into some or all of the legal expenses, but those donations weren’t from a poor family and probably were legally recorded as health tax deductions as any corporation would do.
There is nothing vengeful with telling the truth. Until Bill has a heart change he will continue to spin the Northwoods story and we will continue to disagree until that time. Truth is truth. The same is true with Tony. He was given a job and when the truth got too close to Bill, he was fired. Bill has been trying to discredit him ever since. I don’t know who you got the information from about Tony, but, were they part of the staff in May of 1980. If not, they got their info from Bill, enough said. Leviticus 5:1 says, “If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity;”
Alfred don’t even try to compare Bill with Paul. Paul had a miraculous heart change, a change in thinking and behavior, something we have not seen in Bill. What he did in Texas is just more proof.
Regarding Matthew 18:23-35, (again from my paper)
“”Now we can talk about forgiveness in the fullness of what sin is and what the price of sin entails, in all its vivid illumination. In this discussion we are often reminded of Peter’s question regarding forgiveness and Jesus’ answer in Matthew 18:21-34, “Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?”. 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.” Here we are clearly reminded that we are to always forgive, but is that the end of it? After all, Christ forgave us once and for all, or is there something we’re missing? Jesus didn’t end with just those words but told a parable and made a comparison to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the first part of story we read that a large debt was owed that could not be paid, the debtor and his families freedom were demanded in payment of the debt. (The debt we owe God.). But the debtor humbled himself (fell on his knees) acknowledged his debt (repented) and promised to repay the debt. (reconciliation). This is the example of our relationship with God and our salvation. As sinners our debt was prepaid but in order to obtain that prepayment we are required to humble ourselves acknowledging we are sinners (Rom 3:23), repent of our sins (1 John1:9) based on the belief that Christ died for our sins (John 3:16; Rom. 5:15; Rom 6:23) then we are called to become more like him (progressive sanctification). (Rom. 6:19-22; 1 Cor. 1:30; 1 Pet. 1:3, 16; 2 Tim. 2:21, “Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.” Our reconciliation with Christ is becoming more like Him in every area of our lives again our progressive sanctification.
The second part of the story is a smaller debt that could be characterize as a sin against a brother. Like the first debtor, the second debtor humbled himself and admitted he was wrong, he acknowledged his sin and repented. Yet cry for mercy went unheeded and he was punished.
The third part of the story brings about perfect judgement and demands payment from the first debtor to right his wrong against another. In the end (vs. 35) Jesus says, “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” In Matt. 6:12 we hear similar word, “and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”, vs. 35 adds a clear warning associated with forgiving our brothers. To dissect this, we can see the various parts of the process;
1. It involves a sin against a brother (debt, vs. 23)
2. It involves recognition of that sin
a. As confronted by others, (king, vs. 24) (Fellow servants vs. 31) ((Matt. 18:15))
b. As remember by the person, ((NA in this case but addressed in Matt. 5:23-24))
3. Repentance of that sin (debtor, vs.26 & 29) (asking forgiveness)
4. Forgiveness granted (king, vs. 27) (Forgiveness removed, king, vs. 32) (Forgiveness not given, vs.30)
5. Restitution, debt forgiven (king, vs. 27) (restitution, debt required again, (king, vs. 32-34))
6. Reconciliation initially (king, vs. 27) but dismissed (vs. 32-34) and not mentioned again
As we look at the process, in Jesus’s parable, we find it very messy and not as simplistic as His first answer to Peter and the quote we often hear in regard to forgiveness. To further explore the teaching by Iooking closer at vs. 35 is important, “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” One of the most commented on parts, in what Jesus is discussing regarding God the Father’s punishment is the question; is it a withdraw of forgiveness leading to condemnation or punishment by God? Since we know our salvation is secure (John 6:37-40, 10:28-29; Rom. 8:31-39) I would lean to the punishment by God view, because our salvation does not preclude God from chastening us (Heb. 12:6) “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” I like the way John MacArthur articulates it in the “The MacArthur Bible Commentary”. “This pictures severe discipline, not final condemnation.”?.
Jesus goes on to say “forgive…from your heart”, this “from your heart” statement comes from the Hebrew’s view of soul/spirit, that the heart is at the center of the Hebrew being, the heart being the place that sustains life. That forgiveness needs to be sincere, heartfelt and honest.””
That is so bizarre. Even if fees, *I* know what it cost my family and I to pay those “fees” year over year. It was a sacrifice. And the corporations that have had a hand in this certainly didn’t want the money used in this manner, to pay personal injury lawyers who spun a web of lies into what they hoped was an $8 million payday – BEFORE PUNITIVE DAMAGES, and cost $500,000 to fend off.
Let Jesus act on the truth He knows. It is time for you to leave Bill alone on this. Or not, I have no authority over you. You had a golden opportunity to have a major role in landing this publicly and fairly, to the gratefulness of all involved – instead it was squandered on another round of trying to force him to comply with what you see as unfinished business from 40 years ago.
You know that we have long trails of emails with Tony spanning over 10 years. I also spoke at length to at least two 1980 era staffers, one in a very senior position. I also have the RG documents, which include, say, the bewilderment of Woods as to his absence in the suit.
You failed to mention that the suffering Paul endured was toward the end of his life, having nothing to do with . . . Repentance? All of Asia turning against him, no one person standing with him at his first defense. I see a lot of commonality,
Boy, that about sums it up. The world of forgiveness and grace you live in says . . . “Is that the end of it?” You have “forgiven” Bill years ago, decades ago, yet I wake up, and there is Larne, nonstop “cursing” – “God will judge you soon, Bill”, openly delighting in every setback, constantly referring to a debt that Bill STILL owes that appears, in part, to be owed to you. Until Bill pays his debt, you will not release him from the Larne Memorial Jail of demands and expectations. That is not grace, Larne filled with God’s grace, but vengeance.
Forgiveness is only “messy” if we are mixing it with debt collection.
Again we disagree. Believe me there is no “Larne Memorial Jail”, remember Bill called me, looking for a free pass. Nor is their sainthood for anyone either. Bill owes me nothing but truth, nor do I owe him anything but truth. There is no vengeance just truth. We will all have to stand before a Holy Perfect God when our times come and for me I am at peace. Actually repentance and forgiveness are messy if you took the time to search the scriptures, both OT and NT, you might be surprised how messy it really is, I know I was! And the great thing about it, its all in “literal” language, no hermeneutics required. Start with Leviticus 4-5 and end with the crucifixion.
Alfred a fee is different than your “donation from poor people” comment. I’d love to have a new bigger boat to replace my old little boat but the “fee” prevents me, its a choice, just like the 20 years I had kids in Christian School and now a third at college. They are choices we make which can be sacrificial but still choices, just like your ATI choice.
But what I don’t understand is how you can claim I’m vengeful, cursing, graceless and all the other adjectives you used, yet in the same breath justify the vengeful sanctions, lack of grace and forgiveness against the plaintiffs. You accuse me of judging, yet what do you call your comments against the women, do you know their hearts? Do you think you or Bill have been blessed with a “special insight” or superior position by God to know the motives and hearts of the plaintiffs? The same complaints you have against me are exactly the same thing you and Bill are doing. Maybe it would be a good time to review Matthew 7:1-6, I know I go there often since its the precursor to Matthew 18:15-35.
Lastly you write:
“But he also has started really worrying about the present membership, the millions of alumni, some of which have been devastated,”
Out of the 2.7 million alumni you quote, most were pre-1980 scandal, that was almost 40 years ago. From an actuarial perspective probably 25-30% would be dead or at least in a “home” wondering where they put their false teeth. (Death rate for a sampling of all ages is 9.5 per 1,000/year.) Another large percentage who attended were followers of a church fad at the time, and it was just one of the many seminars, events or concerts they attended. Many young people went because it got them out of school on Friday and they went with a group of friends. Others have walked away from their faith. Others had theological issues with the teaching. Probably even more didn’t embrace it like you or I did. I think your “some of which have been devastated” is rather small number compared to the 2.7 million, maybe in the few tens of thousands probably way less. As the co-chairman of the usher committee in Seattle for a number of years the attendance decreased each day of the seminar. From my experience of observing, most took Bill’s teaching like eating chicken, they took what they liked and threw away the rest. Those that embraced it 100% created problem in the church.
Did he get it?
Now that is DEFINITELY not what I read:
Romans 13:8 “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”
So, the debt you owe each other is not truth, but love. The two come together here:
Ephesians 4:15. “But speaking the truth in love . . . “
So, would you agree that Bill doesn’t feel a lot of love from your, linked to that “truth”. Would that be a fair assessment? Generally speaking, people who really love someone would spend very little time trying to tear them down, either verbally or in other ways, like supporting their enemies.
Correct. Those of us that have invested in ATI and IBLP and Bill emphatically do not want to see our money going to line the pockets of lawyers or plaintiffs so they can take fancy vacations.
Woah! The forgiveness verse I quoted involved someone coming to another – even 7 times a day – to say, “I am sorry”. Not a single plaintiff has done that, in fact, they have repeatedly asserted that they “recant nothing”. So, not sure that applies here.
Yes, God gave 30,000 pages of private chats that very directly gave us special insight. You can see a sampling of the posts in the Motion for Sanctions. A far larger quantity of even more specifically focused texts were supposed to be turned over as commanded by the judge, but they quit that very same day instead.
And, no, we are nowhere near alike. You have an adversary that has been willing to talk things through with you, ask and receive your forgiveness. The adversaries in the lawsuit are completely opposed to Bill to this day, not one of them willing to come and address their concerns directly to him, as he plead with them to do. Even as the motion was filed, the plaintiffs were asked to agree instead to work things out with Bill directly in lieu of asking for them to pay for a piece of the defense that they unjustly made necessary. Do it Jesus way. Not one was interested, so said their lawyers (and we know of one at least that apparently never got that request).
Just don’t get that point. Whatever the number, it remains large. They exist, Larne, because we hear from them regularly.
You got me Alfred, I was speaking in the here and now with a simple quick comment, but you are right to remind me that, Love is more important and was Christ’s second greatest commandment, “love your neighbor as yourself”. I love Bill, why else would we have spent untold hours preparing and appealing to him, meeting with him, having him in our home, hours of phone conversations, emails, letters and a financial investment in the effort. If you go back and read some of my email to him, you will find I have a concern for his future when he meets his maker. If I was vengeful I wouldn’t care. Love can cover over a multitude of sin but that occurs with repentance. God sets the example regarding Salvation, while He still loves me, but without salvation we are condemned to an eternity in Hell along with billions of other lost people. When you discipline your children it often involves tough love, do you not love them when you have to be stern with them and the discipline is severe? When God disciplines us, it often involves tough love, which can be very harsh, does He love me any less? Of course not.
Giving a free pass when there is no “Contrition, or “godly sorrow,” as it is called in 2 Corinthians 7:10, is not a shallow sentiment nor empty emotion. It is a sincere regret over past sins and an earnest desire to walk in a new path of righteousness. (Billy Graham)” Sure, Bill was sorry over the scandal but was that because of heartfelt contrition, or cashflow and the fact he would no longer have colosseums full of adoring fans. Bill seems to want absolution and expungement for his sins without having to repent, something he is not willing to give to the women today. We have never seen any contrition on his part, just his desire to change the narrative to make sure it did not point back to him.
Your comment about the women not coming and saying, “I’m sorry”. Why would they do that when they believe their stories to be true? Is that any different that you and Bill wanting us to forget the 1980 scandal, after all Bill claims innocence, and wants us to forget his unrepented offenses? Again, I see Bill’s request for sanctions as being vengeful and hypocritical considering what he is not willing to do.
I can’t speak to the physical aspects of the charges against Bill because I wasn’t part of the ATI era. But I can speak to the emotion, mental and spiritual abuses that I observed, experiences and saw the results of during Ruth’s and my time involved with Bill, yet there was lap sitting hand holding and laying under a blanket on the roof looking at stars even if there might have been others present, all inappropriate for an employer. The patterns of behavior I observed are similar to what the ATI women wrote about in their stories on RG long before any of the so-called collusion you claim involving the lawsuit. Bill has been talking about “conspiracies” since the 1980 scandal. Just go back and read Radmacher’s 1983 transcription you recently linked. Conspiracies are an easy excuse to deflect people’s attention away from real issues.
Your further state, “You have an adversary that has been willing to “talk things through” with you, “ask and receive your forgiveness”.” Here is where the problem lays “talk things through” and “ask and receive your forgiveness”. “Talk things through” have had an historical meant involving me to accept Bill’s narrative because I really don’t understand. “Ask and receive your forgiveness” makes no mention of confession or repentance, again a historical pattern of Bill’s behavior, he wants something without having to confess and repent. In both cases repentance involves disqualification from ministry based on Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 so he can never confess or repent. If I were one of the women that had been through their mental, emoutional and spiritual abuse I wouldn’t meet with him either, especially considering Bill’s Patriarchal and Extreme Conservative Complementarianism view of women. Regarding our effort we did it God’s way, Matthew 18:15-20, and told it to the Church, of body of Christ (vs.17). You see Alfred, Bill was not a member of any congregation and Biblically speaking did not fall under their authority. The pastor of the church he was attending was one of his three mentors that he was meeting with, it would have been inappropriate for us to undermine his relationship with his mentor. We told Bill we were available to discuss the issues with the mentor, but Bill chose not to involve him.
Lastly, ““2.7 million alumni” Just don’t get that point”. The point there are not 2.7 million devoted followers nor have there ever been, attendees maybe yes. That number keeps growing over the past 5 years, yet I don’t see any scheduled seminar on IBLP website in fact it states, “No events of this type are currently scheduled.” Your implications of 2.7 million people that are crying their eyes out doesn’t hold up to the facts. Bill and his teaching are a past fad for most, a mere footnote to a past experience. It is possible that Bill’s decline is God’s punishment for his lack of repentance from 1980, that would include what he has been dealing with these last four years. Maybe just maybe the current withdrawn lawsuit was not God’s judgement on the suit, but that the withdraw of the suit was meant to lead to the humiliation Bill just went through in Texas. Maybe a wake-up call to not only Bill but his followers that we serve a very jealous God who demands our worship of Him alone.
I don’t know. I do not doubt your desire to do right, but I have a hard time characterizing it as “love”. People DO spend all those things on vengeance, settling scores. Let’s say that there were many references to “Larne” in the chats, including quoted emails and all . . . Tell me what I am supposed to think as we are sweating our proverbial blood with an open abyss before . . . And some are trying to push Bill in. Having a hard time understanding how anyone would support this evil initiative, and not at some point recoil at what was actually going on. I suppose I would ask . . . Did you read the “Motion to Sanction”, consider what was presented in there? You wonder why Bill wanted this provided legal option exercised. Frankly it is the ONLY opportunity he now has to present HIS side and see some redress, things HE knows that made this mess so egregious, before the legal door that the plaintiffs opened closes forever. One of the Does is especially well known to you. Consider what is presented there. Is there a point were a righteous man wakes up and says, “No matter what Bill has or has not done, this is just wrong”? How strange that it seems that EVERY complaint leveled against Bill is now being expressed in those that hate him.
Brother, every parent knows . . . There is a LIMIT when any further amount of discipline in response to a sin is unrighteous. There is a point where you lay down the rod “no matter what” and you move on, do a reset. I gave my kids a “get out of jail free” token once to express that. A complete brain reset, pretend it never happened. Not that we do that often, but it is a God principle. That is why, I believe, no matter WHAT you did, you never got more than 40 smacks under the law. AND there were “cities of refuge”. Brother, is there ever a point you will say, “Bill has taken enough blows, it is enough”, put down your sword . . . And just let him out of jail for free? Or . . . To your dying day . . . You will keep him in the prison until he FINALLY “repents enough”.
Of course they should never apologize for something they didn’t do. Again, HAVE you read the quotes? They lied to the judge, telling him of damages that they freely admitted elsewhere was not true. As stated, one of the women was contacted by a mutual friend and, when read the quotes in the lawsuit attributed to her said . . . “Well, that didn’t happen . . . But I recant nothing”. One of the most obtuse being putting a dream in as an actual event. No, sir, they KNOW the stories they told the judge are not true. They know it, we know it, they know we know it. So, in that context, yes, a godly person would clear their conscience and straighten that out.
In what imaginary universe was Bill ever an “employer”, Larne? This was a family, at the very least a Christian ministry, soldiers in a common struggle. Many labored for free. And Gary Smalley told you himself that Bill told him that he and Ruth were in a “3rd level relationship”, however offensive that may be. IF that were true, then all of that goes away, employer or no.
That is where we are getting into trouble, Larne. DID he not confess and say, “I repent” for more or less all of the issues brought before him, short of taking responsibility for that major item that he has said – and, I am sorry, that will not change – that he cannot say he did what he did not do? Bill is quick to apologize, in ways I just don’t see much in others. He has no problem humbling himself, usually fairly quickly, at times with tears. THAT is what Jesus said, as I quoted, and we have no authority to go beyond that. Parents looking for their children to “repent more” or “repent fully” are the ones that beat them senseless and even to death. Comes from trying so hard to do God’s job for Him.
Can you explain those completely unBiblical phrases to me, or at least what they mean to you?
Bill has had a pastor for many years. I have met with him. He is ready to do what needs to be done in the Body of Christ. ALTHOUGH . . . He is smart enough to refuse to get into things that others should be handling. I got to really respect him. Trust me, he is no “Gothardite”, but a godly, wise man nonetheless.
There really, truly are 2.7 million alumni. Some significant portion of them are still alive because we keep running into them. I see emails, posts, contacts weekly of folks who are most grateful for what Bill has taught them. We met with a couple last week on our way to our current vacation location who spoke of the lifelong impact Bill had on them. Spoke with intensity and emotion. Happens all the time. Yes, and people who had been “on the Internet” and came away concerned and confused. There IS a cause, brother, a major cause that concerns everyone that loves Bill and believes in his ministry.
Ok this is just so strange. The relationship between the Board and Bill. I’m curious what current IBLP/ATI members are told about Bill. Alfred, are you still a member? Do you have friends who are still active in the organization who have knowledge of the situation? It’s just weird that the organization would continue to use Bill’s books and materials but yet shun him. What are the members being told? If they are not being provided an explanation along with evidence then how does that work?! The Board surely must realize the heavy clouds of doubt and muck that are hanging over the organization. I’m quite perplexed. Are the members supposed to just take the word of the Board or conversely the word of Bill without evidence or facts? If so, then they are just dumb blind followers. And neither side can have credibility. What are the members demanding? Oh my, are they even demanding anything? No respect is due to blind followers and even less is due to those who are covering up or withholding information.
Haha! You know how to go places you shouldn’t. Exactly. Nothing, NOTHING, nichts, nada, no statements other than that first one in 2014. Nothing in response to the lawsuit being dismissed. Nothing in response to what happened on Monday. You are perplexed? 4 years of perplex are bubbling to the surface.
Wow I just thought there was correspondence that you were not at liberty to share. So what you’re saying is they have not corresponded with him at all ? Regardless of bills guilt or innocence, to be ignored is certainly not what the Bible teaches. But you didn’t answer the question as to what current members are being told. Do you even know ? If the current members rise up and demand answers, then the board would probably have to respond to that.
I guess I am somewhat confused what you were asking. No, there has been NO correspondence . . . Other than, again, a general statement published on the IBLP website back in 2014. Nothing to ATI families. Nothing about the lawsuit, nothing about Bill, nothing about Monday . . . Nothing. We held our peace/piece during the lawsuit because it wasn’t appropriate. $8 million dollars of threat demanded everyone’s undivided attention. A bunch of us worked shoulder to shoulder with both teams, helping in any way we could, grieving and praying with each setback, rejoicing in every victory. As the suit suddenly evaporated, our joy was unimaginable. We looked across the isle . . . And found frosty indifference. We were then told that no announcement was to be made – if folks called in to ask, there was a boilerplate statement that IBLP staff was to read. That . . . Just . . . Hurt. Some among us, ignoring Bill for the moment, have invested their own lives to see IBLP pushed forward, forgoing lucrative careers to walk with an organization that represented a cause, a calling – and we know many in IBLP leadership that boast the same credentials.. But Bill loyalist after loyalist was sidelined, cut off, sent packing. Again, with not a peep to the rank and file. Outward professions of love, reality was cold and hard. One was left to hope in the words, even if the actions seemed 180 degrees in the opposite. But . . . Monday changed everything. Now there is no doubt.
I hope the board steps up. I know they can, fix what is broken and address Bill’s status in good faith. We continue crying out to the Lord with all our hearts.
I am asking HOW the board or even IF the board addressed the members. For example, did they tell them: Look on the internet at Bills and our statements, draw your own conclusions, and pay your dues. Or maybe they answer each individuals questions about why Bill is gone. That doesn’t seem likely. Don’t these members ASK ANY QUESTIONS? I’m just confused on what the members have been told. And if they’re just expected to take the Board at their word that Bill did wrong and he’s not allowed back. Sorry if I’m confusing you.
Nothing means nothing. I should add that when Bill showed up in Sacramento in 2015 with a valid, real invite from a grateful leader in the church there, the board was unhappy. They addressed the men in the conference, asking them to not go see Bill at his hotel room, to trust them, that they were working to reconcile Bill. Looking from the inside that statement was . . . Frustrating, because it simply did not match what had happened to that point, nor what followed.
Members asking? Not sure. Those that did were clearly as muted as most of the rest of us, trying to process through the full frontal attack by Recovering Grace and mind boggling 17 plaintiff, $8 million lawsuit. Some read our blog and thanked us very much. Now, perhaps, our version of a sleeping giant awakes.
Unrelated comment: to the individual contacting us with posts which are to be deleted, can you contact us at contact@discoveringgrace.com? We really want to chat, but there is no way to reply to a post without publishing it. Email correspondence will be held in confidence. Thanks.
Around that time, the motion was filed by Bill to have Gibbs III removed. This particular filing was like 150 pages and includes LOTS of “exhibits”. I believe it was in this one that Bill stated that the Board members were hired only for their willingness to do as he said, that they were incompetent apart from him, and were scheming to steal IBLP resources and assets for their personal benefit. Maybe this didn’t set Bill of on the right foot. 😉
Will have to take your word for it. Do not recall these details.
I have read at length first on the RG site and now on the DG site. At the very first I thought there must be some fire where there seemed to be smoke. Then I noticed that at least one of the more convincing narratives read like a novel (which it has turned out to be.) Only one person on that site offered some balance to the accusatory, emotional posts. (I assume it is the Moderator on this site as he continues to give a balanced perspective.) The warring spirit has also come over to this site, though it gives opportunity for the truth to be given.
When I went to the Lord to ask about the truth, I received my answer. Some may not realize some less obvious points. One is that Bill’s sister has been his secretary for most of his ministry; the second is that Bill’s headquarters in Illinois have glass walls dividing the office cubicles as his attempt to be transparent.
I am a supervising medical professional and a mandatory reporter. As such I have had legal experience with both victim and perpetrator in a pedophilia case. I know what the charged label of “grooming” means. It was applied to Bill on the RG site by someone knowing nothing of either side except what was printed on RG. To truly be labeled a “groomer” means that the motive is for the ultimate sexual encounter. For every true pedophile (or sexual abuser) there are on average 100 victims who have real stories to tell and real and graphic experiences to describe. Nada for Bill as it turns out. Not even one plaintiff was able to make it through to the process of discovery when Bill would be given the chance to know and challenge the “who and what.”
Bill’s ministry has been to troubled teens and families and to try to prevent both by his teaching and seminars. One of the reasons for “troubled teens” is the fact they have been previously defiled in childhood by a sexual predator—often a family member. This is the milieu Bill has been counseling with for so many years. I suspect that the plaintiffs in the case were victims of abuse in early childhood even before they met Bill and have continued to be promiscuous as this is often the pattern; their bitterness spills over and has defiled many.
Then there is the manner of Bill’s upbringing. He has brothers and sisters and was close to his father. How did his father relate to both his daughters and sons? Is this what Bill was patterning after? One time at a seminar I was talking with Bill and he took my hand and asked me to pray for him. This was a natural and kindly gesture. Nothing sexual about it! When I talk to people, I often touch them or pat them on the back or hold their hand after shaking hands while talking with them. Good grief! Where is common sense? One doctor I know says, You are welcome to your own opinion, but not to your own set of “facts.”
There is a Biblical principle that applies here. When a person judges another not knowing the facts on either side, they can only judge from their own experience—what they themselves would do (or are doing).“Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Rom. 2:1”
Motive matters! The dropped lawsuit against Bill is vindication of his innocence of motive. I believe, but do not know specifically, that his going to Big Sandy was because in his mind he had been proven to be innocent and expected the Board—his former brethren—to be reasonable and have a godly discussion about his future with the ministry. He knew his innocence all along and I am guessing his resignation was in his mind temporary.
The Board’s actions and reactions are nothing short of Judases. There is the potential for at least one Judas on every Board. (I am talking principle here only.) And Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss. That is the way of a Judas and it was played out in this incident very well—even to the “kiss” by a board member. There must have been something, some wise discernment, perhaps of body language in the way the Board members approached Bill in the group that warranted their cautioning him not to leave the public place. But Bill is trusting of his former brethren.
What is the motive of a Judas? “This he said, not that he cared for the poor (the ministry); but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. John 12:6.” 1 Tim 6:10.
Thanks so much for that very insightful analysis.
Alfred,
You keep saying or stating through your responses in defense of Bill that “he built this ministry – not the board”, he gave up marriage, money, sleep and time to build IBLP, Bill put this together, this is his thing, etc. etc. etc. Isn’t all ministry really belong to God and not us? These ideas and expressions demonstrate an extreme entitlement on the part of Bill and not God, not Christ and not the Holy Spirit. You have also stated that the supports of IBLP/ATI still want him back etc. All of this make all of you look like your too dependent on Bill and there is nothing mentioned about God or Jesus. All it see on the IBLP website is promotion of Bill’s teaching, unadjusted and unfiltered. This whole over focus on Bill is really dysfunctional. It’s cultist. It’s unhealthy. If a teaching is really of God, it isn’t going to matter which particular person is promoting or teaching it because true Biblical teaching shouldn’t depend on the person or personality teaching it. But that doesn’t seem to be the case with IBLP. Those that want Bill back seem to be dependent on Bill and not on Bill’s teaching. There is nothing changed in what IBLP is promoting or selling or talking about. If Bill’s teaching is so Biblical then it wouldn’t matter if Bill is there or not. Once Bill is dead and gone, what will all of you do that are clamoring for Bill to be back? I’m trying to put this as charitably as I can to try and light a flicker in your thinking. The people like yourself want Bill back due to your emotions and feelings, not due to reason or well thought out logic. Maybe that is some of the fruit of all of this, reasonableness and thinking fly out the door but feelings and emotions rule the day which is a commonly discussed problem among Evangelicals. (just for the record, I do not think Bill’s teaching and actions are Biblical, I am trying to make a point to try and appeal to reasonableness).
Maybe you can help us understand your counsel by applying it to David. Say you were one of David’s guys when he was precipitously ejected from the government with every intent to kill him. Would you have been one of those that would defend him to the death, or would you conclude that you were engaging in hero worship or even idol worship to be longing for his safety and return to power with every fiber of your being? I mean . . . Strong, capable men threw their lot in with him to see their elderly king reinstated. Appropriate or inappropriate? Why or why not?
David’s men were following him as king but not yet king. He had God’s anointing, but not yet God’s timing. David himself would not let them take Saul’s life because waiting on God was more important to David than his own immediate vindication. I think comparing yourself to David’s men is not a smart analogy for you to use. David waited. Bill is forcing the issue. David’s men were following God’s anointed King, but you have no way of knowing if Bill is a Saul or a David. Maybe like Saul, Bill’s time as king of IBLP is over.
I am curious if there would ever be a point for you where you would say Christ and the message are more important than the man. I don’t mean you ignore Bill since you are his friend. But rather you stop fighting to get him back on top. What would have to happen for you to make that choice? Because I agree with Rob War, your words are all about why Bill deserves x,y and z. You can cry for Bill. You can long for justice for him. But make sure that first you love Christ more than Bill, justice and your own self. Then look beyond Bill’s camp and the board’s camp, and see what the watching world sees when they see your words and actions. I can tell you as an outsider the watching world is laughing at all the in fighting and grasping for power.
I was thinking about when David was kicked out by his own son. No, no they didn’t wait.
And I am happy to report that that time is now. Jesus is infinitely more important than Bill. He is also more important than, say, the Board. Or 17 plaintiffs trying to enrich themselves from ministry money. At what point might you be willing to say that Bill may have been ordained by the Lord for a unique and vital role in these end days? If so, then he and his gift is worth fighting for.
That is alost funny. Like they haven’t been roaring with laughter at Bill ever since he opened his mouth and started preaching 50 years ago? I am at a loss to find anything that is worse now than, say, a year ago? Somehow, it feels a lot better. I do hope that there will not be any further trouble. But after all what we have endured over the past 4 years . . . After staring death in the face a person sometimes gets a tad of an attitude.
You didn’t answer my points at all and keep brining up King David. The loyalty to David from his men before he was king over all Israel had more to do with tribalism and they were mostly from the tribe of Judah and Israel was in a transition from the tribalism of the Judges period to nationalism of one people under one ruler. It has nothing to do with hero worship nor should this be used to justify hero worship of King Bill. You keep comparing him to King David. King David is a type pointing to our true king, King Jesus. Of course typology would be lost on someone steeped in Bill’s fundamentalism. Bill is obviously a king in your mind. So king Bill is like king David, and then as such is guilty of adultery like king David and all the accusations by these women of touching turn out to be true.
Well, trying to take my analogy out of the point I was taking isn’t fair. The point remains that there are people in our lives that are so important that they are worth fighting for. There are people that have so shaken our generation, generations prior, that we can hardly bear the thought of their ministry, their influence not being there. Billy Graham is one like that. My father-in-law found Christ because a Billy Graham special came on and he was too lazy to change channels. When I consider the millions that he saw saved, the influence for godliness among world leaders, I find a loss almost incomprehensible. Of course God is in charge of all, but most folk would quickly identify with that motivation. It would only not make sense for Bill Gothard for those that are convinced that he is evil, or irrelevant at best. Just accept that for many of us Bill falls into that “irreplaceable” category, so worth fighting for. It is no more idol worship than the esteem in which others hold Graham or any number of others great men and women of the faith.
There is a difference between having appreciation for someone that has impacted your life and also realizing that this person is also a fallible human and makes mistakes and is a sinner. Our final loyalty is to God and we should view every other person that way. While your late father-in-law came to Christ via the preaching of Billy Graham, I don’t think from what I’ve read about Billy Graham that he himself would want people to be so loyal to Billy Graham that they turn themselves into pit bulls on his behalf. If Bill Gothard had the same humility, he wouldn’t be using you as his personal pit bull on his own behalf. Bill Gothard would point other’s loyalty to God not himself if he had the genuine humility of Billy Graham. The only thing Bill Gothard has in common with Billy Graham are the initial BG. There is nothing else, they are totally different men and I think most people saw Billy Graham’s humility and that is why he was so beloved.
“I” have never reported to Bill Gothard, and he assumes no responsibility for me. He has more than once expressed concern over this article or that, including the very launching of the blog. He likes things presented in a certain way. We have a different role. I have never blamed Bill for the trouble that may have come to me because of my support of him or confidence in what he teaches. A day may come where he moves on with a ministry that does not include me. My only goal is to follow the directives of my Lord, whose initials are JC, not BG.
re: whose ministry is IBLP? Gothard’s or God’s?
Some have raised the question here. When God does a work through a man, the best analogy was given by C.S. Lewis. According to Lewis, it is like asking which blade of the scissors is cutting. obviously you cannot isolate the cutting proportion of either blade.
But Gothard’s investment in IBLP obviously surpasses that of any board, past or present. That fact bears on the Texas incident.
I think it would be good to see the quote from CS Lewis and the context the analogy was made. To consider working with God is like two blades of a scissors implies that both blades are equal. I wouldn’t think anyone of us should consider ourselves “equal” with God and that God needs us. I think we need God and anything we do for God is due to His grace working in us or us yielding to His grace. So I would be interested in seeing this idea from Lewis in it’s context.
re: Lewis quote
The Lewis quote was from Mere Christianity. His topic was the relationship between faith and works. His point was that God works from both within a man and from without. So it’s futile to separate the work of God from outside the man and the work from within. I am operating from memory, so I cannot cite chapter and page.
Of course all analogies break down somewhere, and Rob identified the limits of the Lewis analogy.
The key difference between Graham and Gothard is Graham spent his life preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Gothard taught a curriculum he wrote on character.
Another key difference between the two is Graham kept himself from the appearance of evil in regards to his proximity to women in his ministry. This would’ve served Gothard well.
Bill Gothard has seen many thousands saved as he faithfully preached the Gospel at every seminar, Saturday session. To this day it is a rare trip to the store or airport where he does not lead someone to Christ. The recent trip to Big Sandy was no exception.
Billy Graham also told Bill Gothard personally that he was absolutely not suited for counseling, in the way Bill was so effective. Different ministry, different risks. Conservative believers have absolutely pounded Billy Graham for compromising with cults, allowing them to sharing the platform with him, support the campaigns. Personally, whoever will share the unadulterated Gospel with their “flock” . . . That is a good thing, but many furiously disagree. “Appearance of Evil”.
It seems to me that you are getting caught up in the minutiae of who said what, when and how while completely missing the fundamental basis of the entire issue.
You wrote: ‘But it is even more obtuse to refer to hand holding and the like as “sexual molestation””. […]
‘In a day gone by, that was a sweet thing. Bill’s world. Too bad our culture has corrupted all sweet and noble things’.
-Even IF (I won’t venture an opinion either way) this was the extent of what went on, that does not necessarily mean that the girls were not victims. Lets contextualise this.
If you went on holiday to France and found yourself being kissed on both cheeks, in greeting or saying goodbye, by men and women that you barely (if at all) knew, you would likely feel rather uncomfortable. Most of the men and women that I know would, it’s not our custom.
Now imagine that a young French man enrolled in an American Christian college program and came to America for the first time. To him, he has been brought up to believe that it is the hight of rudeness to not greet or say goodbye to people by kissing their cheeks. Does that mean that the young men and women that he kisses (or tries to kiss) in his accustomed way should feel happy or comfortable with this? What would the college say about his perceived behaviour, would they view it as acceptable? To him, he has done nothing wrong, that does not make it so in the eyes of others.
If we take the Duggar family (who are firm IBLP supporters) as an example, their girls are brought up to believe that they should not bestow full frontal hugs on men who are not either: their fathers, their husband or their son. Since you talk a lot about Gil Bates (as one of the directors), I believe that he allows his daughters to give occasional hugs to young men that they intend to marry (i.e. that they are engaged to or courting). Neither family permits kissing before marriage, indeed, the Duggars do not permit handholding before engagement, which most people would consider as ‘a sweet thing’ between young people who are simply getting to know one another. Their girls are raised believing that modesty and chastity are two gifts that are to be bestowed on their husbands only, which includes ALL forms of physical affection. If you were a young woman, raised in such a conservative and strongly Christian environment, how would you feel about having a man, who is not your (actual) father, husband or son, giving you a full frontal hug? It would go against everything that you have been taught and you would feel defrauded, in that that special gift that was yours to bestow on your husband/father/son has been taken from you. Just because a hug is not legally or even generally viewed as ‘sexual molestation’ that does not mean that these girls did not feel that the hug was immodest, unchaste or sinful based on the standards with which they have been raised and their understanding of scripture.
Now lets view it from the perspective of their fathers. You talk about the “Seeds of a wounded spirit, when pushed underground, produce a crop of rebellion.” If these girls have been raised in such a way, taken by their families for Christian fellowship at IBLP and are being subjected (by which I mean they did not initiate or ask for it) to unwholesome or sinful (from their perspective/understanding) physical contact, what are you going to do about it? If you withdraw from IBLP then you and your family lose that Christian fellowship and everything else that comes with it, if you do nothing then you are teaching your daughter that her modesty/chastity is not important or that you won’t do anything to protect her. In that case, why should she follow the other rules that are set down, if the no physical contact rule doesn’t matter then do any of the others?
Before declaring BG as innocent and without fault in the matter of his conduct with the young women at IBLP, perhaps you might stop to think about how his behaviour and actions might have been interpreted and viewed by those young women? Not all of them will have been brought up with such strong standards, but then would that also not partly account for the comparative few who have come forwards? It is arrogant beyond belief to assume that any of us know what someone else’s truth or reality is, particularly when not living or raised in the same environment and/or community. It is absolutely necessary to look at things from every perspective before passing comment. Even then, wisdom, caution and clear judgment should be used.
‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths’. Proverbs 3:5-6
‘The person who tells one side of a story seems right, until someone else comes and asks questions’. Proverbs 18:17
So we need to stop and say . . . YES, we do know the extent of what went on. We have the testimonies of these women, with the added advantage of what they said about it in unguarded private moments, ‘girl talk’. So, apologies, but my unhappiness wells up again. I had to endure those kinds of statements for years, but don’t have to. IF you have verifiable, actionable information to the contrary, please put it forward. $500,000 worth of lawyer investigation didn’t find it. Otherwise, stop repeating these discredited claims.
And the answer is, ‘it depends’. To a person the plaintiffs claimed that they found nothing wrong with what went on until a few years ago. Several said overtly it was because it was something a loved grandfather would do.
We will ask them to contact us, and we will bring the concern to Bill’s attention, then arrange a time, with whatever witnesses and whatever setting they desire (within reason) for them to address themselves directly to him, and hear his response to clarify and correct it. We have been asking for the privilege of helping with such things for years. We have helped one (1) person to actually come over and meet with Bill to the purpose, the lived in the area. Obviously phone or Skype/FaceTime is the only option for some.
That dialog was not clear. Why are we withdrawing from IBLP, or why are my daughters in jeopardy if we do or do not? Perhaps we are dealing again with the hidden assumption that Bill was bad. We are now absolutely sure he was not. Back in the early days of turmoil some in IBLP leadership proposed to us that they gather a “room full of angry fathers” and have Bill face them. I was delighted, indicated that we would do everything we could to facilitate it. Open the door for them, bring them refreshments. See, THOSE are the individuals who would best know exactly what went on. They know Bill, they know their daughters . . . And FINALLY we would get somewhere. Guess what? It never happened. Because to this day I have yet to meet an “aggrieved father”. I am not saying they don’t exist, but they are not crossing paths with us if they do. Almost to a person the plaintiffs complained about a “lack of support” and understanding from their parents. You tell me.
We interrupt this broadcast to ask: Do YOU know of any who could and should come forward? If not, please stop making assumptions. You are feeding the great big propaganda machine that RG built. Our doors are open. Three different law firms doors were opened. IBLP says they want to talk to the abused and offended. After four years . . . Which is more likely, that they are scared . . . Or that they never existed in the first place? Maybe you can help clear that up.
Other than the chats between the women, your main answer to every allegation (of any kind) is that you asked Bill, and he said it’s not true. So you are “absolutely convinced that the board acted on bad or at least incomplete info.” And “the stuff in there is tamer than the lawsuit.” You don’t know because you haven’t seen it, but you are absolutely convinced. You “asked the Board for their worst,” and they gave you a couple of piddly things to occupy you. Are you absolutely sure those were even from the investigative report? The only point you’re making is that Bill owns your mind. I believe that God opposes the proud, and God has set His face against Bill. Still. That you claim victory is stupefying, because you have not described victory.
No need to imply again that my heart is hardened. Nobody who knows me agrees with you. Thank you.
“God opposes the proud”. We all believe that is true, but if it means that God opposes Bill, I am curious how to explain the spectacular failure of the lawsuits. Under your scenario some part of that should have prevailed. Instead, the plaintiffs and Recovering Grace were greatly embarrassed and, frankly, shell shocked. If God is controlling all things, what explanation would you offer?
Scripture is full of examples of godly men, from Job to Paul, that suffered horrible reversals that looked like, well, the Lord was mad at them. Even the Savior:
Matthew 27:41-44
“Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.”
Psalms 69:12
“They that sit in the gate speak [people in charge] against me; and I was the song of the drunkards.”
1 Corinthians 4:13
“Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.”
Isaiah 53:4
“ . . . we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”
So, at least a cursory consideration of the facts does not prove your points. EVEN the fact that “everybody I know agrees”.
So, if you have specific problems with Bill that you are aware of that are actionable, bring them to our attention and we will do our best to see to it that they are resolved. Precisely our request to the Board. The only thing that is absolutely not OK is to cite “secret information” to condemn him with. When you love someone, you long with all your heart to see them delivered, restored, cleared. Do you love Bill? If you do, become part of the solution. If you don’t, Jesus knows, and you answer to Him.
Ok, I get that you are very firm in your beliefs in the given case and you feel that you are being attacked from every direction. However, if you read my prior post back again, I made NO assumptions against BG OR the women (in fact, I tried to view it in the best light of both parties), I did not repeat any claims credited or uncredited, I did not ‘feed the propaganda machine’ and I made a point of saying that I would NOT venture an opinion either way. Forgive me but (from my perspective) you seem determined to take offence even when none is in any way intentionally being given.
The point of my post was to try and give a different perspective as to the psychology behind this and to help illuminate how someone COULD feel in the given scenario. I said IF this is all that happened in the context that even IF it was only a hug which was innocently meant, any one of the girls may have developed their modesty/chastity standards over time in accordance with their understanding of the bible or the changing standards set down by their families. Some IBLP families DO feel this way, of which I gave two examples- one being one of the directors. Meaning that the girls/ their families may or may not have taken issue with it at the time (although you can’t know if it made them feel uncomfortable- girl talk is a) hearsay (words only make up around 10% of communication, paralanguage and NVC convey far more than words) and b) contextualised to the audience among whom it is being shared (i.e. not all girl-talk is 100% truth, it can be sensationalised, downplayed etc depending on who is saying it, where, why and to whom- e.g. personas). You used the words ‘it depends’ which is precisely my point. You can’t know all of the individual circumstances of these women unless you have lived their lives, had the same upbringing and experiences that they have at the age they had them. Which goes back to my other point of, we cannot make assumptions about what is in someone else’s head or heart. I used the word ‘victims’ because it’s about the psychological impact and individual perspective of a person (i.e. if they feel adverse psychological effects as a result of perceived sin (again, NOT venturing any opinion about ‘right’ modesty/chastity standards and/or sin)), it has nothing to do with legal ramifications, laws or legislation. I trust that you have heard the saying ‘victim of circumstance’?
Mediation is often a great way to resolve issues, however, circumstances can snowball and there CAN (I am NOT saying ‘are’) be circumstances that any/all others (by which I include you, Bill, the girls, their families, IBLP directors and definitely myself) may not be aware of. Furthermore, mediation does not always work… the reality of life is that people are only human. In other words, we all have our own perspective, we all have our own point of view and our own ‘truth’ (e.g. religion and/or denomination being a good example). In other words, while people may make compromises, they may never agree 100% about the ‘truth’ of a situation, even when it’s only the ‘right way’ to make roast potatoes. People talk about ‘nature/nurture’, the reality is that we are all individually shaped by the interactions between our genes and our environment/experiences. As an example, someone who is genetically predisposed towards being very highly intelligent may have opportunities towards higher education and/or more in depth understanding of topics than someone who is born with a learning disability. Therefore, their intelligence, coupled with their higher level of education (lets say they trained as a doctor) may place them in a position to treat children’s cancers, something that would be (excluding examples such as Aspergers) practically impossible for someone with a learning disability. No two people think in exactly the same way, including identical twins (I will stake my Psychology MSc on this).
Withdrawing from IBLP was a hypothetical option if a father felt aggrieved by such an action and felt that the matter was not dealt with to his satisfaction, i.e. if he had made a complaint which he felt had not been appropriately addressed. I was simply trying to look at the situation from every conceivable angle. Again, the only assumption that I made was that even if it was innocently meant, it may not have been construed as such by others. I made no assumption that he was bad. In fact I illustrated this point at length by my metaphor of the young French man. In saying about him not being without fault or entirely innocent, I thought the point was pretty clear that I did not mean legally but in the view of the women themselves and/or their families. If you had a child who was hugged by their music teacher (who they had been studying under for a few years), would you take issue about this? I would be willing to bet that it would be down to the individual circumstances. It may not be legally wrong, but that might not mean that you don’t feel aggrieved by it. Please stop twisting my words.
Personally, I try never to make assumptions about people, their motives or their perspectives. By nature, I’m a mediator and try to see things from every side and help others to do the same. However, in terms of my job, I strive to ensure that everyone is given a fair opportunity and to stand up for people who cannot stand up for themselves. No one is perfect, no one is entirely without fault, no one is ‘sinless’. Why? Because we are all human.
‘So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her’. John 8:7.
Something actionable! Although, your last post mentioned only the Duggars and Bates? Duggars never had had a role in IBLP and to my knowledge have no complaint against Bill. Gil Bates is a board member, but if he believes Bill violated his daughters, he has never said it to Bill.
Come on, already! :-). If ANYTHING, girl talk in a context dedicated to discussing the case, Bill, how badly they feel, would spin against Bill, not for him. If, on one hand, a woman says publicly that she suffered “severe emotional distress” leaving her unable to lead a normal life and that this demands $500,000 from Bill, but in private she confides that the “worst” thing that Bill ever did to her was “almost kissing me once”, all the while putting out bubbly posts about sandy beaches and mimosas that await her, added to years of chats that cannot be taken as other than a happy, normal life . . . What conclusion would you draw?
And now we are going to concern ourselves with the “psychological impact” and perspective of Bill Gothard and those that he has deeply blessed. Who feel intensely abused and robbed. Agony has been endured and tears shave been shed. We believe that Board ultimately had no objective reason to push him out, acting on incomplete if not inaccurate information. The women that felt abused have had their literal day in court, put it all out there. It is time to be fair and let Bill have his say. That IS the right thing to do, right?
Your metaphor is a good one! Now, what would you say is the right way to address such an innocent violation of community standards? How severely should he be dealt with? Especially if half of the women in his world happen to be French and never saw a problem with his American actions.
So do not want to do that. I want to take you extremely seriously. But we have an active blog at the moment, and we have some pressing matters on our minds. Cull it down to the bottom line: WHAT should Bill, the Board do right now? What would you have us, our team, to do? We all have been heavily engaged in every aspect of this for 4 years. What steps of action would you prescribe? “Short and sweet” 🙂
Harvey Weinstein. Kevin Spacy. Matt Lauren. Bill Gothard. All deny. All have years of evidence and testimony against them. The personal stories of brave people stepping forward to become vulnerable and detail their disturbing experiences are entirely too frequent and similar.
The big difference? Bill’s support team hides behind false humility, patronizing responses, and an unwavering dedication to the idea that HE is the only truth.
Pretty sure Jesus is the only truth. And reconciliation begins with repentance. THAT is truth, and THAT hasn’t happened.
I was listening to a speaker once upon a time, and he made the observation that “truth out of balance leads to heresy.” The speaker? Bill Gothard. I now understand what a self-fulfilling prophecy is.
Bill and his team should consider those words, words that, among so much conjecture, actually ARE accurate..
This sort of leaves me gasping for breath. The evil fruit of the hypocrisy of “METOO” . . . In a nutshell:
If a woman says he did it, he did.
If a man says he didn’t do it, he did.
On what basis would you know anything about any of these men? Right, it is stuff you heard. If you are wrong, it is defamation, EVEN if you were told wrong by somebody else you trusted.
There IS one big difference in the men cited: Only Bill has endured a focused $8 million 17 plaintiff lawsuit . . . Which the accusers could not even convince their law firms to get through to depositions, once they started checking into the tales. And lawyers are people who can make silk purses out of sow’s ears, so that is saying something. Read some of the evidence in the Motion to Sanction, see if you still believe them.
Reconciliation does involve truth and repentance. Sadly you seem to believe that only one side has a need for either. Humor us and read the cited document, which brought a fraction of the lies stated by plaintiffs into the light. We have seen many more pages just like that.
re: Harvey Weinstein. Kevin Spacy. Matt Lauren. Bill Gothard. Stephen Leckenby. Alfred.
Is brother Stephen accusing these men of victimizing him? or victimizing the lawsuit plaintiffs? But aren’t the defects in the anti-Gothard lawsuit a settled fact? Some on this page have accused brother Alfred of blind loyalty. But what is blind loyalty if not clinging to discredited accusations?
No, the accusations are not discredited. In Alfred’s mind, yes. But he does not benefit Bill’s case.
Nothing in the Motion to Sanction that discredits any part of the accusations, Jay? Sounds like someone not terribly concerned with the truth, fairness . . . Righteousness.
Responding to this thread and to a previous post you ask if I had read the Motion to Sanction. Yes, I have read them, weeks ago when they were first posted. Just because Bill filed them doesn’t make them true. You might have 30,000 pages, but whoever reviewed them they were probably viewed under the same lens you use, “Bill is innocent and everyone who speaks against him is of Satan”.
I have not read, 30,000 pages, even if I could I have more important things to do. I can’t speak to all the charges made either, I can only speak to what I do know to be true and the pattern of behavior I have observed, which includes a history of shifting blame on the victims and covering sin. Base on Leviticus 5:1 any of us would be obligated to testify in court if called on, (as spoken by the Lord to Moses). ‘(“Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.”) In court the attorneys would fight over which questions were allowed and under the penalty of law the witnesses would be required to answer truthfully. All called would have that same obligation, even Bill’s family members and Institute employees if they had been called to testify.
When we hear or read something that is not framed in the context or emotions of when it was originally penned or spoken it can be easily misinterpreted. Unfortunately, that is only intensified by the lens the reader is using to interpret it.
The reason your subpoena was filed was to “Discover” anything you could to use against the Plaintiffs, whether in context or out, true or misinterpreted. That’s a flaw in the legal process. From your previous comments, you seemed to truly believe Bill is innocent of all charges and the accuser were lying on every charge, they hate Bill, and probably some other preconceived notions. This, from what you have written, seems to be your main lens for you document review and second the alleged conspiracy Bill’s been talking about since 2014, long before the lawsuit. The attorneys are paid to win their cases by what every legal means possible or even suppressing true facts legally, again it the way the system works. I don’t hear any compassion or consideration for what the plaintiffs experienced. Frankly, I don’t accept yours or Bill’s word regarding the interpretation of the 30,000 pages. An independent non-bias arbitrator, maybe, depending who it was, then again no one asked me. I see you as blinded to the possibility Bill could be guilty and experience has taught me not to believe Bill.
A sovereign God will be the judge of all of this. In Leviticus 19, which by the way is a great chapter including dealing with wages and overworking employees, verse 15-18 are relevant to this conversation. He we see in verse 15, “in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” and in verse 17, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.” That’s pretty clear we have a Christian obligation to rebuke our sinning brother in righteousness. Now in this group of passages verse 18b is “the main thing and the plain thing” regarding “loving your neighbor as yourself” but the rest of the instructions are important enough to be included. There we have it, I rebuke Bill and you rebuke me.
************************
15 ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. 16 You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the Lord.
17 ‘You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:15-18
That is a strange one. The discovery docs in question are Facebook chats that span, well in some cases, from 2009 all the way to 2016 or thereabouts. Some plaintiffs simply dumped their entire Facebook history which, we understand, is a tactic to slow down the defense. Regardless, you can be sure they are “true”. These are not isolated snippets, they are are full chats, some spanning many days, both sides of the conversation. From that those comments were lifted. We have seen the sources for the comments, they are cited “chapter and verse” from the much larger documents. You are doing neither yourself nor those you support, certainly not the Lord, any favors by dismissing these.
First of all, no subpoena is required for “discovery”. Demands are made back and forth, that is how it works. The other side demanded precisely the same types of things. The SUBPOENA came about after the other side was repeatly asked for the secret chat groups and, multiple times, told the defense that they had everything. In response to the last one of those they handed over the bulk of the 30,000 pages. When it became clear that they had deliberately, well, lied, at that point the defense went to the judge to complain, which resulted in the subpoena. You will note the date of the commanded delivery of those chat groups to be the same day that they all suddenly quit.
People with nothing to hide are not much worried about discovery. Those who have been lying have the world to worry about. Because the further you press your lies in the process, the stiffer the consequences when revealed. So they cut their losses, and quit.
Yes, He will. Believe it or not, He loves Bill every bit as much as any other person involved here. Sometimes it seems like you cannot even conceive that. The every bit part. Equal value. Worth defending.
re: plaintiff accusations discredited or not
Hopefully in the coming summer we shall know whether the plaintiffs’ accusations are sanctioned (legally discredited) by the court. But the facts documented in the motion to sanction look pretty compelling so far.
Until then we have only the opinions of us diehards which carry a lot less weight than the court’s.
that quote about heresy brings back the memories. While it sounded good at the time, the thought is definitely “out of balance”. If one considers that the meaning of heresy is a belief or practice that “departs” from already established declared truth or practice and the Greek base word for heresy is “choice”, then one can see that heresy is much more than “truth out of balance”. That creative definition from Bill blurs what heresy really is and downplays consequences of heresies. It’s falls in the same category as there is “one interpretation, many applications” of Bible interpretation. The quotable Bill and his curious definitions.
Add Larry Nassar to this list. serial abusers. well loved and respected and then abuse. The stories are so similar, except Bill Gothard’s was in addition, spiritual abuse and that is so much worse. God will be the judge, not I, or moderator. How sad that our world has turned into this. I weep for all!
Not quite sure of the context here. The fact that there are cases of well loved and respected individuals who turn out to be serial sexual abusers is indeed sad. Not new in the world, but always sad. If Bill were guilty of that, it would be a horrible crime. We are thrilled to assure you that Bill never once abused a woman, a girl. See, it is also equally grievous when, because of other beefs, a woman will stoop to faking up a story to get a man, whom she considers powerful and otherwise untouchable, in trouble. Or when groups of individuals collude together to bring such claims. Like what was observed with some of the recent political appointees, where many are absolutely convinced there was never any substance to the heartfelt allegations.
And “Spiritual abuse” is something completely different. The Lord Jesus spoke of such things, of the way the Pharisees would load people down with all kinds of rules and requirements that were, in fact, nor from Him. Interesting that, Instead of commanding those so abused to bail, He commanded them to . . . Respect the abusers in their God-ordained role, all the while not being “like them”. Completely different from the modern perspective, right? But to equivocate with sexual abuse? No way.
Matthew 23:1-3
“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”
I’m rather busy myself so I can completely understand.
I’m afraid that you are not going to like my answers (which I can only make so brief, it’s a complicated area/issue) to your questions….
I was using the two families as examples of families who do have such high modesty/chastity standards, I was not trying to infer that they were directly involved. The Duggars are loyal supporters of IBLP and advertise it which is why I thought it relevant.
I do understand your point but you are hearing this 2nd hand from others. I am not trying to say that it necessarily is the case but it is possible that someone would say such a thing, even repeatedly, (without actually meaning it) if they are insecure and or wanted to impress, boast or present something in the light which they believe the audience want to hear, despite it either not being true or not what the person actually wants. If you look into things politicians say, I have absolutely no doubt you can find examples of this. I don’t know the girls involved, I don’t know all the circumstances of the case and I won’t venture an opinion or conclusion one way or another. Again, I am simply looking at all of the possibilities.
I understand what you are saying but you are looking at this from only one side. If there are claims that go back a long time, justified or not, the claims have more credibility than if it were just a very recent issue. IF people had felt uncomfortable, raised concerns etc in the past (not necessarily to BG but to any member of IBLP in a position of authority) and felt the matter was ‘swept under the carpet’ then you have a systemic problem. If these cases have only come out over the last 4 years but people had felt this to be an issue over time, particularly if they hear others coming forward, they are more likely to speak up retrospectively. Think about this from the Boards perspective, (again possible perspective- we don’t know everything that they are thinking and/or feeling on the subject) even if the claims are unfounded, can they run the risk of BG being put back in a position of authority? What if someone were to make such a claim again in the future (founded or unfounded)? Do they run the risk of international bad press and the possibility of IBLP losing support and/or its reputation in the long run to let BG back in? You said yourself that he is in mid-80’s, logically, how long would he be able to hold any position? If he does take his old position back, what happens when he is no longer able to fill it, what if similar systemic problems occur? Is it not more logical to have a group running IBLP who can share the responsibilities without having a single person at the top, thus lowering the risk of such a thing occurring again in the future against someone else? Given that he has been barred from IBLP for the last 4years, would not most people have gotten used to this, even if they still don’t like it? If he were allowed back in and then something else were to transpire/come out (true or not), would this then not cause even more tears and upset? From their perspective, could the best way to honour BG’s IBLP legacy may well be to exclude him from it in order to protect it? I’m not trying to say that it’s right or wrong either way but it is logical.
The problem with my metaphor of the young French man is that I made him a student. What if he was brought in as Dean of the College? If he were to kiss the cheeks of students and staff, would anyone feel that they could speak up, particularly to him in person? What would they say, what actions would they take, would people just look at it in as much to say, ‘well, that’s just the way he is’ or ‘we don’t want to offend/upset him’. Alternatively, would they actually address the problem. Probably, but maybe not before it had gone to the School Board, after a significant amount of time and numerous people feeling able to speak up about it. What if there were no School Board? I am sure you will say that people would feel able to speak up/ talk to him about it, but, when it comes to authority figures, you would be amazed at what people would do or go along with (if you find the time, you may find a little background reading on Stanley Milgram’s or Phillip Zimbardo’s experiments interesting reading. Their research, while completely unethical by todays standards, directly looks at authority and power, even in the absence of direct involvement).
As I said before, mediation is very helpful but it doesn’t always work in every situation, particularly when many people and, even more so, public scrutiny and judgement are involved. The appearance often counts for more than the truth. Human interaction between two people is kind of like a spiders web, the more people you add, the more dimensions the web has until you struggle to see the individual strands and can’t see all of the connections, or where they begin and end, even when you do. Having a sit-down meeting and a chance to discuss things would seem reasonable, however, turning up at IBLP after he’s been told he is not welcome and allowing himself to be recognised by others does not help his cause. I can see that the position (as you have described it) is frustrating, however, by doing so he has made his situation worse rather than better as it gives the appearance that his actions were politically motivated and designed to put pressure on the board and cause more problems.
In short, I’m not in a position to give advice on what to do or how to handle it. I don’t know enough about the case or the in’s and out’s of everything which has happened, been said etc to be able to have an opinion, let along to guide you. However, I hope that you will contemplate what I have tried to demonstrate… at the centre of all of this are people. People are infinitely more complicated than the legal system and people’s perspectives matters far more than ‘truth’ quite often. Of which the ‘truth’ is not exactly the same for any two people. The intention behind communication matters far more than the words which are spoken, which can often be misleading. In short, there is no short or easy answer. I’m sorry that I cannot give you what you are looking for.
Beth: If you have not done so, please humor us and read the “Motion to Sanction” document (click on the —> link < —). It is simply important that you have the advantage of more of the evidence available than what most people are operating off of. There is plenty of legalese . . . It focuses on 7 plaintiffs, compares their statements in the lawsuit with statements they made offline, before and after the suit was filed. Just move to the parts, for each of the plaintiffs, where their quoted statements in the suit are contrasted to their quoted statements outside. Otherwise you are “armchair quarterbacking” and really not helping the situation along.
What are you doing to “help the situation along”? It seems to me that the BoD is just not going to allow Bill back. If they were a business, I would say they are attempting to do what’s best for the business and protect the brand. They can’t allow him back in to further risk IBLP’s reputation. IBLP already has attracted bad press and negative attention from the allegations and as Beth said, bringing him back could open them up to more bad attention/allegations. In fact, I think it’s the job of a BoD to look out for the best interests of the business (ministry in this case) as opposed to what one person or another wants. I don’t understand why Bill can’t (as others here have said) allow the ministry to continue without him, recognizing that God’s will might be best served in this way. I am not saying whether the BoD’s actions are morally right or wrong, but reading some of the other comments here has made me realize that their actions are logical in attempting to protect IBLP. Using a business as my earlier example, I would expect a CEO to try very hard to regain a position that he had been pushed out of- especially if money was his motive. But I would have guessed that someone involved in a ministry would be more concerned about what’s best for the ministry and not his own desires.
It seems that what Bill believes is in his best interest, is not what the BoD believes is in the best interest of IBLP. As Bill’s friend, you are attempting to act in his best interest. Everyone needs friends to stand up for them and you have very clearly done that. But if Bill will not be in charge of IBLP anymore, it seems that continuing to fight the BoD is not actually in his best interest. If he can move towards accepting this fact, he will be able to focus on the future and the opportunities he still has to serve the Lord. But it seems to me that if his friends and the people he surrounds himself with encourage him to still fight the BoD, y’all are not necessarily helping the situation along and helping him move on with his life
I do find these suggestions interesting. See, for the last four years we have been hearing, in the context of the lawsuit particularly, that “IBLP is Bill Gothard, and Bill Gothard is IBLP”. There is no one with any involvement with the ministry that would deny that . . . This IS his teaching, his testimony exclusively. So . . . Bill’s reputation IS IBLP’s reputation, and vice versa. The question many of us continue to ask is . . . What exactly IBLP plans to do outside of Bill. It would be a complete reinvention of itself.
So the notion of “moving on” is an interesting one. Where shall they move? They could reinvent themselves in the image of one or more of the reality TV families made famous of late. The families themselves testify the tremendous degree to which they have been morphed and influenced by Bill Gothard. They have hundreds of millions of dollars available in resources to that end. But somehow they need to continue to being Bill Gothard while rejecting Bill Gothard?
And here is the main point. Bill was forced out – involuntarily, against his wishes – by a whirlwind smear campaign orchestrated by a dedicated group of disgruntaled former ATI students, a “mid life crisis” fueled by social media. The reasons that forced him out have at this point disappeared in spectacular fashion. At what subsequent point is it appropriate, even righteous, unavoidable for the BOD to revisit the situation . . . And correct it? It is the question a number of Bill/IBLP supporters are asking . . . With some passion. There is simply no way to compare this to ANY kind of typical company with a normal BOD.
I imagine that the package that Bill Gothard gave to the Board contained information that he believes exonerates him. Do you believe the Board has actually read the package that he delivered? Are they considering bringing him back or have you heard anything back from them regarding this? If they choose not to reinstate him, does he have any recourse? It would seem that because he resigned, he would not have a case for wrongful termination, unless there was evidence that they had promised to bring him back after a time. You mentioned that you believe that the Board is obligated to obey Bill Gothard. Do you mean legally or just that it would be the right thing for them to do?
The package would have had something to do with that, yes. I expect they read it. We do not know what the Board is thinking, but understand that there have been many attempts coming from Bill’s side over the past four years to get the Board to take him seriously. To us it seems like the idea of “good faith” has been completely absent in their actions.
There are some legal steps that may be taken. Whether they would be effective or wise is above my pay grade. The record should reflect that Bill believes that he was pushed if not forced into the resignation, there having been a formal meeting with an “or else” aspect to it. There is also the allegation that the current Board pushed out several others from that role who openly favored Bill and his cause.
Again, as we have stated, we believe that the Board acted with incomplete information, condemned him based on the same, and it is not an option for them to not make sure that that is rectified.
Obedience here is a moral issue, not a legal one. A spiritual “father” is one without whom you simply would not exist, literally or in the sense of the person you have become. Several board members – not all – have openly declared Bill to be in that role.
“The record should reflect that Bill believes that he was pushed if not forced into the resignation, there having been a formal meeting with an “or else” aspect to it.”
I was not aware of this. That is significant. Out of curiosity, I checked the IBLP website, as to their statement regarding the resignation. I had read it previously, but thought I better review it again in light of this. From their telling of the event, it would appear that it was 100% Mr. Gothard’s initiative to resign.This was what they said at the time:
“On March 5, 2014, Mr. Gothard again submitted his resignation indicating that he wanted to follow Matthew 5:23-24 and listen to those who have “ought against” him. In considering what was in the best interests of the Institute, the Board of Directors accepted Mr. Gothard’s resignation.”
This would also bring up questions about Mr. Gothard’s resignation letter. Did he not confess and ask forgiveness for touching young ladies inappropriately and, in so doing, violating their trust? Was this letter also forced or a sincere apology, with a desire to reconcile?
I expect that details will be brought into focus as things move along. But Bill was pretty specific about events that were not included in the official narrative. As to a “resignation letter”, I must confess I have never seen it, assuming one exists. In the statement that was posted on his website he assumed responsibility for some of the issues that some had complained about, holding hands during counseling and all. Those around him urged him to publish a humble statement as a way of defusing the situation. Because the plaintiff lawyers made specific demands for sworn responses about that statement we talked it through with him in great detail, talked to others. It remains unclear who wrote it, although he undoubtedly approved it.
He was pretty clear that this was NOT an admission of any sin, but of not being sensitive to the sensibilities of some of the women he had dealt with. We sat with him and his lawyer preparing his sworn responses to the interrogatory questions coming from the other side. There were stunningly few events that fell into that category.
Let’s pick “touching of hair”. There was one instance that he recalled, where he had flipped a woman’s ponytail out of her coat before she left the offices. A young man came to him later and expressed his concern with the appropriateness of that, for which Bill apologized to him, then sought out the young woman. For her part she had absolutely no issue with it. One plaintiff made a huge issue out of a supposed event where Bill grabbed her hair in his hand and – allegedly – hissed in her ear: “I love your hair, don’t ever cut it”. THAT event elevated her status from “sexual harassment” to “sexual abuse” (all this is in the Motion). Bill to this day has no recollection of that event. There you have it. He made a general statement that he should have just left hair alone because some women were really sensitive about that (while the majority has no such concern). He assumed responsibility for it being “inappropriate”, humbled himself, because a bunch of people were screaming at him that . . . It was.
So, no, there was no “confession” of anything that remotely approached something that would render him unworthy of a leadership, teaching, counseling role.
I thought I better review his letter, as the points you are making about it don’t square with my memory of it, so I did so. You are correct, it is not a “resignation letter”, at least not in the sense of how such a letter would normally be used- to be given to one’s employer. It is rather a “Public Statement”, that he published soon after he resigned. I think I categorize it in my mind as a resignation letter, because it was his way of communicating to the followers why he resigned. So, let’s call it a public statement, for accuracy’s sake.
Reading the statement again and reading your explanation of it, it still does not square with me. At the time he published it, many took the letter to be an admission that he had sinned and was asking for forgiveness. Many felt that he was deeply humbling himself in being willing to admit his sins and to seek the forgiveness of those he had sinned against.
Regarding the young ladies, here is what he said:
“My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust.”
Later in the statement he said:
“More than anything I want to make right what I have done wrong and deepen my relationship with the Lord. I trust in God’s undeserved mercy and pray that those whom I have offended would find grace to forgive me. I know that I do not deserve this. I would certainly appreciate your prayers during this time that God would bring healing to those who have been so deeply affected by my actions. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had thus far to be reconciled with individuals and it is my goal to contact as many others as I can, fully hear them, and do whatever I can to bring about Biblical reconciliation.”
He did not use the word sin, but how can a person violate the trust of a young woman, by touching her wrongfully and now say that those actions were not actually a sin? Scratching my head over this one.
I think that many families will not be able to see this the way that you do. Even if we do not pay any attention to the testimony of the young ladies and only read Mr. Gothard’s statement, many would say that he is confessing to sin in his statement and would cite. 1 Tim 3:2 2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
or The New American Standard would translate it:
1 Tim 3:2 “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,”
Would you argue that the words blameless or above reproach would apply to Mr. Gothard? Again, just going based on his statement, and if we set aside all others who have made much more serious charges.
I look forward to your thoughtful reply. I think that many families might be able to do as you are doing here and somehow make it work for them in their minds, but I am certain that many will not be able to look past it and say that Mr. Gothard is blameless or above reproach.
In that bringing Mr. Gothard back as a leader would likely never sit well with many of the families, what about allowing him to come and speak at a future gathering? I am sure that many would love for this to happen. Sure, some would still object, but it would not be nearly as divisive as putting him back in leadership. Has this been explored? Would this be something that Mr. Gothard would be willing to do? Has the board expressed an interest in having him do this or a willingness to discuss this?
Strangly you left out the following sentence:
Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.
If Bill never had anything sexual going on, no intent, how would you interpret the touching shoulders and feet and hands and so? If he said one thing, he also said the other – or the same others said it on his behalf. No, these may have been “inappropriate” in terms of cultural sensitivities, again of a minority of participants, and thus should not have been done for the very reason that individuals with a need to cause trouble can take it and spin a web of lies out of it . . . But it was not a sin, and it was not evil. “by touching her wrongfully” is the old “begging the question” . . . That has not been proven and, in fact, never happened.
You never explained the “husband of one wife” part, but I digress. The following was true of Peter and his disciples . . . Was he “blameless”?
1 Peter 2:12
“Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.”
Apparently “Gentiles” will talk bad about us, but after a period of time, it all straightens out. Maybe by means of a furious $8 million lawsuit with 17 plaintiffs.
Paul said of himself:
1 Corinthians 4:13. “Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.”
If you are counted “filth” and “offsouring of all things”, are you considered blameless?
Jesus said:
Matthew 5:11-12
“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”
People talking bad about you doesn’t disqualify you from ministry. Sometimes it even makes the case that you are doing exactly what you should be doing. Try to be a little objective. If you think the plaintiffs were somehow “framed” in the details highlighted in the “Motion to Sanction”, trot out what you know. If not, you really are left with Bill’s statement. And I can assure you I know exactly what he meant by it, having interacted with him heavily on that both then and now.
So, yes, we count him blameless, at least insofar as the standard for ongoing ministry is concerned.
If you are in contact with current ATI families that do not want Bill back, we would love to talk to them. For our part, we are not aware of any. Goodness, the notion of hanging in there in the wake of all that has gone on? That takes some real commitment. Commitment to . . . What? Take Bill out of the equation, what is there, short of being related to IBLP staff members, as, actually, some of us are, to keep the interest and loyalty?
So, no, we are not worried about that. There are, BTW, a host of options that represent something short of Bill as President, but with his name clear. I know him well enough to know that climbing to the top of the pile again is not his top priority.
Something occurs to me, in reading your last post. In particular, your comment:
“If you are in contact with current ATI families that do not want Bill back, we would love to talk to them. For our part, we are not aware of any”
Most of the people that I know who are involved are not enrolled in ATI, but they like to attend the family conferences. They enjoy the teaching, and the fellowship with other homeschool families of like mindedness. I get the sense that IBLP is growing in this direction and emphasizing the family conferences more these days.These are mostly families who started attending in the last 4 years, after the resignation. They don’t know Bill, and from those I have discussed it with, really don’t have an opinion regarding the debate about bringing him back. For them, their reason for attending has nothing to do with Bill.
I am wondering if you have any info on how many of the families who participate these days are ATI vs non ATI. I would think that the ATI families tend to be the ones who have been there longer term and have a connection to Bill, many perhaps wanting him back. For the newer families, I don’t think it has ever been about Bill for them. In fact, if there is anyone that they seem excited about seeing and talking to it is the Duggers- very popular in the HS community, as I am sure you know.
You mentioned that the board will not even acknowledge publicly that the suit was dropped. Looking through the IBLP website, one is hard pressed to find any mention of any of this at all and absolutely nothing about the suit itself. In fact, you have to go way back in the archives on the IBLP website to read anything about the Bill Gothard controversy- back to 2014 where they address his resignation. I would not go so far as to say that the matter appears to have been scrubbed, but one gets the sense that they are moving forward and not looking back. Do you think that this might be due to the direction that they have been heading in the past several years, with the emphasis on adding new families who are interested primarily in the conferences? To many of these families it might be somewhat confusing to hear any update about the suit, and cause them to start researching what this is all about. I think IBLP probably would rather just leave it all in the past, leave it alone and move forward. What do you think?
Why do you believe it to be the board’s job to clear Mr. Gothard’s name? Whether people believe Bill’s version, in which he characterizes his behavior as “wrong”, or the version presented by the women, which characterizes his actions as much more severe, was it not Bill Gothard who engaged in the behavior that created the questions about his reputation? Is it not his responsibility to clear his own name, if he believes that he has the information to do that?
Yes, that may be. Don’t see a problem with that. Yet, there is a significant percentage that very much remember and love Bill.
Your name is Walt Disney, you invented the Disney Corporation, steering it from when it was just you and the mouse you voiced to one of the largest companies in the world. One day a bunch of former employees spread a bunch of stories about you from decades ago, things you know are false but your board is completely rattled. They conduct a hasty review which consists of writing their stories down and accepting them at face value, then put pressure on you and force you to resign. All of your former associates and friends, folks that were nobodies before you gave them a life and career . . . Now it is clear that you flat out embarrass them. After several years of fighting for your personal and professional life, a series of lawsuits are defeated in spectacular fashion, and you prepare for what you believe will be a joyous return. Instead you find that you are banned from all corporate facilities and they actually call the police on you one time you boldly march in to demand a meeting. You see that the current management is basically selling off all of the stuff you built and remaking “Disney” into their own image. They have refused to talk to you for years and now are only talking to you because you or your friends raised a ruckus that may embarrass them. They continue to refuse to take down a public statement condemning you for crimes they have not disclosed, not to you, not to anyone. You can tell . . . They would prefer that you just go away, leave it to them . . . And die.
So, James, what do you do? Answer your own questions up there in the light of this little analogy.
I love analogies, so thank you for this one. I have given some thought on how the Disney one you gave applies to the current situation. Yes, as far as building up the ministry, definitely a parallel. It was Disney’s vision and he made it happen- he not only provided the vision but the energy to make it happen. The same could be said for Bill. IBLP was 100% his vision and he had the boundless energy to make it happen. Of course he had help, but to build a ministry like that you need a powerhouse behind the vision. That was Bill.
Where I part with you in your analogy is here:
“One day a bunch of former employees spread a bunch of stories about you from decades ago, things you know are false but your board is completely rattled.”
and here:
“After several years of fighting for your personal and professional life, a series of lawsuits are defeated in spectacular fashion, and you prepare for what you believe will be a joyous return.”
I don’t think it is fair to summarize the stories as false. That has not been proven. And I don’t think many see what happened as a “defeating of the lawsuits in spectacular fashion”, worthy of a celebratory joyous return.
They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So, too, is justice in the eye of the beholder. Wives and children of the accused almost always see justice differently then do objective observers. You refer to Bill as a spiritual father, correct? So, that would make you his spiritual son. A spiritual son is going to see a situation different than other people who don’t have that relationship. I have read your comments on what you believe the voluntary withdrawal of the suit means and I disagree with your conclusion. I suspect that virtually all who are not beholders in a similar fashion would also disagree with your conclusion.
The mother of the Boston bombers maintained their innocence, even after the surviving son confessed. When the first Bill Cosby trial was declared a mistrial with a hung jury, his wife declared that justice has been done. Not so fast. He was retried and found guilty. Now, she compares his situation to that of lynch mob victim Emmett Till- makes one sick. And, I believe to say that the result of the case being withdrawn deserves a joyous return celebration, well yes, but perhaps only to those who had already made up their minds and see Bill as a spirit father.
Why not celebrate and welcome him back? The victims can resubmit the case within a year. In fact, in the withdrawal they specifically reserved the right to do so.Perhaps the board is waiting for this year to expire? I mean, look how the outcome changed on the second Cosby trial. I don’t think that is what the board is doing are doing, however. I tend to agree with you here. I think that they want Bill to just go away. Another way of putting it is that they want to move forward and not look back and rock the boat.
Regarding them not revealing the crimes- I am assuming that you mean not releasing their investigation report to Bill, here I strongly agree with you. He resigned, but you have explained that it was forced- that an “or else” meeting was held first. I tend to believe Bill’s version here, as that is how these things typically go down. Most resignations of this type are forced. I have a question: At the time, why did Bill agree to resign? Why not refuse and force them to fire him? They would have had to show cause and would have had to release the report, otherwise he could have made a case for wrongful termination. Did they tell him to: “Go to those offended and reconcile, then come back and talk to us.” ? If they forced him out using the information in the report, he deserved a copy, in fact it should have been made public. But, is it not late to ask for this now, four years after the event?
Regarding your comment about selling off the stuff that Disney built, here I am assuming that you mean Oakbrook? I have heard that it is being sold. I would imagine that would be very difficult for Bill to sit on the sidelines and watch happen. But, don’t you think that it makes sense to do so? The market is very high right now- a Seller’s Market, as they say. IBLP has been losing money. I would imagine that the price that Oakbrook would bring would be a small fortune, maybe a large fortune. It seems somewhat necessary and I can understand how the huge HQ does not fit in with the current model and the direction things are going. So, get enough money to cover the losses and probably reduce costs substantially, maybe even turn around the losses completely. Is the board not acting prudently here and as good stewards?
This year, for the first time, they have opened up the Northwoods to host Family Conferences. There was so much demand to attend that it sold out with all of the rooms and accommodations booked. So, they announced another one in August. Good revenue, especially adding in the income from all the room rentals. Could this be God blessing the new direction? So, now there is Northwoods and Big Sandy as the hubs, with multiple family conferences to be held at each. It would seem to be prudent to sell Oakbrook for a good price and consolidate to those two locations. If not, why not?
Forgive me if I have asked . . . But . . . Did you read the “Motion to Sanction”? Believe it or not, this is scratching the surface. For a variety of reasons they left a number of the plaintiffs off of this Motion, and the reason is not that there was less reason to do so. In fact, some of the most blatant were left off.
So we know that not one of the tales that 17 plaintiffs put forward were strong enough to survive the standard for a civil cause of “negligence”. About as simple of a thing as they come. Please tell me that means SOMETHING to you. At least you do admit that one’s sense of things is affected by one’s perspectives. Refilling? Not going to happen. For the simple reason that all of the reasons they quit so hard and fast, with full agreement of the firms that were left with a half million dollars of legal fees to eat, are still on the table.
There are details that I am not at liberty to discuss at the moment. Suffice it to say that there was a discussion with an “or else” associated with it the night before he resigned. And the “or else” was something he felt he could not allow.
A lot more than Oakbrook is on the block. I hear they just sold Little Rock, also Australia. Each has the word “million” in it, some with several digits.
Selling off property to artificially prop up a ministry that is not supporting itself would be anathema to Bill. For his part he has at least one major ministry initiative in play. Those are decisions he should be making. There was talk of providing him a chunk of money from that – sale of HQ – for “retirement”. He was beyond adamantly opposed. He called it “Selling your mother into slavery” to live a nice life.
I cannot say. All these properties, held free and clear. The question would be . . . What is the vision that will drive IBLP into the next decade or two? My heart is just heavy. The interest in the conferences is in part “after glow” from the ministry, the seminars, ATI that was Bill’s life ministry. The “after glow” seen in and fueled by the interest in two large families that capture people’s imagination . . . Properly so, BTW. But . . . What happens when that public venue fades and vanishes, like they always do? Again, what is the vision that will carry this ministry on into the future?
Ultimately it is God’s business. The Lord had a role for a Northern and a Southern kingdom, but, as Bill points out, it was an expression of failure, a permanent reminder of the inability to reconcile. Somehow there HAS to be a way to find a path forward, that does not involve throwing Bill and his supporters into jail. What do you think?
Alfred,
So you stated up above that you talked to a couple of older staff women (which I assume are single correct?) and that all these girls were just climbing over themselves to be near Bill. I think what you are trying to say is that poor old Bill just couldn’t keep all this pretty young women away and it’s not his fault that all these girls view Bill as the new “Christian” hunk that they are tripping over themselves to be near. The more you try to defend Bill like this, the more you actually damn him in surrounding himself with pretty girls that he could touch. This sounds more like a Patton place than a Christian ministry that is suppose to be dedicated to Character and high standards. And if Bill didn’t “realize” or put a stop to this nonsense, then he got what he deserved from the board. Just this supposed observation alone by to “older” staff women (whatever that means) is not painting a picture of a man that acts in a manner “above reproach”. All all these “christian” girls raised on ATI teachings are just throwing themselves at poor old Bill. The thought of it make me want to throw-up because I can’t imagine any pretty young girl raised in ATI seeing Bill as “their hunk”, but that is the picture you just painted.
The two former staffers were at that time themselves single, young. Their testimony is that girls in that day were as much a part of if not solely responsible for the matters that the Board was reacting to. We have heard the same from even more senior staff members.
Bill surrounding himself with girls? Bill’s ministry is and has always been counseling – the Basic Seminar sprang out of that. Unlike a Billy Graham that emphatically involves a lot of personal interaction. And, again, the record reflects the fact that far more women than men come seeking counseling.
Let it rest, Rob. You are trying to build things out of stuff you can’t well critique. The women coming for counseling were in part ATI girls, but also involved young people from other venues, including the court system. A number of the plaintiffs were “troubled youth” that had been referred to Bill because their parents or the authorities were unable to make headway with them. Regardless, some were attracted to strong male figures, which Bill certainly is.
If Mr. Gothard was dealing with troubled young ladies, that’s all the more reason for being sure his behavior was not suggestive or crossed boundaries in any way, shape, or form. Our pastor has warned us that men are to be extra careful around needy women. Wisdom and experience should have told him that needy, troubled young ladies might easily misinterpret his actions. Regardless of justifications – he was acting as a grandfather – I don’t think it helps his case to then say he was dealing with troubled young ladies. Again, all the more reason to be EXTRA careful.
There is a lot of wisdom in what you say. And for the most part, that is exactly how things were executed. Remember, we are talking about 50 (“fifty”) years of counseling, insense counseling. In that time frame, with a major law firm beating the bushes, they found only 17 individuals who would sign the paper to joint the suit. Amount those there were a couple of men, one of which who claimed that a man in some kind of authority molested him, and another who said that he observed Bill “sexual harrass” women. We never saw any evidence for his claim – if he had such evidence, it would have been golden to the other plaintiffs, but we never saw it. Of the women that came forward the claims were not verifiable or were easily contradicted, proven false.
SO . . . In fifty years of counseling ministry, Bill ended up with the track record just indicated. A full court press could not get a single claim through even the lawsuit preliminaries. CIVIL suits, preponderance of evidence, charge of “negligence”, not even criminal charges. We think he did very well.
As I was preparing a lesson for our Life Group from a book recommend by our church, by Paul Tripp, “Instruments in the Redeemers’ Hands”, I came across this passage in Joel 2:12-13. While the verses are part of an end times prophecy, I think it is relevant to much that has been in the discussion here, for the time is short. Tripp writes;
“I want to help people see themselves in the mirror of God’s Word. I want to help them see what God sees. The second goal is to be used by God as an agent of repentance. The biblical definition of repentance is a change of heart that leads to a change in direction of my life. Joel 2:12-13 pictures this not rending the garments (the external behavior of remorse in Old Testament culture), but rending the heart (heartfelt remorse for my sin accompanied by a desire to change). Our goal is not to pressure people into behavioral changes, but to encourage heart change that impact the life. Repentance means turning to go in the other direction, and that turning must begin with the heart.”
“Yet even now,” declares the Lord,
“return to me with all your heart,
with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;
13 and rend your hearts and not your garments.”
Return to the Lord your God,
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love;
and he relents over disaster.” Joel 2:12-13
Alfred this was and is our ultimate goal and we have shared that with Bill since the beginning. Sadly, without it the rest of his life will probably be spent in conflict. You might not see it, but others can. Your frustration comes out in most of your authoritative post. Even today in your reply to Rob you state: “Let it rest, Rob. You are trying to build things out of stuff you can’t well critique”. Actually, she made some solid points, but they might not fit the narrative you wished you had. “Let it rest” was something Bill and his followers have been saying since the scandal in 1980.
One last thing, a history lesson. The scandal’s second forced confessional was Saturday, May 17, 1980, it was one of the worst days in most of our lives and especially the nine abuse women. The day started as a beautiful spring morning and the night ended in a fog filled darkness and a cloud of rain as if God tears were flowing on Oak Brook. I flew some of the abused women and one families back to the Northwoods that night and the weather was so bad in Chicago I had to spend the night there. The next morning was a perfect day that started with a literal bang, heard around the world. Being from Portland I’m sure you remember that day and will the rest of your life, it was the day that turned to night as an ominous black ash filled cloud spread over Washington and northern Oregon. The utter destruction that Mount St. Helens wrought that day also started a new cycle of life in then bleak and destroyed landscape. For us it too marked a new beginning of a life no longer in the bondage. For the Institute and Bill’s reputation, it marked a slow death that has continued to today and was evident in the events in Texas last week. For the past 38 years we have appealed to Bill to repent for his part, to no avail. Every anniversary of the eruption is a reminder of the goodness of God and the new freedom He so freely gave us. For us as we watch the recent event of the turmoil between Bill’s followers and the Institute, it is a sad reminder of that failure to repent and uncover the sin they worked to hard to cover. He too had a chance for a new beginning but chose a different path.
As I reread the verses from Joel I am reminded its never too late, till the last breath or the last trumpet to “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love;
Thank you, Larne. This is written hastily as I rush to get out of a hotel room to get to a gathering of the Lord’s people. The passage in Joel is a precious one. It also contains this statement, the original of what is quoted twice more in Scripture:
Joel 2:32. “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered”
That became so important to me when, as a 15 year old, I struggled with the assurance of my salvation, whether I had “repented enough” for God to receive me. On that day in September of 1973 it came to me that God means exactly what He says. Particularly this, where He quotes it twice more (Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13) specifically focused on salvation, being received by the Lord.
JUST like the other sections quoted, the Lord does NOT have a long pathway back. For many the step of “repentance” is invisible, just a natural part of humbling oneself to cry out for deliverance. For those with barriers of sin and rebellion, areas where I know I have disagreed with what I know the Lord has told me, those need to be addressed, but for those who have dealt with that, bowed the knee, now with an open heart before the Lord, the Lord requires no more.
Bill has an open heart, toward the Lord, toward you. It is a sin for you to continue to try to load him down with burdens that, frankly, you cannot even bear, that of “repenting completely”. Scripture knows no such requirement, and the devil continually uses it to discourage and drive people away, never quite “good enough” to be forgiven.
Yes, I remember Mount Saint Helens well, living at that time in Oregon. I was there convalescing after a major collapse in my senior year of University where, six month shy of graduation, completing two degrees simultaneously, preparing for graduate school, I had to return home for a year to heal. See, I was laboring under much the same thing, seeking sinless perfection, constantly examining my heart after every sin to see if I had “repented enough”. The overwork of the educational process coupled with that confusion led me to a point where I believed I had lost my salvation (which I do not believe possible), sinned the unpardonable sin . . . Collapse. In that year away I learned so much of God and His grace, and finally fully understood how, as a little child, I could simply come to the throne of grace to receive abundant mercy and grace for every time of need. A God who would receive me with no more requirement than an cry, to Him, just like He had received me at salvation.
So now you know what what you are doing is so onerous to me. The way you treat Bill tells me of a completely lack of genuine love, having been replaced with judgement. Judgment belongs to the Lord. EVERY time we pick up that cudgel, we are going to mess it up. Why I feel some authority coming out of my own broken heart: Give that right to hold Bill accountable for his actions and specifically his repentance back to God, the judge of all flesh. Accept what he has offered you as the best that you can get from a man. IF he is evil, there is no question that he will sin again, in ways that the Lord will ensure cannot be mistaken. On the other hand, there is a real possibility that, like Job, even like Paul, the devil has been allowed to “try” him, falsely accuse him for a variety of God purposes, and you, operating independently from the Lord’s specific direction, are in territory that you were never designed to be in.
The Lord bless you richly on this, His day. Even as another volcano erupts elsewhere to remind you and I of the Lord’s sovereignty and power, of the fact that He rules in the affairs of men, the judge of all who also is full of the tenderest mercy and grace for all that seek him.
You really don’t realize that your excuses for him actually indite Bill. The judge that gave Bill custody of wards of the court was from Indiana, was a friend of Bill and has since been removed from the court. He had no business assigning a single man running a multi-million dollar girls that were wards of the court. This is just spin.
Judge Payne was not “removed”, he resigned, and that years after involvement with IBLP. The matter that was in play had to do with his attempts to use his position to protect his daughter-in-law that was being charged with leaving her children alone while she went on a trip. Your comment is nothing short of a smear, Rob. Please explain the “multi-million dollar girls” comment.
I think calling others liars is a smear which is what you have done here towards a number of people. All one has to do concerning Judge Payne of Indiana is google his name and there are a number of articles that come up concerning his controversies not just a a judge but also as director of DCS of Indiana of which he had to resign from over more than one ethical violations which also does include how he handled the neglect case concerning his own grandchildren. But back to being a judge, it is unethical that a judge would assign to a “friend” named Bill Gothard as wards of the court young girls in order for Bill to straighten out. You only have one public testimony that is positive of one of these girls. None of what I just wrote which include anything above is a “smear” of Judge Payne because then you are going to have to call all these different article by a number of different news organizations a “smear” all of which are based in Indiana who knew this guy the best. All of this also is not from “fake news networks”. It seemed like Bill’s encouragement of IBLP followers and people into politics had more to do with getting control and getting favors for Bill and his ministries than genuine concern for the overall welfare and good of everyone. The Indiana TC Center is a case in point. You had a city counsel that was stacked with Bill’s people as well as this judge sending wards of the court to Bill and his training center. That is political corruption just as bad as on the liberal side. I am curious now why you don’t have as part of the freedom of information act the police cam of Bill being kicked out of the convention. I am wondering if this will not put Bill is a good light and he will turn out to be the uncooperative old man that he seems to have been turned out to be.
If a person says one thing in public posts and in court documents, then denies it in private chats, that would be a technical definition of a liar. On the other hand, pulling together possibilities and extraneous information to attempt to imply something, that is a smear. Judge Payne is an honorable man, and he became a “friend” of Bill only in the context of exploring “faith based alternatives” as the federal government was greatly encouraging.
If people in charge come to trust a ministry because of a track record that does exactly what they need, that does not make them the ministry’s “people”. Unless you think Bill paid them, or supported their campaigns? That is a sort of substantive accusation – smear – that you really should provide support for. Calling it “political corruption” might be something those named public individuals would take exception to.
We have not yet received the cam footage, so so far we have the first hand testimony of two people who were there. But if it turns out that Bill was not an “uncooperative old man”, would you be willing to apologize for that slap?
re: uncooperative old men
if we parse the term, it raises a question: cooperate means “to operate with”
With whom do old men have a duty to operate? Certainly not with all who impose claims upon them?
And with whom does the IBLP board have a duty to operate? Apparently that is what BG went to settle.
All I have to say is that this statement expresses what is wrong with Bill/IBLP/Bill’s teaching and all the rest.
Ok Alfred,
you made a comment and comparison of Bill to Moses and stated that Moses “was inappropriate”, married a black woman which causes Aaron and Miriam to gossip about him and then God punished both Aaron and Miriam. There is nothing in Numbers 12 that states that Moses was “inappropriate”. Yes, Aaron and Miriam did gossip about Moses being married to a Cushite. I looked at a number of commentaries, Jewish, Protestant and Catholic and most of them consider the Cushite or Ethiopian reference to be Moses’ named wife Zipporah, who wasn’t Jewish and the daughter of Jethro. Now Zipporah’s mother could have been from Ethiopia, we don’t know and it isn’t given in scripture. Likewise, one of the commentaries I read thought that Zipporah could have passed away by this time and this was an legitimate second wife. None of the commentaries I reviewed consider this to be a polygamous marriage. Another commentary I reviewed also thought that “Cushite” was more of a term used to mean “non-Jewish” or foreigner and not a literal reference to Zipporah’s race or skin color from her mother. But none of any of the commentaries I reviewed ever mention that “Moses was inappropriate” which was your injection into this to justify Bill because again in your defense of Bill, you are indicting Bill of being “inappropriate”. In final comment concerning Moses and Zipporah, the priesthood line came from Aaron and his sons, not Moses’ sons and maybe it could be do to that Zipporah was not Jewish (whether she was half or fully black) and that the priesthood line would come from someone married to a Jewish woman and had full blooded Jewish children. Just a thought to think about.
I have no problem with serious challenges to positions we take here, but to present irrelevant technicalities as the primary reason to not think seriously about something? Not right. Here is the statement:
Numbers 12:1. “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”
Whatever it was, it was “inappropriate” for him, hence talking bad about it. Maybe under the law, maybe the way he took her, maybe her race. Whatever it was it caused them to declare that they were at least as qualified to speak for God as he, implying . . . They highlighted a crack in his character.
It is simply inconceivable that this was Zipporah, given that she was so clearly identified previously, by name. If her Daddy was a Midianite, it makes no sense to call her an “Ethiopian”. He was old – really old – and he took up with a black woman, and then took her as his wife. “Inappropriate” is a catch-all phrase that means, “Well, it is not technically illegal, but it shows bad judgement and men of God are held to a much higher standard than ordinary folk”. I have heard IBLP leadership declare to me personally that they in no way believe Bill is or was a “pervert”. Just “bad judgement”. Hence, “inappropriate”.
So . . . I find a good match here. Instead of twiddling over words, perhaps consider the event. Both siblings were older than Moses, “senior team”, highly regarded by the rank and file. It is interesting that the Lord did not even address their concern about whatever factors led to this marriage, or even the marriage itself. He focused on their gall to so quickly ignore the special, unique “anointing”, role that God had given Moses to lay into him on his behavior.
Seriously, at this point in the OT narrative, The Torah law was given and on top of that, there are pretty strict guidelines of marrying outside of the Jewish community and religion, so I highly doubt that Moses would have suddenly married a non-Jewish woman, let alone that person be from Africa, even if Zipporah had passed away by this time. Some of the commentaries I reviewed, especially the Jewish ones emphasized that Miriam was judged with leprosy, which turned her skin white and she had to remove herself from camp until she was healed. This was interpreted as a judgement on racism and that Aaron and Miriam were speaking out against Moses due to prejudice and not accepting “strangers” or those of non-Jewish blood line, no matter what their skin color was, that now lived among them which would include Moses’ wife Zipporah who was not Jewish. You may “think” whatever you want or try to twist scripture to justify Bill’s “character flaws. This wasn’t a situation of “character flaw” in Moses because Moses married Zipporah when he was in exile and away from the Jewish community. Jethro was a Midianite, but scripture doesn’t say who he married or even if there was more than one wife. Midianites were also traders and nomads so it is very likely had contact with those from Africa and it is more reasonable to believe that Jethro could have had a Cushite wife as opposed to Moses taking a second wife outside of the Jewish community after the Torah laws had been given and expressly opposed marriage to non-Jews. The short of all of this is that this doesn’t fit Bill Gothard especially since Bill Gothard opposed mixed race marriages.
So much speculation, Rob. Again, focusing on an unnamed “Ethiopian” woman does not jibe with Zipporah. Can’t think of another example. Also, this is 50 years after marrying Zipporah, maybe longer. NOW they bring it up? Makes no sense.
I’m not speculating anything. I did not bring this situation up and then try to twist it to fit Bill and say that Moses has character flaw (or flaws) (like Bill) and that Aaron and Miriam “talked” or complained and God punished Aaron and Miriam (more Miriam with a skin disease) and then try to use this or imply that maybe those “complaining” or talking about Bill’s character flaws may be facing some kind of “judgement”. That is what you are speculating, no one else. You keep bringing up OT characters like Kind David and now Moses and then try to compare them to Bill to either justify Bill or clear his name and it isn’t working.
What God does is His own business. It was a noteworthy response. Worth considering. If you see not similarity, that is fine. We do.
Oh, I missed the last statement. WHEN did Bill oppose mixed marriage, Rob? I have been associated with him, attending seminars, buying his materials, ATI and all . . . And I have NEVER heard such a thing.
That came out in the book “I heard you were in a Cult” by Caleb Backholm and one of the issues he butted heads with at headquarters was over mixed race marriages.
Well, I have good news! Caleb was wrong, that has never, ever been a “thing” with IBLP. Just to double-confirm I will ask. Seriously . . . Anything independent that you heard? Me neither.
re: BG and interracial marriage
BG weighed in on many family topics, but he never made it to that one. Apparently it was not a basic youth conflict which overlapped with his field of service. It was neither common nor controversial for a mid-to-late 20th Century ministry. You can pin plenty of controversy on BG, but not that. It just never came up.
If you want to hear a religious objection to interracial marriage, try Muhammad Ali: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Ka40KovVo
I am 76 and attended my first Seminar in Dallas at the age of 28. I faithfully attended Seminars until the last year. There was NEVER a teaching against mixed marriages. In fact, the teaching was that this type of marriage should depend upon approval and guidance of parents. A statement that BG opposes mixed marriages is simply untrue. This type of false information seriously undermines the writer’s credibility.
re: is discovery a flaw in the legal process?
In his 5/5 post, Larne objected to discovery because it might distort the truth by disclosing documents which could be taken out of context. But this objection is answered a couple of ways.
• the golden rule: any man who had to defend a lawsuit would insist upon full disclosure by the plaintiff opposing him. Why should his adversary be entitled to retain secrets which may obstruct justice?
• presumably an adversarial process with competent attorneys would ensure that all facts in evidence retain their context.
The police dash cam has been released. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IB4zckM_Mk
Thank you. We have reviewed it. Interesting that several of us emailed the police department as requested, but never heard back. Witnesses we spoke with indicated that Bill did indeed indicate that he was not leaving until he could present his case to the Board. And that the Board representatives agreed to his request, agreed to meet him after the meeting. They insisted that he meet in that isolated location where, unbeknownst to him, the policeman was waiting. Given the fact that he paid his entrance fee, and, once things settled down, agreed with them to not come back after the meeting they accepted, there was no reason for this. Yes, they had the right to do so. Whether it was morally the right way to handle the 83 year old founder of the ministry they have taken over and they still profess to love and consider a spiritual father, that would be another matter. Probably all we can say for the moment.
Maybe the Board told him they could meet, but did they actually say they were going to talk about the situation and hear Bill out? If all they did was say they would meet, then that’s what they did. Could have been a slick way to get him away from the festivities and alone so they could escort him off the property as to not cause a scene.
At first I felt bad that Bill didn’t seem to understand that the officer could only put his own observations (notes) in the citation, but then as Bill kept saying it over and over and the officer kept having to explain it, I thought Bill was being obnoxious. Bill showed a lack of respect to the officer and I just don’t get why. The officer did a great job of explaining that Bill would have to try and straighten things out in a legal way with the parties involved and the officer had nothing to do with that. I really hope Bill understands it all now.
The interchange with the Alert officer was deliberately staged to elicit a “Yes” from Bill in response to the question, “Did you refuse to leave when asked?” The first encounter had the three Board members hustling Bill into a small back room, there demanding that he leave. Bill told them he had driven all that way, paid his entrance fee, had papers to give to the Board and expected to be able to meet with them. There was a point where he was commanded to stay in the back room while they called the police, even attempting to close the door on him. Thereafter they told him they would meet with him at the end of the day, Bill agreed to leave after that point. He was unmolested for the remainder of that evening’s session. The “Yes” answer he provided in response to the Alert officer’s questions was clearly couched in the context of a “but”, referring to the agreement they had come to. But that was the magic moment that allowed the officer to spring into action, write up the ticket, and force the process into action. It was . . . Just wrong, on the part of the Board, that part. Just not what you do to a man that you have just declared to a group of folk loyal to Bill . . . That you love, and would never hurt.
re: dash cam video and criminal trespass
The dash cam video doesn’t even show probable cause for a criminal trespass citation, much less the elements of the offense.
Whether the property owner forbade BG to be on his property was obviously in dispute, and could have been determined charitably by parties acting in good faith.
the video revealed exactly what I thought it would. Bill was difficult and tried to wiggle out of it and change the story. He was being warning for trespassing by coming to the conference to begin with. That’s what this citation was all about. The officer was professional. There was no bullying by the police, the alert officer or anyone else. There is no discussion any more with the board. It’s done. Bill should not have driven 14 hours to show up at something he has been told to stay away from and been banned. I have nothing to apologize for.
Our perceptions differ. In what way was Bill “difficult”? He felt entrapped – there was a whole conversation that started with “I am not leaving” and ended with the Board accepting an alternative sequence that ended with Bill leaving for good. He should never have been cited. Yeah, I think I would be asking questions too. I might be, well, almost angry. Try to see both sides of an issue.
He argued with the officer right up to the end and wanted the officer to put into the citation something that the officer did not witness himself nor could testify to which was Bill was there for a meeting. The officer handled Bill very well and kept reminding Bill that he could not “amend” this and what Bill was telling him was hearsay. Bill argued and tried to wiggle out of this. This citation wasn’t just about the little meeting Bill was currently having but coming to the conference uninvited to begin with and my guess again was that they threw in this “meeting” to get rid of Bill who wasn’t leaving earlier to begin with. This trespass warning was about showing up at this conference uninvited and unwanted. Bill was trying to force the issue of coming back. Bill laughed at the officer at one point in the tape. I thought that was rude and bizarre., like he took this whole things as one big joke. Now the joke is on him with the video out there for the world to see.
And we will spin on this, around and around. If you hate Bill you will interpret it in the worst possible light. Truth remains that this was the founder of the feast, all that they had come there to enjoy and, truth be told, make a bit of money at. We know that some of the speakers are very much opposed to actions the Board has or has not taken, and we most definitely know that many of the rank and file very much support Bill. This is simply an overt expression of all that is in their hearts. It would be one thing if they could point to clear accusations against Bill, but they can’t. At least they have not cited any, and the RG crew, expressed in the 17 plaintiff, $8 million lawsuit spectacuarly failed to make any clear case as well. Bill reacted much more calmly than I would have, having been entrapped in an answer that was most definitely not what he meant.
In your article you wrote:
“At that point the officer became frustrated and asked, forcefully: “Are you refusing to sign this citation?!” ”
You make it sound like he bullied Bill. After listening to the video, I found the officer to be patient and professional. He certainly did not bully Bill. He was just doing his job and Bill was being difficult. A lot of this officer’s time wasted due to Bill refusing to cooperate.
Professional, I will not argue with. He was part of a process, a responsibility to execute under the law. His job was to serve Bill with a criminal tresspass citation and get him to sign it, based on the complaint of the IBLP Board. Police have ways to manipulate situations in a manner that avoids unpleasantness, and also avoids interruptions. As an example, when a policeman approaches with a desire to look in your trunk, he knows that without a warrant he cannot demand entry. So he asks, “May I look in the trunk?” If you refuse he may start listing a bunch of reasons that failure to comply may make things unpleasant for you, some being true, some being exaggerated at best. The force applied by the badge and the lack of knowledge of the law on your part turns into a manipulation game. The game is to get to the conclusion he has to – look in the trunk – in the shortest amount of time while eliminating as many reasons as possible where, in a legal challenge, his actions will be found faulty.
The purpose of the “friendly” Alert officer asking the question was to take Bill off guard and most likely to say or say “yes” to the words, “I refused to leave when asked”. If he refuses to say that, he cannot serve him. So without Bill knowing the policeman was there, the Alert officer played his role. The second Bill said “Yes”, the second time, before the “but” could be expressed, the officer leapt into action to fulfil his role. Bill wanted to correct the narrative, but at that point the required scenario to issue the citation could not be altered. Watch it again, that is exactly what happened.
No matter how you slice it, Bill was lead into the words required to serve him, even if technically the prior interaction backed away from “I won’t leave” to “I will leave after the meeting you offered me.” There was no need for the Board to do that, other than to express their rejection of Bill in every possible way. And . . . To say they loved Bill just minutes prior? That is almost unconscionable.
re: BG duty, officer wasted time
In his 5/10 post, brother James lamented the officer’s wasted time because BG would not cooperate. The question turns on whether BG had a duty to sign. If so, he wasted the officer’s time. If not, the officer wasted his own time.
But don’t lament too much, because caesar compensates his hirelings very well for their time. I should know. I am one of them.
There are tax payers and tax eaters. When you eat taxes, why hurry to finish your meal?
If you’re not going to do your work to the benefit of the people who pay taxes, perhaps you could do your work as unto the Lord?
RE: perceptions, this made me think of DG. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/11/south-carolina-womans-claims-being-harassed-by-white-cop-are-questioned-as-new-footage-emerges.html
If you watch the bodycam, the officer seems to be doing his job, including having the woman sign. But she has a different opinion. If you perceive that the officer is correct here, then you ought to be able to perceive that the officer was correct at Big Sandy.
I am hard pressed to see where the video paints a different picture than what we gave in the OP. Right? It matches pretty closely. Official inquiries we fielded assumed that we had posted it, which we had not. Which might again suggest that it more or less confirms our narrative. If you disagree, highlight how. Of course the officer is doing his job, which is to serve a criminal tresspass citation after “witnessing” the perpetrator refusing to leave, or admitting to the same. So the events of the evening were carefully correographed – professionally – to do just that. Maybe it is irrelevant to you that Bill felt entrapped, causing him to request over and over that the entire tale be told by the officer, not just the part that matched the complaint.
What I see is that Bill put the Board on the spot, on the defensive in a place where it would cause a scene. In your OP, you say they told Bill, “he was not to set foot on IBLP property or be present at any event ‘or else we will call the police’.” They kept their word, and they tried to do so more discreetly (until DG et al posted it to Bill’s embarrassment). The officer was never very “forceful,” and the only person who entrapped Bill was himself. I understand that we all like to answer, “Yes, but…” Like children who get caught doing something wrong. Bill was simply truthful when he answered with a simple yes.
If they want to record a whole truthful statement from him, it would be something like: Yes, they told me not to come or they would call you, then I showed up, and they told me to leave, but I said I wouldn’t until I got what I came here for, and in order to get me to stop disturbing the conference they said they would meet me at this location at this time, and I met them and told them again that they needed to heed what I say to them, and they wanted me to leave, and then you showed up, and I certainly wouldn’t leave if you weren’t here because this property is mine, and if I don’t get what I want I will have to sue people to get what I want. Can I write that in your book? I’ve written more books than you have.
An interesting angle on authority shows up as Bill ages. As he becomes more dependent on younger people, they will necessarily have authority over him. This is true of many of us and our children. Our frailty will give them authority. I wonder how many parents who used the hammer and chisel considered that? But that’s another topic.
The only correction to your little scenario was that Bill had agreed to leave once the agreed to meeting was held. The Board could have run with that, but chose to put a mark on his record instead, including the surety of time in jail if he came again. It just clearly shows where the Board is at. After allegedly, from witnesses, telling some folks that love Bill that he loves Bill too, Gil does something that, well, just feels like hatred. You know, “you disgust me so much I just don’t want you around. For the long haul.”
Members of IBLP leadership have told us that the Board was caught off guard. Let the record reflect that, despite a track record that surely would have clued them in that, in the absence of any plan to resolve the bigger issue, they might well expect something like this, they had 3 hours to ponder their options. Instead of making a plan to humor Bill with a meeting so he could blow off some steam, solving the situation for the week, they opted to set the stage to throw him in jail should he show up the next day.
The banning from property was, as we understand it, on “legal counsel” in the face of the active lawsuits. In the two months since the collapse of all legal actions against Bill it does not take deep wisdom to figure that Bill and those that support him would be looking for a revisit of the entire situation. Any number of ways to get out ahead of this, including scheduling a meeting with the Board after the conference to discuss. From where we sit, that was beyond discouraging . . . Disheartening. Good will, good faith. Which adds to the sense of anger that many are feeling.
re: no choice
In his 1/5 post brother Jay compared the BG citation to that of a motorist in South Carolina. Indeed here are important similarities. In both cases, caesar’s agent warned caesar’s subject that he had no choice but to sign a document. Of course thus was a threat to punish any choice except that which caesar required.
Brother Jay used the Nuremberg defense that the cops in both cases were doing their jobs. But the lesson of Nuremberg was that all jobs are not morally innocent. Even harlots just do their jobs.
re: doing their job
Meanwhile in Kansas, cops may no longer have sex with women they take into custody. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-12/kansas-police-no-longer-allowed-have-sex-people-they-pull-over.
Alas, the job just lost one of its perks.
Jay did not mention whatsoever Nuremberg defense of “following orders”. There is a huge difference between watching and participation in the torture and mass murder of people and giving a citation warning for trespassing. The former was what the Nuremberg trials were about, mass murder. This is not mass murder, murder or anything near that.
I am honestly surprised that a crack about police having sex with those they take in custody is posted here live. It’s pretty sick comment and not funny that this “job perk” is now gone. And considering what Bill has been accused of with female staff, what happen with Steve and the female staff, cracks like this are offensive, sick and even a sign of a low view of the dignity of women which really is part of the problem. Even attempting to compare a police officer doing such things to someone that gave Bill a trespass citation warning is pretty low.
Yeah, we certainly don’t want to be denigrating police in general, as others have done. While the “new law” mentioned is a sort of “gulp” moment it has no bearing here and probably should have been left off. Others that know the PD in Big Sandy have written us privately to express their support for their professionalism and we have no reason to doubt that. It just remains strange to me that, especially being as small as they are, knowing, I suspect, the players . . . They would not have tried a bit harder to be more diplomatic with a public figure like that, the 83 year old man that was calling the shots there up until most recently.
IBLP just called the cops on an 83 year old man?
They’ve become sadder and more impotent than I thought.
This should be a PR disaster for them, and instead you have hundreds of Christians hating on the 83 year old man.
Fascinating.
Glad I’m not around these types of “Christians” anymore. The legalistic interpretation of rules that Bill taught them has followed them out of the organization… and they can’t see it.
This video shows BG to be the honorable and peaceable person I would have expected him to be. I don’t know anyone who would have agreed to sign a statement they knew to not be true. He simply and politely restated his request to provide an accurate account. This shows remarkable self control from a person who has been robbed of reputation and legacy!! I look forward to the fresh insights he will offer those paying attention as we may well face our own day of persecution.
In an above post (which wouldn’t let me “reply” to) on May 9th to James, Moderator says:
“There are details that I am not at liberty to discuss at the moment. Suffice it to say that there was a discussion with an “or else” associated with it the night before he resigned. And the “or else” was something he felt he could not allow.”
Well, I guess all this public speculation is pointless. All the blog posts, comments, and websites. We can all just keep going around and around and continue to get nowhere. What a huge he said/she said. Bill has his secrets, the Board has theirs, RG has theirs, the plaintiffs have theirs. No one is being fully transparent, fully honest, or fully Christian. This is why Christianity is so widely mocked. True humility, the kind like Christ demonstrated by his Crucifixion, is not in this situation by ANYONE of those I listed. In my opinion, everyone says that it’s someone else failing in their Christianity, but not ME. I know we’re only human, but we really are called to live what we profess. Why would anyone convert to Christianity when stuff like this goes on? Can you imagine the witness for Christ it would be if ALL parties actually worked this out? What a glorious day that would be!
Well, we can all drop down to, “he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” There are complexities . . . Truth be told, Bill is complex and everything associated with him becomes complex. There are reasons why so many plaintiffs were so angry, and why their efforts failed so stunningly. We all do well to check our own hearts, our own walk with Jesus . . . And spend less time finding fault with everybody else.
Efforts are underway to clear these things all up, communications between various parties to that end. May the Lord govern all such things and bring about a conclusion where His name is greatly exaualted and the exact opposite of what concerns you, people fearing Him and putting their trust in Him.
“Bill is complex”. that’s a pretty revealing description there. When someone is “complex”, they are usually hiding sin and as Larne said about Bill, are compartmentalized. When things are complicated, they are usually sinful and twisted. That is also true about people. God actually is simple and not complex. We have a hard time understanding God because we have been corrupted by sin. In the Beatitudes, “blessed are the pure, for they shall see God”. Purity and simplicity are the opposite of complexity. God is pure and God is simple. Sometimes Alfred, you act as if you have sold your soul to Bill. Actually, I think you have and his twists and complexity have affected you, your thinking and reasoning.
Getting a tad personal. Let’s focus on the facts, please. Complex people are not evil people. In fact, they get more done than the average person . . . Or you are misunderstanding how the term is used. Whatever they are part of is always big and unusual. Walt Disney was complex, Donald Trump is complex, Elon Musk is complex . . . CT Studd was complex, Jim Elliot was complex. Not a slur.
re: divine complexity and purity
Jehovah’s Witnesses deny divine complexity. Pagan gods are simple. The Trinitarian God is complex. Would anyone deny that the Athanasian Creed is complex? Yet it is the widely affirmed standard of Christian Orthodoxy. As Mike Mason quipped, “even God is not a bachelor.”
Concerning BG and complexity: Men are simpler than God, but are they not permitted to share the divine attribute of complexity, yet without sin? Perhaps even BG may be permitted this?
Concerning water: Happily, purity coexists nicely with complexity. Who would have guessed that pure water is so complex? Men thrived on it for centuries before they discovered their thirst is quenched by two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It was a simple complexity which comprised their very flesh and without which they would perish.
Our finite pea brain minds are never going to completely understand an infinite triune God. That is not what I’m talking about. Simplicity is not about whether one understands something, especially our triune God. The only way we even know that God is triune was by direct revelation through Jesus Christ, who is “the image of the invisible God”. The water molecule is a simple molecule, not a complex one ( I had a minor in chemistry). Bill’s teaching was complicated. He has 6 steps for this, 8 reasons for that, 5 consequences of those. I would compare that to another Bill, Billy Graham. I think one of the things that many loved about Billy Graham is that he has a very simple basic message that could be wrapped up in John 3:16. That was his message, it was simple and basic that anyone could understand in basic and follow. When things become complicated and too complex, that moves away from the simplicity that one can find in the gospel.
Alfred, just fyi for what it is worth… After listening to Bill being escorted off that property in Texas by a police officer, I cannot help but feel sadness. No matter what my personal feelings for Bill might be, there is no joy in listening to an 83 year old man trying to regain or maintain some degree of personal dignity as he is being escorted away by a police officer.
Thank you for saying that. We, of course, share that grief which is hard to express. For some it turns into anger. The Lord knows all. I know he loves the members of the Board and that He loves Bill. He works according to His own counsels, His glory He will not give to another. It is before Him was ultimately all stand, looking helpless and foolish.
Come to think of it, having been betrayed by “a friend” and counted as a criminal has a very familiar ring to it. The “exciting last chapter” of that story has been alive through the ages!!
I watched the video and whatever moderator wrote the accusation against the police officer (videoing the “staged” exchange with ‘best video camera) ought to be ashamed of themselves.
I don’t know or care why Gothard was on property he had been told to never be on. I don’t know why he stayed or what he expected to get. I don’t know why he wasn’t granted the meeting he wanted.
But the police officer was beyond patient with someone who was making unrealistic demands ….asking to personally write in the officer’s notes things the officer had not witnessed!!!!, refusing to sign his citation, interrupting the officer over and over and telling him that what he saw wasn’t accurate, not to mention the beginning thing of telling someone not seen on the car dash cam to submit to their elders. After watching the video, I thought it was apparent Gothard was trying to stage a coup of some sort (which this article confirms.)
Anyway, the officer did his job and implying he was part of some set up is ridiculous and you ought to apologize. Romans 12! You make this website even less believable than it already was.
We have made our point in other responses, don’t want to repeat it all. Romans 13, for starters, right? Read back through our comments and see if that makes sense. Bill WAS entrapped, a cleverly staged procedure to get a “Yes” out of his mouth in response to, “Did you refuse to leave?” The mitigating information, which turned “Yes” into a “No” was most relevant. Had it been me there might have been a bit of anger in response. Most of that grief would be directed toward my former friends, associates, that consider me so unimportant as to happily see me thrown in jail so their continued control of all I built is not in question.
Bill was not entrapped. Please stop saying that, it is not accurate. Entrapment is a legal term that refers to when a member of law enforcement attempts to get someone to COMMIT a crime, and then uses that crime against them and arrests them. That is why it is a joke on many tv shows when someone tries to get someone else to do something illegal and the other person responds with something along the lines of “you’re not a cop, are you? Because that’s entrapment”. Bill was not entrapped, by the time the police officer got there, he had ALREADY trespassed on private property after being warned not to. What the people involved were trying to do, to get him say “yes”, was not any type of trap. The police officer arrived after Bill was asked to leave. Therefore in order for him to document the criminal trespassing complaint, he needed to know that Bill was already told to leave. There is nothing dishonest about that. Verbal confirmation is often required in any situation that might have legal implications. If someone from the Board called the police, told them that Bill was trespassing and had been told to leave, and then said “we’re calling because we want him to leave”, then the police officer responding to the matter had a responsibility to make sure that Bill was indeed told to leave so that the requirements for removing him from the premises were met. And that is exactly what he did. Maybe you think that Bill should have had a chance to say his piece- that wasn’t the officer’s responsibility. It was only his job to remove the trespasser, and so it does not make sense that he should have done anything else that Bill was saying.
I understand if you might speculate that Bill himself felt trapped and deceived or even if Bill specifically told you what he felt. But as you have told and discussed this story, you have continuously used words like “forced”, “entrapped”, “deceived”, etc., and although those words might describe Bill’s thoughts, they do not describe the officer’s actions, especially now that everyone can see the cam footage.
If you want to say it was wrong to bar Bill from the property, you can (and have). That’s a matter of opinion, and probably perspective. If you want to say that Bill was “tricked” or “trapped” in his interaction with the officer, that is simply not true. Now if you want to say that the BoD themselves tricked him by telling him they would meet and then refusing not to, it certainly seems likely that that part is accurate… however were they wrong to? I’m honestly not sure. If we want to speculate on how Bill felt, we should speculate on how the board felt too. It’s one of their busiest events of the year, they’re being called in tons of different directions, and Bill comes in after being told not to do something like this. They don’t know what his motives are, if all he really wants is to be able to talk or if he is himself being dishonest with them. Under those circumstances, it’s not unreasonable to believe he might be there to cause a disruption or even if he’s in a fully logical state of mind and they don’t have time to sit down and figure it out, talk to him, figure out what their response will be. They themselves might have been feeling ambushed by his sudden appearance and felt this was the only way get him to not cause any disruptions. Not saying it was right, just that it’s hard to feel sorry for Bill with him behaving in such a questionable way.
Thank you. The term is inappropriate. What would you call a situation where a person is “tricked” into saying things in a way that carries a lot of legal weight, making future defense much more difficult? The officer could have introduced himself, indicated he had been called by IBLP to complain about Bill refusing to leave and asked him whether that was true. Bill would have said the truth, which included that the Board members agreeing to defuse the situation with a late night meeting, the reason he had driven 14 hours in the first place, after which he had agreed to leave. All of that would have given him the dignity possibly due a public figure who was, truth be told, the reason there even was a piece of property to be standing on to start with. One that, BTW, the donor of the property had explicitly requested the BOD consider transferring to Bill and his new ministry. We digress. The officer perhaps found it unpleasant, as many of the actions that public servants get forced into, and picked the shortest, most effective route to doing the job they had called him there to do.
They actually probably would know that Bill was not in a happy frame of mind. And that Bill knew that they had in fact not told the folks that were supporting them, many of whom very much support Bill, anything about the estrangement, the ban (Bill’s private effects remain sitting in his office at HQ, as they have for the last four years), the lawsuit, the dismissal . . . And had already telegraphed that they had no intention to change that, planned to continue on as they were. So, we understand their wish to get him out of sight as soon as possible and MAKE him never show up again.
Our point remains that THAT was not reasonable, never was, especially in the wake of the evaporation of the legal action, ostensibly the reason for Bill to be banned. The BOD had four years to prepare for this, let alone the several months since the legal cloud had lifted. There were multiple attempts to open the discussion between Bill and the Board privately since February 26th, but it seemed obvious, at least to us, that their heart was not in it. Anyone calling HQ to ask about the lawsuit is read a statement that says, “Nothing has changed”. To be in a position to feel forced into exercising the “nuclear option”, the big hammer, was not wise . . . In our perspective. Especially if they really, truly WANTED to exercise it.
You should get the facts correct. Bill was not given a citation. There were no charges brought. No court date. No fees to be paid. Look at the picture that you posted. It is a Criminal Trespass Report. It is a formal, legal method of telling someone that they are not allowed to be at the stated location and that if they return without that trespass being removed that they are subject to the penalties as listed. Signing it just verifies that you got it.
Bill did not have to say a word. Your repeated comments about it being “staged” have no bearing. The property owner or legal representative asked him to leave and he did not leave. That is all that is required for a criminal trespass to be issued. It does not matter if you were invited to be there or paid to be there. As long as you do not live there, the only thing that is needed is for them to tell you to leave and you not leave.
You can continue to argue about your idea that the board was wrong for doing this but please keep to the facts that you have even documented. You stated in the article “To add insult to this situation, Bill was told years ago he was not to set foot on IBLP property or be present at any event “or else we will call the police”.” That was his warning. He decided to ignore that without checking with anyone in charge and in my opinion should have been removed the moment the board was made aware that he was there.
I am a simple fellow, but that piece of paper does say “Criminal Trespass Report”. Whether there are immediate penalties or no, it documents a crime. And there is no doubt that the situation was deliberately staged to allow the unseen officer to document words coming out of Bill’s mouth . . . To be placed in this official “report”. The officer could have documented Bill saying, “Yes, but then we agreed to this meeting, after which I was to leave.” Which means that as far as he knew he had committed no crime. It is the unpleasant bit of information that takes it from a crime to a matter that had been resolved. So no matter how you slice it, in order to avoid an unpleasant scene at the conference the Board decided to . . . deceive a little. Police work those kind of situations all the time. Similar to telling a crook that they have won a big prize and need to go to a certain location to retrieve it. Maybe you agree with the need for the Board to work this kind of scenario with the local police department in order to deal with this bad situation involving Bill Gothard. Other find it onerous to the most extreme level. We find no fault with the policeman other than the obvious intent to honor the wishes of the entity that called them and care little for the situation of the one they called about. Since the office documented the one statement by Bill, seems like he could have noted the protestation that the elderly man in front of him felt he had complied to everyone’s agreement.
You are still arguing against the facts. What crime was committed? None! If a crime had been committed he would have been arrested or ticketed. Neither of which happened. You stated the Bill was told years ago to never step foot on IBLP properties or events. With that previous statement, the board could have had Bill arrested for trespassing but they did not. Instead, they had him removed and it legally documented that he cannot return to the Big Sandy location.
No, this is exactly the way trespassing citations work. Note “Criminal Trespass Report”. It documents a crime. There IS NO PENALTY for the first offense, but it is an offense nonetheless. Had he shown up on day two in exactly the same way he showed up on day one, no threats, no yelling . . . He would have been arrested and put in jail for the second citation of the same offense. The third? Much worse.
” The officer could have documented Bill saying, “Yes, but then we agreed to this meeting, after which I was to leave.” Which means that as far as he knew he had committed no crime.”
I don’t see how you can take the position that as far as Bill knew he had committed no crime. Trespassing is a crime, and Bill committed trespassing, without any doubt. As you have acknowledged already, he was told by the board previously not to set food on any IBLP property. Setting foot on their property, after being told he is not do so, is trespassing. No different than if my neighbor warns me to stay off his property and comes home to find me soaking in his hot tub. I have trespassed.I have committed a crime. I may have a great excuse as to why I think that I deserve to trespass. Maybe the previous owner used to let me hang out over there all the time and now this new guy won’t let me- he won’t even talk to me about it. It really doesn’t matter how upset I am at him or how unfair that I think he is being to me.I have trespassed and, thus, committed a crime. Bill trespassed. He committed a crime. He was treated with respect and incredible patience by the officer. A lot of departments probably would have not put up with his resistance and cuffed him on the spot, maybe even had him spend the night in jail.
And, the Alert officer also treated him respectfully. This certainly was not entrapment.
I notice that you take very pro Bill stance on every issue of controversy surrounding him. I get it, your his spirit son, or whatever. But, you have to realize that in this instance there is video tape with audio. The way you are trying to spin the narrative will not pass muster with anyone, when compared against the tape. It’s like you and Bill are making the argument that we ought to believe you and not our own lying ears and eyes.
It is rare that we get to hear a story and then get to see the video to see if the story matches up. In this case, your story about the event does not line up with the tape. It makes me question your version of other events that you have relayed. This is the first time that we have had video to actually see if things truly are as you have presented them. I think you need to eat some humble pie on this one and admit that you did not present things accurately.
We shall have to differ on that. As has been repeatedly stated there is no question on the legal right of the Board to show Bill this disrespect . . . To jerk him and his supporters around like this. Some view this with great delight, applaud the Board’s actions. Others not so much. We believe it is vital that everybody who may care, one way or the other, understand what happened and I think we did a pretty good job in our reporting. There are details here that some consider completely inappropriate for THIS BOD for THIS ministry and THIS servant of the Lord. You are fine with it. Your happiness is duly noted. The Lord knows exactly what was done. If He doesn’t care, then all of our concerns are of no consequence.
No one has jerked Bill or the supporters around but Bill. The only “ambush” that happen here was Bill showing up uninvited and unannounced with some letter signed by big shots that state he should be back. He sits in the front row for all the see and when shuffled off to a room in order not to embarrass Bill, he demands a meeting with the board to “talk about it”. If they wanted to jerk and embarrass Bill around, they could have called in the police right then and there to escort him off. They didn’t do that to Bill. If Bill has this big important letter of supporters, then why isn’t it made public? Why aren’t these people that sign it coming out publicly and decrying this “injustice” to Bill? I don’t see any of that going around on the internet. IBLP on their own web site have not said a thing. Bill did this to himself and he also did this to loyal supporters like yourself by not even giving you the common respect of a close friend in informing you that he decided to pull this off. While you go around claiming that Bill is innocent of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs have publicly stated that they stand by their stories and they still have a year to come back and resume. IBLP has also stood by their “firing” of Bill. I don’t see how any reasonable person would think that just showing up to a place that they were banned from with some letter in hand is going to put them back in charge. It’s clearly someone that can’t think straight any more.
Boy, I will have to differ!
No, they were quite clear to us that they did not want this public, no ruckus. They could have have him cited in public because everyone would then know what was up.
There are a LOT of reasons a lot of people want Bill gone! That have nothing to do with sexual malfeasance. THAT was all made up, but THAT was the reason the Board gave for pushing him out. In our private discussion with members of IBLP leadership we have heard clear statements, “We do not believe Bill to be a pervert”. They have no proof of even lesser matters that are moral, at least that they have disclosed. And those in the know appear to agree that the lawsuit allegations were way worse. We don’t think there is any allegation of that nature that can pass the test of Scripture.
When we make our point folks quickly leave that and bring up other things that made them mad at Bill. As each is addressed, one moves to something else. And, mind you, we are now in the area of “the way Bill has been for the last 50 years”. Walt Disney made a lot of people mad over a lot of years (on a Disney roll these days). He still became one of the most important, respected individuals in American history. Bill has had standing and respect and to this day a host of folks that say that without things he taught them, their lives would have ended in disaster. And he irritated folks.
So . . . we have been waiting for the plaintiffs to make another move. It seems incomprehensible, but as you know, that right is theirs. There is a lot of “unfinished business”, coming from Bill’s side. We were all grieved when the judge did not cancel the lawsuit in light of the SOL issues. We were really sad, maybe a tad depressed. In hindsight it was the best thing that ever happened. They had to disclose their hand, they had to, legally, produce their evidence. And now we know. The pending “Motion to Sanction” contains a fraction of the evidence that was collected from the 30,000 pages of chats they did produce. One can only wonder what the volume of chats in the secret chats groups would tell, which would be the first thing that would be produced, should they decide to press another action.
And we wait for the Board to finally allow Bill to address their secret information. We have heard assurances to the effect that this will be the case. We wait and pray.
“Your happiness is duly noted.”
Definitely not happiness. No, the whole thing is unfortunate. We differ on whether the BOD, the Alert officer and the police officer handled the situation appropriately, but this was not a joyous happy event. The situation was of Bill’s making. He decided to go to Big Sandy when he knew he was not allowed to. He does not get to make up the rules as he goes along and expect everyone to obey him. If he sees himself as the spirit father of the BOD and feels that they are required to obey him, as you have expressed yourself, that is a problem. That alone would be a good reason not to let him back on the BOD. It would be constant conflict if that is his expectation.
Let me say that I do believe that you tried to get all the facts before telling the story. I believe that you feel that you are being objective. Objectivity is a very difficult thing for all of us and when we care deeply for someone, we are naturally going to see things tilted to their benefit. We are going to see this event differently.
I do appreciate that you are willing to post views that disagree with your own and discuss things.
Thank you for your kind comments. When we interact with many that feel very differently on a personal basis, we find each other to be not so different. There is respect there, even when there is a fundamental difference in perspective.
Back to the Board of Directors. That authority is an artificial construct. An odd notion for a ministry that God has given to an individual. The BOD is given authority that is vested, not by God directly, but by the state of Illinois. Illinois has a vested interest in seeing things run smoothly so that nobody gets defrauded, money is wisely handled. Sometimes those governmental objectives run against things that God wants an individual to do. We mentioned George Muller, the preacher that decided to “prove God” by taking in thousands of orphans . . . with no assets, no income. Every need handled by going to the Lord and asking. Then write a report about what happened at the end of every year. I see that something like 17,000 orphans called his orphanages home throughout his tenure. IF the “Muller Homes” had had a BOD, reporting to the government, how long do you think the government would have allowed him to house orphans . . . with NO income? Where events such as sitting down for breakfast with no food in the kitchen happened on occasion? God always supplied, but secular government would be nervous enough to shut it down . . . I would expect. At least fire George and get somebody more reasonable.
So . . . would that have been God’s will, to acquire a BOD? Personally, I think not. So . . . your attestations about Bill obeying and backing off . . . at what point does the anointing of God on Bill personally, as expressed in the worldwide ministry and $500 million at point point in assets, 2.7 million alumni, ATI families . . . ALERT itself . . . come into play? When you broaden your consideration of the matter, bigger frame of reference . . . at least for us . . . it stinks.
While contemplating this unjust episode I “stumbled” upon a verse I had never seen before. I am claiming it!!
I Chronicles 12:17 KJV
I am curious why you keep comparing Bill Gothard to Walt Disney. I am not sure about your assessment that Walt Disney is one of the most important American figures. Walt Disney was a master story teller. He also was a innovator and was at the right place at the right time in working with the beginnings of animated cartoons which he latched onto developed. I’m not sure if you saw the movie “Savings Mr. Banks” but the movie brought out the loyalty his staff had for him and his insistence that he be called by his first name “Walt”. In the making of that movie, they consulted one of the surviving Sherman brothers that wrote the music for Mary Poppins and a number of other of Disney Films. His interests in doing children’s stories stemmed from his rather unhappy childhood with his father Elias. I’m not sure if you ever read the original “Bambi” novel. I did growing up and that book is rather dark, much darker than what Disney developed. Walt took tragic childhood stories and turned them around. That’s his magic. Walt’s staff was very loyal to him, interviews with people like the Sherman brothers brought that out. I don’t see how he is the same as Bill Gothard at all. They are totally different men.
We have had a different understanding coming in part from a documentatry that we watched. In fact, I was jumping up and yelling at the screen, “That is Bill, that is Bill!”. Disney had a public image which he meticulously protected, and a private one . . . The private one included vices – moderate drinking, smoking – that he freely acknowledged were inconsistent with “Uncle Walt”. He demanded the impossible from his staff, and quite often got it. He could be extremely hard to get along with, focusing on every flaw. He dreamed big, furiously attacked each dream. Some went well, others not so much. Some people collapsed with parts of the dreams that also collapsed. This article is a tad unfairly negative, but it paints a bit of the picture. Read other articles where coworkers were most fond of the man, loved him. A bit of a conundrum.
In any case, for those that have had the privilege of working closely with Bill, there were many surface level parallels. We hasten to add: Bill’s “vices” are things like coloring his hair, which he has done for decades, enjoying root beer and ice cream after preaching bread made from freshly ground flour and pure, distilled water. Very hard to work for and with at times. Hurt a lot of people by being harsh, making promises that he forgot or later became inconvenient to fulfill.
And still he shook the world, Bill did. And for every problem there are a multitude of unsolicited testimonies to the life-changing character of his ministry. His staff too for the most part very much loved him. The negative aspects are like the cold and wind of a rainstorm, which leaves a “blessing” that we later enjoy. Contrast that to a worthless man who oppresses people, but there never is a payday:
Walt Disney was like a giant tree . . . That fed and blessed many people. So was Bill. SOME of the unpleasantness just comes with the territory. But there is a deep blessing there as well, one secular . . . One spiritual.
Alfred, you never worked for Bill and you volunteering/work for him now isn’t the same as being an employee of Bill. I realize you had a son that has but Walt Disney could be more compared to Steve Jobs who was also difficult to work with but also had loyal workers but also were visionary creative men that were in the right place at the right time in the beginnings of new technology (cinema for Walt, computers for Steve). I think Larne and Ray would be better judges of Bill as the boss.
Well, all you have said still leaves someone like myself with a better insight that, say, you, right? Should be worth something … or not. Our opinions are our own. We have a fairly focused team that all add years of experience with Bill to the equation.
Also in addendum to my reply. The model for leadership that Jesus gave his Apostles was one of the servant, not one of the tough demanding boss. You keep comparing Bill to big name innovators such as Walt Disney and I’ll add Steve Jobs as well. I don’t see how Bill Gothard is a creative innovator to begin with. If Bill’s style was more along men like Walt and Steve, then Bill wasn’t following who he should be as a model of leadership and that is Jesus and that of a servant willing to wash feet. Walt and Steve were game changers and innovators but there leadership styles are not found in the Gospel nor taught by Jesus. Bill was suppose to be running a Christian ministry not a corporation of the world.
Yes, I do realize that there was a difference between the public persona of Walt and the private man. That was also true of another innovative writer, Mark Twain. His public image was much different from the actual Samuel Clemons. I think God wants us to be consistent through and through. That’s called honesty, with oneself and others. To have such a dual personality is not honest with oneself as well as others. Are you saying this is true of Bill as well?
You again have a right to your opinions. To call Bill not “creative”, not an “innovator” would reveal some degree of ignorance. We could add a great many great Christian leaders to the mix who were, in their own right, at times difficult to deal with. George Muller rushes up on that one. He is to have literally stepped over his wife on one occasion as she threw herself down and plead with him to no go back out into the city to work with the cholera victims. I believe he lost a child in there somewhere. John Carey . . . His wife lost her mind for grief because she could not resign herself to the life in India for which he was famous, also losing a child there. Many more could be cited. Somehow I feel your analysis is woefully simplistic.
Bill Gothard did not invent anything. What you are calling “creative” or “creative teaching” is called heretical or false teaching by most Christians now. Disney and Jobs were inventors and innovators. Bill is none of those things. Your comparison may work in your mind but isn’t not based on reality. Your George Muller story of literally stepping over his grief stricken wife paints a picture of a jerk and someone that does not consider her legitimate concerns and grief. If that is what you admire, so be it.
The Christian leaders mentioned have the admiration of most of the church today, at least the evangelical part. You so quickly condemn and curse things that others revere . . . That is not wise. Your statements about Bill represent the perspective of Recovering Grace and others who have rejected Bill, but certainly, emphatically not ours. Which is kind of the point, as you “beg the question”. If God is actually in this, that Bill has done, let along George Muller, then what you are doing is certainly getting His attention. Wisdom would be to not curse, be gracious, let God handle His vengeance and judgment.
As I read your posts I have to chuckle, you sound just like Bill, your comparisons to George Muller are mostly irreverent to today. Muller operated in a different time, different rules and country, Romans 13:1-2 is clear, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment”. Jesus in Matthew 22:21 said, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Even thought the discussion was about taxes it is still applicable to authority. (The exception would be in the arena of denying our faith or committing a sinful act.)
The State of Illinois and the Federal IRS set the rules for a 501c3 no-profit which requires a Board (IBYC/IBLP was in that category). It then becomes the Boards ministry for governance, the founder has to submit to the Board. Till 2014, Bill surrounded himself with yes men, I remember Ruth reminding Bill one time that he used to brag about the Board doing whatever he wanted. I also remember Bill not disputing that. When Bill applied for his 501c3 non-profit he handed the keys and title to his kingdom to the Board. The $500 million you mentioned above belongs to them. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, it’s the law. You can take IBLP’s Board to court to fight it, but be careful what you ask for, there are many skeletons left in the closets. (BTW, that is not a threat, that’s just a fact and I want nothing to do with it.)
You have stated this and similar comments: “Wisdom would be to not curse, be gracious, let God handle His vengeance and judgment.”
There are several ways to look at this which we would argue, till the cow come home. One point we probable would agree on is God uses people to do His will. Depending which side you are on determines your characterization of who is serving God. I would rewrite your statement above and ask if you would be willing to do the same thing you are asking of others. “Wisdom would be not to curse Bill’s critics, be gracious to them, let go of protecting Bill and let God do His will.” Personally, I see God working the past 5 years and Texas was a great example. The most humbling experience for Bill would be not to get his way and not be able to change the narrative.
If George Muller is irrelevant, so then, by spades, are the examples from Bible times. That isn’t really your test of truth, is it? God has never required a servant of his to be reporting to a group of other believers in order to fulfill a calling He has given. Men of God “recognize” a gift and give their blessing – the 11 remaining apostles blessed the new apostle, Matthias, as the replacements for Judas. At that moment he reported directly to the Lord, as the rest of them. Governments move into many aspects of our lives, and yes, under the law, the BOD controls all of the assets. Morally, spiritually we have a problem, however. This remains his testimony, his ministry . . . donors do not give to “IBLP”, but to Bill, and his vision. As mentioned, the entity primarily responsible for securing the Big Sandy property clearly expressed their wish that the property be transferred to Bill’s new 501C3 by the BOD of the old one. Of course they can legal ignore that. As they have. Morally . . . it is not right.
“Curses” are wishing evil on another, hoping for it, praying for it, delighting in it, promoting it. “Go to hell” is the ultimate curse, and we have seen that expressed about Bill by some of his adversaries in so many words. “I hope you get what is coming to you” . . . “You will die a lonely death” . . . “Everyone has left you in your misery” . . . “Nothing you have ever done has helped anyone” . . . “You fraud” . . . “You pervert”. I suppose we are expressing our acknowledgement of our understanding of what the Lord requires, and continue working towards it.
I have know idea what you mean by “curse”. I have not cursed anyone. That is a bit of an over-reach there. Yes, I understand you consider Bill’s teachings “Biblical”. I obviously do not and that is not just because of RG. If you have ever bothered to read any of the earliest Church fathers, one can quickly see that Bill’s teaching does not line up with any of them, and yes, I’ve have read a number of these early writings as well as books about them. At the moment you have mentioned George Mueller who predates Bill Gothard. I understand he is one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren movement. I understand why he would be significant to you and not just because Bill Gothard used him as an example. Yes, he never “asked” for money to support his orphanage. A long ago conversation I had with someone that was more familiar with George Mueller told be that he was asked about why, and George replied that an orphanage always has needs and that this should be obvious. Maybe you can confirm this for me being more familiar with George Mueller.
The beginning of the vision Mueller had was founded on this verse:
Psalm 81:10 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.”
It struck him that God was net weak, as powerful and real as ever, but He really was looking for people to trust him for big things . . . open up their mouths really, really big so He could spectacularly respond. The orphanages were the expression of that. And the Lord answered in amazing ways over the entire course of his history. The proverbial example was the command for all the children to sit for breakfast as they literally asked for the food that they did not have. Having a milk truck break down at that very moment in front of the door, longing for a way to dispose of their perishable goods, coupled with bread from another source. I forget the details. It remains amazing to read.
I addressed the topic of “cursing” to Larne. When we delight in and talk with obviously approval about the downfall of another, that is cursing. Talking bad, really. Which we only do when we are personally vested in a need for vengeance. I am sure I am not entirely innocent.
re: Bill Gothard’s creativity
BG’s creativity has been settled fact since 1964. A visit to the IBLP web page documents the history: https://iblp.org/about-iblp/iblp-history
If BG has not created, then none have built since Nimrod.
You can hate what BG created, but you cannot deny it.
In your examples of curses, I have not done any of those things. There is a big difference between talking honestly or examining someone that claims to teach from the Bible and wishes or desiring people ill. I have not “wished” evil, ill, hell, etc. on you, Bill or anyone else.
“Bill Gothard did not invent anything. What you are calling “creative” or “creative teaching” is called heretical or false teaching by most Christians now. Disney and Jobs were inventors and innovators. Bill is none of those things.” That is a barrage of your unsubstantiated opinions designed to denigrate Bill. “I don’t see how any reasonable person would think that just showing up to a place that they were banned from with some letter in hand is going to put them back in charge. It’s clearly someone that can’t think straight any more.” You have relegated Bill to the class of the insane. You can’t prove it, all it does . . . is tear him down . . . talking bad, a curse.
Let’s move on. Don’t mind at all addressing any objective criticisms. THAT, there, is just “cursing”.
I recognize that George Mueller is “revelant” to you as one of the founders of PB. But is that the only person in 2000 years from Christ that you can point to in trying to support Bill? It’s seems like if that is all you have, it’s a weak support of the things Bill does. My understanding is that there were conflicts between the Open and Exclusive PB and George landed in the open camp. Is that correct?
George Mueller has a large area of support far beyond the “Plymouth Brethren”. Truth be told, I find less PB folk know about him than otherwise. I remember a detailed serialization of his life on Moody’s “Stories of Great Christians” which is still available. I happen to have looked him up and it is noted that he had no Board of Directors. I am sure he was far from alone. I, for example, cannot conceive of CT Studd deferring to any “Board”. I am open to correction.
For the record, yes, Mueller’s action in joining with 9 others, including his long time associate Henry Craik, in defending the “receiving” of certain former members of the Plymouth Assembly that had been excommunicated simply for being in the same fellowship as Benjamin Newton, who for a time taught some questionable doctrines . . . that act, expressed in the proverbial “Letter of the Ten” became the basis for John Nelson Darby and the others to excommunicate them, their Assembly, and all Assemblies that sided with them. Thereby forming the “Open Brethren”, whereas the others became known as the “Exclusive Brethren”. All of which is irrelevant to the discussion, but . . . since you asked . . .
I’m not the least worried about the assurance of my salvation and speaking truth is not a condemnation in fact its required by scripture. You don’t know the hearts of those you call haters, vengeful, cursers, and the very thing you accuse others of you do yourself.
If Bill wants a tax deductible ministry he has to abide by the Federal or State laws. If he doesn’t want a Board then he can collect donations as a private person but that can get tricky with the IRS. If he sells anything like his books he might have to get a business license and report that income to the state and federal governments. It all goes back to Romans 13:1-2 and Matthew 22:21. What ever Matthias did has no bearing on today regarding the physical aspects of a ministry’s responsibilities today. Spiritually Bill, you or me are free to be ministers of God and share the Gospel, but when money is involved we have to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, we don’t always get a free pass. Bill accepted those responsibilities when he applied for the IBYC/IBLP’s 501c3 and if he applies for one today for Power Teams he will have to abide by Caesar’s rules again, whether you think they apply or not.
You state: “donors do not give to “IBLP”, but to Bill, and his vision. ” I would hope and pray they are giving to God not a person. Back in the seventies when I donated to IBYC’s Widows Fund (which turned out to be non-existent at the time) I was giving to the Lord thru IBYC not Bill, my checks were made out to IBYC for a program not a vision. Even thought my designated donation didn’t go where I directed them, that is between God and the people that made those decisions. Maybe that should apply to the Big Sandy campus donation too???
The irony is that by that standard, you can’t possibly know Bill’s heart either. Which would have removed you from the role you have been in a long time ago.
I appreciate you making that distinction. My point is that this Board considers itself on the spiritual side, not the Caesar side. There are different responsibilities with each. One again, we KNOW the legalities . . . It is the spiritual rules and responsibilities that we are focused on, which we feel were badly violated, not just in Big Sandy.
I just love the spiritualization that gets applied to the concerns of others to make it “not matter”. Of course, those funds were similarly not given to the Board of Directors. Then let God decide. Commit it to a lot, coin toss.
To David K’s comment on invention. If you think as you have stated that IBLP is an “invention” of Bill, then you are stating that IBLP is an invention of man and not a movement or teaching by God. That is the logical conclusion of your assertion and defense of Bill. So to consider Bill an “inventor” and that IBLP is an invention of Bill’s then this whole thing has nothing to do with God and everything to do with Bill. And you know what? I actually agree with that assessment. My parting shot.
I doubt that is what was meant. Bill is CONSTANTLY inventing new, creative ways of addressing problems and needs. The staff called it “Flavor of the Month”, since there were so many. THAT is creativity. Most went nowhere, some shook the world.
Moderator wrote:
“Governments move into many aspects of our lives, and yes, under the law, the BOD controls all of the assets. Morally, spiritually we have a problem, however. This remains his testimony, his ministry . ”
I have to totally disagree with you here. Morally and spiritually, we have an obligation to follow the law. Bill has an obligation to follow the law. The BOD is the decision making authority of the ministry, by state and federal law. The law also says that we shall not trespass on another’s property. To do so breaks the law of the governing authority.
Rom 13 1-5:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
Titus 3:1
“Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,”
1 Peter 2: 13-17
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”
Boy, you are a bunch of Gothardites! Here is what I read:
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Caesar never speaks for God directly . . . Rather is an umbrella to keep us safe as we furiously pursue God’s will for us. In this case Caesar had the choice to treat Bill with respect . . . Or to respect the owner of the property only. In a dispute between, say, a popular ex-governor and a greedy bank that possessed his property for financial gain I would guarantee that the situation would play out differently. But, all was done legally, to be sure.
Brother James makes an interesting point in his 5/8 post.
BG was one of the founding fathers of the homeschool movement when he started ATI as an extension of his youth and family ministry, way back in 1984. In the decades that followed, BG (IBLP) hosted annual ATI conferences. There was ATI-specific content, but there was also material of interest to homeschooling families in general.
So it is possible that the BOD wants BG and ATI to fade away while they target a broader homeschool market. (That was the pattern with ALERT, which began as a branch of ATI, then decided to shed their ATI identity and draw from a broader market.)
If the anti-Gothard sexual accusations have been discredited, that would be another explanation for the BG snub at the hands of the BOD. Does not justify it, but it does explain it.
I would personally challenge the claim that Bill was a father of homeschooling. Homeschooling as a movement began in the 1970’s, with thoughts and motions thereof going back further, much further actually when you consider the first schooling done in Virginia was home tutoring in the colonial period (yes, that is a form of homeschooling).
Bill launched ATI in 1984, twelve years after the founding of A Beka Book, and eleven years after BJU Press. ACE came out in 1970. There was more than a decade of homeschool thought and work done in this country before Bill got in on the mix. That makes his work, though admittedly innovative and creative, a Johnny-come-lately in this part of the story.
I would say’s not a father of the movement as a whole, but of his specific niche. He is certainly the father of ATI and the father of the influence it had, but he is not a father of homeschooling. He came to the game late, and that is just fine. He was focused on other pursuits. I cannot speak to the BOD’s purposes concerning ATI at present.
Well, there is more to the story than you know. I know that the seeds of homeschooling were planted in my heart through the Basic Seminars that I attended in the late 1970’s. So . . . Bill was speaking to what became 2.7 million alumni about it. Several of the prominent Homeschool leaders point to Bill as their initial inspiration. Again, Dr. Dobson was instrumental, but I believe his endorsement and encouragement followed Bill’s. Of course he featured the Moores, who definitively preceded everybody. But . . . Their voices were largely lost in the wilderness until the two Bills shone the spotlight on it.
That really doesn’t respond to what I said, or even acknowledge it.
I do not deny that Bill is a father of his particular ministry. I was addressing the homeschool movement as a whole, which Bill has little claim to historically. What he did do was found his Institute of which ATI grew out of. But again, that didn’t happen until 1984. The homeschool movement began long before that.
I’m looking at this from the historic standpoint. It will transcend personal experience. Calling Bill a father of homeschooling is loaded. You’ll have to define what you mean. If you mean ATI, certainly. But of the movement in general, I take issue with that. And most of my professional degree requirements are in the field of education history. The movement is far bigger than Bill, and he did come to the table late in the game, historically speaking.
But don’t misunderstand me. I mean in no way to disparage the influence he had on families, and for sure many thousands of families did enter homeschooling because of him. In that case, you may claim him a father, but not of the movement as a whole, just of his particular segment.
Until you understand and can verify that Bill was actively talking up Home Schooling long before inventing ATI . . . To his 2.7 million alumni . . . Your comments cannot be taken seriously. Those who attended those seminars in the early 1970s can absolutely confirm that. I did.
re: fathers of homeschooling
As brother JM says on 5/14, there is plenty of credit to go around. A Beka and BJU were pioneer publishers who made homeschooling realistic for middle class evangelicals in the late 20th Century. They contributed a lot.
But a meek little fundamentalist midwesterner with an overhead projector was filling public arenas with many thousands of seminar attendees through the 1970s and 1980s. When Bill Gothard began advocating homeschooling in 1984, the movement took on enough momentum to grow from fringe to mainstream in one generation.
Causation, catalyst, or mere correlation? Doesn’t Bill Gothard place somewhere in those categories?
Historically, absolutely not.
The movement was already in full swing by the time he launched ATI. I would argue he did that as his way of acknowledging the movement and recognizing its validity.
Bill’s ministry predates 1984 for sure, but we’re not dealing with the ministry as a whole – just as it relates to homeschooling. History tells us otherwise here.
I would argue BJU, A Beka, and ACE are the bigger players in taking it from fringe to mainstream. I’m not sure a good case can be made for ATI. Several publishers sprung up during the 80’s and 90’s, all of whom may claim 1 million or more users today. It becomes white noise at some point. What we do know is when the movement began, and we do know who the major players of that were. Bill doesn’t feature into those pages of history until much later.
This does not mean he had no influence. I don’t intend to disparage the man. But I believe history tells a different story than what you might be painting here.
I have it on good Biblical authority that Judases eventually hang themselves—especially when they think they have “pulled a fast one.” My hunch is that the Big Sandy incident was the Judases on the Board hanging themselves. Many who love Bill saw him and greeted him. But, “now you see him; now you don’t.” Gossip travels fast and I am thinking that there may be a good many others now who will be asking, perhaps even demanding answers that the Board will be unable to give. Action further exposing the Judases may come from an unexpected direction.
I have considered why BG would have been prompted by the Holy Spirit to travel 14 hours for such an unlikely turn of events. Could it be possible it was to further reveal those pretending to “care” for him as selfishly, callously and personally motivated?
I keep thinking…. There are *ministries* that I really do not like and do not want to be associated with, nor would I recommend them to anyone. I may even warn some folks to avoid them,… BUT…. I would not infiltrate them and attempt to throw out the leader/founder and redo the whole thing into an entirely different entity of my choosing or beliefs. (sigh)
“Cult, false teaching, wrong doctrine and hero worshippers” are words I have read in previous posts. If a “follower of Christ” truly believes that to be true, then why not obey Paul’s teaching in the last chapter of Romans and AVOID them? Why not be out doing the work of the Lord where one can agree rather than wasting time, energy and spiritual opportunity.
re: traitors infiltrating IBLP BoD
If the present IBLP BoD seeks distance from BG and ATI, its seems improbable that there was any such design from the outset. I think BG pretty much recruited the present BoD, seeking not a Gothard personality cult, but rather reliable men of God. And reliable men of God can be independent-minded.
If the hypothesis from my 5/15 post is true, the BoD may be acting in good faith, but the Big Sandy incident may possibly be attributed less to the BoD than ALERT officers who were too comfortable bossing people around. Although 1 Peter warns against church officers lording it over their flock, there is something about a uniform and a short haircut that can bring out a man’s tyrannical side. Hopefully not.
Infiltrate was not an accurate description in this application. We all are speculating as to the motives of this BOD. I believe they were chosen as they appeared to be in agreement with the founder’s vision and purpose in ministry. If they were not, the they should not have accepted the positions. We are left to wonder at the current thoughts, plans, vision for IBLP.
I just read in a reflection Novena leading up to Pentecost this: “more specifically, spiritual people exhibit the following traits: they are as prompt at fleeing from situations where they can be injured spiritually as they are from places where they can be harmed physically.” by Ludolph of Saxony. Claiming that the above “examples” are “curses” is beyond the beyond. All I can say to you Alfred is that I’ll be praying for you but other than that to twist factual statements about Bill (and yes he did not “invent” anything and yes many consider his teaching heretical) and call them curses because you have run out of logical defenses and answers for Bill is going into a black hole that I have no interest in and I’m not going to throw “pearls before swine” and being accused of “cursing” when I have not done so. Nor has Larne cursed Bill either. I’ll be praying for you.
Pray for us, but don’t curse, OK? :-). Most people can quickly relate to cursing, the verbal tearing down of another person. Here is a Bible example:
2 Samuel 16:7-8
“And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: The Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the Lord hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son: and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man.”
“Man of Belial” would be “demon possessed”, really. Look. . . . A bunch of facts, right? The “Curse” was, “You are bad, you deserve to be hurt, and YAY that it is happening.”
I am wondering if the Big Sandy property was or is posted “No Trespassing” with a sign? If not, then the citation was legally out of line as well as the action by the Board.
We doubt that matters. Once the owner of the property identifies themselves and then makes the demand, that is likely all that is required.
In the article you write:
“Also worth nothing is that a majority of the Board members have openly and repeatedly acknowledged Bill as a spiritual “father” by virtue of the life changing impact he has had on them. Some of us would wonder why these men would not in some manner find themselves in a position to obey . . . him. Paul had such expectations on those that were so related to him (1 Cor. 4:14-16)”
However, that is not what Cor 4:14-16 indicates.
1 Corinthians 4:14-16 American Standard Version (ASV)
14 I write not these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the [a]gospel. 16 I beseech you therefore, be ye imitators of me.
Paul says that they should imitate him. He is not saying that they need to obey him because they are his spiritual children.
This has a bit more of the thought:
Philemon 1:19
“I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.”
There are people we owe our lives to, spiritually. And those people are those that can perhaps expect some loyalty . . . Response.
When Paul says to Philemon that “thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.” It is taken to mean than Paul led Philemon to salvation. So, in a sense, he owes him his eternal life. Respect, yes. There is no requirement to obey. As a Christian, there is no commandment to obey the person who led us to the Lord. That would be a pretty interesting world if that were the case. Children have led their parents and grandparents to the Lord. Can you imagine if now those parents and grandparents were obligated to forever obey the child? No, this is not a requirement.
Even if their life was forever changed by Bill, the Board is not required to now obey him. That is not found in Scripture in any of the verses that you have cited. I am open to learning something knew if you can find a verse that requires this.
So . . . Philemon has no personal responsibility towards Paul, in your mind? Tell me what the difference between a “father” and a “teacher” would be, in your mind? You have acknowledged that “imitate me” is in there. However you slice it, I can’t see “have you arrested and thrown into jail” in a fit of anger. Can you?
Addendum:
In reading back through the book . . . First Paul pulls the “love”, “aged” and “prisoner” cards:
Philemon 1:9. “Yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.”
And closes with this, which actually has the word “obedience”:
Philemon 1:21. “Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.”
“So . . . Philemon has no personal responsibility towards Paul, in your mind?”
That is a bit of a red herring. We are not talking about whether Philemon has any personal responsibility to Paul. We are talking whether the Board of Directors is obligated to obey Bill Gothard- whether someone who leads someone to the Lord, or acts as a spiritual mentor is now a person that must be obeyed for the rest of the person’s life. You have not backed up your claim with scripture or logic.
No, the mention of the word obedience does not make the case that now all must obey those who led them to the Lord. Again, go back to my example of the child leading his parents to the Lord- no, the parents do not need to obey him. I have never in my life heard anyone claim that a person needs to obey such a person. Some real mental gymnastics are needed to try to make Phil 1:21 say such a thing. We are not supposed to try to twist Scripture to make it say what we want it to say.
Ok, so in your mind Philemon had NO personal, compelling responsibility toward Paul. Not only as the one that had seen him saved, seen him grow in the Lord, but as a leading servant of the Lord, let alone “aged” and in prison for serving the church. I disagree.
Do you believe that you, personally, have a requirement to obey Bill?
Please don’t substitute other words. It goes without saying that you are required to love him, and, no doubt, you respect him. But, does Scripture require you to obey Bill Gothard? It is a very straight forward question.
In the same way I obey my 91 year old mother, yes. That means there are “bonds of love and support”. I look out for her, see to her needs . . . And if she calls, I answer. I would, for example, never call the police on her, no matter now much she irritated me. Same with Bill. It is what you do for your “Father” and your “Mother”. Obviously Jesus and your immediate responsibilities come first, nothing new there.
I never said that Philemon has no personal responsibility to Paul. “Personal responsibility” and “obey” are two different things. I have a personal responsibility to my children. Scripture does not require me to obey my children.
Would you ever call the cops on your kids for trespassing? Just curious.
“Would you ever call the cops on your kids for trespassing? Just curious.”
You are trying to change the subject. The discussion was about whether the BOD was obligated to obey Bill.
I get that you feel that they treated him wrong for calling the police. I don’t agree. I don’t think he had any right to barge in on the conference like that. He was told to not set foot on the property. He ignored the demand that he not set foot on the property. He broke the law and in your own narrative you admit that they demanded that he leave immediately:
“Board members Dr. Tim Levendusky, Dr. Stephen Paine, and Gil Bates showed up not long thereafter and insisted they follow them into a small side room. There they demanded that he leave immediately. ”
Instead, he demanded a meeting and refused to leave until they agreed to meet with him. He broke the law by being there and further by refusing to leave with asked to do so immediately. I understand that you feel that he had every right to be there. I don’t agree. I understand that you feel that they were not loving towards him by calling the police. I disagree. I don’t think he gave them a choice. They likely waited until things had wrapped up to spare him the indignity of being led off the property by the police in front of his supporters. They waited until virtually everyone had left. I don’t see this as nefarious, but out of respect for Bill- not wanting him to be humiliated. I believe these are men who care deeply for Bill. Bill will not agree with that assessment because he is not getting his way. But, just because someone does not obey you does not mean that they do not love you.
Not changing the subject. The whole “obey” thing is predicated on that, Bill must “obey” them. If your kids inherit a business you built up and then, some time later, get displeased with you in your later years and demand that you respect their private space and not show up at the company you founded, would they be correct in saying that you must “obey” them . . . Do you think? Or might it even be possible that they, through a continuing debt of love and respect, should in fact treat you with respect if you show up anyway, deep respect they might not show others? Again, would you see it appropriate to call the police on their own father instead of doing backflips to figure something else out? Most of us would say, “No way”. No “child” would call the cops on their “father”. Just disrespectful.
And just to make a point . . .
Leviticus 19:3
“Ye shall fear every man [“Ish”, grown man] his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.”
Genesis 28:7
“And that Jacob [70 years old] obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padanaram . . .“
No matter how you slice it, God demands respect for elderly parents. Bill earned that status with the Board of Directors in a very direct and personal way. What they did to him was terribly wrong.
” If your kids inherit a business you built up and then, some time later, get displeased with you in your later years and demand that you respect their private space and not show up at the company you founded, would they be correct in saying that you must “obey” them . . . Do you think? Or might it even be possible that they, through a continuing debt of love and respect, should in fact treat you with respect if you show up anyway, deep respect they might not show others? Again, would you see it appropriate to call the police on their own father instead of doing backflips to figure something else out? Most of us would say, “No way”. No “child” would call the cops on their “father”. Just disrespectful.”
These analogies fall short in a very important way. You would need to add to your analogy that the customers kept complaining that Dad was touching their kids inappropriately and the kids had to tell Dad that he had to stay away from the business. There is more to this than Bill just showing up at the ministry that he founded and not being welcomed. There is much more to the story, and you know it. There are many women who report being touched when they were very young. There was an investigation completed by IBLP, which concluded that there was inappropriate behavior. Even Bill posted a statement that admitted to wrong touching. These things won’t just go away because you wish them to.
Then you must add this also:
“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” (1 Tim. 5:19)
That is a super high standard . . . for dealing with your Dad. Hearsay is not permitted. ANY accusation you “receive” is backed up by 2-3 witnesses. Not 2-3 witnesses complaining about the same type of thing, 2-3 to corroborate a single tale. Otherwise you leave yourself open to collusion, kind of what they attempted to do to Jesus. And what the plaintiffs and RG were busy doing here. IF you love your Dad, you could do no less. THAT has never been done. Plus you would never execute such a thing without confronting your Dad with the facts, those witnesses, allow him to respond, clarify, correct. It goes without saying. And you wonder why Bill is . . . not happy? We are also not happy.
Just thinking… I am attempting to picture that day, though I was not there.
Mr. G came to the table-desk and registered. He gave them money.
They always write down a name, get basic information and give a name badge which includes city and state where you reside. Whoever was at that table had to know the name of Bill Gothard!
He could have been turned away right then and there.
Did not the act of taking his payment and giving a Registered-Participant-Badge indicate a welcome to the person signing up ? (…and of course they refunded his money when they changed their mind and rescinded their welcome, ha)
When they changed their minds and asked/told him to leave, he gave an appeal, to which they agreed. This is what IBLP teaches. What is their problem? What is truly at the root of all of this on the BOD’s side? (Rhetorical question)
It was a relative of his that happily registered him :-). So, yeah, they knew. This was 100% an action of the Board of Directors that rolled in in unified manner later, insisted he leave the public area and those that were gathered to joyfully welcome him back, and come with them to a small back room to proceed with the matters at hand.
If the teachings of BG have been rejected it would be interesting to know the teachings which have been embraced leading to the callousness here so steadily being revealed,
re: which teachings produce callousness?
Up above on 5/18 Robbie contrasted teachings of BG with teachings which produce callousness. Don’t know about Robbie, but the ancient Hebrew prophets warned that God’s people had hearts of stone which needed upgrades to hearts of flesh.
Christ was to be the cardiologist who did the work. For myself, it has been a lifetime under the scalpel. Good teaching helps and bad teaching hinders, but the surgeon can succeed if we submit.
One of the rejected teachings of BG is the definition of GRACE “having the desire and power to do God’s will.” My question is, if not GRACE, what WORD would define “having the desire and power to do God’s will?” Or is it that those rejecting BG definition believe it is just not possible to ever have a desire with power to do God’s will?
Correct. WHAT do we call this: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Phil. 2:13)
You said:
Then you must add this also:
“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” (1 Tim. 5:19)
That is a super high standard . . . for dealing with your Dad. Hearsay is not permitted. ANY accusation you “receive” is backed up by 2-3 witnesses. Not 2-3 witnesses complaining about the same type of thing, 2-3 to corroborate a single tale. Otherwise you leave yourself open to collusion, kind of what they attempted to do to Jesus. And what the plaintiffs and RG were busy doing here. IF you love your Dad, you could do no less. THAT has never been done. Plus you would never execute such a thing without confronting your Dad with the facts, those witnesses, allow him to respond, clarify, correct. It goes without saying. And you wonder why Bill is . . . not happy? We are also not happy.
I have a few comments about some of this. First of all, isn’t Timothy talking about an accusation against an elder IN CHURCH? If so, then what Bill did was not in a church, but in a business, even though it was a ministry. It was a corporation right? Subject to corporate laws and therefore under “caeser”. So the 2-3 witnesses wouldn’t apply. In a court of law, which is what I believe applies here, several witnesses with the same accusation is admissible. Think Weinstein and Cosby. There must be enough evidence for the Board to make this decision to not let Bill back in. For what its worth, I see your frustration where the Board members seem to just want to forget Bill and not hear him out. However, for him to try and force the issue by showing up and trying to prove a point that he still has followers was irresponsible for many reasons.
If you read the trail of posts, yes, that is what we are discussing. How you can and should treat your spiritual “father”, which several board members professed was Bill’s influence status with them. Attempts to compare IBLP to a “corporation” are goofy, at every level. I mean, what is the “corporate vision” that would drive the Board to “hire” Bill, if you would? Or “hire” a replacements? Who are the shareholders that need to be satisfied? Bill is IBLP, IBLP is Bill – his life’s testimony, his vision. Noone disputes that. The corporate trappings are a public necessity for governmental purposes.
So maybe its not a corporation, my bad, but its not a church. Its a non profit ministry? Its a very rich ministry and made a lot of money. Not sure who got rich, but Bill definitely lived rich. I’m not really sure why IBLP has a board, but my recollection is its necessary for tax purposes. Couldn’t the ministry have just paid taxes and avoided a board altogether? Not sure I feel sorry for Bill losing his position in the ministry when he made the decision to resign. And as Christians, we should drop our pride and let the chips fall where they may, so this “or else” scenario just shows where Bill had something to lose or hide. And finally, this idea that IBLP is Bill and Bill is IBLP is wrong on so many levels. I thought ministries belonged to the Lord. Maybe this whole thing is a way for Bill and you to learn that. Everything we have comes from God and belongs to God. I know others have pointed this out and I’m surprised, at least here, you don’t acknowledge the option that this is God’s will to teach a lesson. It’s not supposed to be about us and what we have done and accomplished. When man gets the credit, then God doesn’t.
Stop! That is really funny. What evidence would you cite towards that end? He continues, even now, to live in the same old family home he inherited from his parents. When I say old, I mean old, I have been there many times. His cars blow up, I have witnessed that too, because he buys them at auction for a thousand or two and drives them until they die. Never has taken a vacation, to my knowledge. Eats egg salad sandwiches. When we go to take him out to eat at a nice restaurant, he prefers Boston Market, because he gets a discount. And, yes, that is exactly how it was before he left IBLP. I have confirmed that his maximum salary was $25K. There are no stored resources keeping him going. I really do need you to clarify that statement.
Bill was forced out, much pressure applied. Had he not done so on his own terms he would undoubtedly have faced the public demand to do so. All of that was based on a series of allegations that we now know were not accurate.
They do. It is our conviction that control of that ministry, that belongs to the Lord, should be given back to the one the Lord gave it to in the first place.
So, in your mind all that fuss about Billy Graham when he passed away was wrong? They should take “Moody” off the “Moody Bible Institute”? Stop selling all those biographies of great Christians, making movies about them? Or is there a place for BOTH, the Lord who initiated and the one who obeyed? That obedience is no small thing, BTW. Many men and women of God fail at the task God assigned to them, leaving a hole that God intended to use them to fill. Bill has been faithful to the Lord for 50 years and deserves the honor that comes with that.
He may live a modest life now, but I wasn’t talking about now. I said LIVED. Meaning past tense. And he didn’t need a large salary as his lifestyle was funded by the ministry. HIs own personal dollars did not fund his travel expenses, hotel stays, etc. Ministry dollars did. YOU are the one who needs to stop. Stop being disingenuous and quite frankly ridiculous in your defense of his financial situation.
Forced out? Nope, don’t buy that. If he was innocent of all charges he would have hung in there. If he was above reproach in his actions he would have had nothing to fear.
You said it perfectly, YOUR conviction that control should go to Bill. God may disagree. Its not really what we think that matters. God’s will be done. Always.
Youre confusing receiving honor and having control as being the same thing. Bill has already been honored for his work in ministry, hence the IBLP still being around. But that doesn’t mean, he deserves to be running it.
There is NO ONE that actually knows him would ever call what he lived or lives a lavish or rich lifestyle. You need a ticket to fly to a destination and the ministry had destinations all over the world. You need hotel rooms to stay in, good grief. He never had any of the trappings of a wealthy person, from his house to his car (1979 something or other), to his clothes. Not backing down. He has had nothing in common with the quintessential TV evangelist that you, alone with a lot of other folk, likely despise.
Easy for the sideline quarterbacks to weigh in on. At the point he resigned it was a complete mess, threat – reality – of lawsuits, clearly women prepared to lie to take him down. The Board had lost confidence in him based on all that was before them, things they never thoroughly investigated, his inner circle was pressing him to resign in apocalyptic terms. The biggest issue was the demand that he step out of sight and “let them handle it”. That has never been how Bill has handled things – if there is a matter to be handled, he handles it himself, not deputizes it. He saw that as disrespectful and stepped away instead of participating in what he saw as an unscriptural response.
So, yes, he was forced out.
So let’s just focus on “honor”, then. There is no way under heaven to characterize what was done as “honor”, are we in agreement?
“Bill definitely lived rich
Stop! That is really funny. What evidence would you cite towards that end? ”
Back in the day didn’t Bill fly around the country in a private jet, with his own private pilot? Wasn’t Mr. Gabriel his private pilot? Perhaps Mr. Gabriel can weigh in and confirm this? Was that a responsible use of ministry resources?
” I have confirmed that his maximum salary was $25K. ”
That seems admirable, at least on the surface, but really, what expenses did Bill have? It sounds like the ministry paid for everything for him, so his personal salary would not be indicative of his lifestyle. Yet, I do get that he could have justified a much larger salary and invested for his own retirement or something. He does have simple tastes, other than the private jet, of course.
“Bill was forced out, much pressure applied. Had he not done so on his own terms he would undoubtedly have faced the public demand to do so. All of that was based on a series of allegations that we now know were not accurate.”
You have not proven that the things alleged in the allegations did not happen. I have read your motion that you previously asked me to read. It does not come close to proving that the allegations are false. You really need to stop saying this. It pokes some holes. Any good defense lawyer always pokes holes in testimony. Look at the Bill Cosby case. His defense lawyers brought up a lot of doubt in his accuser’s testimony. Still, after weighing all the evidence, the jury found her believable. Are your really trying to say that all 17 of the women are lying and also the ones who did not join the lawsuit? Come on, seriously? I don’t believe that the public, whom you indicate would have demanded his resignation, has been convinced that the allegations are false. You, and a few others, sure. But, be honest. You never believed them from the start, so there was really no convincing that happened on your end. I have yet to find anyone who has become convinced that the allegations are false. Do some believe that they are false? Sure, but, like you, they never believed that Bill Gothard would have done such things and never believed them from the beginning. Confirmation bias, nothing more.
“They do. It is our conviction that control of that ministry, that belongs to the Lord, should be given back to the one the Lord gave it to in the first place.”
So, are we to understand that Bill should break the law, trespass, in order to help the Lord get back what the Lord has not given back to Bill yet? I think that if the Lord wanted Bill back at the helm of IBLP, it would have already happened. I don’t think that the Lord would want Bill to break the law and demand to the board that he be given the position back. Did I hear the tape correct? In the first few minutes when he is speaking to two of the board members, Bill seems to be threatening them with legal action if they do not give him his position back? Is this the Lord’s will? Does the Lord need Bill to do this to help Him reinstate Bill?
Correct. There was a point where getting Bill to and from not one but two (2) different cities each week made the cost of a jet practical, let alone reducing the wear and tear on him. This was anything but a luxury boondoggle. The one time $45/participant fee for the entire week of 30 years of seminar with unlimited lifetime repeats for free justified the cost based on the volume of participants, which eventually hit 2.7 million over the time the seminars were in full swing. It was very much a practical arrangement.
Boy, someone else who gets to pontificate from surmising and prejudices. Strange that you never hear those that worked with him, even those that hate him, saying these things. What costs? Well, he had to eat, so he got food from the kitchen. Favorite was egg salad sandwiches. Clothes and toothpaste? He bought those out of his $25K income. Yes, they kept his 1979 car running. Which he still has, or another just like it (not sure which). Here is a picture of that vehicle . . . late 2015 at the first of Bill’s conferences, some of his friends sitting inside that cavernous trunk:
In any case, Bill never lived the life of a rich person. Find me one person, anyone, friend or foe, that knew him in those days that will testify otherwise.
Yes, seriously. At least the salient points. Bill DID hold hands of young ladies long, as he spoke to their heart. Again, that was in front of everyone, that was not a hidden thing. He flipped a girl’s hair out of her coat once, the only “hair” instance we could come up with for interrogatories. We have discussed “foot tapping” elsewhere – I have a close friend that was so tapped, and she is furious that anyone – women she knows – would stoop to calling that sexual, “footsies”. That one has been invented for the moment. So, yes, seriously. Again, as we weary to say: Explain in your wildest imagination why two (2) respected law firms, one secular specializing in “person injury”, one a Christian firm specializing in sex abuse in the church, would pour a half million dollars into this case, only to just let them all, all 17, walk away? Any remote hope of winning, a payday, would be pursued. They got a mess – the “respected” attorney called what Gibbs left him “insane” – and were not able to fix it. Because, there was NOTHING THERE. This is not Cosby or even Phillips. Bill didn’t do it, it DIDN’T HAPPEN.
In the end the Lord most definitely calls the shots. But Bill has not had his “day in court”, the court of believers that would examine the charges, the 2-3 witnesses to each allegation, allow Bill to examine the witness testimonies before all, and, if Bill is proven evil, formally “rebuked before all”. The “rebuke” happened, but not the process. So we stand with Bill that all things be done correctly. 50 years of tireless ministry demands it. We have, ourselves, been pleading about this directly with them for the entire time. As to what Bill should or should not do at Big Sandy or elsewhere . . . there is a bit of moxie in the elderly man, to hop in his car and drive himself and a young man 14 hours down to make something happen. Given that they refused to meet with him for 4 years, AND refused to tell any of his supporters that they had not only refused but banned him from all IBLP premises, not even allowing him back into his office to retrieve his effects and papers . . . well . . . we understand. The response of the Board is revolting to us, tears and grief. Our perspectives are our own, you have yours.
You make the case well That Bill did not live rich. The private jet seemed a little much, but that was back in the 70s when he was doing 2 seminars per week, as you point out. The ministry was bringing in millions per year and with all the travel that he was doing, perhaps it did make financial sense. Saving wear and tear on Bill is also significant, so I get it.
I certainly don’t think that he lived rich, but because he had a lot of his expenses taken care of by the ministry, more than just car repairs, the 25,000 is a little misleading as to his standard of living. Nevertheless, even with the ministry taking care of many of his needs, it is still a very modest salary. I like that he did not waste money on new cars, something that my father ingrained in me as a child. Other areas of his life also show no signs of extravagance.
Regarding the salary, a pastor friend of mine always admired the low salary that Bill took (wasn’t it 7,000 per year at one point?). He personally always took a very small salary himself, even when the ministry income would have warranted a higher amount, probably largely influenced by Bill’s example.
Your pastor is a wise man, in this day and age.
“Because, there was NOTHING THERE. This is not Cosby or even Phillips. Bill didn’t do it, it DIDN’T HAPPEN.”
You keep saying that, but no one is buying that.
1) The the testimony of scores of women
2) The investigation completed by IBLP that determined that inappropriate behavior took place. Keep in mind, this was completed by David Gibbs, who was a friend of Bill’s for decades. I find it hard to believe that such a friend would not bend over backwards to be completely fair to Bill.
3) The statement published by Bill which admitted to touching that was “wrong”. True, he did not admit to the more serious allegations, but I don’t see why he would have published this statement if the events involved are as innocuous as you are trying to claim them to be.
4) Bill resigned. I understand that you are claiming that he was forced. He may have been pressured, but I really doubt that he would have resigned if he did nothing wrong. Why would he not say that he did nothing wrong and refuse to resign? He published that statement and resigned- makes it really hard to believe nothing serious happened, even if you set aside the investigation done by IBLP and the testimony of the women. If he was being unrighteously forced out, he should have made his stand at that time and refused to resign. God would have protected him if he was in the right.
Now, 4 years later, he wants to un-resign? I just don’t see how he has made the case for this. Not even close. Leaders should not have the appearance of evil. How can you say that Bill meets this standard? And now he has broken the law to try to demand that they reinstate him? You believe that he is above reproach, even having done this too?
You have not seen the report that the BOD had Mr. Gibbs conduct. None of us have seen it. Do you believe that Dr. Payne, Dr. Levendusky and Gil Bates are lying about the contents of the report? Do you think that this was a conspiracy on their part to take control of the ministry away from Bill? Oh, come on. These are good men.
That is emphatically not the case. The changing of hearts and minds is quite apparent to us.
1). “Scores of women” ran for cover once the searchlight was applied. Gretchen Wilkinson slandered Bill greatly in her story on RG and her many interviews with the press. She headlined the entire suit, “Wilkinson vs. Gothard”. Yet she disappeared quietly last fall, not a word, just before she was to have given sworn statements as part of interrogatories. 4 others left with her at that time, leaving the 12 that quit last February. No, this is far more consistent with “sex abuse hysteria” than actual issues. The ease at which you dismissed the evidence in the “Motion to Sanction” of deceit does not speak well to your objectivity. Trust me, there is much more. Only 7 of the 12 remaining plaintiffs were included . . . and it wasn’t because there was a lack of evidence. Some of the worst were excluded for reasons that included, well, mercy.
2). There is NO ONE, from RG to DG to plaintiffs to Bill supporters with the possible exception of the Board of Directors that was happy with that investigation. For the depths of charges let alone the mounting evidence of collusion and cross-pollination of ideas morphing into unfounded stories there is simply no way that was handled correctly. John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” The most obvious proof is that not a single soul outside of the BOD, including Bill, has ever been given the charges, let alone been permitted to interact with them. We thought we had been given one witness, which we interviewed extensively, but then were later told her story was not even in the investigation. That is just not right. You simply cannot condemn a man of God in public without a verifiable, righteous backup for it, complete with “2 or 3 witnesses” for each allegation “received”. When some in authority cited RG as proof of Bill’s malfeasance, well, we were deeply concerned. RG was the epitome of surface level accusations that were never vetted. The sense we got that the BOD just wanted to “move on”, clearing Bill was simply not worth the trouble. There are a great many that are deeply grieved with this stance and trust that it will be revisited, either in a proper examination of the matters by the current BOD, or a modified Board that has the willingness to see it through.
3) We have discussed Bill’s statement at length. He discussed it in the closed context of the lawsuit as well. Trust me, if that even remotely resembled a “confession” the law firms would have made hay with it. He accepted responsibility for not being sensitive to personal boundary concerns of some women – 20 years after the fact, most of which he cannot recall – and asked their forgiveness. The same statement made it crystal clear that he has never, not once, acted in a sexual way toward any staff member or counselee.
4) Bill was unequivocally forced out. For the good of the current staff let alone the families served by IBLP, being threatened with harm coming to some who saw his presence hurting them and their families, and particularly because the Board refused to work with him on this, allow him to pursue a resolution in a Scriptural way, he resigned. He did not want to resign and now, with the cloud of legal action lifted, it is not unreasonable for him to expect that his former staff honor him by at least allowing him to interact with the charges against him, to validate or remove this one remaining cloud on his reputation.
That is funny. The Savior died under the “appearance of evil”. To this day many believe He was guilty of sin. Paul died under the “appearance of evil” where, at his first defense, he states, no-one stood up for him. He called himself the “off-scouring of all things” to those around him.
And let’s be clear. If nothing else, the BOD owes him and his supporters, let alone 2.7 million alumni, a clear statement of the charges they would levy against him of “impropriety”. Allow the stories of any that would accuse him to be thoroughly vetted. Those in authority have expressed a concern that this would embarrass Bill. Those saying that freely admit that they also have never seen the foundation for the Board statement. We are way too far down the road to be worrying about that. Most everyone would agree: If Bill is evil, remove all doubt and lay the proof out. Some men would, when faced with that threat, agree to go silent, retire, go away in exchange for a lack of disclosure. Bill is not like that. Tell the world why you think he was “inappropriate”, or make a new statement removing that cloud from his character.
Bill is also a good man! Good men unjustly accused Job, good men unjustly accused Paul . . . and many more. I have spoken with some of the Board members. Presented my concerns. The response I got back did nothing to allay my concern that this was not handled responsibly. Job 32:9 “Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.”
re: living rich, dividing the spoils
In her 5/25 post, Pam asserted that IBLP is wealthy and BG lives richly.
Shall we envy BG for wearing a business suit and being very productive?
Shall a man apologise for being productive, or for lines which fall for him in pleasant places? Neither BG nor the psalmist need to do that.
Riches attract looters. Hopefully this summer the judge can rule on the BG motion and finally settle whether the former lawsuit plaintiffs are merely looters seeking to divide spoils, or authentic victims entitled to compensation.
I was only stating that he lived well during the time he was running IBLP. Its dishonest to say he only made 25k a year, but had his needs met above and beyond the average. There’s nothing sinful about living well. That wasn’t my point.
ugh I hate when you make assumptions about me. I didn’t assume he was a rich televangelist. I was saying he lived very well.
I’m sorry, but you were not with him 24/7 and did not know any of his trappings. There is no way for you to know everything about him and you were not present during all of his counseling sessions and dealings with people. You speak so authoritatively about his life, but you just don’t know everything. I admit there is way more that I don’t know, then I do. And I’m just as bothered by any coordination by plaintiffs that was dishonest. And I’m just as bothered that the Board does not address publicly why they don’t want Bill back. With that said, the lawsuit was dropped but that does not mean Bill is innocent. It just means proving the charges in a court of law may not be possible. You and Bill and maybe a few others see the dropping of the lawsuit as total vindication. But it isn’t.
I challenge you to find ANYONE that has known him, that has worked with him, that would concur with your statement that “he lived very well”. That is NOT an accurate characterization of his life. See, you simply do not know the man. Sacrificial living has always been his “thing”.
I went to my first seminar in 1973 and we have been in ATI since 1994. I have a son still on HQ staff, two young ladies that served for years each in other ministries. My wife and I have directly interacted with Bill almost weekly for the past 4 years, in and out of his home. I have interviewed dozens and dozens of individuals that lived with and worked with him over the decades. Family members, senior staff members on down. “Girls” complaining, “girls” in the same position as those leveling complaints, women that know the women, knew they while they were allegedly so evilly treated by Bill. I am thinking if there is anything to know about Bill, we probably know it.
We heartily agree with your concern with the Board not publicly addressing their relationship with Bill. Even after the brouhaha in Big Sandy, the ministry is . . . completely silent. It is not right on any level, EVEN if they are convinced that Bill is an unrecoverable evildoer. Let alone the founder of the ministry, still deeply respected and loved by the rank and file. The Lord knows all and we all report to Him. That is a great thing, gives peace.
I suppose living well is relative. One person’s “broke” might be 1000 in the bank while another person’s is 20. I’ve lived a sacrificial life to home school my 3 kids so I know all about that. In this country I’m considered poor. I live an extremely simple life and so to ME, I say Bill lived well. Were his bills paid every month? Did he have to worry about gas money? Was he held back from opportunity because of a lack of money? Was he hungry? If not hungry, was he eating the same thing over and over? Like I said, living “well” is relative and a matter of opinion. I’m actually sorry I brought it up, it’s really not relevant to this whole thing anyway. I just got irked by your references that he is somehow suffering financially because he’s no longer controlling IBLP.
Not sure what you are referring to. I assure you that Bill is not in a favorable financial situation at this time, at least as people figure it. I have in my possession a photocopy of 4 checks that were sent in to him, arriving the day before he had a significant bill due for multiple root canals and covering the amount almost exactly. He is constantly pointing out instances where the Lord provided funds exactly as needed. He self-publishes his books, paying for every book that comes into his inventory. Here is a fragment of an invoice that came in last August for $2,073 for the publishing of one of his new books, “The Power of Deep Rooted Faith”. The very next day a check arrived in the mail, for exactly $2,073. Both of these documents are genuine:
He has gone through several old cars in the time that I have known him, two of which “died” on the way somewhere, never to be fixed again. The 1979 beast is still there but is a gas guzzler and not super practical to drive. Someone just gave him a vehicle, I saw, the one he drove to Big Sandy. He tells no-one of such things, his testimony is that God is taking good care of him. Those around him care deeply. A laborer is worthy of his hire. He should be getting something from the ministry he founded. Maybe that will happen one of these days.
I am referring to how he lived when he was running the ministry. He had his needs met, so a low salary would cover that. Now that he is no longer involved in the ministry, he is responsible for all of his expenses. And please, my heart breaks thinking of him in dire straits or having to struggle. Been there, still doing that. I don’t wish that on anyone. Not sure what you didn’t get, but lets just drop it.
Well, even the ministry has never been “rich”. I have appreciated and enjoyed the communal meals there on numerous occasions. The food is good, but it is consistent with “stretching every dollar”. The locations where staff live are good, but not fancy. Yes, of course there never would be an instance where Bill would have suffered deprivation. But “rich” is just not the word to describe it. Utilitarian, functional, those are words to use. I also know that he gave a lot of his $25K away. Thank you for your comments, of concern. I know you mean well. Bill’s alleged largess at the expense of the ministry has been a sore topic in the past. People simply cannot believe that someone in control of so much “stuff” would live life as simply as he did.
The exact quote a few posts above was, “Bill definitely lived rich.”
I would say that is a convoluted type of INSULT to add to the INJURY to reputation already suffered. The Lord knows all and each will give account for his own idle and false words.
25,000 dollars a year is less than 1\2 the salary I was making as a teacher when I retired a few years ago. I have never heard of a teacher who anyone thought was rich and many have to supplement a teacher’s salary just to take care of a family. This is a statement which definitely needs to be retracted, along with that statement that BG teaches against mixed marriages. So easy to throw around these careless words with no responsibility to correct them when found to be false!!
Robbie- I will not retract my statement because flying around on private jets, staying in any hotel you want, and having all your needs met, IS living rich. You are taking my comments out of context. If you will notice, I added to my other posts that “rich” is relative.
What I read in context was ,”Bill definitely lived rich” and no one anywhere in this day and age thinks $25,000 a year is rich. An expense account at work is one thing but the livelihood is another. With proper management It may mean having ones needs met , but not rich.
re: when I was a rich man
Sure, BG got to fly around the country doing seminars with IBLP picking up the tab.
It can be adventurous doing work-related travel. Back in the 1980s, the army sent me jetting around the world, from Hawaii to Korea to Egypt. Better still, I got to play with expensive tanks and trucks everywhere I went. Talk about living rich. Tevye envies me and BG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1TC1n9lhXU
I remember from the Basic and knew people that put this into practice that Bill taught that one shouldn’t buy a car on credit but fully pay for it up front. I remember that he had a complicated teaching that one should only buy “appreciating” items like a house and not “depreciating” item such as a car. So to go buy a car with just cash in hand, that does put one into the used or even auction for vehicles. That’s ok if one is buying a car for their kid in which if they ding and dent it, it isn’t going to matter. So Bill buying used cars on auction fits into what he did teach. The down side of used cars is the used problems they can cost in order to fix them so it is six of one half a dozen of the other.
Bill is an anomaly in the Protestant world in that he is single. That is very rare. In looking at the average salaries of Catholic priests which is around 30K and for Bishops, around 20K, Bill’s modest salary is more in line with them. Like priests and bishops though, they do not have to support spouses and children. While Bill’s home base was his childhood home, I don’t think during the highlight years, he actually spent much time there being too busy to travel around or always being at the office day and night. Priest’s likewise live at the parish home which is usually very modest and even dated like I would imagine Bill’s home to be. I also don’t think Bill ever saved anything with plans to retire because I would suspect that he always believed himself to be working. I’m not sure where the balance is in all of this. A single man that works all the time and lives at home isn’t going to need much in terms of salary. Things like health care were/are taken care of by the ministry. If one is never or rarely at home, then I’m sure the focus wouldn’t be to have the most up to date, state of the art appliances and furniture. Bill seems to have followed (which is another anomaly) a more ascetic life style which is often one that avoids or denies having many things for the cause of ministry. For Catholic priests, bishops and religious (monks and nuns) the commitment to an ascetic lifestyle has also to do with drawing closer to God and focus on Him. Someone like that isn’t going to need a big salary at all.
The upside being . . . YOU control your costs. And you are able to “owe no man anything” (Romans 13:8).
That may be correct, but when he was at HQ, that was his home, where he slept.
You are right, I suspect. This would be in part because of admonitions like this:
“Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” (Matthew 6:25-26)
Agreed. It remains that he did not “live rich”, though his basic needs were cared for. I have no doubt that there were priests over the centuries that abused their position and used their access to church funds to live a rich lifestyle. That would not impugn any other priest, and would be offensive to those that lived as you have described, modest lifestyles.
re: frugal living and used cars
Rob made an interesting observation in her 5/27 post. Now that she mentioned it, I am not surprised to see that BG’s income ended up about the same as Catholic clergy. As she said, in both cases, you have low-expense lifestyles which can be sustained with a very modest income stream.
One automotive writer claims that ten years is about where we find the value sweet spot for a car. At ten years, the market price has depreciated much, and the car is likely to have plenty of life left. I agree. On the rare occasions that I buy a car, that’s my target. Ten years old, fewer than 150K miles. You can find such cars on Craigslist at four-figure prices, and buy them without borrowing. Here’s the article: https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2018/05/02/the-used-car-sweet-spot/
Yes, that is an interesting article about trying to buy a used car. While he pointed out around 10 years which makes sense in that one can still get parts reasonably and mechanics can still deal with the vehicle, 25 years is the magic age for the car to be considered “classic” and the 25+ types of cars become more of a challenge as an everyday car because it become increasingly difficult to find parts or even mechanics than can deal with older cars. Classic car should be relegated to the shows. Auction cars are the used cars that dealers were not able to sell and want to move off their used lots. According to what Alfred said, that is where Bill was going to buy cars from. There one can buy the 1-2K type of used cars which are perfect for your driving kid because they already have the dings and dents in them and when they total it in a head on collision, the loss of the car isn’t as painful. I would think if that Blue 79 Olds is still around, that they could find some collector who would want it, even if for parts. Instead of Cash for Clunkers, it will be Bill’s clunkers for cash and he could move on these old junkers along.
The Blue Beast was restored by a friend, so there are other reasons to hang on to it. I think that lives in his garage. His driveway at present has several cars. As mentioned, someone gave him a newer one recently. Again, I know of two that died, leaving him stranded in the last couple of years. He lead at least one fellow to the Lord who stopped to help.
re: old Gothard cars
Fun fact: When I was leading ALERT Basic Training in 1994-95, I was given use of an old Gothard Buick sedan. It was a 1969, so we named it “the Milhous” after Richard M. Nixon, because it dated all the way back to the dawn of his administration. But it got us around the sprawling Northwoods campus. Not elegant but practical.
Our first year in ATI was 1994, so your men were the ones who so dazzled us in Knoxville. Never made that connection. And thanks for the memory.
Rob, you recently said goodbye to an old Lincoln sedan which had served your extended family well. So you know something about when it is time to say goodbye to our beloved inanimate servants. May they rest in peace.
Yes, the 82 “wedding limo”. Beautiful car but once we obtained ownership for the oldest, it became too difficult and expensive to keep fixing it. “Classic” cars are good for the car shows but not practical for everyday driving. We found a good mechanic that could work with it and he was calling all sorts of junk yards looking for parts that are no longer are made. I can imagine this is also true for a 79 Olds. I don’t think Bill would be the type to do car shows with it. That’s what should happen to the “blue beast” here, use it for car shows if it has been restored or come to the granddaddy of all cars show, “The Woodward dream cruise” in August and show it off. We were happy to sell it to someone that wanted to collect old Lincolns and use it for car shows only. A happy ending for a great car. I don’t think Bill seems to be the mechanical type of guy to have a bunch of vehicles around his place. If he was, he could work on these vehicles for a hobby. It might do himself some good. The oldest also has the 89 Lincoln which is being used for shows as well since the selling of the other gave him the bug.
Agreed to all. Bill kept the original for a long time, many years past the point of normal offload, keeping it up. It was in part a challenge to him, I think, the opposite of “I got to have a new car every few years.” At some point I believe it disappeared. Then, for love, a friend found an identical car and restored it to tip top shape. So I am sure Bill would not easily get rid of it. Or drive it too much 🙂 A hunk of steel, stunning. Yes, that was yours truly in the trunk with two friends.
I like the article David. It makes good sense. I recently bought my daughter a 15 year old car with low miles that had been babied. One owner, kept it garaged and did all the maintenance like clockwork. We know the mechanic who did the work and he told us it was in great shape for a care that age. We’ll most likely get another 5+ years out of it.
re: ALERT at Knoxville in 1994
I wish I could claim credit for that dazzling show at Knoxville in 1994. But I was simply among the dazzled spectators seated in the Thompson-Boling Arena. Ron Fuhrman had invited me up to the Northwoods to assist with Basic Training for Unit 2, which was due to begin a couple of weeks after Knoxville.
So by the time Unit 2 started Basic, Ron had asked me to take charge of Basic Training for summer of 1994 and beyond. So I created a military-style PT program, together with some basic skills and Bible training. Was able to remain for a little more than a year and train five units. More than a decade later, a former ALERT man married one of my daughters and begot four of my grandchildren. Good man.
I even made it onto the ALERT history web page. That is Captain Knecht leaning on the cane at the left side of the Northwoods flag ceremony pic: https://alertacademy.com/alert/about/history/#gallery-3184-item-3
Good men, good days.
Wow, “hats off” to you, sir. Thank you for your vital role in making that effective program all it is today.
I am still not following the purpose of the Alert program. If it’s so good then why haven’t either of you put your own sons in it? I’ve not seen anything from either of you stating that you have. To put young men that have little physical sports experience in a rigorous military type of training seems rather abusive to begin with and abusive has been the complaint about this program across a number of blogs, not just RG. If someone want military training, then go to the military or even start out in real military programs like Sea Cadets or Young Marines. If someone want to go to EMT/Firemen rescue careers, then go to their schools and programs. I don’t see on the Alert web site that Alert has been endorsed by the military or their branches or by any EMT/firemen/police programs. According the the Alert web site, this was started by Ron Fuhrman and his concern about lack of tough training for boys to become men. I would like to see where in the Bible that to make boys men that they need tough training. This sort of tough man stuff would make sense if the careers desired are military/EMT/Fireman/Police. But since sport and physical activities was discouraged by Bill or deemed “worldly”, I can easily see how this military boot camp would be quite the shock to such. I think the Duggars have sent some of their boys to it and what has come out is that some of them are part time constables which I assume they got help with by going to Alert.I am not seeing how the training is for anything else.
For our part there has not been a single person we are aware of that had anything negative to say about the program, in fact, the opposite, unmitigated enthusiasm. It turns boys – “millennials” – into disciplined men, and then they go around the country doing stuff that really matters.
As far as Scripture is concerned, one verse comes to mind:
“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” (1 Corinthians 16:13)
As far as we are concerned, it is the time commitment and expense that has slowed us down. We have come close several times. We only have 4 young men . . . one works for IBLP, one is not geared for that kind of physical activity . . . but next in line most definitely is, but is too young. We shall see.
Well, that is honest. I wouldn’t think that the boot camp like activity would be for everyone, especially boys that are not athletically inclined. I didn’t see anything on their current web site anything about being able or even being prepared for such intense physical training. In fact I would think it would be a shock to many ATI raised boys that did not do sports. The military itself does not take everyone, you have to be able to make it through boot camp. One son looked at the Marines and had a number of visits by them at home and school. Unfortunately, two knee surgeries was a concern in doing what they required physically of those that entered. I would think a hard nosed attitude by Alert trainers coupled with non- or un-atheltic boys would lead to conflict and charges of an abusive situation.
And . . . you may be operating off of old information. ALERT has, in recent decades, morphed into a somewhat kinder, gentler version of its old self. The old self being a fraction of what military training would be. Again, we are not hearing the complaints from the insiders. And we do hear complaints about things, programs, trust me.
re: why not my own sons? what about injuries?
On 6/4, Rob raised a couple of questions about ALERT and me which deserve answers. I’ll take them in sequence.
I did not enroll my own sons in ALERT because (with all due modesty) I am their best mentor. Besides, I enjoy their company.
Having trained five ALERT units during 1994-1995, I returned home to be a full-time father. No regrets.
• Before I joined the ALERT staff, their fitness program was indeed producing mild stress injuries. The ALERT commanding officer asked me to create a safe PT program. Fortunately my experience at both West Point and in infantry units had equipped me to get boys in shape without hurting them. Fortunately, it is widely done in high schools and military units. Football coaches and military officers have been doing it for many generations. So getting soft boys in shape is realistic and commonly done.
I never brought up or mentioned injuries. But that is an even more curious problem in that some of the complaints about this program was that proper medical notification was not given to parents of their son’s injuries. Your story doesn’t add up here. You have always stated and implied you were a part of the start up of this program Alert which was 94. You only stayed with it or part of it for a year. Now you are stating that you were brought in (still in the first year) to clean up of fine tune the work outs BECAUSE of injuries that were occurring. Which is it? People that didn’t know what there were doing started a program that involved intense physical activity for ATI boys that were not use to it to level of physical activity, genuine injuries were occurring (all within this first year mind you) and then you come swooping in to clean it up, only staying a year to do so. Doesn’t add up. Now maybe the program has cleaned up and settled down per Alfred. I don’t know but just looking at their web page and Alert’s own statements there (not RG, HA etc.) this is an unaccredited program and is not linked or connected to the military or any other rescue/fireman/EMT real programs and to fork over 10K for an unaccredited program should cause a pause to anyone thinking of sending their sons there. That means this intense training may not transfer to real programs that offer real jobs in these sorts of careers. The only thing I see is that maybe this gave the Duggar boys their part time police jobs.
ALERT plays an uber-role to what the Boy Scouts used to be. Real skills validated by state licensing. Discipline, God, Bible, Country, serving others during disasters, pouring all those macho hormones into really powerful purposes. As stated, I am not aware of ANY complaints these days. We have the privilege of rubbing shoulders with these fine young men on a regular basis. Sometimes Mommas are a wee bit protective of their offspring. I remember one ATI Mom complaining about the minor marching and challenge games that the younger set would go through in the “Alert Cadet” program that paralleled the annual ATI conferences, wanting them to be sitting, memorizing Scripture the entire time. It was . . . sort of . . . stunning. MAYBE some of this came from sheltered families . . . that were a tad too sheltered?
re: you can’t please them all
We Christians have strong opinions which can cause conflicts. Some of my ALERT Basic Training curriculum stirred up mild controversy among parents. I showed two films to the recruits because I thought they taught good character lessons, but some parents raised objections to my vulgar tastes, or even apostate religious sympathies.
• Henry V tells of the English victory at Agincourt in 1415. But it has PG-13 violence like Lord of the Rings. Some mothers objected.
• A Man For All Seasons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_(1966_film) tells how Thomas More submitted to death rather than compromise his (Catholic) religious convictions during the Protestant Reformation. But the recruits also saw a film which portrayed More as a villain.
The Boy Scouts…. what a travesty! Yes, some of the more sarcastic comments on Alert have called it “Bill’s Boy Scouts”. But the age for this is 17 and Boy Scouts start with Cub Scouts which of is at the k-1st grade level and then builds and grows to the Eagle Scout level which only a few that stick with the program rise up to. I just would think with big home schooling families that they would pull together and put a Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop together, maybe Awanas is what many families do. Girl Scouts have been problematic for many years and a number of at least Catholic Churches have pulled out due to their pro-abortion stances. It looks like that is now happening with the Boy Scouts as well with their current turn of events. Alert in all honesty looks more like the Navy Sea Cadets or Young Marines programs than Boy Scouts with a mixture of emergency skill sets for young men to go into those types of careers for real jobs.
Again, with big homeschooling families, I’m surprised that you don’t pool together to form rec. type sports teams for your kids. I wouldn’t think it would be too hard to put together a little AYSO soccer team or even little league baseball team together for the children to get out, have fun and even learn a sport and sportsmanship. Those life type lessons that Alert seems to be trying to offer can be easily done at a slower pace, through the years if ATI families were encouraged to do sports or form sport teams with other ATI families. Maybe that goes on. under the radar, I don’t know, it doesn’t seem like it. I think then maybe some of the shock of an intense program like Alert would not be so bad for boys with little physical activity under their belts. I take some of the issues I’ve read about Alert with this view in mind. I’ve seen nothing but benefits from being involved in all sorts of youth sports in my children. I think the discouragement of youth sports participation in ATI seems to short change the children enrolled in it.
Again, I am just missing the “shock” factor. We will leave each other to our prejudices. As to sports leagues, there are a number like that – I am aware of “Upward”. But, see, ATI is not so much into “sports”. In fact, many are fundamentally opposed to the concept, “play time” as opposed to preparing for war. ALERT, on the other hand, has no “fun and games”. The Boy Scouts had a solemn albeit enjoyable purpose from the beginning, training young boys to be men. And as you point out, it seems to have surrendered that mantle. Not much left with a serious focus except the military . . . and ALERT.
David,
It isn’t a matter that “Christians have strong opinions and butt heads”. This is a matter of what is appropriate. I would think that a ministry that is founded by someone that has never been to movies and talks about that as an example of “Godliness” would have in the ATI families and kids that have never been to movies due to that would be upset about seeing ANY movie that you were trying to use as teaching points. I’m not sure what you point was in showing either one. Yes, a PG-13 movie would be upsetting for families coming from a non-movie mentality. An Oscar winning movie like “Man of all Seasons” would likewise be misunderstood as well. Children raised on obedience to authority are not going to understand St. Thomas Moore at all and even if you were trying to use him as an example of “following one’s conscience” which is kinda a strange topic in a military style camp that again is emphasizing authority and obedience. If parents got upset and went to Bill that movies were being shown at Alert and one of the PG-13, then it kinda explains why you were involved only a year. I just don’t think you walked off to go back and be a full-time dad. Given the IBLP/ATI culture, I can easily how even these movies would be controversial.
Alfred,
What war?? If young men wanted to defend their country, they should then join the real military. If your talking war with the infidels, the crusades ended a long time ago. If you are talking Francis Schaeffer’s “Christian Manifesto” which promoted the idea that all Christians ought to have arms and guns for an apocalypse, I don’t think one needs to train at 10K to have arms in the home. Again, Alert states on their own web site that is current (not kill Bill web sites) that they are an “unaccredited” program and this isn’t connected with or authorized by the military, any fireman/EMT/police/Red Cross disaster… programs. So again my question is, what is the real reason for this program that is expensive and intensive? If you and the others at IBLP have apocalypse ideas and that you guys need to whip your boys into shape and make them “men” so you guys can go to “war” borders on delusional reasoning and thinking.
On a final note about the Boy Scouts, the people that I have known that have gotten involved with the Boy Scouts usually do it for the fun, the comradely, the camping and helping activities. There is nothing about that program (as it use to be) for preparing young men for “war”. Alert is not a Boy Scouts program. It doesn’t start young and build as Cub/Boy Scouts do. Alert is a quasi-military wannabe with disaster relief thrown in. If someone wanted to enter a pre-military program, they are better off with Navy Sea Cadets or Young Marines which are real programs that lead into the military and not fork over 10K for Alert.
I respect your right to your opinions, Rob, but . . . You have little idea of what you are talking about. It scratches ATI families where they itch, and they really like the results.
The “war” is this one:
2 Timothy 2:3-4
“Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.”
It is a real fight requiring “hardness”, toughness. THAT is what we are after. The ability to fight, the ability to conquer. A “war footing” to our lives.
If you read the details, the program prepares them to take the standardized state or federal tests, same as any other program.
re: ALERT for grown-ups
Brett McKay at The Art of Manliness offers a program called The Strenuous Life: https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/enrollment-is-now-open-for-the-strenuous-life-june-2018/
Men grow by grappling with challenge.
re: the ALERT concept
Take it from a founding father. Disaster relief was central to the ALERT concept from the beginning. (The ER in ALERT stands for “emergency resource.”) The original concept was to bring ATI teen boys up to the remote Northwoods Conference Center, get them physically fit, and organize them into units which could be trained and dispatched for private civil disaster relief. The target experience was a combination of rigor, skills, fun and adventure.
After my fourteen months of volunteer service, we were doing pretty well. The good guys got better. Some marginal guys got good. Unfortunately, a few out of every unit had to be sent home. That was always disappointing.
I hope Rob won’t be too disappointed to hear that I was not fired for showing movies to recruits. I did not consult anybody about my movie selection, because my commanding officer trusted me. I think his trust was well-placed.
Finally, I reluctantly resigned on my own initiative. But I do not deny that my beloved spouse influenced me to move our family from the Upper Michigan Northwoods home of ALERT, back to our house in sunny Florida!
I think if one does not learn to embrace the seasons of the Midwest, then life can be difficult for those that move there from other parts of the country to the Midwest. Northern Michigan has lots of snow and extremes in weather from humid summers to very snowy winters. if one does not adjust or learn to love the beauty of all the seasons, then living in a place like the UP can be very challenging. Our lives are like Midwest weather, we have sunny days, we have warm days, we have rainy days, we have cold days and we have those winter storms. All the seasons in our lives as well as our weather have purpose and meaning. When you fight against them, you will become miserable which sounds like what happen here. The stillness, emptiness and quite should have been a time of reflection and healing, sounds like it wasn’t.
I think it is sad that an opportunity for you to “work” and use your training did not last for you. I’m not sure why this was a “volunteering” position but either way, it is sad. I don’t think the movie choices were the wisest considering some of the views and thinking concerning movies, TV and media that are prevalent in IBLP mindset and culture. Also not sure if there was better support or activities for the families of staff at Northwood would have made a difference with you family that was with you. Since there are not many or any opportunities to use your military training elsewhere, it’s a pity this didn’t last beyond 14 months.
We were at the Family conference in Big Sandy. At the end of the first night we saw Bro. Gothard standing and talking to a group of families. We were so happy and excited to see him! We went to meet him and encourage him and were blessed and honored to meet him. We told him how much we appreciate all he has obeyed the Lord in and how it has changed our lives over the past 37 years. He immediately deflected it back to the Lord. We stand behind him . God is his vindicator . Praying John 17 for the Body of Christ and looking forward to reading his new books!
Thank you for sharing that.
I just completed the reading of BG’s book Conquer or Be Conquered!
Praise God for continuing to speak in an amazing and powerful way through this servant of God! I am deeply grateful for what his ministry has done for me throughout so many years of my life and am grateful that his ministry continues to this very day. Thanks be to God from Whom all blessings flow!!!
He keeps writing. The amazing thing . . . God allowed Paul to be most unjustly sidelined for what purpose? To write. Not much of what he said survives, excepting the book of Acts, but the things he wrote will shake the world until Jesus returns – and beyond if you are a pre-millenialist 🙂 So . . . here in his 80s, Bill is writing, furiously. All of his offerings are up at both websites – billgothard.com and LifePurposePowerTeams.com
In recently viewing the video of BG being escorted from IBLP property, I witnessed his very meek response with a simple repetition that the record be corrected to reflect an accurate account (something ANYONE would want.). When he was finally refused his request he, without animosity, ended with a simple OK.
A casual or critical observer sees this as weak, but the writer of Psalms says “The meek shall inherit the earth and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” Psalm 37:11.
The reading of BG latest works reveals a depth of wisdom and powerful expression that gives validity to this verse. I am inspired, encouraged and personally instructed.
Acts was written by Luke, not St Paul. Read the first chapter of Acts. The 11 epistles (12 if you count Hebrews) were written at various times in his ministry. To state that they were written while in prison is inaccurate. Likewise, St Paul’s first arrest was more like a house arrest where he could have visitors. He was beheaded under Nero.
Acts records some WORDS of Paul, was my point. Very few words compared with the epistles. How much of Paul’s wisdom and revelation would we have, had it not been for jail, house arrest, etc.
quick correction, it is 13 epistles directly written by St Paul and 14 if you include Hebrews). That is nearly half of the 27 books of the NT. Not sure why you would state not much survived of his writing.
Again . . . take out the “prison epistles”, then what do we have. See my point?
BTW, fun fact: Which author – human, just eliminating “The Holy Spirit” as the answer – wrote the most words of the New Testament?
You stated that St. Paul wrote Acts. He did not. Because Luke ended up as part of St Paul’s team, is why Luke had a s focus in the later part of Acts, the actions and interactions of St Paul. Bill is writing “furiously” because he has nothing else to do. He is not in prison for the gospel like St Paul was. People that still love, admire and want to follow Bill can easily do so. Bill is also not writing “infallible epistles” such as St Paul which is your other implication here. Maybe you think so, I beg to differ.
What I said was, “Not much of what he said survives, excepting the book of Acts”. “Said” being the operative word. Acts records things he said. Many great men and women of God say many great things . . . Unless it is written down it doesn’t survive (video, audio counts). Oswald Chambers was such a great man, died very young. He would be long forgotten because, as I understand it, not a single thing he wrote survives . . . But his wife sat and took notes while he spoke, compiling, “My Utmost for His Highest”. Was just going over the hymn, “My Jesus I Love Thee” by William Featherstone with the kids. William was 16, wrote those beautiful words, sent them to a relative, perhaps mother. She liked it a lot, had it published in a newspaper. Someone else saw it and added music and published as a hymn. The ONLY thing Featherstone wrote, as I understand it, at least that survives. He passed away shortly thereafter, within 2-3 years if I recall correctly. Yet those written words continue to move and shake generation after generation. Sometimes what we write becomes the reason God wanted us to exist, at least ministry related, after we are gone, we never knowing it.
Anyway, that is the context and meaning intended. Of course I knew that Luke wrote Acts. And, in fact, he wins the prize for the “most words written in the New Testament”. More than Paul, more than John.
Well, since we have moved far away from oral transmission of information, the written word becomes more important. Yes, it would have been nice to have more from the past. I have never read “My Utmost for his Highest” but I did know it was written by his widow from his sermons notes. Never heard of Featherstone or the hymn you mention. All I would assume is that written materials that have survived from the past are very important and meant to be studied and used. (I
True.
More on the hymn, one of my favorites: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Jesus_I_Love_Thee
Great hymns (and Christmas Carols) usually have an amazing story behind them. “It is well” came from a terrible loss of family. “Silent Night” came from a broken organ and now it’s Christmas Eve. He sounded like an amazing young man and even if this was all he contributed in his short life, that was enough. Quantity does not always mean quality. Some of the most amazing people are not necessarily those that wrote much or anything at all, but their actions speak mountains. Corrie ten Boom and her family saved Jews in their watch shop. Maximillan Kolbe gave up his life so another man could live. Mother Theresa of Calcutta just went out to serve and love the poor of India. The “rock stars” of faith should include those that have actions that speak louder than words. One of my favorite is an 11 year old girl Maria Grotti. She resisted an attempted rape by her 19 year old neighbor Alessandro. He became enraged at her resistance so he stabbed her 14 times which obviously resulted in her death. As she was dying after they found her, she told her mother that she forgave Alessandro and wanted him in heaven with her. So, her forgiveness of someone that violently assaulted her is a perfect example of Christ’s forgiveness of us and how we need to be to others.
That is grace and that is character. She did what the Savior taught her, honored him.
You may not know, since Plymouth Brethren came up in the past, the author of “It is Well” was one. I have a book written by his daughter called “My Jerusalem” . . . He later took his family – and had another daughter after the first three that passed away on the high seas – and moved to Jerulalem, founding a mission to the Jews. Also . . . The reason they were sailing was because of the great Chicago fire – he wanted them out of there while the rebuilding was going on. He lost a fortune. Trivia: The debris from the fire was scraped into Lake Michigan and formed a new strip of land. The big businesses fought over control – Montgomery Ward used his own resources to wage a legal battle to give it to the city. He won – that strip became the track that now supports the museums, Millennium Park, Soldier Field (Bears) . . . Anyway, when you think of all of those things that make Chicago so beautiful, think of Spafford . . . “It is Well, It is Well With My Soul”. He lost everything, twice – fire and his family – yet claimed the greatest treasure of all, Jesus and His salvation.
I have been around ATI since 2000, been to seminars hosted around the country and sent my daughters to Excell and other training opportunities.
I know there is a lot of chatter about who is right and who is wrong. I’ve read tons of opinions and recently stories from the 80s.
This ministry has harmed my family by its controlling nature in not allowing me nor my family the mental space or freed-on to hear Gods voice for his will in our lives. Controlling in learning. Singing, in dressing, in eating, in vocation and in marriage. I sit here seeing how utterly stupid it all is. The whole “ministry” of one can call it that. It’s more like Bills social experiment. Sure ppl have free will to choose ATI but if you do you might well see yourself as a Scientologist.
Seriously. God gave free will and delights when His children follow Him with a pure heart and journey through this life with all its pains and lessons to really seeing Him in the center of it all.
In ATI it’s Bill rhisbor Bill that. It’s NOT Christ centered but works centered. (My takeaway)
For Bill to teach that all should be under authority but his final tests showed he was not and probably not ever under authority makes him like any other religious man who wants/needs others to adore and follow him. It’s sick! Really sick as the cost is many and I mean many leave the faith because of the Jesus they see in Bill is revolting and hipoceiric to them. The fruit of ATI is only a generation long so far, how many repeat customers?
My daughter was hurting due to childhood abuse and it was recommended she go to Eagle Springs, so we went her odd to get the help and healing she needed. THAT did not happen instead she was considered a rebel and confined and mistreated horribly. She came home with medical issues and the demons prayed out of her but NO REAL HELP! We paid to have our daughter abused again! I’m beyond livid that it happened in the name of Christ.
I met Bill with a group of girls from a counseling seminar I was happy my husband afforded us. No training in counseling happened instead a bunch of other stuff happened. We were surprised to see us at his table only to have him ignore me and all the girls, except one…….
God will have justice in time. We each account for our actions and for how others see the living Christ in us bearing fruit.
Words will cease, excuses will cease and truth will be found.
PS any money given (we gave a lot at times) was for the ministry of homeschooled youth to grow and develop themselves for His service. Never once did I ever give thinking of Bill. It was for the kids. For ministry sake and the gospel.
Hi, Susan. Thank you for expressing your grief. We exist first of all for the purpose to try to help address issues that others have with Bill or the ministry. We are so sorry for what you have experienced. I have seen Bill go to great lengths to try to fix things that are broken – We will be forwarding this on to him, but I know he would very much want to speak with you. I can provide his phone number privately if you give me permission – he also does read and respond to emails. That would be the best. I have some comments I would make in general about some of the concerns you raised, but will hold off for the moment.
May the Lord richly bless you, your family, especially your daughter.
Having not heard back from Susan, we would make a few comments:
I am saddened that you felt this way, but, other than peer pressure, was there anything holding you to this? As a fellow ATI father I assure you that there were a great many things we opted out of as not being a good fit for our family. Uniformity in dress was required for formal ATI functions, sort of a uniform. Nobody cared what happened in the rest of our lives.
Again so sorry to hear. Please understand that, as has been expressed to me by those that ran and served in these venues, it was never a piece of cake for anyone. Personally I am glad Bill tried. And I know of some real dramatic breakthroughs as well. Again, if there is a way to follow up, let me know.
That, again, is what we are all about. If there are better ways to help us do that, let us know. And I know that Bill would like to talk about this with you. Let us know if that is something you want.
So I guess by Bill’s own words, the “wounded spirits” that of those enrolled in ATI as children and teens that were shamed, silenced, ignored because they weren’t what he considered “beautiful,” or otherwise mistreated were the seeds that grew the crop of thousands of former ATI students rebelled…? Or is this once again something that applies only when it’s convenient, like so many of his other teachings?
Been trying to find a handle to reply on. Not sure about “thousands” of rebels, although even one is a tragedy. Young people rebel from many backgrounds, so making this a unique product of Bill’s program, let alone fingering a specific issue doesn’t follow. I think parents and authority figures routinely “shame” and “silence” those under their care that they are seeking to train to be responsible adults because, well, way too much “foolishness” has its residence in the heart of a teenager. I doubt you would disagree. Which leaves us with your proposition that Bill did so because they were not beautiful. Which also does not follow. There was ample room in the manifold IBLP programs for young people of every type, just, he picked those for the “front lines” in part for their potential to exhibit grace and godly beauty.
I am aware that there were those who were passed over for “plum” positions who felt hurt that it was their lack of natural beauty that was mostly the reason. Not sure if you intended to post here or over in one of the new articles, but that is the point that is being made there. Those were factors that figure in. I might feel hurt that I was often the last one chosen when sport teams were divvied up in school play. In fact, I was hurt. Part of the reason was that I was always short, and also never had a Dad to teach me how to play sports, AND was, well, perhaps a bit socially awkward. In this day I would be given a “participation trophy” or even forced on to an otherwise good team . . . to protect my feelings. Is that a good thing? My opinion: Not at all. Do you disagree?
Well, Bill was certainly in the wrong to attend to the conference. He was told he couldn’t. He agreed to that. That part of this is open and shut legally. If he is removed by the Board of Directors (and he was), his office is no longer “his” office. It is property of the Institute under the Board of Directors. The events and conferences are events of the Institute under the Board of Directors.
At this point, legally speaking, NONE OF THIS belongs to Bill, regardless of how much time he spent building and/or working with it. It really is that simple. I know that sounds harsh. It is. But this is the reality of these things. If he were to set foot on property, legally, he is trespassing. It is that simple.
I would not even bother feeling sympathetic for Bill. He has not earned that here. There is no way to argue he had a right to attend. Legally, he didn’t. The Board was in the right here. There is no way forward for Bill here. Unless the Board takes him back and reinstates him, he can’t be a part of this. Period. End of discussion. It’s over. I am sorry he wasted his time. He should have known better (I suspect he did). This is a really stupid thing to try to pull. I am sorry he experienced some grief, but he asked for it. There is nothing good to say for him here.
No, no he didn’t. Many things have been said, not all correct or appropriate. He did agree to leave Big Sandy after meeting with the Board, and the Board agreed to his condition. Which was not met.
It all belongs to Jesus. I suppose the donors – and we know some of them contributed millions of dollars – have not more say, do you think? We know the Board was given a letter from the donor that secured the Big Sandy property for the Board to transfer control to Bill’s new ministry. We also understand that the Board declined to acquiesce. If you are saying that legal technicalities trump all of that, well, then you can understand why some of these donors are funding the legal campaign to rectify this. A shame, do matter how you look at it. Bill appears to have succeeded in some of the legal efforts on his behalf. Others we shall see.
No. You don’t understand how this works at all. This is a legal matter, and yes. Bill did agree to this. Even if he didn’t, it wouldn’t matter. This was a Board decision. Bill does not have authority over the Board, even if he were their chairman. It doesn’t work that way.
They removed him and did so legally. He’s out. It is that simple. He does not have a leg to stand on here. He was legally in the wrong to go to Big Sandy. It IS that simple.
As for the donors, well kinda. Boards are typically organized to answer to the requests of those who contribute to the institution, be it an education enterprise, business, or even non-profit. Here’s the caveat, one donor simply can’t say “I want it this way.” For that to move Board decisions, it would either need to be a substantial donor (i. e., a majority stakeholder or a Bill Gates-like donor who has been contributing far more than the average Joe) or a consensus from all donors everywhere.
Even then, if the majority of donors want something that the Board feels is not in the best interest of the company, they are not legally bound to do so. Here’s a scenario. The Board of Directors of a chain of bookstores hear that a major donor wants them remove all hard copies of books from their stores and sell only electronic copies. This donor rallies support among other donors and it becomes a consensus. The Board may be legally bound to consider this option, but here is where the rubber meets the road. The Board knows that more than 4/5 of the stores’ income comes from selling physical copies of books. Despite the growing popularity of e-readers and e-books, physical books are the bread-and-butter. The chain has not turned profits on e-books yet.
Add to that these stores derive sales largely from customers walking in off the street. The new business model proposed by the donors would cost the chain catastrophically. It is one they may not recover from. At that point, the Board does not legally have to acquiesce. It may cost them some donors, a lot in fact, but if they are still making profits, they have little to worry about.
If you want to pursue this line of thinking, it gets very hairy. In a publicly traded company, all a major donor would have to do is buy up a majority of shares. That would make him the majority shareholder and give him leverage to determine who sits on the Board. But in a private company, things are handled differently and ruled upon quite differently. Different laws apply, and different areas of responsibility come into play. That is not to say there isn’t an avenue for something to happen, however . . .
The bottom line here is that Bill had no right to anything here, as you are arguing for. I understand and agree that God owns it all. Sure. But He has ordained government and laws to help us manage our affairs here. We are to follow them in these matters. Saying “It all belongs to Jesus” does not give anyone the right to sidestep or overlook the legal aspects of any of them. You may think the Board was unethical in their dealings with Bill here, but they were not illegal. Perhaps that’s the argument you wish to make. It would be an argument I could partly agree with. I could see that this could have been handled in a kinder fashion, sure. Ultimately though, the outcome should have been the same. Bill was not invited, and per the terms of his removal from the Institute, he is not to be there. He showed up, which is a trespass. It has to be dealt with.
It really is that simple.
That remains to be seen. Expect it to be visited in a legal context soon. Points to ponder:
1) Two Board members dissented. Subsequently through the threat of removal of indemnification they resigned. It was not voluntary, no more than Bill’s resignation in the face of pressures, some of which were very private and very personal. It may be argued that the current Board acted illegally in putting that pressure on.
2) The investigation that was cited as the reason for barring him from being President was actually ordered by the Board while Bill was still a member of the Board. Withholding the results of that investigation may also be illegal.
3) Explain what in your mind constitutes a “legal” dismissal of someone from a $100s of millions of dollars enterprise that he was responsible for accumulating. In the face of pleas from major donor who actually donated a chunk of those millions to provide some of the properties they bought . . . To him? Savaging his reputation in public in the process with undisclosed claims. Sending him out with no severance of any kind in exchange for 50 years of his blood, sweat, and tears, save a laptop that he had to plead to keep. Is that “legal”, do you think? Do you support it, I am curious?
We know that there have been cases where corporations have fired principals, sending them out with public defamation . . . Who were forced to do a lot of things they didn’t want by the courts because they broke laws in the process. If it is “unethical”, and everyone knows it, eventually, at some level, it will also be “illegal”. Kind of how it works.
4) If pushing Bill out is harmful to the overall best interests of the corporation, flipping your analogy around, where the BOD is wanting the book option that is guaranteed to fail, one can argue that they are not properly discharging their legal responsibilities.
Things are not as cut and dried as you suppose. It is convenient for your “side” to rally around that aspect as it would, if true, firmly close the door on Bill. I assure you that big important legal folks are prepared to help Bill pursue this. If it were as settled as you assume, no reputable lawyer would participate. Funded by some of the same scorned donors. How it will actually spin out, I have no idea. But there are matters here that must be addressed. In something other than the court of public opinion.
The registrar at Big Sandy was acting on behalf of the Board when registering attendees. When Bill paid the registration fee and it was accepted by the registrar, acting as the agent of the board, this gave Bill legal permission to attend the seminar.
Did Gil Bates have Bill’s money in hand to return it to him when Gil demanded that Bill leave? If Bill’s money has not yet been returned, then wouldn’t there be an ongoing legal question?
What would Gil Bates, Dr. Payne, or Tim individually (each) have to lose if Bill were to reclaim his position as chairman of the Board?
I think there are some very obvious answers–even Biblical ones.
You make good points. If was his great-niece who loves him who was taking the money and she apparently refused to take his, an expression of love … irony? Looking for the word. It would have been offensive to her. But point made – he complied with the legal requirements. His understanding was that he was not to show up on property because of the legal entanglements of the case. That being finished, he expected his hearing with the Board, and the ability to “see the people he loved” on site.
What makes it legal is the fact that the Board did remove him. That means he has no right to appear on any property owned by the institution. He would be, by legal definition, trespassing.
That much is, for certain, cut and dry.
I agree there are things here that should be addressed. If you want to argue the legality of his being forced from the office, and the subsequent dismissal of these two Board members, I can get behind that. There are circumstances that should be discussed.
I also agree if he paid money for this registration, he should be refunded. I wouldn’t look to the registrar here so closely. This person may not have been aware of Bill’s banishment from the compound or any orders concerning him. That is potentially very dangerous. As Hally said, this position represents the institution, and in so receiving the money, in essence rubber-stamped his entry. BUT that is a problem that can be resolved simply – by firing the registrar. That does happen, you know.
There is a lot that I would agree with you, albeit very strained to do so, that is questionable, all things considered. BUT, in the end, none of it changes any of this. The Board may have acted inappropriately and even illegally. But until you have a judgment on that (from a judge), their actions and decisions must stand. It is that cut and dry.
It’s unfortunate, for sure. But Bill should have known this. I suspect he did. I don’t believe this set of actions from him deserves defense. The Board was acting as they had right to, considering the circumstances.
I wouldn’t put too much hope on getting a judgment in favor of Bill presently. There are lawyers who could and will take such a case as this. But again, that does not mean much. There are lawyers who will sue for literally anything. There is a lawyer who is arguing Kent Hovind is Innocent (yes, he actually is a bar-certified lawyer), but that is not the case.
But for the sake of argument, I would like to see the case argued, and I wouldn’t loathe a judgment for Bill. I am completely a neutral party in these matters. Whether he wins or loses, it affects me none. BUT I do believe these matters are unnecessarily complicated.
Here is an interesting verse: 3 John 1:9-10. “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.”
Diotrephes was apparently in some sort of official role there. As they typically met in houses, maybe it was even his house which doubled as the church. The government would in that case side with him on the matter of “trespass” against the Apostle John. Pretty much no Christian, would agree with that judgment since John was accepted as an Apostle. So . . . We have a little man who has the legal power to curtail the Apostle John … so . . . Should a police citation against John be “the voice of the Lord” on this matter, do you think? I don’t think so, myself.
There are things going on as we speak. We heard that in Bill’s recent attempts to again gain a hearing with the Board he was again rebuffed – the words we heard was that the Board saw “no reason to meet with Bill Gothard”. That would mirror the types of responses that have been given throughout the last 5 years. We think there is ample reasons, legally and, frankly, “morally”, as in “the right thing to do” for them to reconsider that. May the Lord have mercy and intervene on his behalf.
While I think Bill was wrong in showing up unannounced, I also think that the board should have returned the monies to Bill and the assistant. That would have been the honorable thing to do. If that has not happen, it should. Since Bill and the assistant were not allowed to stay and told to leave, the monies should be returned to both.
Thanks for saying that. Not sure, actually, what happened there. Agreed.
Since it was so very obvious that the Lord alone delivered Bill from the law suit in a way no one could have imagined, it will be interesting to see how the Lord works out the rest of the situation with Bill, his ministry, and the BOD. I see at least 2 biblical possibilities.
Daniel had held a high position in the Babylonian kingdom, but there were others on the BOD who were jealous of him. So they concocted a devious plot which cornered Darius, and Daniel was thrown alive into the lyins’ den. But God shut the lyins’ mouths. It wasn’t long until the perpetrators themselves became food for the same lions.
Then there is Joseph. His coat of many colors (in this case representative of an international ministry) was torn from him by jealous “brothers” and immersed in blood (lies) to hide their jealous deeds.
Joseph was accused of sexual misconduct—which, if guilty, would have assured his condemnation and death. Instead he was put in Pharaoh’s prison without compensation except for his daily “bread and water.” Meanwhile the favor and blessing of the Lord was training Joseph for his future world-wide ministry.
When Joseph’s time of trouble was up it was (the interpretation of) a dream that secured his release. He was given both a wife and a new ministry. Then his brothers had to come to him, requesting help from him, and seeking forgiveness.
I have the sense that it won’t be long until we see the unfolding of “the rest of the story.”
I have a broken heart for all of you. I have read all this stuff and none of it lines up with the bible or the 49 Commands of Christ. I love the teaching of Bill Gothard but like me he a sinner saved by Grace, but what I see is the Pharisees are a live and well. remember what Jesus said about being as righteous as them. When the Christians become united in forgiveness we will rule the world. even if your side wins you lose. sorry Charlie Starkist only want the best tuna
Understood, Charlie. It is hard sometimes to know what to do. Sometimes you turn the other cheek . . . And sometimes, as John with Diotrophes, or Paul with Peter, or Paul with the court system, or Jesus with the whip, you withstand them to their faces.
This is one of Jesus commands, BTW, one we are directed to “take heed” to with some focus: Luke 17:3 “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.”
RE: Diotrephes and Bill Gothard
I’m not sure I agree the situation with Bill is the same as the Apostle John’s. But to answer your question, the simple of it is “yes.” It is completely legal for them to do so. It is that simple. Whether we should treat it as “word of the Lord,” as you put it, I agree. It can be questionable.
BUT, we do know that we are to submit to authority in these cases, which would indeed be the law in this case. That is the Principle of Authority. Even if authority is wrong, and they may well be, we are still to submit. Sure, there are cases when obedience is not required. I don’t believe you have such a case here.
So would police action be construed as word of the Lord? Well, if you respect the Principle of Authority, yes. The powers that be are ordained of God. Is it moral? Is it right? Those are good questions to ask. The answer is probably no on both counts. BUT, the rub of it is we still have to abide by it. If you want to argue this, you’ll need to get a judge to side with you legally. It is that simple. It is that easy.
I would love to see the Board meet with Bill on good terms. As I said, I am completely neutral in all this. I am not a BIll supporter. I am not anti-Bill. If he is never reconciled and restored, that affects me none. If he is reconciled and restored, it still affects me none. I would kinda like to see him brought back to some position, just because he did invest so much of his life into it. But I still think it would be best if it were just some advisory capacity, not leadership. My guess would be the Board refuses to meet because they fear he would accept nothing less than leadership, and that is what they fear would harm their enterprise. That’s the problem with these public reputation cases. Even if Bill did nothing wrong (and I admit there’s a good chance he didn’t), he will still carry that reputation with him. That is the most unfortunate thing in the whole mess.
The things that carry Caesar’s image and superscription are to be “rendered to Caesar”. The church does not – Caesar has no authority there. The principle is being rapidly forgotten. We doff our hats wherever possible, like Jesus did with the temple tax and Peter and the fish, but only to be honorable. SO . . . When it comes to calling trespass on a man of God in spiritual matters of a ministry that God gave him, I am going to disagree with you. There are people who are willing to go to jail with and for him and this work, singing hymns all the way. Because it is God’s will regardless of what injustices are endured along the way.
And just because a governmental authority demands something of us does not make it God’s will and the requirement to submit. They are “ministers of God for good”. But as Bill has often said, “You can disobey and be respected for it, you can obey and be despised for it”. There is a time to disobey and gain the ultimate respect. What we do need to do is be honorable, so when called in question we can give an account.
The problem I see here is that you are still not understanding exactly how this works.
For one, Bill Gothard did not build a church. So it would be fall under that “the church does not render to Caesar” bit that you suggested. He built a ministry, that of necessity needed money to operate; therefore, it ran as any business would, including the hiring of a Board of Directors. This happens all the time and is very practical. I worked for such a ministry in Murfreesboro, Tennessee once (I will not call the name, but you might be able to guess it from the location).
The problem is whenever you have a Board of Directors, you cannot play this “it was given to him” card. It doesn’t work that way, especially if the use of the building were for the operation and function of his ministry. If it were a house for him to live him that can be an entirely different matter (and boy a complicated one, too, let me tell you).
Call it disagreeing if you must. But there is nothing to disagree with here. The building at Big Sandy belonged and still belongs to IBLP, not to Bill Gothard. That’s the problem. It is not one and inseparable. And since there has been a separation, what is stated from the Board regarding ministry property must be accepted legally.
It really is that simple and that straightforward. No two ways about it. I am willing to concede that there are matters in all of these that may be questionable, but again, you need a judge’s ruling to overturn the criminal trespass ruling.
At the end of the day, there isn’t anything that was done here that did not make sense. Bill was told not to step foot on ministry property. It belongs to the ministry, not to him. It is that simple. By going to Big Sandy, he violated that. They have every legal right to remove such a person from the premises. I don’t like to see it come to this, but that is the way of it. He should not have attempted to go at all. It is that simple.
We have each restated our positions several times. God’s laws supersede man’s laws in every case. Obviously if God’s will has been violated that ball is in His court now. And far be it from me to instruct Him on what He must do. And can ask Him to consider the matter as I understand it and and ask for mercy and consideration in light of the ways I understand His will to have been savagely violated. If He happens to agree, then He might move on Bill’s behalf. That is a good place to leave this.
re: reputation and advice
I think brother JM is mistaken about the Gothard lawsuit controversy having reputation implications. One analogy would be the late Mueller investigation of President Trump. Has Trump’s reputation been affected by the investigation? Naw. His supporters never believed the Russia collusion narrative and his enemies never disbelieved it. Same with Gothar