A persistent complaint against Bill Gothard over the span of his entire ministry is the extra attention and honor he provides to “beautiful people”, especially young women. Many have noted that, out of a group he will invariably single out the most attractive and focus considerable time and effort on them. In our modern day that is anathema – after all, the beauty of our inward person is to be considered far more important than the external.
And, truth be told, Bill has actively preached the message of valuing the importance of the apparently ordinary, or even deficient, as “marks” that God places on us to move us in directions He wills for us. Joni Eareckson (Tada) is a name that would be long forgotten had it not been a freak diving accident that broke her neck and rendered her a quadriplegic. She found purpose in life as she accepted her disability as her personal “mark” from the Lord to be used as a platform for a new ministry. She became a well-known painter, then national speaker, then author, even vocalist, featured by Billy Graham. Her life became a major motion picture. She remains today a force in Christian and public ministry, advocating for and serving the needs of handicapped individuals the world over. I heard her relate at an ATI conference back in the early 2000’s that it was Bill, in a chance impromptu counseling session in between sessions at a Basic Seminar so many years ago, that planted that seed in her heart that grew into the fruitful ministry she has had for many years.
So how do we understand this dichotomy? If this is true, why does Bill spend so much extra time on attractive individuals, and is he right in doing so?
Dress For Success
Those that know Bill know that he is a student of all of life and is constantly finding analogies in the design of “how things are” that relate to Scripture and its principles. They also would know that as part of this he has been much influenced by John Molloy’s book, “Dress For Success”, originally published in the 1970s. John’s work was distinct from other “how to dress” offerings in that it was based entirely on the scientific method. Let’s say you wanted to settle the age old question of whether white shirts are a better attire for a businessman than colored ones. What Molloy did was extensive testing to come to a provable answer. He would take a picture of a model wearing a white shirt and another wearing a colored shirt and show them to his subjects. Then he would ask, “Who is more trustworthy?”, “Who is more successful?” “Who is more reliable?” Then the models would switch shirts and other subjects would be engaged. In the end he could say with certainty that, at least in that day, the white shirts of the IBM sales force gave them a definitive leg up over the competition – the white shirts consistently resulted in better perceptions of trustworthiness. He applied these tests to all aspects of the wardrobe. Being short, I was impressed with his one finding for short men: Never, ever, under any circumstances carry an umbrella. Good to know.
Bill believes that external factors, such as dress, affect us far more deeply than we realize. As a result he is most particular about carpet colors and light fixtures, hair styles and accessories such as earrings, sashes and so forth. When he bought a building there would be significant renovation done, say to add a steeple, redo the shrubbery, special drapes. When formal pictures were taken he would sometimes have them photoshopped, say to add more trees, for a certain effect. It is well-known that he colors his hair and is never seen outside a suit with a white shirt, focusing on aspects that he believes are objectively able to make what he does and teaches much better received.
The Lord, Fashion and Interior Designer
Does the Lord care about such things? As we look at the patterns and precepts in the law of the Old Testament, we find that, yes, He apparently does, very much. The tabernacle and then the temple were intricate creations, every detail prescribed including exact colors and materials, as well as their placement one against the other. Even the smells were dictated – perfumes and incense made with precise ingredients in prescribed proportions.
No more was this true than in the meticulous details given for the priest’s garments, from the turban on his head through the several robes and tunics, on to a number of detailed accessories, even down to his underwear. Ordinary Jews were given instructions as well, including blue tassels that were to decorate the corners of a robe, and hair styles.
Charming David
How does this focus on the exterior then jibe with the statement that we often quote, that “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but God looketh upon the heart”? (1 Samuel 16:7) That would bring the current question into sharp focus. In particular, how much DOES the Lord care about outward appearances? Does it really make a difference?
That verse in 1st Samuel comes with an interesting context. The Lord said this while He was rebuking Samuel for getting excited about the oldest of Jessie’s sons, Eliab, standing before him, assuming that he was the right choice for king based on his good looks. The Lord told him that HE could see into Eliab’s heart, and he was not good enough for the job. Along came a parade of other good looking sons. When none of them got chosen, Samuel was a little concerned until he realized that the youngest had been left out, presumed to be of no consequence, the sheep herder, David. Samuel demanded his presence and, when he showed up, the Lord immediately identified him as the one that would be king. God saw into his heart that he was “a man after God’s heart” (Acts 13:22). We often imagine a gangling youth, not all that attractive, given that he is contrasted to his handsome yet unfit older brother. Yet Scripture says something else:
“And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the Lord said, ‘Arise, anoint him: for this is he.’” (1 Samuel 16:12)
So we discover that he too was good looking, kingly in appearance. Apparently the Lord likes both on the front lines. Is it possible that the beauty that God gives outwardly is in fact given as a token, a sign, a gift that this one is chosen for something special in God’s public affairs?
Beauty Gives Faith
And now it gets real. Let’s consider another man of God, chosen from before birth to be arguably the greatest of all the Old Testament figures: Moses. We will not retell the story everyone knows, but instead will quote this synopsis in Hebrews 11, the “Chapter of Faith”:
“By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.” (Hebrews 11:23)
The KJV here uses the odd word “proper” to describe the baby. This word in the Greek – ἀστεῖον – comes from the Greek word “astu”, meaning “a city”. It means “urbane, handsome, fair”. Moses parents perceived, had the faith to believe, that Moses was destined for public “in-the-city” greatness solely based on his beautiful appearance. It becomes quite clear, then, that God does give outward beauty for very specific reasons.
If one has the calling of a counselor as Bill does, and discovers this to be true, such a person begins to ask the question, “What is being done about it?” If a young fellow or girl is destined to live as a prince or princess in a monarchy, the preparation is very specific and intense. Expectations for such children and young people are much higher than for “ordinary” folk. All this is necessary for the young person to be ready to function effectively and confidently in a position of leadership which is stressful and where much is required on every side. Are we identifying the “princes” and “princesses” early enough where we can do what needs to be done so that they will be successful in their calling? Bill didn’t think so.
A Special Burden
One of Bill’s life burdens has been exactly this. He recounted to us several times an event that shaped him in a dramatic way when he was just 13 years old. At that time a Christian leader invited him to accompany him to a pastor’s conference in Kansas. One of the things that shocked Bill was to find that, among these respected men of God many wives were intensely bitter for the demands that the ministry had placed in them. These women had grown up expecting to lead a “normal” Christian life – what they received was a leadership role they were not ready for. They came into marriage without the tools necessary to support their men in the demands of ministry they faced, let alone themselves be able to lead in the ways that are expected of pastor’s wives. Unprepared for public service, unprepared . . . to be queens.
He related to us that at the moment he purposed to make that a special project, learning how to be effective in preparing those young women destined for public service so they would be ready when their time came. And that, of necessity, involved learning how to counsel the “beautiful children”.
Bill’s purposes in noticing and selecting the most “urbane” of those that came by him for special training has been for a very deliberate, godly purpose. There was a reason, and it has certainly not always been understood.
No Broken Priests in Public Service
And now we come to one of the most interesting and perplexing aspects of God’s “outward appearance” commands in the OT law. The priests from the lineage of Aaron were sanctified, made holy, to stand in the tabernacle – and later the temple – to perform the many tasks there. There were animals to kill and sacrifices to offer and a great many other procedure to perform, both publicly and privately in the most holy place on earth. Now consider the following edict:
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. ” (Leviticus 21:16-21)
Anyone with a missing, broken or extra body part, including conditions such as dwarfism – in short any significant physical blemish – disqualified a man from standing and performing these public tasks. Such were still blessed and fed, but they could not serve. To let them serve would “profane” the temple.
It is even more interesting that the Lord assumes responsibility for all of those – to us – “unfortunate” things that “handicap” us:
“And the Lord said unto him, ‘Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?’” (Exodus 4:11)
So the Lord allows and in fact created the blemishes. And yet He then forbids anyone with those blemishes to serve publicly in His holy temple.
So we see that, besides a godly inward heart, God also has pleasure in high outward standards for public service. Just like outward beauty is a sign of a special calling – or at least of the public aspect of it – so a blemish may be an indication that such a ministry – again public – may be limited by God’s own purpose and mark.
Now Joni Eareckson Tada is a prime example that the standards of the temple do not apply directly to Christian service, and her “blemish” is the very thing that makes her so effective. However, in a day where the concept of any objective standard of beauty and even skill is discouraged in favor of “making everyone feel good about themselves” – participation trophies and all – it appears that the Lord is still intent on a times separating us to varying purposes through the design He has placed in our bodies.
Young Ladies in Bill’s Court
Bill tapped the princes and princesses to stand in the “court” of national exposure that IBLP became, and the young women were definitely the brightest and most effective part. There definitely was an extra emphasis on attractive young ladies – many hours of counseling – and as a result many major doors of opportunity have been opened over the decades solely because world leaders were so impressed with them. He graciously wrote his thoughts out in his own words in the last few days and we since featured as the article, “Why I Dedicated My Life to Serve Youth and Their Families”
That Old Male Sex Drive
All of the above will undoubtedly result in a few yelps and shrieks; it always has. Most folks believe that the old male sex drive is completely incorrigible, not to be trusted in any circumstance, to the point that ministry of men with young women is simply inadvisable – impossible. And, truth be told, there is a sorry track record to back up that concern.
However, Paul makes a strong point that there are those who are able to function in ministry without being married, called “eunuchs” by Jesus, ministering unmarried as He did:
“Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin[virginity, some translations], doeth well.” (1 Cor. 7:37)
Jesus remains our example in all things. Women traveled with him, served him and his disciples on a daily, even hourly basis. He counseled women, including some with unsavory pasts. One of these was the “Woman at the Well” in John 4 – he was there, alone with her, speaking to her heart. When His disciples returned they were amazed that He was speaking to a woman. No explanation was given – it was His time to deal with a troubled woman in a private chat.
If Bill is anything, he is furiously disciplined. And to him this has been a challenge, to keep himself pure even while maintaining an effective ministry with young women. Part of that was his vows. He told me the first time he spoke to me when I was investigating some allegations of sexual misconduct in the early 2000s (which ultimately were shown to have come from the now debunked “Cabin Story”): “I have never seen nor touched the private parts of a woman”. It is a vow, and one from all we can tell through years of investigations with friend and foe alike, he has meticulously kept.
I recall an instance where on this blog, or maybe even on RG, we were challenged to ask him, point blank: “Bill, ARE you a virgin?” This was rather embarrassing to me, despite feeling a relative boldness in such things, but I took the challenge, went to his house, looked him in the eye, and asked the question. I still recall the look of joy and peace that came over him as he said, “Yes, I am!” He spoke of the joy that he felt, being able to give that answer truthfully.
So, with these things as his purpose and vows and guiding principles, Bill has gone places that others, like Billy Graham, feared to go. Billy told him, once, “Bill, you have a very special ability with counseling. I could never do what you do.” As part of that Bill had to find ways to engage, counsel, encourage young women, some extremely troubled as well, that were respectful and responsible. He told me more than once, “I always looked for expressions of encouragement and sincere affection that were safe”. So, to him, tapping a young lady’s foot with his was a safe way to express affirmation, or to get their attention during a working session, same as when he did so with a young man. To hold a young woman’s hand in both of his as he spoke to her heart, sitting next to her, was every bit of a father coming out of him, seeking to bless her and let her know she was important.
A day gone by would have looked much more kindly and in an understanding way upon such things. Bill has never been much a part of the world and its perspectives, and a lot of that he missed, especially as he deliberately kept himself from TV and later the internet. The rapidly corrupting world with its social media suddenly ran over him 5-6 years ago. In the wake of all that has happened he, as an 83 year old, has learned some things he never knew before, including how to use the Internet, and how to read and answer emails. And to take the “whisperers” on social media much more seriously. We are most proud of him. He is an even wiser man because of all of this, and for that we all give the Lord thanks.
With few exceptions the young ladies that came in and out of Bill’s orbit took his attention in exactly the way he intended as he was interacting with him. Then, in fits of what we can only call “mid-life crisis”, all such innocent things began to be second guessed and reinterpreted in a harsh sexual light 20 years after the fact. And such reinterpretation even, God forbid, in some cases primarily for purpose of securing large piles of cash. When we took tests in school we were often reminded of this time-honored principle: The first answer you come to is almost always better than whatever you later change it to. A calamitous lawsuit featuring a respected law firm getting kicked off for malfeasance and eventually all 17 plaintiffs dropping all claims partway through is a poignant proof of that.
In Conclusion
One of the saddest verses in the Bible is this:
“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.” (Titus 1:15)
To the innocent heart, all is pure and all is joy. When sin enters it corrupts that purity with awful things from defiled consciences.
And our defiled world has also lost any sense of a holy purpose for beauty and natural grace. In the mad rush to find maximum self-fulfillment and worldly gain, let alone the satisfying of fleshly desires, all such advantages are quickly pressed into service in the pursuit of “Winner: Me”. God’s gifts, given to bless others, turn only to curses when re-purposed toward selfish ends. And become an open invitation for the devil to seek to enslave all such and their gifts for his evil purposes.
So perhaps we can get past surface concerns and seriously consider some of the reasons why a ministry such as Bill has had to beautiful people, especially the lovely young women, is not a joke but a vital, consequential and largely neglected purpose in the church in these last days.
A few minutes ago as I was praying for my daughter, Grace, and thought back to her days at IBLP headquarters- I was prompted I believe by the Holy Spirit to google Discovering Grace. Absolutely amazing to find such an encouraging answer to the scripture “Be always ready to give an answer to the hope that lies within you”. I have never offered any replies to the many years of reading so many opinions on RG and DG. So I offer my humble thanks to the
Moderator for being able to word such a wise answer that so communicates to the feelings in my heart and so resonates truth in my spirit!
John Molloy’s book is out of date and based on stereotypes of men and women. It also has nothing to do with faith and the success he is talking about is worldly success not, spiritual. There are now millionaires and billionaires that dress in sneakers and jeans, look at the late Steve Jobs or even Mark Zuckerberg. We use to stop at a McDonald’s while my daughter was at flute lessons and a big JW group always came in at the same time. They are nice polite people and also well dressed, almost too well dressed. Mormons also pride themselves in dressing nicely. Being dressed up has nothing to with the reality or orthodoxy of one’s faith. All you have done here is justify Bill’s favoritism and over emphasis on externals. I think you need to reread James where it talks about showing favoritism toward those coming to Church dressed up over and above someone who is poor and can’t. What you have just done in these two articles is cement my opinion of Bill’s “worldliness” dressed up in evangelical spiritual mumbo jumbo.
Thanks for diving in, Rob. I do hope you will take the time to read the Scriptures offered and see if that might offer some support. Say ‘beauty’ bringing ‘faith’, in the case of Moses, or the ‘profaning’ of the temple from those with physical blemishes being allowed to serve. Other than saying, “Well, THAT was OT and doesn’t matter”, that presents a conundrum, no matter how you proceed.
And as to millionaires in sneakers . . . sure. My sense is that this is a bit of a passing thing, sort of like the gold rush, where jeans actually got invented, crusty geezers in overalls with millions. Those types of societal things have always been aberrations. In the end, those who have money and keep money and pass their money on to generations end up dressing for success . . . or losing it all.
re: dressing up or dressing down
A funny story came out of the early days of Apple Computer. Apple and IBM decided to collaborate on a project. Each knew the other’s reputation for corporate dress code. At their initial meeting, the IBM delegation showed up in jeans and t-shirts, while the Apple delegation appeared in business suits!
Absolutely hilarious!
re: IBLP dress code humor
Back in 1994 at the IBLP Northwoods conference Center, Bill Gothard was present on the occasion of his 60th birthday. The sharp-witted staffers put on a biographical skit which featured the nativity of Bill Gothard. BG was represented by a boy-sized mannequin born in a business suit.
I would pay money for pictures of that 🙂
Facebook and google are two of the most successful businesses in the world and they ride around in scooters and have a nap room so…
Well, I think we have been around this circle before on this blog so…..
When I was in college (secular state campus) and was a part of an evangelical ministry that was suppose to be for “serious” Christians. The girls side was controlled by a clique of snotty evangelicals. There were those that were “in” and those that were “out”. At one point I complained to the campus minister that was a big fan of Bill Gothard. Instead of listening to my concerns, he justified the bad behaviors by using the Bible and telling me that Jesus had cliques because he had an inner circle of Peter, James and John. I was so floored and taken back that still today my views of evangelical campus ministries is colored by this experience. I didn’t know how to counter that like I do now. All you have done is quote different OT passages that mention physical attractiveness then proof text them together to justify Bill’s perverted favoritism. On top of that, you want to use OT laws that talk about not having any physical deformities to serve in the Temple as further justification. Have you run that one by Joni Ericsson Tada and see how she feels about it? Yet, then you mention Joni as an example of how Bill has helped her. All one has to do is go to her current web page and there is no mention of Bill. In fact, you have to dig pretty deep to even find one quote from him. I am so floored like I was long ago at what you just put out in these two articles.
You never answered the question: What fault did you find with the youth pastor’s defense of an “inner circle” such as what Jesus had? Even worse there, since James and John were relatives . . . nepotism. I would like to hear your perspectives.
You tend to put things out from a “self evident truth” basis, appealing to modern culture. I hope we can keep to Scripture. What fault do you find with the Scriptures used, both OT and NT? Yes, I am using the Bible. Now use the Bible to counter me.
Joni had agreed to be keynote speaker for Bill’s 50 Years in Ministry bash that was to have been held the same year everything started unraveling. Her love and respect for Bill is genuine. What I told you is correct – Bill used to cite her in Basic Seminars way back in the 1980’s, with her permission. Point being that Bill spends a lot of time teaching us how to find purpose IN our “defects”, which we all have.
Jesus repeated stated that to be great, one had to be a servant and to enter the Kingdom, a little child. The epistle of James very much condemned showing favoritism based on how someone dressed, especially in Church. John the Baptist dressed himself in camels hair/skins. St. Paul talked about not many came from the rich, the educated, the beautiful. Jesus repeated ministered and reached out to the least or the worst in the crowds, that includes the woman at the well, Zaccheus, the man full of demons, lepers, the woman with the continuous bleed. Jesus reprimanded the disciples for having debates on “who is the greatest”. Jesus let children come to him, He let women touch Him, etc. None of these examples were “beautiful” people, the in crowd, the best etc. Bill may have had a big name like Joni, but he ran IBLP on a peaking order, with the pretty at the top. He did not live out or operate based on all of the above examples.
There is one thing to have a close “inner” group, there is another to have a clique of bully “Christian” girls and consider themselves better than everyone else. If you read all of the Gospel narratives concerning the Apostles, Jesus constantly reprimanded them to stop arguing and trying to be top dog. Using the ideas of dress for success which has nothing to do with the Bible or even Christians ideas of servanthood show how worldly Bill was and is. The fact that you defend this and then tell me to “prove” myself from the Bible is laughable.
So . . . You still didn’t demonstrate that an ‘inner circle’ was unscriptural. “Bully” or “snotty” could be a matter of opinion, subjective. Sounds like the youth leader disagreed with your assessment?
I demonstrated that God does have standards for attire, the more important the job, the more so. “Dress for Success”, being as it is scientific, appears to be an expression of how things work. So studying it is not any different than what Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived, did, Spiritual lessons from earthly patterns:
1 Kings 4:32-33
“And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. 33 And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.”
Speaking of the “wisest man that ever lived”, Solomon was into “Dress for Success”. Obviously he, like any of us, was outclassed by a flower, but . . . You can see that wisdom motivated him to “dress up”:
Luke 12:27
“Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”
Really Alfred, Solomon ended up in his life falling away from God due to his multiple wives. That is not SUCCESS.
Solomon was the wisest man that ever lived. And his wisdom moved him to dress well. Long before he fell away. The last few years of his life were not successes, but the rest was.
re: the inner ring
In her 8/28 comment, Rob raised a topic which was once addressed by C.S. Lewis in an address to young people. Here is a link: https://www.scribd.com/document/24204419/C-S-Lewis-The-Inner-Ring
“I would rather choose to be a doorkeeper in the House of my God than to dwell in the tents of the wicked”
Psalm 84:10
and this
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/beware-the-allure-of-the-inner-ring
Highlighted appears to be the lure of being in the “inner circle” as we would put it in modern times. Clearly it is our natural tendency to dominate others when possible, let alone the general and most deadly sin of pride. We would all agree that neither is a good motivation. That having been said, there IS an inner ring around positions of power and influence, and it is God ordained. Jesus had His Peter/James/John circle, Paul worked repeatedly with a small group of trusted individuals . . . Even the Lord displays the “24 Elders” in heaven with no clue as to how they are chosen. Paul said that a person desiring to be an elder was desiring a good thing, then outlines what character and experience qualifications would make that possible.
Not every disciple could be one of the select three, billions of believers will not be one of the 24 elders. Whether God makes people qualified for these exalted positions or bases it on qualifications, it remains that some people are always going to be special, “beautiful” . . . princes and princesses. Our world hates that notion, but it is Scriptural. And, according to our much cited passage in Hebrews 11, God often builds a package for that role that includes outward grace. The “Shepherd” of “Shepherd of the Hills” spent many years grooming an unqualified young hillbilly girl for life as a “beautiful one”, and part of the point of the book is that he succeeded. It remains that, likely due to the stigma associated with it, very few in ministry care about that class of individual, leaving them to their own devices and, sadly, the extra temptations and attacks coming from the Evil One who covets their capabilities for his work. We see no connection, but are happy to decry them once they fall, and curse them when they use their powers against us for evil.
Not every “Inner Ring” is evil. Let’s accept that, and plan for it.
Since we are cherry picking OT passages, how about this one…
“Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” – Isaiah 53:1-3
An explanation of how this applies to the discussion seems, to me, unnecessary.
Song of Songs 5:10. “My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.”
Same one. The fairest of them all. There is no spot or blemish in Him. And He is making us like Him . . .
Ephesians 5:26-27. “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
Nothing but perfection.
White and ruddy matters!
Just so I’m clear on this… You are suggesting that Song of Songs 5:10 means that Jesus, in His Incarnation, was, physically, the most attractive man in the world (or at least, way up there – as in top 0.01%)?
Yes. The angels were in awe . . . And those that could see correctly were in wonder. The “we” in Isaiah 53 is “we” the blinded, unsaved, ungodly. What the disciples saw on the Mount of Transfiguration is what He should look like to us.
Sorry, follow up question to my previous post…
Does “He is making us like him” refer to our physical appearance in this world?
Yes. We become more and more beautiful and desirable the closer we come to Him. The “glow of God”, as Bill calls it, another term for “glory”.
Oh please, reread Isaiah 53. Thank-you
I have read it. The beholder does not define the reality of the object of consideration. I see the same one mentioned there as “altogether lovely”. Nothing is different.
Perfect. So, when something you deem (or, excuse me, science deems) attractive lines up with your (or our corporate) observation then it is objectively beautiful. If scripture says something is beautiful even though the science, observation, or consensus of the beholders does not agree then (and, apparently, only then) do we go with scripture.
This discussion is, ultimately, pointless. You have already made up your mind and have decided to resist anything that might oppose that position as heretical or wicked.
I have no reason to believe that this admonition would be received any differently. But, please, please study the doctrines of grace and free yourself, through the Gospel of Christ as His disciple, from these doctrines of man and traditions which are rendering the commandments of God of none effect.
Your frustration would appear to mirror my own. What does this mean?
Hebrews 11:23 (NASB). “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.”
God clearly made the boy . . . “Beautiful”. Whose standard would you be applying here? God has a standard for beauty, and used it to signal something special. How about this:
1 Samuel 16:12. “So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance. And the LORD said, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.””
This is a holy moment, God writing the narrative . . . And He chooses to focus on David’s appearance. Why?
What about this careful edict from the mouth of the Lord directly:
Exodus 28:2-3. “You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. 3 You shall speak to all the skillful persons whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may minister as priest to Me.”
Aaron could not stand to minister before the Lord unless he looked . . . Gloriously beautiful. Which is interesting because, well, God looks on the heart . . . And those glorious clothes where put on for the eyes of the Lord alone. Why?
Couple that with the edict that nobody with a deformity could minister as a priest, God’s direct commandment under penalty of death . . . Either we have two different Gods here, or the Almighty really does care about what we look like when we are doing His stuff in His name.
OK. Let’s try one other thing… Would Jesus Christ, in His incarnation, have been considered “dressed for success”? Would he be, by the standards that you have set forth in the article above (not by the observation of the angels in heaven or by those who “could see correctly”), one of the beautiful ones? Please don’t just defend the position, this isn’t high school debate. Consider the question. Thank you.
I have no idea what He wore. I know they dressed Him in royal clothes to mock Him. I know he was arrayed as a king on his way into Jerusalem. And he smelled like a year’s salary of perfume had been carefully massaged into Him. [And He rebuked the disciples who fussed that that same “royal treatment” could have been given to poor people for food – that really doesn’t match the “meme Jesus” very well, right?] What clothes His Heavenly Father supplied Him with . . . We don’t know. Whatever He wore . . . It was clean and elegant and noble as befitting the Son of God.
re: Molloy facts, conclusions, stereotypes, obsolescence
Rob, are you disputing Molloy’s facts? or whether his conclusions followed? Stereotypes are either too simple or too rigid. How does this apply to Molloy?
As for obsolescence, Amazon reviewers still praise Molloy’s book.
This book that made a big splash in the early 70s does not apply today. It’s defunct old stuff. Read the negative reviews of it on Amazon and a number of them point that out and also point out that the book is based on male and female “stereotypes” and is biased against women. Considering what I already pointed out to Alfred in that there are now a number of billionaires that dress in jeans and sneakers and are “successful”, the ideas promoted in this book are defunct. There is nothing Christian about this book. Considering the Jesus called John the Baptist who dressed in camel hair or skins the greatest born, I don’t think John the Baptist was great because he “dressed for success”.
This is the really fun part about Molloy. See, science cares nothing for “stereotypes”, just . . . Facts. I know he has updated the recent editions, but not because of “stereotypes”. The research continues to prove what people feel and believe. For example, a conclusion showing voters preferring a male candidate over a female one would be a “stereotype” . . .yet if the research based on the scientific method demonstrates it to be true, well, it is true. Social engineers will demand that it not be true – but running a male against a female would, in that case, come out with a better result. I have no stats to back that up, BTW, may or may not be true . . . but I DO know that all of Molloy’s recommendations are facts, not wishes or even “social norms”.
re: John the Baptist and women’s wear
John’s wardrobe could not have been better suited for his prophetic vocation. No man ever dressed better for prophetic success. When a prophet in a camel hair tunic commands you to repent, you had better heed! What greater success could you want?
We cannot tell from Amazon comments whether women succeed or fail. The commenters did not say. But comments are free and success is usually expensive.
This weirdly seems to be concurrent with the evolutionary view of humanity that Bill Gothard eschewed. It assumes that human beings are biological machines, that we can control them with their environment. The whole “Beauty Gives Faith” thing smacks of cynical business marketing, with absolutely no concept of God’s providence. Bill assembled desirable people to make his ministry more attractive and to draw them in as part of a numbers game? Isn’t that exactly what he accused church youth groups of doing?
Let’s zero in on “Beauty Gives Faith”, which you find particularly onerous. That is based 100% on Hebrews 11, there, story of Moses. So please humor us, reread that section, that explain how we got it wrong, if that is not what that means.
So I reread Hebrews 11, especially the section about Moses, and it seems to say the opposite:
“26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.”
Moses left the well-organized, aesthetically pleasing, hand-picked curtained court of Pharaoh, which was probably stocked with the best looking women in the kingdom. He was looking for a greater reward, and led the Israelites into the desert. I don’t see how one could read that passage and conclude that God wants our ministries to look good for the kingdoms of this world.
Also, there is a major, major gap in logic between saying “Moses’s parents saw that he was handsome so they saved him” (which is stated as fact in the Bible, not command. Are you arguing that they shouldn’t have saved him if he was an ugly baby? That’s what your use of this passage seems to imply) and “Our Christian ministries should be stacked with attractive women.” Also, I am highly surprised that you would compare Pharaoh’s court to Bill Gothard’s ministry. After all, Pharaoh’s court was the least of all godly places, where beauty would fit in with the materialistic, hedonistic, sensual pleasures, which are also described in Hebrews as “The fleeting pleasures of sin.”
I am noting that God, who wrote Hebrews 11, highlighted the fact that “faith” was a RESULT of the child’s beauty. Do you disagree with that assessment?
Hebrews 11:23
“By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.”
As to what they would have done if he were ugly, I have wondered the same. All I know is that that Holy Spirit, not Bill, make a sharp point . . . That the child’s attractiveness was the key to their faith. Explain that.
>All I know is that that Holy Spirit, not Bill, make a sharp point . . . That the child’s attractiveness was the key to their faith. Explain that.
Who is the “their” in this case? Moses’s parents? I’ve seen countless debates over salvation by faith, salvation by works, etc., but this is truly the first one I’ve seen that’s about faith by beauty… I cannot imagine a weirder context for this verse. For one, arguing theology by analogy or inferential logical always fails because the analogy always breaks down (which you didn’t address any of my points about why Bill Gothard’s IBLP wasn’t at all like Pharaoh’s court – the analogy totally fails there). For another, it seems self evident that there’s a major difference between parents who, overcome with the cuteness of their child, try to protect him, and a grown man who is inclined toward sexual beauty showing favoritism toward more attractive younger women.
You fussed some more but didn’t deal with the core issue:
Hebrews 11:23
“By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.”
Based on what you read there, did Moses’ parents acquire that blessed and God honored characteristic of ”faith” because they saw God’s obvious purposes in the child’s beauty . . . Or no? Parents overcome with the beauty of their child would not be inducted into God’s “Hall of Faith Fame”, right?
>Based on what you read there, did Moses’ parents acquire that blessed and God honored characteristic of ”faith” because they saw God’s obvious purposes in the child’s beauty . . . Or no? Parents overcome with the beauty of their child would not be inducted into God’s “Hall of Faith Fame”, right?
No, they did not. There is nothing in the passage at all to imply that they thought the child’s beauty had any purpose at all in some “obvious purpose”, or even that they had any expectation that he would even be picked up by Pharaoh’s daughter instead of anybody else. Nothing, absolutely nothing. Just that they had faith he would survive.
This is really basic biblical interpretation here, the kind you’d find in Christian college freshmen textbooks or introductory seminary classes. The Bible is about half a million words. You can’t just take a verse out of context and base an entire theology around it, drawing conclusions that the author never, ever meant, because there’s unlimited things you can conclude that way. Nobody who reads Hebrews 11 in the light of the rest of Scripture who doesn’t have an agenda has ever read that verse to mean “We should stock our Christian ministries with attractive people because Moses was attractive and that got him favors in Pharaoh’s secular court.” Most of the other commentators here see that. We are not atheists or mockers. We are genuine Christians who have taken great steps to interpret Scripture accurately , and in light of what other theologians across the centuries have learned from the Bible. Can you point to me any traditional sources that view this passage in Hebrews 11 the way you do? I hope that we can both agree that it is exceedingly dangerous for one man to make “new discoveries” about the Bible that far wiser men than all of us have never discovered.
Let’s see . . . “By faith . . . parents hid . . . BECAUSE they saw he was a beautiful child” I am inclined to not accept the fits of disgust and insist you explain that “BECAUSE” . . . please. I insist you explain how being a “beautiful child” had anything to do with it.
As to commentaries, let’s start with John Gill: “they believed the promise in general, that God would deliver the people of Israel; they believed this to be about the time of their deliverance, and had some intimation, that this child in particular would be the deliverer, because they saw he was a proper child; not only of a goodly and beautiful countenance, but that he was peculiarly grateful and acceptable to God; they perceived something remarkable in him, which to them was a token that he would be the deliverer of God’s people, and therefore they hid him;”
Adam Clarke: “Because they saw he was a proper child – A fair, or beautiful child – ἀστεῖον asteionThe word properly means “pertaining to a city” – (from ἄστυ astua city); then urbane, polished, elegant; then fair, beautiful. In Acts 7:20, it is said that he was “fair to God,” (Margin,); that is, exceedingly fair, or very handsome. His extraordinary beauty seems to have been the reason which particularly influenced his parents to attempt to preserve him. It is not impossible that they supposed that his uncommon beauty indicated that he was destined to some important service in life, and that they were on that account the more anxious to save him.”
John Wesley: “They saw — Doubtless with a divine presage of things to come.”
John Calvin: “But he seems to say what is contrary to the character of faith, when he says that they were induced to do this by the beauty of the child; for we know that Jesse was reproved, when he brought his sons to Samuel as each excelled in personal appearance; and doubtless God would not have us to regard what is externally attractive. To this I answer, that the parents of Moses were not charmed with beauty, so as to be induced by pity to save him, as the case is commonly with men; but that there was some mark, as it were, of future excellency imprinted on the child, which gave promise of something extraordinary. There is, then, no doubt but that by his very appearance they were inspired with the hope of an approaching deliverance; for they considered that the child was destined for the performance of great things. ”
Methinks the commentators are on our side. What do you have in opposition?
>Methinks the commentators are on our side. What do you have in opposition?
How so? I explicitly asked for a commentator that says that beauty produces faith, and that because Moses was saved due to being a beautiful child, therefore we should stock our Christian ministries with attractive young women.
Also, in your quest to copy and paste from the internet, you seemed to miss that your John Calvin quote is exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to argue. I quote you:
>But he seems to say what is contrary to the character of faith, when he says that they were induced to do this by the beauty of the child; for we know that Jesse was reproved, when he brought his sons to Samuel as each excelled in personal appearance; and doubtless God would not have us to regard what is externally attractive. To this I answer, that the parents of Moses were not charmed with beauty, so as to be induced by pity to save him, as the case is commonly with men; but that there was some mark, as it were, of future excellency imprinted on the child, which gave promise of something extraordinary.
John Calvin literally warned AGAINST choosing by beauty in that quote, saying that Jesse was rebuked for having “regard for what was externally attractive” and that Moses’s parents were “not charmed by beauty”! I came across that passage from JC while researching and was actually prepared to quote it against your points, but you beat me to it! John Calvin claimed that it wasn’t beauty at all but divine mark of choosing, which is not the same as physical beauty!
It does lead to an interesting point, though. Are you arguing that there was some special mark on these (attractive) young ladies that only Gothard saw? If so, the JC commentary can still be used in your case, but then it becomes so subjective that it’s impossible to prove one way or the other. I personally don’t believe that God speaks to Bill Gothard any greater than general revelation, but I would be curious your thoughts on that.
So . . . You seem to not be reading what YOU are quoting :-).
That is PRECISELY the point. They were not sentimental parents . . . They SAW his beauty and SAW that God has set that as a mark of “future excellency”, precisely our point.
I’m losing track of which reply button is which, but to repeat what John Calvin said,
“But he seems to say what is contrary to the character of faith, when he says that they were induced to do this by the beauty of the child; for we know that Jesse was reproved, when he brought his sons to Samuel as each excelled in personal appearance; and doubtless God would not have us to regard what is externally attractive. To this I answer, that the parents of Moses were not charmed with beauty, so as to be induced by pity to save him, as the case is commonly with men; but that there was some mark, as it were, of future excellency imprinted on the child, which gave promise of something extraordinary.”
You quote your point “but that there was some mark, as it were, of future excellency imprinted on the child, which gave promise of something extraordinary.” That is completely out of the context of what John Calvin just wrote above, which explicitly states that the beauty was not physical attractiveness, which is “contrary to the character of faith.” I guess I’m not too surprised that you take John Calvin out of context like you do the Bible. However, I have to say that I do really appreciate your responses and that you have an open forum, which is more than can be said of most of the internet.
And thank you again for kind words.
We are spinning in circles. We highlighted twice exactly what was stated. Others here suggested that Moses’ parents were doing what ANY parent would do, find their kid cute, sure the world – and especially they – could not live without them. Because it generated “faith”, that is NOT the point, as Calvin points out. But it was the “BEAUTY” that generated faith, because it was a “mark” of the Lord on the baby that he was destined for greatness. Because he was “BEAUTIFUL”.
What parent would not be “overcome with the beauty of their child”. The more you defend this position (and, I know that you BELIEVE you are doing so scripturally) the more sickening it becomes. Was Paul attractive (don’t try to come up with some excuse or obscure reference, just look at the biblical evidence and decide).
Do a study of the Greek word heretic/heresy. I think you might be surprised by what heresy actually is. Anybody can take a portion of a verse (what I think Bill calls, mistakenly also, rhema) and prove whatever they like. Here’s a demonstration…
Ananias and Sapphira. Their names mean “God has graciously favored” or “God has favored with Grace” and, obviously, “sapphire” which by metaphorical extension is clearly denoting beauty. However, despite their obvious characteristics of attractiveness, God immediately and mercilessly destroyed them. So, (I speak as a fool) naturally, God abhors grace and beauty.
Don’t confine yourself to these “proof” texts. Step back and take into consideration the entire counsel of God. For those who have eyes to see, this position is untenable and, I’m not afraid to say, blasphemous.
“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. – 1Co 1:26-31”
“If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. – 2Co 11:30”
“And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. – 2Co 12:9-10”
“As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. – Gal 6:12-17”
And yet, Philippians 4:8. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” We are only to think about, focus on, beautiful things, lovely things, pure things. Same author, BTW. Was Paul beautiful? Not when he was sick, as related in Galatians 4. And yet, this man walked into the “3rd heaven”. God no more allows the ugly and deformed into the real heaven than He did His earthly temple. So I am guessing Paul must have looked something like what Moses looked like when he glowed after spending a month in God’s presence, or even as the Lord Jesus, transformed on the mountain. Pretty is pretty – God defines – and ugly is ugly. God is pretty, and sin and Satan are ugly. Sometimes such things humble us, and in that brokenness He makes something beautiful out of it. One day we will shed all the marks of sin . . . And stand in His presence . . . And look just like Jesus.
This will be my last post. I am quite certain that Mr. Gothard is far too far down the rabbit hole for any to extract except the Holy Spirit. I fear that this may be the case for you as well. My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the whole counsel of God (2 Peter 1:19-20, Acts 20:25-31).
When one commentor references James 2:1-4, you counter with Hebrews 11:23. I mention Isaiah 53 and you offer Song of Songs 5:10. You discount 1 Samuel 16:7, and later marshal 16:12 as defence against it. As Alistair Begg says, “The plain things and the main things and the main things are the plain things”. Please, for your own good, stop the eisegesis. Don’t come up with some principle from a best-selling book, or a popular study, or your own mind and then hunt for scriptures to “prove” it. Instead read the scripture, in context, using scripture to interpret scripture. So, for example, don’t just throw out Philippians 4:8, but read Philippians 4:1-9 (or, better yet, the entire book). I’m pretty sure that, if you are honest with yourself, you will see that Paul and the Holy Spirit are not referring to physical beauty or attire here. All the while, keep in mind that the entirety of scripture (and the mission of the Holy Spirit) testifies of Jesus Christ and not self-improvement or 49 axioms for bettering your position in the kingdom of darkness.
When you come to a scripture, don’t shoe horn it to meet the needs of the argument. Discernment is not a chess game, it is submission to the teachings of the Holy Spirit and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. So, for instance, when you mention that Jesus implies that Solomon was spectacularly arrayed in Matthew 6:29, don’t miss the point in 6:28 that we are not to be focused on what we wear and then go on to 6:30-34 and consider, honestly consider, whether the point here is that Solomon was dressed for success.
I don’t know you, but I know what I desire for you. I cannot speak for the rest of the commentors on this post. But I can speak for myself and, I think, at least some of them would agree. We want to be the Aquila and Priscilla to your Apollos. You are obviously intelligent and have a heart for the things of God. Please don’t allow your eneregy and life to be consumed in defending men and the traditions of men. Don’t spend all of your time with matters of “taste not, touch not, handle not” and will-worship (Colossians 2:20-23). Do not be bewitched by efforts to perfect yourself in the flesh (Galatians 3:1-4).
I expect that much of what I have said is already ringing alarm bells and you have likely been conditioned to see these wicked, heretical attacks. I’m sure you have been provided with an arsenal to “defend” against these villainous enemies of the truth. I am confident of these things because I have been in IBLP/ATI as well. Please just consider what I have said. I am not trying to perpetuate the argument. I am only, honestly, considering you, personally.
As I stated before, I do not wish to further post on this forum. I’m not trying to be belligerent or dismissive. Nor am I conceding the point. It just has to end somewhere and I do not feel that we are making any headway. However, if there is anything that I can do to help you, please reach out to me. You have one of my email addresses. You, or anyone else on here, can also contact me at shanon@severegrace.com.
Grace and Peace.
Thank you! I hope I have given you something to think about too. Do I dare answer the couple of points you made?
— Matt. 6 ends with the thought that all of the things we would seek – like being beautiful looking like Solomon or those lilies – will be “added to us”. That is directly in context.
— Phil. 4 – one of my favorite, life passages. Having reread it I am not sure what would counter the point that we are to focus our lives on those wonderful things, including “the beautiful”.
Those were the only points I could pick out. Your warnings and admonitions are good and appreciated.
I know that I implied that my previous communique was my last, and I have no desire for this to be posted. However, based on the rapidity with which you posted my previous comments I assume that you have decided not to post my most recent note. That is fine. But please do let me know if there is any way that I might be able to help you. Thanks and all the best.
The whole Hebrews 11 is based on heroes and heroines of the faith. You have only one verse that refers to Moses being a “beautiful” baby and his parents defied orders to kill male babies and hid him. Basically all babies are beautiful and the beautiful comment could also mean that they saw in him his spiritual destiny. It isn’t clear but what is clear is that you cannot take one verse out of context and then use that one verse to justify Bill’s male hormones and manipulation of surrounding himself with beautiful young women. That’s called proof texting and this current justification is so over the top, it’s become sick.
If all babies are beautiful, then the statement is meaningless. I can see that you have never thought it through. “Faith” is the currency of Hebrews 11, and somehow his “beauty” was key to their gaining faith, to know that this child was someone God designed to be special.
I think of Charles Spurgeon, who founded a “Preacher’s College” to prepare young men for the ministry. He would accept or reject candidates based on having a really loud voice. Before amplification having the ability to project one’s voice long distances was the key to success. He stated publicly that that design characteristic was a prime marker set by God that the young man was, in fact, destined to preach. What do you think . . . Was he Correct or incorrect?
I’m not a fan of Spurgeon so, whatever standards he had for “loudness” is rather meaningless to me. I would not agree with his idea that God gave some men “loud” voices to be preachers.
Do you believe in a God that would intricately custom design us for specific purposes . . . Or are things more random to you?
There seems to be a style of “preaching” found in a number of Baptist circles that gravitate to being “loud” and somewhat “emotional”. I think the better term is “yelling”. Maybe Spurgeon who seemed to be noted for being loud and aggressive but since that style is not apart of many other Christian Churches, Spurgeon’s standards and ideas in training “preachers” is rather suspect. Today, I read in Church I Corinthians 1:17-25 where St. Paul talked about his call to being a “preacher” and that he didn’t preach using “eloquence” but Christ crucified. In Acts when St. Paul traveled with Barnabas, it was noted that Barnabas was the main speaker, not St. Paul. St. Paul also talked about a thorn in the flesh which many believe was his poor eyesight. There is nothing anywhere in the NT where the qualifications for Pastor (not Preacher) were given as someone that was “loud”. Interesting that someone’s devotion, character, morality and commitment were not qualifications for Spurgeon’s preacher school. But from what you said, being a big mouth or loud was more important.
Points to ponder. In this day and age “loud” is not necessarily an asset as modern amplification takes over. But in that day? It was the difference between success and failure. SO . . . If God custom designs us for roles He plans out for us, Spurgeons prejudice for “loud” preachers is valid.
Benjamin Franklin was a friend of George Whitfield, the preacher. George preached in the open air. At one gathering in Philadelphia, I believe, Benjamin took it upon himself to estimate the number of people that George could reach with his powerful voice by stepping off the distance from the pulpit to where he could no longer hear the preacher. His estimate was “more than 30,000”. A validation here: the-science-of-sound-whitefields-massive-crowds THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a voice created by God to meet a very practical need.
I’m reading this website for the first time. I ran across an old issue of the IBLP newsletter and was reminded again of how very much wisdom and truth I learned from Bill all those years ago, so I asked Google, “What is Bill Gothard doing now?” I never could believe the allegations that seem to have made his name anathama. The discussion here seems to be whether Bill was right or wrong in his attention and use of beautiful young people. Obviously it is controversial and can never be solved by scripture–since both sides have, at the least, scripture quotes for their viewpoint. It seems to me the important issue is whether Bill’s motive was godly or lecherous, and if the latter, is he repentant. Is he able to serve our Lord or has he nosedived into self-destruction. Let’s remember that Satan is “the accuser of the brethren”, and God is our judge; we as fellow believers are not to assume either of these rolls. Our roll is to pray for each other, restore one gently, forgive the repentant and “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”. It is a great grief when a brother messes up (or is falsely accused). In either case we are to love him as ourselves and do our best to restore him to wholeness, not to peck him to death.
re: peck to death
What an apt image at the end of Maridine’s 9/5 comment! Especially because peck is a verb used for both beaks and fingers. Pecking is equally what hens do with beaks and enemies with keyboards.
Job 42:15 is an interesting verse in light of this conversation. “There were no other women in the whole world as beautiful as Job’s daughters. Their father gave them a share of the inheritance along with their brothers.” Worth pondering.
This whole thing is super surreal. You take a couple verses about Moses being a beautiful baby and turn it into an old guy focusing a whole religion (ministry?) on beautiful women. That is really sick in ways that you are not even grasping.
Please do explain in the light of what was posted, why this is “sick”. Of course, an old man preying on young women would be sick, but . . . This is far from that. Also Bill has had a purpose that is a very good one . . . Since a very young age. Taking the “old” out of it. I let you speak, but you need to explain yourself. Guess we are sort of tired of endless stereotypes and prejudices ruling the day. A sick man would have been felled by 17 lawsuits fueled by three substantive law firms involving around a million dollars of legal hours. Let alone there being hundreds to accuse from 50 years of ministry, not 17. At this point all of that has evaporated, simply because Bill is not nor ever has been “sick” or evil.
So . . . Explain, justify your comment. Or we will remove it.
re: Job’s daughters
Fishbowl makes a good point above. No glass ceiling for Job’s girls!
Before making some very critical comments below, I do want to sincerely thank the staff of this site for opening a forum for discussion. I must compliment you in that you are not afraid to address controversial subjects. These discussions need to happen. While I find the answers extremely unsatisfactory, at least you are engaging the issues rather than ignoring them. There is some satisfaction in knowing that while we are worlds apart, at least we did not imagine all this. Thank you.
Okay, now the bell rings. Ding!
Wow, Bill Gothard just espoused what Hooters, Budweiser, and the Dallas Cowboys have known for quite a while.
He thinks he’s the Archimedes of marketing by objectifying women, but he’s really not. Using hot women in your marketing sells your product like little else. He claims to avoid Playboy like the plague yet uses similar techniques in his marketing. Nobody argues the effectiveness, just the morality.
Drape attractive women on the front of your product and people will take notice. It’s not rocket science.
It’s not done by true mission’s organizations because it’s WRONG, not because it’s not a thing.
Billy Graham’s comment to Bill Gothard was a rebuke rather than hero worship. Please don’t try to misconstrue it. He was making the point (with Southern charm) that Bill’s solo counseling of attractive young women was a bad idea. Billy Graham showed wisdom and integrity in his interactions with women. He went to his grave with that reputation.
Bill Gothard’s reputation? Google it.
Billy Graham’s actions aligned with his words. He was mocked as a prude, but not as a hypocrite.
Bill Gothard’s actions did not align with the message he preached.
Any fool can recognize that half the accusations flung at Bill Gothard recently are false.
Any fool can recognize that Gothard abused his position of trust with young women.
He enjoyed crossing the lines that he persecuted others for crossing.
I actually believe most of the Clintonesqe statements that Bill Gothard makes. He truly believes he is a good man based on not crossing certain self-imposed lines. He sets his own rules. As did the Pharisees. By their own standards they were righteous, but they missed the entire spirit of the law. THEY were fanatically disciplined.
As a man, I reject the theory of Bill Gothard’s complete pureness of motives when flirting with/”affirming” young women. No, he wasn’t trying to crawl in bed with them. But, let’s be honest- flirting with young women is fun. He had a hundred women on his staff that could have done the personal counseling and affirmation of the pretty girls. He had dozens of married couples that could have done it with a sense of propriety. There was no need for him to be “THE ONE.”
The bizarre “biblical” apology in the above article would not be espoused by any mainstream religious organization. Maybe it will appease some of the faithful.
This is millstone material.
Thank you for your encouragement.
Unless you are not associated with ATI at all, calling the attractive but very conservatively dressed women of IBLP “hot women” is a silly comparison. Dr. Kezina would never have come away impressed with a pile of “hot women”, right? Of COURSE people “sell”, but the commodity here is not “hotness”, but grace and beauty and godliness.
No, we are pretty sure that was not the case. First of all, the person recounting it was Bill, so unless he was highlighting a rebuke, or is an idiot, makes no sense. Secondly, the relationship with the men was personal. Are you aware that Billy called Bill to tell him that his daughter had trusted Christ at a Basic Seminar (do not recall which one, but it was recounted in a recent conference)? So, no, it was not a rebuke – it was given as a deliberate point of honor, a very fruitful ministry that Bill had that Billy could not duplicate.
Nah. Those are the old accusations during the RG “pile on” that resulted in the last almost decade of insanity. He did NOT abuse his position of trust with any young woman. He may have been insensitive on appearances at times, but you are comparing 50, 60, 70 year old Bill, the pastor, counselor and director of the ministry talking to groups of women with young bucks that had no such role and were in most cases interested in pretty young girls around them for all the reasons boys chase girls.
No, that was actually not the case. They LOOKED disciplined, but they were fakes, hypocrites:
Matthew 23:27-28
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
17 plaintiffs, 4 years, 3 law firms, around $1 million in legal costs, untold pages of documents in excess of 30K, even this blog open for business for multiple years . . . We now know, Bill is not a fake. That is the difference.
Well . . . Your opinion, but 2.7 million alumni would differ. All those other folks would never accomplish what he did. That was kind of the point.
Well, we wrote it, I guess we are not “mainstream”, but that is the beauty of the Scriptures. Everybody can have a look for themselves, be Bereans and all. Point out our folly, please. About everything you wrote came from your subjective opinions. Which we, and an bunch of other folk, do not share.
Of course the one story we hear told is about a female “Government Leader” eyeballing the girls. Well chosen. The irony of this choice is not lost.
Of course they were chaste, modest, wonderful girls. Thus the ire. They were told it was their bright countenances, when it was really bright countenances and physical attractiveness. They were misled.
I don’t expect you to “get it” or to feel bad about it. I don’t see much compassion from you for anyone except Bill Gothard. You love the guy. I don’t blame you for that. He has been good to you and yours. He did a lot of nice things for a lot of people. You feel that he is being wronged and are doing your best to protect him. You have seen some people that were truly after money make some false accusations, so that colors your view of all people that have hurts. Some of the hurts are very real. Bill Gothard really helped a lot of people. He also hurt a lot of people in ways that are not just imagined or repaired with a simple apology.
He DID abuse his position of trust even if we only go with the revelations on this website. Example: Selecting girls as eye candy to open doors for ministry. Please share your article with a couple local pastors of your choosing (from a couple of different denominations) and see if a single one is willing to publicly agree with you on this article. Please do. Sometimes when all the cars are driving the wrong way on the highway, it’s actually you in the wrong lane.
For the record, I still disagree with you on the Billy Graham thing. But I do agree that Bill isn’t an idiot. He’s extremely smart. I think you would agree that he’s not easily deterred though.
I didn’t say I had a problem with the 2.7 million Alumni. My point was the single man counseling young girls in intimate settings. He did not need to take that role. I don’t care how old he is or how much people revere him. Show me a mainstream counseling ministry (FLDS doesn’t count) that would allow that.
The same sequence was repeated in several other similar settings in other nations, unknown genders. This was a really powerful situation, not unlike what my wife and I felt when we attended our first ATI conference and were really overwhelmed with the gracious, godly young people. EXACTLY what we desired for our young people. Are you suggesting that male leaders of nations would lust after “ATI women”? Your comment needs some more explanation.
Who was misleading whom by what? Are you saying the ATI women, let alone men, were fakes? Maybe a few were, but not the majority.
A couple of comments come to mind. Of those that have done Satan’s kingdom serious damage and those that have advanced Jesus kingdom in any significant way, let alone effective leaders of the world, few have not hurt a nontrivial number of people along the way. Bill Gothard dealt with tens of thousands, directly and indirectly. FIXING those problems is what we are all about. Thank you for acknowledging the evil measures that some have gone to to try to hurt Bill back for hurting them. It remains that we can personally testify to the tiny number of individuals who have taken advantage of Bill’s access and focused desire to reconcile over the past 5 years.
We remain stunned that anyone, particularly anyone who knows the ministry, the girls, would try to compare the appeal of what Dr. Kezina and many others have seen to “eye candy”, an idiom meaning “excite the sex drive”. I guess I refer back to how it affected my wife and I as we saw what we saw at our first Knoxville conference lo these many years ago. It is sort of, well, offensive to try to go there.
We share constantly. Most folks really, REALLY like the “product” that IBLP, ATI, Bill are producing. They want their kids, the kids in their church, to be just like them. I am sure that there are those that scoff at such things. It is my opinion that they will live to weep over the fruit of their perspectives. In reading back, if you are referring to “abusing position of power”, well, a lot of folks, pastors and otherwise, are starting to “see the light” after initially condemning Bill in the rush of all of the false accusations. I am guessing a wise pastor would wait to see all of the facts before rendering a judgement. The facts that remain, after the dust has started clearing, point clearly to Bill’s innocence of this charge and the accuracy of his unwavering attestations.
Of course you do. You might also have been in the crush of people that, observing Jesus and His “loose” ministry would have concluded, “Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 7:34). Those “sinners” included the prostitutes that came for counseling, the “women at the wells” that saw Him “in intimate settings” (like an office with bright lights and HUGE bay windows) when nobody else was around. Group think, armchair quarterbacks, all of the back office water cooler wisdom, analyzing a weird, out of step, at times shockingly challenging, clearly stunningly effective ministry, finding an apparent point to condemn, boxing it up, and going back to normal, comfortable life. “Wisdom is justified by all her children.” (35)
I find it not worth while to debate the moderator here.
To the rest of you, please note how each point made is dodged or twisted into something else. It’s impossible to fight all the straw men created with each response. Notice how he can’t seem to countenance that Bill has any significant flaws. Any hurt we feel, any inconsistency of practice we identify, any disappointment is apparently all imagined by our evil hearts.
To the moderator: Again, thanks for the forum to express my thoughts.
To Sarah Mandrager: Those were beautiful thoughts that were expressed with love and care. Please continue to share them. They are healing words.
Sorry this frustrates you Daniel. As you have pointed out several times, we do have an opportunity here that you will not find elsewhere. We interact with Bill directly as we check things out, and we facilitate folks such as yourself having chats, even visits, with him to make their inquiries and challenges and hear his answers. That is something we offer to you. Maybe a bit of a challenge, as in, if you believe that you are more righteous than he is in some of these areas, are you one of the very few that love Bill enough to actually get your hands dirty and try to verify, and then help? That is what all of us unpaid individuals did, which landed us here, talking to you.
Please point out where I said or implied that I was more righteous than Bill. An unnecessary elbow. Telling though.
You clearly are judging him, his motives.
“Any fool can recognize that Gothard abused his position of trust with young women.
He enjoyed crossing the lines that he persecuted others for crossing.”
“As a man, I reject the theory of Bill Gothard’s complete pureness of motives when flirting with/”affirming” young women. ”
Clearly you consider yourself more righteous than Bill, as you, allegedly, have not done these things. Am I right or wrong? “More righteous” means you did right in these areas, where Bill did wrong.
So you are more righteous than me? Because you have clearly judged me and my motives as well. You have judged the motives of most of those who disagree with you on this site.
I’m calling a spade a “spade” based on the definition of spades. Not based on my personal righteousness. I’m worthy of eternity in the lake of fire on my own merits. Your ad hominem is no more convincing than your straw men. It is telling that you need to resort to such tactics to “prove” your points.
It is telling that you have no problem speaking evil of a man of God, impugning his motives and most certainly declaring a higher standard of conduct than you see in him. If you felt worthy of the lake of fire you would be weeping for joy to be released of it, drained of all condemnation for others, pleading with us to find a way for you to help Bill get free of the sin that so easily besets you both. Would have definitely pointed out areas where you fail in a similar manner. AND, what would most definitely be gone is the sense of judgement, “criticism”. Instead, a fellow sufferer, no better and, typically, assuming the position of “worse”.
And you see yourself as setting a good example in these areas?
We can all do better, I am sure. But the goal is exactly that. Genuine love expressed to Bill and those that oppose him. Which, for us, started by going directly to him and his accusers in private to “establish every word”, then doing all we can to publicly correct lies and bring Bill and those who feel he has hurt them back together again. The test the Savior will apply to you as well as to us is “love”, doing for and to Bill and others what we would want done if we were in their shoes. Anything short of that is a crime against God.
This reads like a rationalization fabricated by a lonely, old man years after his fall from grace. We are to believe that these are insights that have influenced his entire ministry, and yet we are hearing them on this apologist website only now?
And it has a tinge of looniness to it – who talks about “princes” and “princesses” in a “court” in the context of a modern ministry? Bizarre. Take care not to live in a fantasy land.
I wonder how families would have responded had Bill been transparent about his motives and methods years ago? That is, had he stood up in the front of a seminar and announced: “I will be talking to the most beautiful girls in the room now because God wants me too …” he would have repelled the people who thought he was dealing above board.
Let’s take the remarkable admissions on face value: Bill admits, through his apologist, to singling out beautiful young girls and placing special attentions on them. After years of denying any wrongdoing, these admissions — no, protestations of holiness — are stunning.
I won’t be engaging in a back and forth with Bill’s defenders on this forum because it is pointless to argue with someone who embraces the logic displayed above.
You have said your piece, thank you for contributing.
First of all, don’t be too hard on Bill if this isn’t clicking for you. Bill did not approve this, although we sent it to him ahead of time because one of the sections was a condensed version of a chat we had had. In response he did ask to write the post after this one in his own words to replace that section because, well, maybe he wasn’t completely comfortable with everything in this one.
But we did go to some trouble to post some Scriptures that have a relevance here. Do take the time to ponder them as we think they make some points that are lost in our modern age that demands artificial and enforced equality in all things. If you are sure our explanations don’t reflect God’s intent, feel free to correct us.
Generally we have found that those that are so exasperated that they can’t deign to respond . . . Generally have no answer to respond with, and since expressing your condemnation and disgust only gets you so much air time they know that they will have to dump and run.
re: brother Mike’s 9/1 comment
In his comment above, brother Mike objected to the tongue-in cheek language of royalty in this article.
Then Mike demolished a straw man Gothard of evil motives and methods, which this article refutes. If Mike found this refutation unconvincing, he should have told us how and where. Instead he called it stunning and expected us to be as stunned and outraged as he.
Finally he lamented that argument is futile, so he won’t return. Amen, brother. Quarreling does no good. But a search for truth gets rewarded sometimes.
An Open Letter to “The Beautiful Ones”
To anyone reading this post who has been passed over, ignored, or rejected because a person of power and influence didn’t find you “beautiful”, this letter is for you. It’s also for those who were chosen because of their outward beauty and were left feeling used and worthless. For those who were taught that your worth and success was assured by acting right, memorizing enough, fasting often enough, and smiling always regardless of your struggles, only to be ignored because it was never enough to qualify you as a “beautiful one”, this is for you as well.
You see, we are all in the same boat. Frustrated and striving in different ways to be appealling to man and appealing to God, all the while being led by the Holy Spirit to the Truth that contradicts all the effort, striving, and frustration. The Truth that sets us free to live abundantly in Jesus Christ and His fullness.
And what is that Truth? It is that regardless of your “exterior”, you are marvelous. Truly. Not because of your appearance, but because you are HIS Creation. Psalm 139:14 says, ” I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.”
In this world, there are obviously times when men and women chose more outwardly attractive people for a position. Such is life and it will always be that way. But, be assured, that’s what MAN [the flesh] does. Man looks at the outside. 1 Samuel 16:7, “For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
The Lord, on the other hand, looks beyond what man sees to that which is eternal – the heart and soul. The Lord calls you beautiful because you are His, because you have been transformed on the inside, because when He looks at you He sees you thru the eyes of His Son who redeemed you and has clothed you in righteousness.
Are you are a naturally attractive person? Wonderful! What a gift! The Lord will use that as part of your story. But be encouraged, that beauty does not determine your success, nor is it the extent of your worth.
True beauty is found in Jesus Christ. As you walk with Him, you will SHINE. As you know Him, you will have LIFE. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3
Throughout the history of mankind, since Creation, we have seen examples of men and women who by all appearances had it all together, but inside were filthy and lost. They were kings and queens, business men and women, moms and dads, pastors and laymen, warriors, politicians, role models… you name it. And people followed them because they looked follow-worthy.
That is until their ugly came out. Millions have died, millions have been exploited, millions have been oppressed by outwardly perfect people who wore the perfect suit, crown, medal, or curl.
And it’s happening all around us today.
I know that I am exhausted of fake fronts, “ministry” smiles, and extraordinary exteriors that hide wolves. I am tired of fakes that shame the true body of Christ in all its beauty. And I am sick of elites in the world and in the church that live off of the oppressed, the poor, and the ordinary.
I would rather be a plain doorkeeper.
It’s time for the church to refocus and learn to see as Jesus sees. To live lives that have been exchanged with His. To let our pure lights shine so that He alone is glorified. To REST in the beauty of all that He is.
I address this letter to the “Beautiful Ones” because YOU ARE.
And not because some influencial person says so.
But because HE SAYS SO. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords calls you marvelous. Regardless of your outward appearance, you are made in His Image – and that is a beautiful thing.
Thank you. There is much wisdom in what you post. Points to ponder:
1). WHY did the beauty of Moses, the baby, engender faith in his parents? Is there a point for Christian leaders today as they seek to identify those that are especially gifted for public ministry and seek to get them ready?
2). The “plain doorkeeper” (man who wrote that) was called “ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome” (1 Samuel 16:12). Same one ultimately targeted by the “outward appearance vs. heart” statement. Interesting, yes?
3). “And people followed them because they looked follow-worthy”. And THERE is the point. That is how it works. Don’t you think it would make sense to extend extra effort to win “that kind” of person to the Lord so that natural “follow-worthy” aspect can be wielded for God instead of the devil? When will we ever learn?
1. “How sweet to hold a newborn baby,
And feel the pride and joy he gives;
But greater still the calm assurance:
This child can face uncertain days because He Lives!” When I have looked at each of my beautiful babies, they inspired faith in me.
Moses? The one who stuttered, killed a man, wandered for 40 years in the desert with his 2 million-ish Hebrews, and was forbidden to enter the Promised Land?
2. David was an adulterer and a murderer. Because of his sin, he lost his son and another son tried to assassinate him. The sword is against Israel to this day. BUT he had a heart after God and repented. The Lord wants the HEART. There’s nothing wrong with finding someone attractive. But defining their value by their looks is wrong. The story of David is NOT about his looks. Saul was markedly handsome and that turned out to be a judgement on Israel for wanting a king to follow like the other nations had – a king other than the Lord Himself.
3. NO EXTRA EFFORT for any one. John 3:16. Whosoever. He gave his life on the cross for each of us. Period. When the Lord calls you to reach someone, you REACH THEM. And not because your flesh tells you there’s something to gain because they are handsome, but because each one is worth the FULL INVESTMENT.
4. Isaiah 53:2,3 “For he [JESUS] shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”
On the other hand, consider Satan. He was beautiful from the day he was created. Until, PRIDE. Ezekiel 28:12-19. Isaiah 14:12-15.
When will we ever learn.
1). Here is the baby that song was written around: . [Also the singing voice of the goat in the “Hoodwinked” movies, but I digress]. Rather a handsome fellow, yes? Are you suggesting that you and your child belong in the “Gallery of Faith” of Hebrews 11? Do you think that the Lord was speaking generally about people like you and I . . . Or might there have been something special about Moses that his parents sensed BECAUSE of the beauty that they saw in him. See, what I just suggested is EXACTLY what the passage suggests, borne out by a great many commentaries, cited elsewhere. WE have a tremendous ingrained prejudice against such a thing, and can’t seem to bring ourselves to admit it. What I am saying is that your interpretation does not satisfy me as the actual interpretation of the section.
2). You err to accuse me of defining value by looks. Joni is a very attractive and gifted woman, but her value is defined by her love of the Lord . . . And wisdom forged from all her suffering run through Scripture. It remains that God made David quite handsome, as also was Saul before him. I have noticed that leaders are almost always tall – height engenders instinctive trust. Says me, all 5’ 3”. It is a good thing, not a bad one. Of COURSE such blessed and destined ones need to apply extra attention to finding the Lord, humbling themselves to get extra grace. Why is it somehow onerous to suggest that we, the church, need to put in extra effort to help them? Why do we allow them to struggle with the extra pressures caused by outward grace, knowing that if they succumb to the devil’s ploys, they will be twice as effective for his agenda than anyone else?
3). I could not disagree with you more strongly. And maybe there is a tad of prejudice there, things I understand, also not being one of the “beautiful ones”. With extra need comes a need for extra help. Paul commands wives to be given “extra honor” to counteract their needs as being “weaker vessels” . . . And coincidentally with being “weaker” they are invariably the most attractive of the pair. If the “beautiful” are challenged spiritually in extra ways, they too, as weaker, need extra help. Same with folks that are “rich”, which Jesus said BARELY are able to get saved, through special, unusual intervention by the Lord with Whom “NOTHING is impossible”.
4). What exactly is your point? Was Lucifer destined to fall? Do you care that people wash out and crash? Why is your heart so hard against them?
Look at this vision of the Savior, and tell me He is ugly:
Revelation 1:13-16
“13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 — His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.“
No comment.
I can’t resist. How about this:
Philippians 4:8
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
Tell me the Lord does not favor beautiful things. We can easily argue that He intends to beautify all of us, one way or another, make us “beautiful people”. But it remains . . . We are to think on “lovely” things, not “ugly” things. And, I presume, make ourselves as “lovely” as we can within the bounds of the responsibilities of normal life.
I feel falsely accused. I don’t have a hard heart at all toward those who’ve stumbled. Quite the opposite. I’ve been there myself. The point is that the Lord saw their hearts. They were precious to him and beloved. Heroes of the faith! It’s just that it was not their beauty he was concerned with.
And I very distinctly did not say Satan was created to fall. I said “Until PRIDE”.
I am sorry, that was not the intent. You rejected even the suggestion of any truth to what we say out of hand. And if feels a tad extreme the reasons provided, which include citing all the “beautiful people” – including Lucifer – that have fallen. Which, according to your perspective, means the Lord has crippled them with beauty to make them more likely to fail. I CANNOT accept that as valid. Those who have a greater tendency to fall require extra tolerance, grace, effort on our part. Instead of delighting in their failure as proof that we are – perhaps – superior?
James said this:
James 2:5
“Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?”
If you know that a certain class of individual is crippled by God with poor faith, what is your response? To mock them when, because of less faith, they fall . . . Or to take steps to get them to a point where they can be worthy of “rich faith”? No matter how you slice it, if we love them, we will focus on them all the more.
When a “beautiful” person is selected for special effort because of their appearance, they are missing out on the one thing that they need – that we all need. Genuine LOVE. 1 Cor. 13
When he or she is selected for their exterior because of a man’s fleshly perspective, they don’t feel the genuine Love that will reach them with the transforming, redeeming, power of Jesus. This leaves them feeling USED, not rescued. And definitely, not protected.
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13:35
Even Bill publically acknowledged this as a great fault as he focused on building a “ministry” over the years.
“For in many things we offend all.” (James 2:2). Bill has admitted a great many things where he has failed. You recall we have encouraged you to go to him yourself, and I doubt he would fight you on most any point. We get excited when folks attempt to go for the jugular, declaring Bill as evil with secret wicked motives, as opposed to blind spots and ignorance and all the things that beset us all.
And if you read back through Bill’s article, the next one, you will see that it rarely if ever was “You are beautiful, come work for me”. It overwhelmingly was, “Can you help my beautiful daughter who is in trouble?”, or even sensing the trouble directly. THAT would bring in a completely different motive.
Having said that, why do you believe that Bill did not teach them to love others as part of their discipleship? I guess I would disagree, based even on the testimonies, which I have read, of these same “beautiful young ladies”.
Sir, I wasn’t accusing Bill here. He was right to address the wrong focus. I was just addressing your argument 🙂 🙂 🙂
We do very much appreciate your input. It certainly continues to keep us on our toes.
re: No extra effort for anyone. Whatsoever.
That was apparently the motto of the priest and the Levite in the Lord’s famous parable, but happily the Good Samaritan was not so absolute. He expended extra effort for the sake of charity.
Just a tiny clarification. I didn’t say “whatsoever”, but “whosoever”. Extra effort, absolutely, to reach the lost and needy. I believe Moderator is saying that certain ones should get extra attention and effort because of their outward attractiveness. This is the point I disagree with. The Samaritan gave extra effort to a suffering man that the others rejected. 🙂
Thank you for the truth you proclaim here, Sarah.
Sarah, I just read your post and re-read “Bill and the Beautiful Ones.”
You make excellent points and thank you for sharing. “Bill and the Beautiful Ones” is disturbing on many levels.
James: Maybe you can highlight what you find disturbing. We wrote the article, so you are hurting our feelings.
In April 2014, Bill released a much thought through statement acknowledging some of his wrongs – including a focus on the outward. I am including Recovering Grace’s link as it appears the statement has been removed from Bill’s own site. Sooooo…?
http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/04/response-to-gothards-statement/
That statement is something Bill posted. Since that time I believe he has discovered that the “grieved ones” were not in fact the ones he thought he was dealing with. Rendering the statement less significant than he intended.
The ones attacking him turned out to be “beautiful ones” for the most part, those that he in fact singled out for extra help and attention. That “lifted up their heel” against him. He thought that there were women who were genuinely offended by his insensitivities to some of their sensibilities – he discovered that instead the women that spoke against him and then sued him were offended by his teaching, doctrine, as they abandoned those things in subsequent life and they were not beneath reinventing otherwise innocuous things and declaring them sexual trouble.
SO . . . He wanted to appologize – and still does – to those that felt slighted by being passed over for “beautiful ones”. Just, this statement, particularly trying to be objective about some of the published and litigated complaints, simply missed the mark.
re: the 2014 BG statement
So the 1014 BG statement was conciliatory and intended for neighbors in good faith, but he withdrew it when he realized that he was contending with bad-faith enemies?
That is not a bad explanation. The statement came up 4-5 different ways from the plaintiff side, demanding him to explain this or that. Which was not hard to do. We are pondering a separate article to speak to it. There were 1-2 other statements posted by Bill after this one, also now taken down.
Proverbs 31:30, “Charm is deceptive and beauty does not last but a woman who fears the Lord will be greatly praised”. I would also suggest Alfred you reread James 2 which talks about favoritism based on clothing. You have not answered to either of these sections of scripture which refutes your ideas and defense of Bill. Likewise I would suggest rereading I Timothy 2. Your defenses of Bill actually prove his guilt, not innocence. If Bill was using “pretty girls” to “give him faith” per your assertion of the one verse in Hebrews 11 about Moses, then the repeated comments by many of Bill’s accusers that stated he called them “energy givers” rings very true. All you have done in these last two articles is confirm their stories of Bill surrounding himself with the pretty ones and his less than honorable intentions for doing so. I don’t know how the ongoing court situation will end up, but I don’t think and I do predict it will not go well for Bill and his side.
You make it sound like beauty, created by God, is bad? By way of balance: Psalms 45:11 “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty” Is the Savior also “deceitful”, do you think? Psalms 45:2 “Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever, for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. There it is again, that prejudice . . . Against beauty. WHAT is a poor soul to do that is cursed with this problem? As we suggested to Sarah, it SEEMS like most “plain folk” would be happy to see them cursed and destroyed. Perhaps a tad of envy in there, despite our spiritual statements? How is it that we are so hard hearted?
Please consider what you are saying. Because of the natural instinctive favoring of the beautiful, the rich, the eloquent, the strong, are you suggesting such things are evil? I am fairly sure you are making the point that we cannot allow ourselves to stop in our assessment of the individual at that point, but must get to the heart. And you would be correct.
I have learned through many years of dealing with the homeless that ugliness and ugly clothes are quite often an indicator, not of a humble and godly heart, but of carelessness, pride, a love of pleasure, even demon possession. Conversely, those that fear the Lord and respect His temple, i.e their bodies, tend to try to dress and look their best. Quite often a beautiful, well presented appearance is an indication of good character and, often, a godly heart. Please tell me if you disagree with anything I said.
Here is what I read:
1 Timothy 2:9-12
“9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.“
Again, what do you believe? I do know that some folk take this to conclude that a woman braiding her hair or wearing ANY jewelery is sinning. Do you believe that? To counter that, consider a companion section:
1 Peter 3:5
“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”
Sarah is the fullest expression of what women should do and look like. And yet when Abraham’s servant when looking for a bride for Isaac, Sarah’s future daughter-in-law, the first thing he did was present Rebekah with lots of gold jewelery, which she put on:
Genesis 24:30
“And it came to pass, when he [Laban]saw the earring and bracelets upon his sister’s hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, Thus spake the man unto me; that he came unto the man; and, behold, he stood by the camels at the well.”
The beauty of Rebekah was not only not harmed by the jewels, it was much enhanced. A godly woman braiding her hair or wearing appropriate jewelery is doing a good thing. Again . . . Do you disagree?
If you do not, then please be careful about casting unmitigated aspersions on such things.
If this is what you believe we said, then you are not listening. First of all, you ARE talking about Scripture, whether one verse or many. Faith is highlighted as something we not only need but greatly desire. Faith IN the purposes of God comes in part by the way He made us. A very young Isaac Watts showed an incredible knack for creating rhymes, so much so that it was irritating at times. But his father wisely challenged the lad to create better hymns for the church when he complained about them, and the rest is history. Gladys Aylward quickly discovered that the black hair that she had so hated in England, let alone her tiny stature, was an instant asset in China, where she became one of the most famous of all missionaries. “God, you know what you are doing”, was how she put it. Design, appearance engendered faith. Please acknowledge this is true.
And try to squash those natural prejudices – envy for many of us – against unearned, created individual beauty on the one hand by acknowledging the advantages of that for public service, and see how we have greatly neglected such in our eagerness to support the less gifted.
Oh, and “Energy Giver”? We all need energy givers in our life. Children are that for many of us, those that love us and care for us and offer us “hearty counsel”. These young people have been Bill’s energy source for his entire ministry. Jesus said that those the forgo marriage, wives and genetic offspring will get 100 times more of the same through their ministry. Surely there is some wholesome way you can view this that is not sexual in nature.
If your prediction is wrong, is there any point where you are willing to admit you may have been wrong about other things as they relate to Bill? Or will it be, “on to the next complaint”?
No because I’ve rejected Bill’s use of scripture and his flawed views on human nature and his fundamentalism a long time ago. Daniel is correct, any points anyone here have brought up to you has been shifted by you into another straw man. There is no excuse for an adult man running a Christian ministry much of which is about “character” to repeatedly and deliberately surround himself with the most attractive young women he could get. And on top of that use a secular worldly book about “dressing for success” that is aimed at the corporate world, not Christian ministry and has nothing to do with faith is used to justify Bill demanding his staff to be dressed to the max because it make Bill look good and “successful”. And you then justify Bill, trying to use a couple of verses out of Hebrews 11 which has nothing to do with any of the above.
I will part with this quote from GK Chesterton:
“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously on what evils they will cal excusable”
Well . . . I guess we must leave it at that, then. I personally learned about “Dress for Success” in a prior life and found it powerful, long before I knew of Bill’s interest in it. Not everyone feels as you do, but you have every right to your opinion. The only point you made in this last post, besides condemning a Christian using “Dress for Success”, is that Christian men should not work with women. Which we did challenge a bit there at the end of the article. Christian men should not touch lepers, all smart people know that … Jesus touched them regularly. Jesus also said that, because of His power, authority, His disciples could walk on water, even walk on snakes and “nothing will hurt them”. Water will drag you under, natural forces . . . Snakes are evil and will surely kill you. Except, Jesus said, “You can do this”. The difference between “faith” and common sense, I suppose?
re: Christian men working with pretty women
Rob’s objection was to Christian men in proximity to pretty women; but no objection to working with ugly women.
Which raises the question: what if the ugly women become pretty? Does Rob insist that Christian men evacuate the area if the women get prettier?
Presumably the thesis in Dress for Success was that everyone should make themselves as attractive as they can, regardless of the raw material they begin with. Who could object to that?
This twisted assertion is so laughable, especially coming from someone (along with the moderator of the blog) that both have wives that have never worked outside of the home in a paying jobs. So totally ridiculous.
1 Peter 3:3-4
“It’s not fancy hair, gold jewelry or fine clothes that should make you beautiful, No, your beauty should come from inside you – the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. That beauty will never disappear and it is worth very much to God”.
Found on a picture for girls at Hobby Lobby. (founded by the Green family, good buddies of Bill)
re: going well or poorly for either plaintiff or defendant side
But does not the great tragedy lie in the fact that any sides exist? That adversaries contend for wealth? Must Screwtape’s side win, no matter what?
re: Rob’s 9/6 laugh
I finally got a giggle out of Rob! That’s a trophy for which I expended much effort. Oh, wait. Or was she being sarcastic? No matter. Peace on earth, good mirth to men.
Let me tell you a little parable story:
A mouse is being chased by a lion. The lion corners the mouse and is about to eat it. The mouse is a Christian and cries out to God “Please God, make this lion a Christian”. A big lighting bolt comes from a cloud and zaps the lion and Ka-boom the lion is now a Christian. Then the lion gets on his knees and says “Thank-you God for the meal I’m about to eat”. Do me a favor and why don’t you ponder this for a while about yourself.
re: the lion and the mouse
Alas the poor little fellow discovered too late that Aslan is not a tame lion!
That is good, but it did not address the concern Rob was raising. Please try again, David. I believe Rob is trying to say something here. It warrants a good response, too, not just a humorous poke.
re: brother JM addressing Rob’s 9/18 concern
Our topic was the above Beautiful Ones essay which appeared to be a good-faith attempt to answer some old attacks against Bill Gothard.
Rob’s 9/18 posts were indignant about the essay in general, and also about Bill Gothard. What was the concern that I might have answered?
Or should I be serious about Rob’s 9/18 ad hominem attacks? Sticks and stones. Bless and curse not. Why get all prickly and defensive? Smiles are nicer.
The worshipful way in which BG is talked about is disturbing. Each of his teachings is presented as though it is the unvarnished absolute word from the mouth of God. Fashion is and has always been subjective. Understanding of beauty, style and culture develop along a myriad of influences including language, music, travel and so much more. To say white shirts are somehow superior to coloured shirts is ludicrous. Some people are prim and proper others more artistic and colourful. We are not meant to be poured into a mould and be little clones. To say conservative American style is God’s design and choice of attire is just silly.
No, no it is not ludicrous :-). And the many, many decades of research put in by the likes of John Molloy prove it. Check it out, even a Google search on what the business world believes and practices. There are rules of science you simply are not going to break. Those rules do change in society over time, but not nearly as much as you might think. The ones that respect them reap the rewards. The ones that despise them attribute the problems they face to any number of other things. Bill really, REALLY isn’t as big of a fool as you seem to think.
re: proportion of BG worship v. scorn
In her comment above, Suzie objected to disproportionate worship of BG on this blog. The comments on this blog run no greater than 50/50 favorable to unfavorable toward Bill Gothard.
If Suzie seeks a greater proportion of online scorn against BG, then a visit to recoveringgrace.org should relieve her distress. There she will find almost 100% scorn. Hopefully this helps.
“We are apt to judge things by mere appearances, and those deceive. That’s not always because people want to deceive. It is a feature of our frailty, sinful or not. We are imitative creatures. In our dress, our walk, the lilt of our speech, our choice of words, our posture, and even in things we think are solid results of our dispassionate thought, such as our politics, we are in part play-actors. It is how children learn. But the play’s the thing: we lay a snare for others and fall into it ourselves.”
by Anthony Esolen in his most recent article. Whatever “science” what used to come to Tolloy’s conclusions is subjective and old. Some of it was done just by “showing” pictures to different people which I frankly do not consider “science” or scientific. But again the using of ‘”corporate” standards for Church ministries so they can “look” successful is the ultimate of an empty suit. Mormons and JWs also “dress up” and in fact, Mormons pride themselves on their “clean cut” look. Romney certainly had a clean cut, successful businessman attire but it didn’t help him with the election. This is nothing but a false emphasis on the external which covers up the internal. I “watch” (more by osmosis) a number of the business shows on CNBC and Fox Business and there is never a mention of how or what someone should wear to be “successful”. I’ve seen Kramer on TV in pink shirts (and tie) many times. Most of the hosts of these shows do not wear white but a variety of other colors.
There is truth in what you say, but you are also ignoring some truth on the other side. You are belittling Molloy . . . I would not do that. He is highly respected, and his methods have proven results. Not just another self-appointed “fashion consultant”. That is the point, again – these are large scale, carefully controlled psychological tests with results that can be replicated.
As I drove down the street tonight, thinking about this discussion . . . I noticed how almost every building has a facade. A “fake front”, adding height, the appearance of pillars, spires, towers . . . fake windows, fake rooms. Are all these business-people idiots? Just like what they like, too much money, need to spend it? You know better than that. It REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE, one you can see in the bottom line. Why McDonalds spruces up its stores regularly. Well worth the investment.
So, like it or not, people think differently about you depending on how you appear, are dressed, etc. There is a time to ignore all that, just focus on the message – but Jesus quite deliberately calls us “fishermen”. THAT is all about lures and lights and even bait. If something that small and silly like a suit or a dress and a radiant smile on a beautiful face can actually bring in the “fish” so they may be caught for the Master, why I say go for it.
It seems to me that accusations without evidence should not be the standard by which a man’s reputation and career are ruined.
re: accusations without evidence
Fishbowl raises the central point in his 9/21 comment. In November we are supposed to get an outcome from Judge Popejoy’s hearing. Supposedly he ordered the Gothard accusers to put up or shut up. If they have anything to put up, it should be aired then.
Are you aware that the account of a victim is evidence? Throughout human history, the accounts of witnesses has held more weight than anything else. A victim is a witness and their account is valid evidence. When you have dozens of victims, serving as witnesses, the evidence becomes overwhelming.
Of course. One witness account, taken as truth “per se”, however, would give unjust power to the individual. Individuals lie all the time to get out of trouble or get someone they hate in trouble or to get rich. So that is why the Lord commanded that “2-3 witnesses” were always required. OT and NT. Suddenly you can cross examine the facts. Liars have a really hard time with that process. There IS a reason that 5 of the women – including Gretchen Wilkinson, “Charlotte”, the most visible of the accusers – dropped out just before “interogatories”, which is written questions and answers under oath . . . And why all of the rest dropped out just before “depositions”, which is oral questions and answers under oath. See the problem? If you had a true tale to tell and you had not one but two respected law firms standing with you, one highly regarded in this particular court (as we repeatedly hear from friend and foe alike), the other very skilled in public exposure of “sex abuse by evangelical leadership”, part of a ministry set up for that purpose, and they guaranteed you multiple 100s of thousands of $ in money, let alone having a large, very visible, motivated group of people around the world who would consider you the highest of heroes for finally taking Bill down, would you just quit?
re: the account of a victim
Brother James is correct. If we had dozens of witnesses to one event, we might call that preponderance of evidence. But are the dozens hypothetical or real? The hazard of perjuring themselves seems to be thinning the herd of Gothard victims. Which raises the question, are there any victims, or only panhandlers selling their integrity? We might find out within a few weeks.
re: Thomas More, the inner ring, and dressing for success
I have not followed the sex controversy in the Church of Rome, so I got lost in the article which Rob linked on 9/21. But Thomas More seems to deserve the admiration he receives.
I posted the Lewis link because Rob objected to inner-ring snobbery in her 8/28 comment.
BG’s dress code or personal-appearance standards remind me less of snobbery and more of Jordan Peterson’s Rules for Life, especially the one about standing up straight with squared shoulders. If you want a promotion from loser to winner, fake it till you make it!
You know when one’s heroes and heroines are St. Francis of Assisi, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, St. Maximilan Kolbe, etc., notions of dress for success, “fake it till you make it” or Jordan Peterson’s Rules for Life (whatever those are) are totally repugnant and nauseating. Your definition of what success is or how to become “successful” cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus admonition of having your “yes be yes and your no be no and everything else is of the evil one” found in the Sermon on the Mount the complete opposite of “fake it till you make it”.
Scripture would not support this nausea. While the typical prophet wore the typical “rough garment” – course clothing, dressing down – that was no more a standard than long hair on a Nazarite . . . Or sackcloth and ashes . . . Or even Isaiah running around naked for a while to make a point. In fact, dressing down was the hallmark of fakes as well:
Zechariah 13:4. “And it shall come to pass in that day,
that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:”
And you STILL cannot explain the incredible focus that God placed on outward appearance when it came to His stuff, the buildings and treatments and smells and clothing and even deformities of the human body. Until someone can bring that into alignment with the notion that “God does not care about how beautiful we look”, that case cannot be made. I get that this is out of step with our thinking . . . But, you know, the Lord and His disciples usually are.
Run Zechariah 13:4 by John the Baptist who wore “rough garments”. Another example of proof texting. There is absolutely no “incredible” focus by God on outward appearance. The very specific Levitical laws concerning what priests wore and how the tent of the tabernacle was decorated which was replaced by a stone temple were in regards to direct worship of God and have nothing to do with what you are trying to justify here which is a single man running a multi-million ministry and in running his ministry he surrounded himself with the most attractive women/young girls in an effort to either make himself “look good” or gratify his own desires. None of this has anything to do with direct worship of God as the Levitical laws were directed at.
The fact is this “direct worship of God” WAS His ministry, just as IBLP is a work of God, His ministry in the world. And you acknowledge that God WAS incredibly concerned with all of these aspects. The people who stood and performed the duties, that represented Him in public, were meticularlhy vetted and dressed precisely in the most attractive way possible. My point stands.
Bill surrounded himself with young men and women, although we only seem to find an interest in the women’s. The young men were as precisely presented as the young ladies, dress code, hair styles. If Bill wanted to “gratify his own desires” at any point you would have heard about him doing so by now. I mean witnessed, provable event from SOME time in his 50 years of ministry. Making him “look good” assumes he is a carnal, selfish man. That same motivation would have caused him to amass a large personal fortune by now. The fact that the exact opposite is true cries against those kinds of aspersions.
re: beautiful vs. ugly
Rob correctly notes above that God’s best men sometimes end up as offscouring in both fact and appearance. Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as well as God’s lilies in nature. All true.
Can we also agree that beauty is better than ugliness, when it can be attained without sacrificing goodness and truth?
Alfred, IBCY/IBLP is not a CHURCH and was/is a para-church teaching ministry. There was not worship involved. This is going from bad to worst. OT laws were specific to the sacrifices involved in worship and absolution of sins. That has nothing to do with what IBLP is.
Of course. But . . . Let’s say you have two neighbors. One is casual, dresses casual, mutt dog, dirt on the floor, dust on the furniture. The other is super neat, sparkly clean, yard impeccably kept, requires all those that enter to remove their shoes . . . AND take a cleansing bath . . . Before entering the dwelling. Strict rules on attire, hair . . .
You suddenly discover that neat neighbor just bought the entire town. Your house included. And is now judge, jury, executioner . . . Controls all jobs. In short, you must please and impress. Does the meticulous and very focused attention to cleanliness and order mean anything to you? Chances are you will get busy and get as close as you can to the standard you have observed . . . Because you KNOW IT PLEASES THEM.
You are not taking this seriously! Every bit of what I just said is true. Yes, it was HIS house that had all that beauty and rules and attention and smells and dress code. Because it is what He likes. Ought to make us pay attention.
What I’m I not taking seriously? Your scenario didn’t make any sense. I’m guessing that the “neat” guy is God. If so what you just painted here is God as bully, controller and manipulator. Maybe this is how you see God but I do not.
God KILLED people who broke the orders, dress rules, smells, even slightly. I am not misrepresenting the situation, am I? Is that a bully? Would you call the Lord of the universe a bully? If not … acknowledge that the Lord took all of this stuff extremely seriously. If we are to be “imitators” of Him (Eph. 5:1), why would this not apply to His love of order, precision, beauty?
To David, beauty verses ugly, do me a favor today and read Isaiah 53. Thank-you
You started out with the “Dress of Success” idea and influence and Bill’s emphasis on his staff’s dress was due to influence by this book and that people working for Bill dressed up in business attire were to make Bill and IBCY/IBLP look “successful” to those on the outside. Now you have shifted your story here and want to tie into it OT specifics concerning what priests involved in sacrifices and worship were wearing which ended with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the temple destruction in 70 AD. You can’t have it both ways.
Of course we can! Human science – real science – is merely an expression of the design of God’s world. That includes soft sciences as well, like psychology.
Romans 1:20. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
So we should not be surprised that what John Molloy discovered through meticulous research mirrors what we read in God’s Word. That is the point being made.
re: Rob’s worthies and the rest of us
May I nominate one more candidate for Rob’s list of worthies? How about C.S. Lewis? In my 10/22 comment, I was thinking of Chapter 7 in Mere Christianity, “Let’s Pretend.” Lewis suggests that a good-willed pagan might begin approaching God with the Lord’s Prayer: “Its very first words are, ‘our father.’ Do you see what those words mean? They mean quite frankly that you are putting yourself in the place of a son of God. You are dressing up as Christ. You are pretending.”
Lewis explains that there is a good kind of pretending, where the pretense leads up to the real thing. That is the kind of pretense I meant. If I act (and dress) like a better man than I am, the pretense helps me to actually become better. Get it? The goal is growth, not phoniness.
Even Rob’s worthies probably had to take that path. Even Mother Theresa probably didn’t feel like being Mother Theresa all the time. At such times mightn’t even she pretend to be Mother Theresa in some sense? Even good parents must pretend to be good parents when they don’t feel any goodness. I sure do.
There is BIG difference between the use of either myth like stories to tell the gospel story or teach or highlight some Christian truth and the bravado statement of “fake it till you make it”. The one which uses imagination of even parables is to point to God, Lewis and Tolkein who was a mentor and friend of Lewis did the first. The bravado clip has nothing to do with God or the gospel and is a promotion of self and manipulation. They are not the same things at all. The “fake it till you make it” has nothing to do with God or anything with Christian moralitly or virtue.
re: bravado, real bravery, and the Velveteen Rabbit
If by bravado we mean fake bravery, then of course it is not bravery at all. But it takes guts to endure refining fire until we become what we ought to be. The Velveteen Rabbit story is a good way to teach that lesson to children of all ages.
re: Alfred’s parable of the neat neighbor
This parable is a lot like the one C.S. Lewis tells:
“Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of — throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.”
Interesting analogy. It particularly highlights that we think we know the Lord . . . . Because we believe him to be just like us. Psalms 50:21. “These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.”
re: not a church? why not beautiful?
On 11/3 Rob denied that an assembly which she scorned may be called a church. This raises the question: Shall any man claim a monopoly on credentialing a church? Men of good will may divide on this question. But so what? Doesn’t this red herring distract from whether people should be well dressed and well groomed?
Seminars where people go sit and listen to someone talk all week isn’t a “church”. Now if you want to call it a “Church”, then be my guest but this whole discussion is going off track, off course and delving into the ridiculous. All in the name of defending a man that purposely and deliberately surrounded himself with attractive people and then have that all justified with proof texting scripture verses to make this whole thing sound “spiritual” or “biblical”.
My comment: It is not a crime to deliberately surround yourself with excellent people. I guess we are rapidly approaching the point where professional football teams will hire people like me so as not to exclude the “undergifted”, but until they do, only the best will do. Say what you will, but God deliberately surrounds himself with beautiful things and beautiful people – no ugly things will do. The saved will one day “shine as the brightness of the firmament” (Daniel 12:3). Or as Robert Murray McChenye said,
“When I stand before the throne
Dressed in beauty not my own;
When I see Thee as Thou art,
Love Thee with unsinning heart:
Then, Lord, shall I fully know,
Not till then, how much I owe.”
See? No ugly things, EVER, in God’s eternity. Nor in His temple on earth. Everything I said is true. So far not a soul has raised a single Scripture to countermand it, although many oppose it. How amazing that is, we choose the spirit of this age . . . Over Holy Scripture. One of the primary reasons why Bill engenders such opposition in the many, and such loyalty in the few.
You went from attractive people to excellent people and are trying to shift the argument then state that no one has disproven you using the Bible when I and a few other here have quoted a number of Bible verses that you have ignored. The line of defense here of Bill deliberately and purposely surrounding himself with physically attractive people or whatever term you want to call it now is in excusable, unbiblical and unhealthy. That’s my final word to you because this whole conversation has gone down the tubes.
:-). I think your mind was made up before we ever got going. That is fine. Like everything else, if you are convinced Bill is evil, then everything he does will be interpreted as evil. We have explained this matter, exactly why he has done what he has. Can’t think of what Scriptures we have not dealt with, but happy to leave it there.
re: politically correct football league
So the Chicago Bears have not drafted you yet? When they do, tell them you know another man who can help fill their mediocrity quota.
Meanwhile, membership on God’s team is plenty interesting. A lifetime quota of joy and suffering.
The Bears really, truly do not need me. As long as I get to watch, I am happy. Spud Webb played in the NBA . . . At 5’ 7”. I have a sibling taller than that (I am not). But . . . It was not for kindness: He won a slam dunk contest. For all my athletically good looks, my vertical leap is . . . . Deficient.
The Lord loves us, especially the least, lowest, last . . . Ugly . . . Short. He chooses the “poor” in all of those areas rich in faith. Then He makes us look like Jesus. None of these discussions change that.
BUT . . . At 5’ 3” it is unlikely I will never play in the NBA or be President or front a major corporation or preach from big pulpits. God makes people look for big, tall, handsome people to lead. The “package” is important, and the Lord usually – not always – creates the package with many external indicators of the type of job He is planning for them.
re: Isaiah 53, Aslan, angels unaware, Jesus in disguise, and cathedrals
Of course. The suffering servant is remarkable because he is unremarkable. We look for greatness and beauty because those are things we should associate with God. Aslan is great and terrible, but sometimes he appears in a modest form; as a mere cat among the tombs, or a voice from the mist of a mountain pass. Sometimes we entertain angels unaware. Jesus explicitly warns us that he manifests as a famished, sick, or imprisoned man.
But we do not see bishops tearing down cathedrals to purge their worship of beauty.
re: wording upgrade
Let me try that last line again: We do not see bishops tearing down cathedrals to purge beauty from their worship. That reads better.
If Bill was so concerned about beauty, holding seminars in big down town arenas are hardly what I would call “beautiful” or even inspiring. I’m not sure what cathedrals has to do with the discussion at hand, there are a number of Protestant Churches that are “beautiful” or emphasize that. What is your point or even better yet your dig here? Worshipping in a beautiful place is not the same as some man that deliberately surrounded himself with attractive people in order to make himself look good or attractive. They are not the same thing and the later has nothing to do with God, worship or truth.
If I can but in . . . There are many, MANY proofs that the young people that Bill took with him around the world and that represented the ministry singlehandledly opened so many doors. City after city, even nation after nation embraced the message of IBLP, the Gospel, the Lord Jesus. The testimony was . . . “We want your young people to be like yours” . . . Comments about bright smiles and countenances . . . Grace. IF this had anything to do with making HIM look good, it was to, through him, to draw people to Jesus. And . . . It worked. Beauty and grace draw spiritually hunger people in.
I believe David is referring to big beautiful cathedral type of Churches and that’s how I am understanding him. There is a study done in England with young adults that converted and they found (and it was a big surprise) that one in six young adults that became Christians did so after visiting big beautiful Church. That was more than young adults coming in due to youth ministries.
Here is a link to the study:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/17/one-six-young-oeioke-christian-visits-church-buildings-inspire/
How very interesting. Seemingly incidental things have a far bigger influence on us than we realize. Obviously, like the wise man who dug down to ground his house on a rock – vs. the foolish man who set up shop right on the sand – we all must “dig down” and find the solid ground. I think of it like “courtship”. A young man or woman has many tools available that will attract the attention of a prospective spouse. Those things really do make a difference, meaning that those that do not care enough to make their dress, language, associations noticeable and positive may well never get the chance for a “next step” consideration. Certainly the “next step” better be . . . Find the ground, see if they are genuine. But no second step without the first.
Much of the focus here is getting to the “second step” with folk. Gaining the attention of national and business leaders, of parents, even of young people. Once a hearing is gained, then there is the opportunity to present the real message. Bill has always believed that, and has gotten a lot of interest to work with. Again, John Molloy, Dale Carnegie are not evil, manipulative people. They just want to position motivated people so they can, in fact, present their message.
re: grandeur vs. asceticism
Isn’t this a comic spectacle?
We find a Methodist arguing in favor of cathedral grandeur and a Romanist rebutting with Puritan asceticism! For a good story, see The Bishop’s Wife: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bishop%27s_Wife
A Bishop aspires to build a cathedral for the glory of God. But an angel (Cary Grant) diverts him to charitable works instead.
When we offer God our best, why not both our best charity and our best appearance?
BTW, my kids were confirmed by the Right Reverend Dabney Smith in a beautiful cathedral.
Well, that’s the paradox of it all isn’t it? But Alfred’s current article here isn’t about having beautiful Churches but about excuses or reasoning why Bill, even with his first seminar night subject being God’s design, purposely surrounded himself with attractive women. I fail to see how you are jumping from the given article subject to having beautiful houses of worship. But when one doesn’t have very good backup for the argument at hand, then they try to shift the subject. But back to beautiful Churches or Cathedrals and your crack about asceticism. It’s interesting that the middle ages which did emphasize asceticism turns around and builds those incredible Cathedrals. That is a paradox isn’t it? So I’m not following how I am arguing against beautiful Churches because I am not. I am arguing against Bill’s favoritism and Alfred’s reasoning for it, which has nothing to do with beautiful Churches. Anyway, here is an evangelical’s view about his own experiences visiting Chartres and what he learned and saw there .https://www.patheos.com/blogs/transcendentalish/2018/08/lessons-from-chartres/
And I might add vaguely similar to when I visited Notre Dame of Paris many years ago. If you want to call me an Ascetic, I actually take it as a complement instead of an insult. I think Bill’s own personal habits could be considered ascetic. I think American Christians of all types are too materialistic to begin with and there needs to be more asceticism.
re: beautiful buildings and beautiful women
Shall beautiful buildings be a lawful joy but beautiful women an unlawful threat? Same topic. Is not beauty good for both buildings and women?
I adorn my beloved with beautiful jewelry, even though St. Peter commands her to adorn herself with meekness even as Abraham’s wife Sarah. No contradiction.
Admittedly the analogy with Sarah has its limits. Alas my beloved will not call me lord, but I settle for her good looks if I must do without my lofty title.
Comparing people who are made in the image of God to buildings in order to justify Bill is so over the top and actually objectifies women. Women become the objects and their looks become the gratification of men. Pretty sick reasoning.
Maybe we are on to something! Is every interest of men in the beauty of women driven by the sex drive, do you think? Is all appeal of a woman . . . Sex appeal? That appears to be the underlying perspective in this comment. If that is what you believe, then, no, it will not be possible to find any objectivity in pondering the last two articles.
Alfred, Is someone has deliberately and repeatedly surrounded himself with the most attractive in the opposite sex which is what you are trying to defend and excuse here, then it’s obvious that Bill has other motivations and desires than “spiritual” and his current legal woes and issues are due to this even though you want to call all those girls liars. You can’t have it both ways. Surrounding himself with the opposite sex that was the most attractive is to try and sell himself to others on “sex appeal” even though you are trying to give it a spiritual spin that isn’t working. All these good looking girls also made Bill look good too or that seems to be the effort by him. All of this just undercuts his first night of the basic seminar and the “godly” character he was trying to promote because there is nothing “godly” about any of this and that’s not only why he is out at IBLP but even why they called the cops on him to kick him off when he decided to show up.
Obviously we are going to disagree strongly with you on this. I am not sure at the moment what your background is with Bill, but there are SO many prejudices and assumptions at play here. This “surrounding” is Bill staffing positions at HQ with attractive individuals, be they male or female. One criticism is that Bill overlooked some of the more plain individuals in this process. Likely true. We had at least one member of our family turned down for service overtly because Bill felt that that individual “would not fit” in with the program, basically missing the outgoing, almost agressive personality that he tends to favor.
But you are mistaken about this “surrounding”. I wonder if you saw a picture of Bill in a large chair, like a throne, surrounded by female staffers included in “Ruth’s Story” on RG. They, of course, prominently featured it and subsequently many enemies of Bill, IBLP, and, frankly of the Lord Jesus further published it far and wide. Bill clearly remembers the event, at a restaurant, where some of the female staff thought it would be funny to pose exactly that image . . . As a joke, Bill and harem. It was funny because it was completely out of character of straight-laced Gothard, but Bill remembers worrying that someday it might fall into the wrong hands. His concerns were well founded. Larne knew that it was a staged joke, but that detail was never included.
I respect you, but you have completely the wrong idea about this “surrounding”.
I give a little laugh every time I read the name “Moderator”.
By definition, a moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion. But, observing how things work here for some time and looking historically through your comments you are anything but neutral. You have a strong bias. When someone posts a view that you agree with, you tend to post it right away, even if you are too busy to comment. You may or may not ever comment, and such views often stand without any comment from anyone else. However, whenever someone makes a comment that you disagree with, you hold off posting it until you have your rebuttal prepared and post them simultaneously. Therefor, viewpoints that are by you or by those that you agree with, always get the last word in a discussion.
By way of example, Rob War made a comment on November 19. You did not post her comment until you had your rebuttal ready on November 22, and posted them at the same time.
This is far from a fair and neutral method to moderate a board.
That’s fine and dandy. All are entitled to their own views, even strong ones. But, I would appeal to you to consider just using your name and drop the moderator title, which gives the false impression that you are acting as a neutral participant.
It is your board and anyone who doesn’t like how you run things can leave. But, you are defending and not moderating, so I just ask that you consider being a little more honest about your title.
By definition, you are certainly not a moderator.
Oh, Kevin, try to understand. Some of us actually have lives to live, large families and the like. What you failed to note, of course, is that November 22nd was Thanksgiving, and frankly the first chance we had had to have a look. Nothing nefarious here.
We don’t let every post through, although I would think the throughput rate is in excess of 95%. Those we throw out are off-topic or inappropriate, you know, name calling, no substance. We are not beyond holding posts if some work, especially research is required. There is a studied interest in keeping control of the narrative. What we don’t do is not post because questions are too difficult or political, and we don’t edit posts. But that was ever so much not the case over the last several weeks, even months.
I trust you had a blessed time with your family as we did with ours.
“His concerns were well founded. Larne knew that it was a staged joke, but that detail was never included.”
Alfred I have ask you before and I will repeat this. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH or RUTH’S! You have no idea what she I think or know! Regarding the photo, quite frankly I don’t recall seeing it until I was writing Ruth’s Story in early 2014 and to me it was as if God provided it, which I truly believe. It told the story all by itself and a story I personally witnessed at other times. I believe you have mention that it was a joke according to Bill and it very well might have been, the first time I saw it was 20 years after Ruth died, so I was never told the backstory. The problem Alfred is it goes against Bill’s and your narrative.
This summer we had an ex-staff reunion and one of the participants brought two official staff photos from 1973/74. One had 15 staff women and the other about 22, each woman was very attractive and slender. These photos included women who did not travel or worked in non-public parts of the ministry. These photos also tell a story that the unattractive need not apply. In James 2:1-7, talks of showing preference to the rich or influential, I believe we can substitute “attractive for the rich” and “less attractive for the poor. The issue is to not show any partiality!
“My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?”
Thank you for your thorough response, Larne. Chances are close to 100% that, knowing the players, you sensed immediately that it was staged as a joke. The appropriateness for the need to put Bill in as bad a light as possible may well have been supernatural, but the devil is as likely as not to have made sure it was preserved and then surfaced at just the right time. That being the case this was slander, pure and simple. God’s work is never furthered through evil means.
As to the staff photos, women have traditionally assumed staff or clerical roles in the world Bill emerged from. And, yes, we agree that he selected some of the most attractive for those positions. Chances are good you would find a similar characteristic walking the halls of most public organizations, including Christian ministries. At least back in the day.
James tells us that favoring those that can favor you back with funds is condemned. Not a one of the staff members was placed there for that purpose.
See what you think of the striking commandments the Lord gave concerning the staffing of the Temple, banning the physically challenged . . . Or the beauty of a child engendering faith and extra attention by his parents. The latter is right there in Hebrews 11. What would most people say if you selected one of your children for special favor, grooming because you saw that he was extraordinarily handsome? Should his more plain siblings feel hurt? I would like to know your perspectives. As pointed out, Bill was consciously following exactly that principle.
You said:
“There is a studied interest in keeping control of the narrative.”
Indeed, this is very evident. You clearly seek to control the narrative and the system of making sure that you and those who agree with you always get the last word, the last rebuttal, is evidence of this. I just think that using your name or “Admin” would be more honest, as a true moderator would never allow such a one sided approach and would not weigh in with such strong bias. But, as I said, it is your board and if people don’t like it they can leave.
“What we don’t do is not post because questions are too difficult or political ”
I give you a lot of credit here. Clearly, you do not shy away from posts that you strongly disagree with and have shown time and time again that you will post such posts.
Thanksgiving was wonderful. I’m glad yours was too. I do hope that you managed to spend lots of time with your family and were not consumed with managing your discussion board. I imagine that the time that you invest here must at times take a toll.
Thank you, James. For all of us it is a “labor of love”. May the Lord’s Name be glorified in all.
Not going to worry about “Moderator”. We like it. You do know that we have been a lonely voice among a roar of the mob from many directions. Psalms 94:17-18. “Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up.”
re: beautiful buildings, beautiful women, and 1 Peter 3
The great apostle knew that some women tend to objectify themselves. How else to explain his command that women adorn not only their flesh, but also their hearts? Is the apostolic reasoning sick? Or realistic?
Is the apostle concerned with wolfish men? Or with beautiful women who have ugly hearts? Or is the apostle untutored about the image of God?
Finally, does vanquishing Bill Gothard matter more than any of this? Does that objective transcend Beauty, Goodness, or Truth?
I simply cannot follow your reasoning and use of I Peter 3 and it has nothing to do anywhere with women “objectifying” themselves but has everything to do with not focusing on outward appearance, something I have already quoted here and something that flies in the face of Bill having the most attractive people, especially young ladies around himself which was the point of the blog article.
GK Chesterton in “Orthodoxy” observed that a “madman” (I’m not trying to call you that, this was his term) is not someone who has lost his reason, but someone who has lost everything else but his reason. This person may reason quite logically from his premise, but if his premise is that he is the Emperor Napoleon, then there is no point in trying to follow his argument. Chesterton then states that this person has not lost the ability to think in a straight line, what he has lost is his good judgment and sense of perspective, in short his ability to see things as they are.
Yesterday I was doing lunch with an Manager friend who is in charge of a highly visible department at my work place. He mentioned a young lady, who is quite talented but she consistently receives low survey scores from customers. He said “She has not learned the power of the smile.” I remember 28 years ago being part of a meeting with several officials in Moscow, Russia. Before the meeting Bill ask me to remember to smile during the meeting. The result was a productive meeting and a life lesson well learned. Don’t forget the “Power of the smile.”
In his best-selling 12 Rules for Life, Psychologist Jordan B. Peterson writes an insight which helps to explain negative reaction to Bill and the Beautiful Ones:
“Beauty shames the ugly. Strength shames the weak. Death shames the living — and the Ideal shames us all. Thus we fear it, resent it — even hate it . . . and that’s the theme examined in the story of Cain and Abel. What are we to do about that? Abandon all ideals of beauty, health, brilliance and strength? That’s not a good solution. That would merely ensure that we would feel ashamed — all the time — and that we would even more justly deserve it.”
re: lying
On her 11/19 comment above, Rob raised the question of who is lying about accusations of carnality.
Might we withhold judgement on that question until after 1/10, when the judge rules on the Gothard motion to sanction? The judge has access to more evidence than we. Let him first sift through truth and falsehood, then we can take our turn. A charge of lying is severe. We mustn’t do that until due process is served.
Coming from someone that has repeatedly bashed and belittled the justice system in numerous posts, I find this statement of “waiting” very curious. I don’t need a court system to tell me what to think about Bill Gothard in his actions or teaching. And I’m not waiting for this case or any others.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Whatever story Bill is telling you now about the picture of him and the female staff taken long ago, it still stands and is a very good visual reminder about the fact and what you are trying to justify here, is that Bill surrounded himself with attractive young women and it supports the repeated observations of ATI students, that Bill had a harem of hand picked girls that he put around himself. The picture always gave me the creeps.
Once again, the picture served its purpose, that of defaming Bill. But the picture was staged . . . As a joke. As such it does nothing to present the truth. No more than pictures of my children choking each other or pretending to wield a bat or a knife against each other means our household operates like a gang war. It is all rather silly, except that it was used to further an unjust stereotype and cause people all over the world to revile and curse a man of God. The God who is so meticulous as to not snuff a “smoking flax” or to break a “bruised reed” has it all there in front of Him.
Alfred, I am continually amused at your reaction to the photo, I’m not the one who called it the “Harem Picture”. The photo does not defaming Bill, it shows an employer who went to dinner with his employees, they are all smiling and probably had a good time. It was during a better time at IBYC (pre 1975) and long before the scandal, based on who is in the photo. In regards to “Ruth’s Story” it shows that Ruth had indeed worked with Bill, was part of the IBYC staff and Bill had a close relationship with all of them. Your attack on the photo only brings more attention to it.
BTW your attempt to compare the “service rules of the Temple” to the Church Age and particularly IBLP/IBYC has no relevant comparison. It kind of like your post years ago that “alluded” to Bill being a possibility to be one of the 24 Heavenly Elders. By your standard Paul, who seems to have had a infirmity of some sort, should have been disqualified as would people like Joni Eareckson Tada (BTW: She could use prayer not that her cancer is back).
If you recall God was more than happy to dwell in a tent (2 Sam. 7), while nice and well furnished was still at tent. The temple and its service was all part of God’s plan of redemption through His son Jesus Christ. That God ordained temple service ended at Calvary and was vividly displayed in Matt. 27:51-54, “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many……” Trying to link Bill and his ministry to the Tabernacle, the Temple or their service is just heresy. It goes against the intent of God’s Grace of what He did for us, not what we can do to obtain His salvation. It’s all about God and not us!
If that is all it is, Larne, how come so many folks that hate Bill just love it? Joshua Pease needed it in yet another hateful peace. We could have provided many other pictures. The Lord knows why you put it in. I think you deliberately defamed him knowing exactly how it would be taken.
The OT is there for our learning. From the rules about muzzling the ox Paul tells us we learn how take care of Christian workers. Never had any real purpose for the ox. So, what do you learn from God’s strict appearance and “ability” rules for priests to publicly serve in the temple? The Law tells us how God thinks. Unless He has changed, He requires beauty and perfection in the execution of His business on earth. As close as we can get. Heaven currently shows the same pattern.
Elucidate me. That is outside the realm of anyone’s theology that I am aware of. What I, personally, would say is . . . That we don’t know. Has to be 24 someones. But Bill? That would never have come from me.
A “tent”?! That intricate portable palace is hardly to be described as a tent, other than the fact . . . That it is portable. More gold and silver and gems and fine tapestry and expensive perfumes than I will ever see. You make my point, not detract from it. Precisely crafted with not a hair out of place. And, again, only those without physical deformities were permitted in any public role in that “tent”. WHY?! Why would God do that in complete opposition to what you are proposing here? What is the lesson from that aspect that is “for” us today?
The only reason this picture is now an “issue” is because it was published in that New Republic article that is pretty damming of Bill Gothard. So it is no longer hidden on RG in some article but now out there for the world to see.
Well aware of the NR article. Put in some serious effort to help the author make contact with folks, including Bill. It was however obvious that Joshua Pease included almost no information from the sources we provided, evidently did not contact a single woman we put forward – and there were a number, with more had he come back – that would have painted a far different picture than what has been in the tabloids. No evidence of any of their testimonies. No, instead he accepted at face value another defamatory story. Scandal sells, truth can be boring.
What “Julie” said she saw never happened. A claim several of the women in the lawsuit claimed – once they dropped out, some confided privately and directly to us that they actually never saw that.
Always amazing that in the 50 years preceding and the many individuals who have sought to take Bill down, all the years of the “Metochoi” forum and then Recovering Grace, no holds barred, no one brought that up. Lawyers needed evidence of sexual intent, and amazingly woman after woman “recovered” that memory 20 years hence just in time for the lawsuits. None of this would have survived cross-examination. Along with a great many other allegations, including some derived from dreams one plaintiff had.
Legal teams are in transition as Bill prepares for next steps. We would not be surprised if New Republic and contributors get a visit. These accusations are raw and fresh and “per se” defamation. It just needs to stop.
So, yes, of course Pease put in the one picture that paints a picture of Bill and his harem. The gift that keeps on giving. Saw it in the tabloids as well. May the Lord look on and judge all involved righteously.
Is that a threat against New Republic and the author? I think the repeated “threats” against anyone that challenges Bill confirms the article’s mentioning of a “small band” of loyalists that harass those that speak out about Bill. How do you know the “Julie” of the article was lying? You weren’t there in the office. All you have is Bill’s word against hers but with the high volume of women that have come out and were not part of the law suit, with your own two latest articles here trying to justify Bill’s surrounding himself with attractive women and believing he is some kind of “protector” of them, I place my confidence on the women’s word and not Bill. What “women” were you trying to have John interview? The only that you have is Bettina, who was made Bill’s ward. The other so called pro-Bill testimonies have dropped off of this blog and Bill’s web page. They aren’t there.
Rob, you can see for yourself the relative trustworthiness of the witnesses against Bill, at least so far. What they put forward would never have survived in court, they knew it, and they backed out. To believe “Julie” over Bill in the light of that is rather stunning. If “Julie” was real and had incriminating information against Bill, I assure you she would have figured heavily in all that has already gone on. Strange that she never published her story . . . Nor found it in herself to support the other women in their doomed quest to sue Bill. And then, suddenly, appears out of thin air to make this startling accusation? Under a made up name? Offering no corroboration, no attempt even?
There was a time when these tales were a great concern and some of us got involved for the sole purpose to exonerate or expose Bill, as the case may have been. We are not afraid anymore. Truthful people do not operate like this. Not one of the other tales have checked out – if they had, three legal firms would not have let this just slip away after investing what must have been at least a quarter of a million dollars. The judge, the court was clearly tipped toward the women. The amount of money involved – lawsuits before punitive damages totaled $8 million – was enormous. And it is clear that accusers could be anonymous. Somehow after eschewing all of that this reporter gets her to share what she would not share previously?
Your opinions are valuable and your comments are appreciated. But imagine for a wild moment that Bill is in fact not guilty of ANY of this. Continuing in your prejudices against him would be something the Lord would care about, just as He cared about the decent friends of Job that continued to consider him guilty up to the moment that God severely rebuked them.
The “loyalists” – if you are referring to the DG team – have neither the mandate nor the resources nor desire to harass anyone. But I assure you that a lot of folks are simply fed up with this endless smear campaign. There are protections in the law against that, and Bill is just in pursuing them. The damage done to this point is enormous. We know that legal options are being considered. If Bill is innocent, then you could hardly expect any less.
I am sure you can imagine that the women that support Bill are not quite as eager to stick their necks out in public as the others. Just know that they are there and they will tell the truth.
re: New Republic smear
That was disappointing. In such a harsh story, one would expect the accused to have their say, if only for the pretense of objective reporting. How difficult was it to publish a response from IBLP?
re: Chesterton, Gothard, and Orthodoxy
Possibly one of the few places of agreement between Rob and me is our mutual admiration for G.K. Chesterton. So it’s worth noting from her 11/24 post that GKC and Bill Gothard also agree. Early in the Basic Seminar, Gothard lamented the teen capacity for logical reasoning — to all the wrong conclusions. The rest of the Seminar made the case that we need more than reason. What then? Gothard called it New Birth, GKC called it Orthodoxy. Might their similarities be more important than their differences?
GK was not at all talking about teenagers. He was talking and used the term “madmen”, or one could say “insane”. GK didn’t mention “teenagers”. You are trying to twist this all around to make similarities that do not exit in order to justify or support Bill. Sorry but your “reasoning” was what I was aiming at with the paraphrase quoting of Chesterton. There is NOTHING similar between the two at ALL. (Bill and GK). BTW, I think there are many more teenagers have it more together than many adults. And if Bill was lamenting about the teenage mind which is still developing, he ought to look at his own reasoning, thinking and logic.
re: reasoning vs. questioning
On 11/23 Rob objected that my reasoning was too obscure. Did she notice that I was questioning, rather than reasoning? Accusers bear the burden of making their case beyond a “reasonable” doubt. If Rob is interested in Truth, she might join us who are questioning those who accuse. There is room for more truth seekers, but the field of accusers is overcrowded, on both RG and DG.
Your opening sentence was a statement, not a question and the statement was about “agreement” between GK, Bill and myself. There is no truth in that at all. Your question was rhetorical based on your opening statement of similarities. I didn’t say your reasoning was obscure, I am saying the reasoning you have presented is lacking. Please reread the quote I provided of GK about reasoning.
Question, why in the world and due to your own words in responses concerning statue, why would you write an article defending Bill’s favoritism with his staff for the physically attractive people, especially female when you yourself would NOT have been hired for his staff? Why is that acceptable to you? I’m not sure why in the world that is worthy of anyone’s defense. On top of that go through the great length of time and even expense in defending someone that wouldn’t have even hired you or found you worthy of such, even though you have all this undying loyalty? It come across as a set up of being used by Bill, which is what I think all of this is.
That is . . . Almost funny. Why would I write in favor of the special status of the Jew in this world, myself being not a Jew? Why would my wife and girls actively support a defense of Paul’s admonition for women to submit to their husbands and be silent in church gatherings, not in a position of authority? Why would I speak of 12 Apostles with awe and joy all the while knowing I was eliminated from consideration for that position before I was ever born? The answer is . . . That I love the Lord, and whatever makes Him happy makes me happy. He takes care of me and places me in the body – and in church history – exactly where I was created to be.
It was never my role to be in charge of large enterprises. I am not suited for it in any number of ways. Handling large amounts of money, even. I would not have fit well in IBLP, although I longed for such a role. After 50 years I found my niche, things that nobody else, apparently, can do. When my job is done, I will move on to whatever comes next. I am so happy.
The question simply mystifies me. Would YOU like to be suddenly thrust into the role of President? Would you want to become the instant CEO of, say, Amazon, with millions of people affected by what you decide? I would not. We blossom in the role we were created for. My short stature means I was not built to be an NFL quarterback or CEO. My lack of beauty means I was not built to front important things. But in a support role? I like it ever so much.
You didn’t answer my question at all and pretended to answer it with a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with what I asked you. I did not mention Jews, apostles, wives or anyone else. What I asked you is why you defended Bill in these two articles about hiring “beautiful people” (whatever that means) when and by your own admission would have never been considered do to your own admitted statue to be hired to work for Bill.
No, I specifically answered that. We believe that Bill is correct in accepting physical characteristics as divine guideposts to point to an intended ministry. My stature would not have been a barrier to working for Bill. My personality and natural graces or lacks thereof might well have had him look elsewhere, although that is moot as it never was an issue. I would not blame Bill for not hiring me, in other words.
The answer you gave is similar to answers given by those that have been deceived into accepting something that is unhealthy and wrong. I’ve seen women in polygamous cults justify polygamy which really in the long run is a horrible thing for women (and children). Or it’s like a slave that has been convinced that slavery is good and will defend slavery. I think your acceptance of all of this and your defense of all of this is telling and very sad. You are in my prayers.
Thank you! There are many people who believe a Biblically based marriage “is a horrible thing for women (and children)”. Whatcha going to do? The closer we get to and stay with the Bible, the better off we will be. Give it a try – see if you can make your point Biblically. Without the use of that sword, it is a hopeless fight anyway.
In a very recent article on Patheos, the shifting views of what “biblical womanhood” is explored in the Evangelical world and Bill Gothard is mentioned
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2018/11/disrupting-evangelical-biblical-womanhood/
I would be careful about making proclamations about what is or isn’t a “biblical marriage” or “womanhood” or manhood” etc. Maybe Bill’s ideas is what you accept or think “biblical” marriage is, but those views are not consistent either currently or even historically in the evangelical world.
I read the article, not sure of your point? First of all, despite all the evil in “Lisa’s” story, the family got saved and they will all be in heaven. Instead of hell. THAT is the happiest ending possible. All the horrible abuse – assuming this story is true – will be a vanishing nit in the first 5 minutes of eternity. Forgotten, never to be remembered. THAT is how powerful the blood of Jesus is. WHAT other point is he trying to counter that with . . . Is my question?
The second is simply too fantastic to be believed. It is like a parable, but a confusing one. Again . . . WHAT is the point?
Gender roles are not subject to our interpretation. God designed them, and declared them, and clarified by others like the Apostle Paul. If we don’t like it, we are free to to take it up with “Them”. Good luck with that. I have no intention of second-guessing the Lord.
I was raised in IBLP from 6 years of age. I toured with Gothard and served over seas at “training centers”. I married into a family that was embedded deeply with the institute. I am you poster “beautiful one”. I was approached by Gothard more than once. He tried his best to end my relationship with my amazing husband when it was in its infancy. All because he thought he knew God’s will for my life.
My mind spins at how you can contort and twist the Bible to conform to your own interpretation-and you don’t even think you’re doing that. You think you’re accepting “God’s plan”, you’re being His humble servant-all for His “glory” and for that I’m sorry. But you will never hear that-you will never hear me. But that won’t stop me from speaking-from telling you that everything you typed is a load of garbage-I am, after all, beautiful. Let me know if you need my picture for influence.
Thanks for the comments, Kimberly. I am sure everybody knows that Bill is not infallible, and that includes relationship advice. That having been said, we have witnessed way too many subsequent explosions in marriages that he was opposed to. Meaning, sometimes he sees things others do not. Which is why he has been so successful in counseling.
Awaiting your clarification. Hope to not contort and twist – perhaps you can engage on what troubles you. So far, other than pointing out alternative Scriptures that highlight that God loves those of us less favored as much or maybe more than the “beautiful”, no one has Biblically countered the Scriptural challenge presented. That God demands a very high appearance standard in His public facing stuff. And creates us for that purpose, or creates us to steer us away from that to other things.
In any case I think you are hiding behind “well, everybody knows that is not right” like most everyone else. That is a really bad way of doing business in the things of God.
re: everybody knows that is not right
Of course we accept moral axioms. This very article answers the questions raised by our axioms. The first few paragraphs set forth that purpose. We need only decide whether we find good-faith answers here.
Bill turned 84 earlier this month. Do you still believe that he will be restored to lead IBLP?
I see this as increasingly unlikely. Can you imagine the difficulty in recruiting new families if Bill returns?
When we started homeschooling over 20 years ago, the vast majority of homeschoolers, at least those in our circles, did not have the internet. Today, I can’t think of one homeschool family that isn’t on the web. Everyone I know now uses the internet to do their due diligence before attending a conference or joining a program. When they do so, it is inevitable that they will come across all of the negative media regarding Bill.
How would IBLP/ATI be able to recruit new families with all the information about Bill so readily available to anyone who does research on the web? For example, a simple Google search would produce this article in Ranker, ranking Bill Gothard as one of the top legendary pastors that fell from grace- they rank him just below Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker, and just above Shoko Asahara.
https://www.ranker.com/list/pastors-that-fell-from-grace/genevieve-carlton
So, how do you fix this? You mentioned that the author of the New Republic article may get a visit from Bill’s attorneys. Is the plan to take on the media, Christian and secular, and try to scrub the internet of negative reporting about him? Do you really think that will be effective?
Bill is already engaged in a new ministry, Embassy University. Whether IBLP will fall under that umbrella or no, do not know. If being 84 is a mandate to exit public service, well, a great many politicians would have to disappear. Judges, Supreme Court Justices. Corporate executives as well.
The same internet that allowed a boat-load of lies to propagate around the world will also help fix that problem. What you present is a temporary situation. The “good news” cycle is ever so much more slow than the slander cycle, but . . . It will come. Of course, to this day Jews – and others – believe the lie that Jesus was never resurrected from the dead, but had His body spirited away so that His disciples could fabricate a Messiah. Stories about Him and prostitutes, i.e. “The Last Temptation of Christ”. So garbage may will persist to some extent. But as Jesus said, Matthew 10:25. “It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?” – so, that is normal.
As to legal actions, those certainly have limited effectiveness. But not insignificant. Paul went for a formal and very public appeal to the law of his day when the Jews went about to destroy him. Part of the point is to make a point . . . That words have consequences. Lies are bad. There are consequences in this life, foreshadowing ever so tragic consequences in eternity. Earthly consequences help us understand, visualize the ones to come, perhaps leading to repentance.
You said:
“Bill is already engaged in a new ministry, Embassy University. Whether IBLP will fall under that umbrella or no, do not know.”
Is this the same as the resource offered by IBLP called Embassy Media?
https://embassymedia.com/
Has an agreement been reached between Bill and IBLP that this will be given to Bill? Or do you mean that he is starting a media platform using the same name?
If it is different than the Embassy run by IBLP, can you provide a link?
No. Embassy University is a concept that Bill initiated years ago to focus all of the educational efforts of IBLP. IBLP let that go, pealing off a piece of the name for the media only – noticed they also changed the conference program for young girls previously called “Pre-Excel” to “Pre-Embassy”. Bill acquired the name legally when IBLP let it go. There are no links at present – There is a lot going on at the moment, of which this is just one. But “stay tuned”.
If it is God’s will, he will bless Embassy University. Perhaps Bill will start filling stadiums once again.
It would not appear that Bill feels that God has blessed his current ministry, based on his attempt to force his way back into IBLP at Big Sandy, when they had to call the police to remove him from the premises.
Filling stadiums? Hey, maybe. God’s pattern in Scripture when He restores a man after a trial, is to double everything. That is God’s business. The results of the first wave – 2.7 million alumni – was inconceivable when Bill, seated at the kitchen table of his childhood home, started putting his thoughts down in preparation for a class Wheaton College had asked him to conduct. Now he is working from that same kitchen table in the same house. Who knows.
Bill is a man “chafed”, to use a KJV archaic term. Some of his dearest friends, some that he invested incredible amounts of time and resources on, turned against him when the waves of attack began. I watched public figure after public figure “distance” themselves from him. And his children, some that were very close to him, so quickly picking up the cry against him, believing every word. The current Board is made up largely of those that fit the category. It is a grief to him at the most basic level. So I hope you can forgive him for taking it very, very personally at times. He is a man of less words and more action – some of us talk a lot more. In the end it is for the Lord to acknowledge and affirm, or not. All our eyes are on Him.
“Bill is a man “chafed”, to use a KJV archaic term. Some of his dearest friends, some that he invested incredible amounts of time and resources on, turned against him when the waves of attack began.”
There seems to be this growing animosity towards the Board.
“I watched public figure after public figure “distance” themselves from him. ”
Can you give some examples? I was not aware that any public figures had distanced themselves from Bill. But, I certainly don’t monitor the media and all news, so I probably just missed it.
“And his children, some that were very close to him, so quickly picking up the cry against him, believing every word. The current Board is made up largely of those that fit the category.”
Bill does not have any children, so I assume you are speaking about what you have defined as his “spiritual children”
Bill has a problem in that he went against his own teachings when he barged in on the Big Sandy conference. He did not obey the legal authorities, the Board members. By law, they were the authority at Big Sandy. Disobeying the lawful authorities is not in keeping with Bill’s teachings, nor is it biblical.
This attempt to claim parenthood over the board would appear to be an attempt to say that they must obey Bill, as their parent. In fact, you have made this very case in the past.This is really a reach to claim such a thing. Bill is human. I do understand your point that he has taken certain things personally, and when we do this, pride gets in the way and emotions and we make mistakes.
Wouldn’t it be wiser to move on, focus on his ministry, and stop chafing?
After all they have put Bill through . . . I would expect you would understand. Not all is ours to share at this point. Big Sandy alone was a terrible turning point in all of this. We all stand to give an account to our Lord.
Public figures . . . Don’t want to get into that. If you are unaware, that is how we will leave it.
Bill’s relationship with the Board is considerably more complex than “authority”, right? The man turns over the keys to his estate to his kids while he goes elsewhere, then returns to take possession again. They have a beef with him and tell him to leave. To him – and to me – looking on *I* think the kids are stealing his possessions at that point. And, remember, they promised him a meeting with “the Board” as a condition of him exiting. That condition was not met. Instead they called the cops on their Dad. A lot of his other kids are furious. That transfer of authority was not morally legitimate, despite the fact that the keys were handed over. And the legalities are most certainly being pursued, aided and abetted by other of his children.
“Move on” – I will leave it to you to decide when it is time for you to “move on” in matters that you deal with. Taking a man’s 50 year ministry with nary a penny, a bit of millions of $ in property, copyrights, well, it makes some folks really upset. Some would believe it is time for the current Board to “move on” themselves. There is seriously a question as to what they feel is being accomplished by continuing this bitterness. The Lord is most definitely in charge. How it all lands long term is completely under His control. But “move on” is not a direction that has been heard at this point.
I find your response to Kimberly’s post interesting.
Kimberly wrote:
“He tried his best to end my relationship with my amazing husband when it was in its infancy. All because he thought he knew God’s will for my life.”
Your response to her:
“I am sure everybody knows that Bill is not infallible, and that includes relationship advice. ”
As she describes it, Bill’s behavior was manipulative. He appears to have been lording over her. You minimize and trivialize this behavior, dismissing his manipulation as only relationship advice. I find this relevant, because what has been reported time and time again, is an inappropriate level of control that Bill exercised towards these women.
Kimberly predicted the following:
“But you will never hear that-you will never hear me. ”
It would seem to me that she was accurate in her prediction, at least at this point.
Your article is about Bill and the Beautiful Ones. One of his Beautiful Ones actually gave her account of her experience with Bill. I would expect that a moderator would want to discuss her experience from her perspective and to understand. But, you did not seek to hear and understand. Rather, it seems you once again took the role of defender of Bill, which is the pattern that we see over and over.
If Bill was wrong, absolutely. If he was right, every attempt to dissuade her will appear in hindsight to not have been tough enough. Bill likes to say, “God writes last chapters”. Or to put it another way, the view from the caravan leaving Egypt, heading to Canaan, will look really great at the start . . . And really, REALLY lousy halfway through. Only at the very end does it all come together. If we gather ourselves together partway through, bail on the promises given, declare them and Moses and the Lord frauds, and head back to Egypt everyone looking on shakes their head and says, “ . . . the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them . . . “ (Numbers 14:16)
Yet . . . The LAST CHAPTER will solve it all. Bill has been proven right over and over again. Not that every marriage he opposes is doomed to fail, but so often there are major issues that have to be marched through that suddenly make him look a lot smarter. Those kinds of pronouncements against a man of God when he is down are not always the smartest thing to do. Sometimes the full extent of stuff is not known until many years, even generations later. It may well be that Kimberly escapes that, I hope her tale will bring much glory to God. I would like Bill to be wrong in her case.
re: attractive and approached more than once, happily ever after
On 11/30, Brother James rebuked our moderator for missing the message in Kimberly’s 11/26 comment. He objected to whatever would minimize and trivialize Kimberly’s claim. But what is the claim?
Kimberly tells us three facts: she is beautiful (offers photographic evidence), Bill Gothard approached her more than once, Bill Gothard warned her against involvement with the man who afterward became her amazing husband.
For comparison, consider three more facts: I am handsome (photographic evidence available). My pretty waitress approached me more than once at a restaurant yesterday. She even approached me as I sat alone after my amazing wife had excused herself temporarily. My delight in my spouse was undiminished by the attractive third party. In the end I gave my waitress a big tip and a gospel tract. A little gospel proclamation cures a lot of victimization.
re: failure, God’s blessing and filling stadiums
On 12/7, brother James commented about the contrast between Gothard’s past record filling stadiums and his late embarrassment at Big Sandy. According to BG’s bio, he had many losing streaks before attracting the big crowds. So was God blessing any of the failures of his past? On the surface, no. But they contributed to God’s victories after the fact. It takes plenty of dung to fertilize a field. The harvest comes after the dung.
David,
You bring up valid points. God’s blessing is not always apparent at first, and history is filled with many examples of Christians who failed or appeared to fail many times, before their blessings became obvious.
I was not actually saying that we need to see filled stadiums to affirm His blessing, I said: “Perhaps Bill will start filling stadiums once again.” And perhaps he will, or perhaps He will show it in some other way. The filling of stadiums, the number of alumni, is used by Bill and Moderator often as evidence of God’s blessing upon Bill. So, perhaps He will bless in this way again. Or perhaps He will show it in some other way. Or, perhaps He will not bless.God knows the truth and if there is deceit and a lack of repentance, surely He will not bless.
I was not saying that the embarrassing episode at Big Sandy was evidence of the lack of God’s blessing, but that it would appear that Bill feels this way from his behavior:
“It would not appear that Bill feels that God has blessed his current ministry, based on his attempt to force his way back into IBLP at Big Sandy,”
It gives the appearance that Bill is done waiting on the Lord and is taking matters into his own hands, even twisting his own teachings to justify his actions-for example, claiming that the Board members are his spiritual children and that they must, therefor, obey him. That’s a pretty big reach.
I recall David being quite agressive in possessing what was his after he returned from exile. He didn’t need to fight at all, right? God would just hand it back to him? Not God’s way, in this case. Adam and Eve were told to “subdue” the earth that God had given . . . The Israelites were to “possess” the land of Canaan . . . Jacob wrestled a blessing out of an angel . . . And even Jesus said of the Kingdom of Heaven: “The violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12). No, I don’t think you have that aspect quite right. 1 Corinthians 16:13. “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.”
Cherry picking scriptural examples to justify Bill’s breaking of the law and breaking his own teachings is not convincing that he was in the right.
Bill broke no laws. The ALERT officer, Mr. Horseman, was tasked by the leadership to “handle” a very embarrassing situation by figuring out how to get Bill gone “whatever it takes”. As a good military soldier he said “consider it done”, and then executed their will. The method chosen was to lie to get Bill away from the crowds with a promise of a meeting with the Board that they knew they were never going to have. Tell his supporters that they “loved Bill”, and would never hurt him . . . As they were leading him away to where he was alone and the peace officer was waiting in the shadows to threaten him with jail time should he ever set foot there again.
So they recorded their revulsion and rejection of Bill before the world and heaven. Maybe it was legal. It was wrong. May the Lord see and have mercy.
“Bill broke no laws.”
If the owner of a property instructs you that you are not to set foot on their property, you are breaking the law if you set foot on their property.
If you set foot on someone’s property and they confront you and order you to leave, you are trespassing if you refuse to do so. You do not have the right to make a list of demands to be met, such as demanding a meeting, before you agree to leave.
“The ALERT officer, Mr. Horseman, was tasked by the leadership to “handle” a very embarrassing situation by figuring out how to get Bill gone “whatever it takes”. As a good military soldier he said “consider it done”, and then executed their will. ”
Do you have evidence of this? This seems like wild speculation on your part, as to what they told officer Horseman – “whatever it takes”. If you can present actual evidence, then make this claim, if not then you should not speculate about what the board said to Horseman. You are suggesting that they were willing to do anything, including lie, to get Bill to leave. Evidence please.
“The method chosen was to lie to get Bill away from the crowds with a promise of a meeting with the Board that they knew they were never going to have.”
Do you have evidence of the specific promise that was made? They met with Bill, as the tape reveals. The meeting did not go as Bill wanted, but they met with him. From your narrative, two board members were present at the meeting and Bill wanted all three. Is he in in a position to make such a demand?
“Tell his supporters that they “loved Bill”, and would never hurt him . . . As they were leading him away to where he was alone and the peace officer was waiting in the shadows to threaten him with jail time should he ever set foot there again.”
You make this sound like such a nefarious scheme. ” waiting in the shadows..” Really? Sorry, but this is the course of action that one would expect when a person shows up on a property, which they have been told previously not to enter, and then refuses to leave. Law enforcement’s involvement was brought about by Bill’s actions.
“So they recorded their revulsion and rejection of Bill before the world and heaven. Maybe it was legal. It was wrong. May the Lord see and have mercy.”
The confrontation was recorded because the police officer was wearing a recording device, as is the policy of many police departments. I think that the vast majority of people who watch and listen to that tape will not come away with the same conclusions that you do. You are right to call the situation embarrassing. But, who is the one who created this embarrassing confrontation?
Please listen to the tape again and see if the claims that you are making are supported by the evidence on the tape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IB4zckM_Mk&t=420s
The Nazis declare Jewish families, some very well to do, as non-humans and take all their stuff, mansions, businesses. Some of my distant relatives. So . . . To WHOM do those mansions and artwork and properties and bank accounts belong, do you think? The Nazis or the Jews? Again, this is a real example.
No, that is not speculation. Others were there. As to lying, I invite you to read Nate’s report, the young man that was with him the entire time, from when they left Chicago to their return. We have heard reports from others that were there that corroborate, and this account matches what he was telling us immediately after it happened. They did promise him a meeting with the Board which was his condition for exiting. The comments made by Gil Bates were exactly as stated – “We love Bill, we would never hurt him”, as he urged Bill to leave the gathering and join the promised meeting in another building across campus. There was no meeting with the Board, even as Gil told him when he inquired about where the others were. Read it Here —> Big Sandy Eyewitness Report
Yes, yes it was. It was carefully orchestrated, including the deceit with the meeting . . . And the officer “in the shadows” recording Bill’s comments before Bill was aware he was there. Mr. Horseman asked deliberately leading questions to extract a reply that could be interpreted as defiance. The officer revealed himself only after the trap was sprung.
As to the recording, we have it posted here, so we don’t need Mr. Heimlich’s version (yes, he is the son of the famed doctor who invented the procedure by that name, FWIW). What you will note is Bill repeatedly asking that the presumed statement of defiance be modified to state that he agreed to leave after a meeting with the Board, and that the Board had agreed to have that meeting. So at the point the officer arrived there was no violation. Mr. Horseman asked him whether he had refused to go when asked, to which Bill said, “Yes” . . . And then intended to follow with the “but they agreed to leave me alone until after we met.” Never got the chance, because the officer had what he needed. See the problem? It was deceitful, and it was wrong.
“The Nazis declare Jewish families, some very well to do, as non-humans and take all their stuff, mansions, businesses. Some of my distant relatives. So . . . To WHOM do those mansions and artwork and properties and bank accounts belong, do you think? The Nazis or the Jews? Again, this is a real example”
That is a terrible example. Those were their belongings. Bill Gothard does not own IBLP. That would be like saying that Franklin Graham owns Samaritan’s Purse or that Bill Gates owns Microsoft, or that Donald Trump owns the United States. That’s not how ministries work.
A better analogy would be that President Nixon resigns in disgrace in 1974 and then 4 years later he demands his position back because it is his country, after new leadership has been well established and without any resolution to the reasons for which he resigned. Not going to happen.
Well, those loyal to Bill respectfully disagree. It is theft, taking control of the ministry that the Lord gave him and he labored his entire life to further, taking nothing for himself. That is why some number of us simply cannot even see straight regarding the way he was treated . . . and continues to be treated. That is a point that will be pursued much more vigorously in the days to come.
re: who has just title to IBLP?
If IBLP is a Christian ministry, then whoever is IBLP steward must discern what Jesus wants it to do; then do it. Jesus is the title holder. Whether Gothard or Levendusky are charitable is another question.
“Well, those loyal to Bill respectfully disagree. It is theft, taking control of the ministry that the Lord gave him and he labored his entire life to further, taking nothing for himself.”
How can something be stolen, when a person does not hold title to it? The structure of a ministry with board rule is that the Board of Directors are the stewards of the assets of the ministry. When Bill was on the Board, he was one of the stewards. When he resigned he was no longer one of the stewards, presumably by choice. At what point did they supposedly steal it from him?
As David points out,
“whoever is IBLP steward must discern what Jesus wants it to do; then do it. Jesus is the title holder. ”
It is a serious accusation to say that these men stole from Bill.
The Board is required by the structure of non-profit organizations. The purpose is to make sure that the government let alone those served do not suffer loss through mismanagement. Bill is the steward of the resources the Lord has given. The Board is designed to watch him. Not take those resources away.
Bill resigned to focus on reconciliation. Everybody understood that. After his “resignation” he was correctly announced to be on “administrative leave”. That leave . . . Needs to be over.
Yes, very serious.
Thank you for sharing the link to Mr. Garcia’s eye witness account. He appears to be a very dedicated young man with a servant’s heart. His account seems to be consistent with much of what you have said, although it does not contain any details about what the Board told Mr. Horseman to do- the “Whatever it takes, ” as you have claimed they told him.
It is interesting that two people look at the same set of data and come to different conclusions. His account further substantiates that Bill was told to leave and refused to do so. His refusal to leave justifies their actions. It is sad that he put them in situation that required police involvement.
” “I’m sorry, but I’m not going anywhere, I came here to see the people I
have dedicated my life and ministry for!” Mr. Gothard replied. Then, Tim Levendusky asked “so, you
are not leaving?!” – “No, I’m staying for them!” was Mr. Gothard’s answer. Tim, Levendusky then said
“Ok, we are sorry to hear this Mr. Gothard, but you give us no other choice, we are calling the police!” –
“Do, what you have to do” Mr. Gothard replied, (there were a few more words and interaction that were
said during the whole meeting in that small room by other board members, Mr. G and myself, that are
not so relevant).”
Additionally, Bill was told in Sacramento two years ago that they don’t want him at the conferences, per Garcia’s account. Still he came to Big Sandy.
I suspect that the Board has been advised by legal counsel to not allow Bill to attend the conferences. I don’t know this, but it seems likely. Based on the findings in the investigation, which, according to the Board, there was evidence of inappropriate behavior towards those girls, I would imagine that legal counsel has instructed them to keep him away from the conferences.
There are other sources besides Nate. His is one we can share openly, because he asked us to.
We have no idea what the Collins Law Firm let alone Bob Barth, staff lawyer, counseled the board. Bob appears very bitter against Bill because of certain events, so joining in the chorus advocating for a fairly vindictive response would be understood. Reality is that all legal issues related to that have left the house with the dismissal of the plaintiff lawsuits. In attempting to fend off an initial $8 million action they might well have desired to work at arms length from Bill. Now that that is resolved, the concern is moot.
The findings that have never seen the light of day. I am confident that will change. It is a crime to condemn Bill over anonymous sources with secret complaints. We have heard it on good authority that there is nothing in there that approaches a standard worthy of severing ties with Bill let alone banning him from his properties, let alone threatening him with jail. There is good reason why it has been kept sealed, allowing the Board to state, as it does repeatedly, “If you knew what we know, you would understand”. We all, Bill included, would like – really demand -that vale of secrecy be lifted, allowing him to answer to all of the charges, whatever they be. It is the only right thing to do. Chances are good that we end up with a compendium of decades old hearsay significantly less important than the now discredited accounts listed in the lawsuit pleadings, which the plaintiffs are poised to have to overtly defend in court shortly.
re: facing your accusers
Of course. A man cannot face his accusers if they and their accusations remain secret. Even pagans recognize that.
But what accusers? We are told only of an IBLP investigation into Gothard’s conduct. No accusations mentioned other than the RG stuff which got aired in the former lawsuit.
But accusers and accusations might be presumed when the board cites the secret investigation as their grounds for purging Gothard from IBLP.
Precisely. We have understood that the “investigation” is largely concerned with interviewing past and then-present staff and participants. If so then we can expect the same sort of thing that has been said in public. Whatever the tales may be they do not reach the levels presented in the lawsuit, because those allege crimes, and the Board has stated repeatedly that nothing they heard suggested that. IBLP management has told us multiple times that they do not believe Bill to be “a pervert”. We are all tired of it. Management suggested, multiple times, that we surely did not want to embarrass Bill by whatever is in there. And we have stated multiple times, given the Board’s continued insistence on using “it” as their reason for rejecting and reviling Bill, “We are way beyond that”. The accusations in the lawsuits are “embarrassing”, but because they were disclosed the light of reality could be shone on them. Truth be told, in the end nothing in there could be supported enough for two clever law firms with a substantional “on contingency” financial stake to spin even one accusation from one accuser into a CIVIL standard count of “neglect”, the lowest possible bar. We frankly expect nothing different from the mysterious investigation.
It is time for accountability. Anonymous accusations, hit and run, are shameful. Like “Julie” in the recent New Republic article. We think criminally shameful. Lies and slander are crimes. We fully support any victim of abuse to be able to come forward without fear and make their allegations and be heard and vindicated. We also, however, demand the ability to examine such accusers and accounts and expose misinformation from evil motives and irresponsibility. It sounds like you would agree.
re: accountability
Yes, it would be very gratifying to see TNR held to account for that anti-Gothard smear they published. But their agenda was political, not religious. TNR is a left-wing periodical, and their point was more anti-conservative than anti-Gothard. The tip-off was that passing allusion to Trump at the end of the article. It was more Trump Derangement Syndrome than Gothard Derangement Syndrome.
Message: Conservatives are sleazy and therefore discredited.
(And is Julie even real, or only a literary device created to serve the writer’s political agenda?)
Hey, something where we agree! Cool.
Yes, let’s see the thing.
One thing that is clear- If the investigation really did find misbehavior by Bill, they can’t pretend it was new information. I think that’s part of the problem with releasing it. There are Board members who bear some blame for not supervising, investigating, etc. How can they get rid of Bill without accepting any blame themselves?
My sense is that, again, it is a lot of hearsay. The investigation beginning and ending with . . . Stories. With a tumultuous environment where everybody is second-guessing everything and without someone to crosscheck, that should satisfy no one. The loud accusation from the plaintiffs, eager to bankrupt the ministry, was that the investigation did not go deep enough, assuming real dirt was there to be discovered. Given that the Board openly indicated that nothing in there that warranted legal action. The loud accusation from those that support Bill is that it is undoubtedly a whole lot of nothing, that would not survive serious scrutiny. Nobody is happy. Frankly, a large problem that is known is far less damaging than an unknown problem.
Daniel,
You said:
“There are Board members who bear some blame for not supervising, investigating, etc. How can they get rid of Bill without accepting any blame themselves?”
This is a good point. This very well could be why the report has not been made public.
I don’t think it was an accident to have Gibbs prepare the report, rather than other choices out there. One criticism has been that they should have used an independent third party, not someone who has a long time relationship with the organization. Keep in mind, David Gibbs, Jr is an attorney. It would seem to me that this was a bit clever on the part of IBLP, if they did not want the report to ever be public. I would imagine that Gibbs was acting as legal counsel to IBLP and, as such, a fiduciary relationship would have existed between Gibbs and IBLP. This would likely mean that the report would be protected from subpoena due to attorney client privilege. I am hoping the Moderator can chime in here and confirm if this was the relationship and what they are up against. If I am not mistaken, I believe that there was an attempt to subpoena the report in the recent lawsuit and the request was denied. I suspect said request was denied invoking attorney client privilege. Again, I am hoping Moderator can give some clarification as why said request was denied an upheld, if in fact this is was happened and as to whether Gibbs was also serving as legal counsel to IBLP at the time.
If Gibbs was also acting as attorney for IBLP, while conduction the report, I am thinking that future requests to force release of the report will also be denied on these same grounds.
Short answers: Gibbs Jr. was acting as legal counsel to IBLP – and to Bill specifically in his role as Board member – at the time it was commissioned. No, Bill has never seen it. And as you correctly perceived, it was therefore covered by attorney/client privilege during the lawsuits. Gibbs did not go on to represent IBLP in any other capacity that I am aware of – IBLP went with a local law firm. And Bill called the court and took “the next attorney” in the pool. Which, incidentally, points to something other than having a high-paid attorney as the reason for Bill prevailing against what appeared to be overwhelming odds. The man who represented Bill was an excellent, albeit small time, legal man. Which is why I laugh when Bill’s opponents talk about “the best legal power money can buy.” It was the best the Lord put him together with. And it was enough, exactly what he needed. Bill now has a new attorney for the days ahead.
“Frankly, a large problem that is known is far less damaging than an unknown problem.”
I totally agree with you on this. When the result is spoken of with generalities, people will tend to assume all kinds of things. Our minds don’t like vagueness, but like to complete stories and images so that they make sense. This is why we see faces and objects in clouds and ink spots. The statement by IBLP is so vague that it allows people to interpret it any way they want to. The type of incidents that our minds picture when we read the word “inappropriate” will vary person to person. Many will assume the worst. Some will assume the least. It is a Rorschach Test of sorts- “what comes to your mind when you hear the word “inappropriate”?
Now, let’s couple that with a conclusion by the Board that based on the inappropriate behavior that the person should not be permitted to counsel, shall not be on the Board or in leadership within the ministry. Suddenly the behavior imagined seems very bad indeed. Perhaps it is very bad. Or perhaps it is not so bad. The secrecy of the report leaves it to the imagination of the reader. This is unfortunate.
That was a very accurate summary of how we feel. Thank you for articulating it.
“The findings that have never seen the light of day. I am confident that will change. It is a crime to condemn Bill over anonymous sources with secret complaints”
I find your argument compelling that the investigation should be made public. I am not an expert on terminations, but I have been involved in company leadership at a time when we terminated a president and at other times over the years various employees for misconduct. As I understand it, generally you must show cause to terminate an employee. The problem I see in Bill’s case is that he was not terminated, but he resigned. You don’t have to show cause to not re-hire someone, you just have to decide that it is not in the best interest of the organization. It would not be the same legal standard at all.
If Bill felt he did nothing wrong, he should not have resigned, but should have held his ground and forced IBLP to fire him. I think then he would have a strong legal case to make about making the report public. However, with his resignation and the letter that he published, in which he admitted to inappropriate behavior, I think it gets hard to claw that back after 5 years.
I believe making the report public is the right thing to do. I just don’t see that they would be required to do so legally.
Responded to several of your points here in the last response, about resign vs. “administrative leave”. The only other point to make is that Bill never confessed to “inappropriate behavior”, not like the Board meant when they used those words. He took the high road to distance himself from behaviors that some had complained loudly about, things he frankly did not recall like they said. And concluded subsequently never happened like they said. I sat with him grilling him during interogatories with his lawyer attempting to recall any and all instances that would approach “inappropriate” behaviors, things that would impeach him on the stand. The things we came up with were well below the threshold of “innocent”. Again, this under the pressure and threat of legal troubles should he not disclose things that others would recall and could be corroborated. As you may know, the statement disappeared and he does not stand to that statement, having been taken to mean things he never meant.
So, no, he never confessed to the things the Board implied he was guilty of and called “inappropriate”. That has been clearly documented elsewhere on this website.
“We have no idea what the Collins Law Firm let alone Bob Barth, staff lawyer, counseled the board. Bob appears very bitter against Bill because of certain events, so joining in the chorus advocating for a fairly vindictive response would be understood”
So, you acknowledge that it is possible that the Board is heeding the advice of legal counsel in requiring Bill to stay away from the conferences. You use the term “vindictive”, but wouldn’t the reason also likely really be to avoid liability for IBLP if the attorney was giving this advice? If the Board is acting on the advice of legal counsel to not allow Bill on the premises, is it really fair to keep demonizing them for doing so? After all, the Board has a responsibility to protect IBLP. Would it be responsible of them to cast aside the advice of said counsel? And in any case, not knowing all the facts, having not read the investigative report and not knowing what legal counsel has advised the Board, is it fair to keep demonizing the Board for this action? I imagine that Bill put them in a very difficult and awkward position by showing up, defying their previous instructions to him.
I agree with you that the Board should release the report to Bill, and really, they should make it public. You have said: ” There is good reason why it has been kept sealed, allowing the Board to state, as it does repeatedly, ‘If you knew what we know, you would understand’ ”
Those unknown details that one’s imagination tends to fill in would be answered finally. Either the report indicates that bad things happened or that things happened that were deemed by some to be inappropriate, but maybe really not so bad. But, make it public. Bill deserves to see it and I think that everyone who has had a relationship with IBLP and Bill deserves to see it. Perhaps the Board is erring in not making it public. Perhaps this is not fair to Bill and the rest. Yet, I find it hard to criticize their other actions, particularly their response to Bill’s defiance.
Two points. The first is that if that advice were coming from their internal lawyer, that man has a personal beef with Bill. The more important is that if that were the case, that lawyers were behind it, you can be SURE that they would have put that up in Bill’s face from the getgo. They haven’t . . .
These are honorable men, but put together even, they cannot hold a candle to Bill. Each one of them testifies to the life-changing impact Bill has had on their own lives and marriages and families. One of the reasons they were chosen for this trust role. And in response they have condemned him in the face of a tidal wave of unfounded unhappiness that, we think, just freaked them out. Exactly the way Bill’s haters intended. Where we sit, THEY have repeatedly defied him, despised him, unjustly taken control of 50 years fruit of his ministry to retool it into their own image. A different way of looking at it.
In any case . . . Have a Blessed Christmas.
Merry Christmas to you, dear Moderator. And to Rob and David too!
Thank-you James and have a blessed 2019.
re: agreeableness
I agree with brother Daniel’s agreement in his 12/20 comment, and also with brother James on 12/16.
Soon we enter the 4th Week of Advent 2018. The Gothard situation calls to mind the major themes we see in the writings of the Beloved Apostle, John. He often wrote about light vs. darkness. He associated light with truth and disclosure; but darkness with sneakiness and evildoing.
Shine the light, IBLP officers! Let the public scrutinize your case for exiling Bill Gothard from IBLP.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20181214/why-beto-orourkes-254-county-strategy-flopped
Interesting article. In the lead in a 79 year old in Texas says, of Beto O’
Rourke: “‘All you have to do is get in the presence of him and it’s contagious, especially if you’re a woman because he’s so danged good looking,’ said Randall, who is 79 and has lived in the county for 25 years. ‘The charisma just emits.’”
Interesting. And something we all know to be true. The fact that he is handsome, “urbane”, appealing instantly gives him influence and votes. And height – he is 6’ 4”. People really like tall men.
How is it that movie stars . . . Instantly get a platform for their opinions? When Taylor Swift openly endorsed a candidate, stating that the Republican opponent “scared” her and didn’t represent her “values”, she got a lot of press. Probably got a non-trivial number of votes for her person. ALL because . . . She is pretty, successful, talented. Nothing to do with her superior analysis of the topics of the day.
Beauty, “urbaneness” gives an INSTANT platform leading to leadership. Once again . . . WHY are we so afraid to acknowledge it? And how come hardly anyone on the Lord’s side is working to take advantage of this, win and train those with natural God-given appeal, so they can do for God’s Kingdom what they seemingly, by default, seem to mostly do for Satan? Scientology has a top notch program in effect to win the rich and famous over to their cult.
Maybe most folks are afraid of being cast as having evil motives for doing this. Kind of like the ignominy Bill has had to endure. He really, truly didn’t do anything wrong with women. And yet “focusing on attractive young men and women” makes him instantly suspect as having wicked intentions.
You must be desperate here. That article was about WHY his strategy flopped and it flopped because of his views and the things he stood for. If some old bat want to swoon over him to the point of working for him, tells you more about her which isn’t flattering to what motivates her. Trying to use her stupid quote to justify Bill using “beautiful” people is pretty pathetic. On top of that, I can’t imagine anyone trying to “swoon” over him in order to vote for him. Even Trump is mocking this guy. Taylor Swift is famous for her singing and songs which is usually about love gone wrong. Why people even give her or anyone else like her the time of day is beyond me. Taking a line out of one of her hits, “I’ve got nothing in my brain” nails it and sums up her, and the grasping at straws here in order to justify “non-hunk” Bill surrounding himself with “beautiful people”. I would suggest to you “Shake it off”.
Merry Christmas
“Non-hunk” Bill is indeed not in it for hunkiness, but to see the Kingdom of God furthered by harnessing the gifts that God has bestowed on individuals that WILL shake the world one way or another.
Merry Christmas to you and yours, Rob.
Today we are watching the Disney Parade special (please don’t tell anyone). I am amazed that the people in the front rows, those standing behind the performers, those they zoom in on during the program . . . Are all nicely dressed, and relatively attractive. Interesting, eh? Your typical crowd at Disneyland would look more like us. What magic brought that about? Maybe it was on purpose. Maybe they know that looking at happy, beautiful people makes the people observing feel happy, and think well of them. If they were to show a more realistic cross-section of the population – what people call the “Walmart crowd” . . . People would notice. And complain or switch channels.
I presume there is no argument on this reality. The question is: IS Disney evil for doing so? SHOULD they force others to look at unkempt folk, dirty, with obvious deformities as an expression of . . . Goodness? IS that good, to do that?
Seriously? Whatever people that were sitting behind performers at Disney probably paid a pretty penny for those spots and knowing that they were going to be on TV, probably made the effort to look better than normal Disney crowd. This has nothing to do with Bill Gothard and has everything to do with the money making machine that Disney has become.
Simple question: Do you believe Disney is evil to make plans for that, appearances? I, for example, do not think they are evil. I appreciate Disney for their beauty and precision in EVERYTHING they do. I know that if I were to take a cruise with them or buy one of their plush toys or visit a park or buy one of their food items or watch their channel, all will be clean and nice and beautiful, anything other than a waste of my time, always . . . Excellent.
re: So Good They Can’t Ignore You
A certain book with that title is a good read. Author Cal Newport shows that our passions follow our competence, not the other way around.
Disney is both so good and so beautiful that you can’t ignore them.
I do not look to Disney and what that conglomeration has become to be a bases for “Christian values”. That doesn’t make them “evil” in using your either/or, black or white, all or nothing frame work here. Disney is a bastion of consumerism, hype, materialism, image, brainless entertainment. The “image” they promote is “family values” but the reality is that they are not. There is not much difference between them and Hollywood in promotion of using “looks” or image or promotion of themselves and the money making machine they have become. If all those things are what is important to you, more power to you but I do not consider Disney “Christian” or promotion of anything “Christian” in values etc. It’s very curious to me that Bill Gothard who was against amusement parks and imagination, magic, etc. would be compared by you to Disney and what Disney really stands for. Disney is not my values. Does that make them evil? I’ll leave that for you to think about. Disney using nicely dressed people as a backdrop to their shows isn’t anything different than Hollywood and they are both the same in my book and for a defense of Bill using “beautiful people”, he is now the same as Hollywood and Disney and both are not “Christian”. I would suggest you reread James which has been already brought up to you by myself and Larne.
You are mixing the metaphors. Focus on the point being made. Ignoring any of Disney’s good or evil motives, IS the act of highlighting the positive, including the beautiful, the clean, the orderly, matched clothing, beautiful music, bright sunshine … IS the act of deliberately NOT including those that are ugly or deformed an act of evil? Do you or does anyone else you know believe that? Disney is the best example, but there are many others, including IBM and their meticulously dressed sales people. Are these actions evil, in and of themselves? I say no, they are good and right and proper, EVEN if those of us that are ugly or deformed get our feelings hurt.
Disney is an entertainment monster. Just like Hollywood. They act like what I would expect of an entertainment monster. Bill was running a “Christian” ministry and I would think that he should have acted and ran his ministry like a “Christian” ministry which is not the same as Disney or Hollywood. I did not mix my metaphors here.
Back to the question. IS it wrong to highlight only the positive, the beautiful? There are companies that are considered proper and ethical, and others that you don’t trust. Disney is highly regarded in those terms. My point is that nobody thinks evil of Disney for doing so. Because it is completely normal. Not evil. Not evil for a Christian ministry either. Some of the effective producers of Christian films get beautiful people to staff their movies. Good . . . Or bad? I say good. Do you disagree?
I expect a so called Christian ministry to be run like or have Christian standards NOT Hollywood or Disney standards which for Hollywood or Disney are not based on the Bible and based on the world standards which are all about external image and looks to appeal to external. So for Bill, yes he was/is wrong. For Disney/Hollywood, it is expected. You are trying to justify Bill and what you are using are “worldly” standards, ideas and means. That tells you what Bill was about and that is power and control and external looks because that made HIM look good.
Eh :-). Why don’t we then dress like the Bible examples, robes or even camel’s hair coats? Beards? Shoulder to foot garments for the ladies? Why do we eat with forks and knives instead of their hands like in Bible times? We are SO influenced by our culture. Christian ministries, even – why hardly any give “holy kisses” to their guests as they enter the premises.
Just silly, Rob. We adopt the respectful parts of our culture so that the MEANS of delivery does not become the focus, but rather the message. If all of Bill’s boys look like OT prophets in hair and dress, how much of the message will land? Same for the ladies. So . . . You have absolutely no basis for complaint. Evil things, yes . . . Conservative instead of liberal, modest instead of risqué. I think we all know what we need to do.
“Dress for Success” and “How to Win Friends and Influence People” are secular folk espousing a high standard for manners, things people notice and respect. Let’s do it!
Well, I’ve known people that wear “hair shirts” underneath their clothes. Likewise, men wearing beards was the OT standard and even required. Kinda curious that Bill demanded a “clean cut” short hair look of the boys/men that worked for him. I supposed based on that, that Jesus and John the Baptist would not qualify working for Bill. All of this shows you that Bill picked and choose what “Biblical” standards he wanted to follow and they are based on Bill and not the Bible. The fact that you are trying to make Molloy and Disney the “standards” of Bill’s ministry proves that Bill’s ministry was about Bill. If you don’t know what a “hair shirt” is, look it up. Maybe Bill ought to wear one.
I DO know what a “hair shirt” is. And I believe such things are condemned by sections like Col. 2:20-23. What Bill teaches is fasting, which is in secret, in moderation, with specific predetermined time length, and with medical supervision if at all risky. That is what Jesus said – the hypocrites go to great lengths to do acts of “spirituality” like a public production for fasting and tithing and all.
“Biblical” is honoring to the Lord Jesus, and furiously pursing His Kingdom. Going fishing with more and more skill. Fish are caught by the cleverness of the fisherman as much as anything. So . . . You work the bait and you work the net and you bring them in. Is there any other way to read what Jesus said . . . About being “fishers of men”? Building an attractive, inviting arena to be “caught in” is most emphatically a work of the Lord.
I would suggest that people that may wear “hair shirts” do so underneath their clothes and it is done NOT TO BE Seen. Your quoting of Col. does not support your premise. Likewise and earlier in Col. St. Paul writes. “I find my joy in the suffering I endure for you. IN MY OWN FLESH, I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body” Likewise, I Cor. 9:27, “I punish my body and enslave it…” This was in his discourse concerning physical discipline like an athlete for spiritual discipline. Someone that wore a hair shirt would be Mother Teresa of Calcutta and this came out AFTER she died so these sorts of ascetic practices are not done to be seen by other but done as personal and private disciplines. St. Paul was certainly an ascetic in every sense of the word if one would bother to read all of his letters as well as the recorded narration in Acts. At one point in Act, St. Paul took a vow and shaved his head.
It is curious to me that Bill who was accused of being a “monk” by the Venoit book, fasted I think twice a week, ate a limited diet, wears a narrow limited wardrobe, and on top of that memorizes scripture, isn’t seen by you as more ascetic because these sorts of disciplines fall under that framework. All of those about Bill would be condemned by your misquote here.
Happy New Year.
Bill is definitely disciplined, but nothing for the purpose of deliberate suffering. Fasting is deliberate for the purpose of being more sensitive to the spiritual realm, to the Lord. The pain of being hungry is a side effect, not the purpose. Hair shirt have NO purpose, other than suffering. Mother Theresa did many things to suffer, deliberately . . . And, from what I read, encouraged those that were suffering in her facilities to see it as helping and purifying them. Goes right along with the idea of purgatory, a uniquely Catholic perspective. I think this “will worship”, will over pain, is what Paul was decrying. And his making up the sufferings of Christ? That is the burden of laying down one’s soul for others, my dreams, hopes, aspirations . . . Self-actualization . . . And yes, enduring physical deprivation to further the Kingdom of God. ALL objective, the end in the blessing of others, not in the pain.
Fasting is definitely a form of self-denial and self-discipline. The so called “sensitivity” to the “spirit” per Bill is a fruit of self-denial and self-discipline. The same is said by those that practice other forms such as “hair shirts”. They become more humble and dependent of God and His grace and are much more self-sacrificing towards others. This has nothing to due with suffering for the sake of suffering. But this has nothing to do with nothing but a response to your crack about trying to look like OT prophets and a demonstration that Bill picked out what he wanted to “follow” from the Bible, particularly OT laws, all under the guise of trying to be “biblical”. Following Molloy’s ideas of “dress code has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. It is phony to even say so.
Doing to disagree. Fasting makes us more alert to the spiritual realm as the body is slightly “dumbed down”. As Bill explains in the Basic Seminar, blood is going to rush to the digestive system when we eat, to the muscles when we exert ourselves, and to our brain when we are hard at thought. So resting takes away one of those, and fasting another, leaving our minds crystal clear. Again, the “suffering” is incidental, if even. When I fasted regularly my body switched into that mode, just like during the night, so as I noticed few if any effects. When the day was done I was not ravenously hungry either. Regular fasting is NOT suffering.
And also will disagree on “Dress For Success”. Again, it is a specific application of “manners”, really, determining what makes others happy, and doing it.
The references in scripture to fasting and it’s use is as a form of repentance and sorrow, in intercession for others which would include spiritual warfare and deliverance. I don’t see fasting in conjunction with getting “spiritual insights” which is a focus on self and not others. Fasting is often mentioned along with sackcloth and ashes as a form of repentance which is what the people of Nineva did after Jonah went through and told them to repent or else. Even King Ahab ended up extending his life by turning to fasting, sack cloth and ashes. That is the context in the Bible towards fasting which is a form of self-denial for either repentance or for intercession for others. Queen Ester used fasting to prepare herself to approach the king when it was illegal. Jesus mentioned fasting in conjunction with deliverance. King David used fasting to try and save his first child with Bathsheba. Daniel fasted and prayed for his fellow Jews when in exile. I don’t see anywhere in scripture Bill’s ideas of fasting for “sensitivity” or greater spiritual insights. Just saying.
So I would think of verses like this:
Acts 13:2-3
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
The fasting is clearly tied to increased sensitivity to the Lord, to hear from Him. The brain thing, well, that is established science.
re: Merry Christmas
Thanks, brother James. This 2d Day of Christmas is almost as merry as the 1st, so far. You have a merry one, too. Same for the next ten days and beyond.
re: OT beards
Facial hair sends a message. This 2014 article sums it nicely: https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/facial-hair-signal/
Says I with a Francis Schaeffer chin beard for the winter.
re: fasting for discipline, therapy, or physical conditioning
Yes. One practice, many purposes
On 1/1, Rob posted about fasting for religious discipline.
Or there is fasting for disease therapy, such as this: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/10/22/is-fasting-ok-for-diabetics.aspx
Or there is fasting for health and strength: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/08/17/intermittent-fasting-high-intensity-exercise.aspx
(Don’t know if there is fasting for beauty, which would fit our topic nicely.)
Yes, fasting can in the right circumstances have health benefits and loose weight. Apologist Jimmy Akin lost a lot of weight by fasting in which he was able to eat only one meal a day. He blogged about it. He also is very clear that he was under the watchful eye of his doctors in doing this and he does not suggest what so ever that this is for everyone and for people to discuss this with their actual doctors not “dr. google”. Bill with his personal habits and disciplines taught them as for everyone and that this is God’s way for everyone to do. I’ve talked with Muslim co-workers that practice Ramadan which is a month long dawn to dusk fast. They openly point to health benefits and the cleansing that it brings. Prolong fasting does shrink the stomach to food. Jimmy Akin has pointed this out that he now can subsist on one meal a day. Again though he is very clear that people that want to use fasting as a form of weight loss need to do so under a direct doctor, not the internet and I might add not under Bill Gothard.
To the moderator,
Yes, when one isn’t eating, blood flow is not directed to the stomach. But Bill goes into conclusions that are not supported anywhere else in that a redirected blood flow makes one more “sensitive” to God. This is disproven by the fact that other religions use fasting such as Islam and eastern religions and that Isaiah 58 talks about where God rejects fasts that are not done for the right reasons or motivations. Likewise in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the temple, the Pharisee bragged about fasting twice a week (like Bill) yet, all his actions, personal habits and good deeds did not justify him before God. His fasting was not done with a humble heart but as a personal habit in which he patted himself on the back for. Bill’s “more sensitive” to God due to redirected blood flow is a false conclusion and pseudo-science. Isaiah 58 knocks it out of the ball park. Yes, with Paul and Barnabas, the whole community fasted for them and with them. Ester likewise had all her servants fast with her. Both say more about having a community of believers fast together and in repentance in preparation for something big than Bill’s pseudo-science of redirected blood flow making one more “sensitive”.
Actually, that is PRECISELY the point Bill makes. Increased sensitivity to the ENTIRE spiritual world, both good and evil. He gives clear warnings on that. Fasting to “meditate” and seek the Lord has to be under a specific umbrella of purpose and practice, so as to hear the Lord and no one else.
This has become a moving and shifting target. Maybe for Bill, fasting seem to be a meditation tool. That is what you are saying in defense of him. Bill also had some more nuttier ideas about fasting where Sundays should be a day of fast for everyone and from the testimonies of those that have been through ATI training centers, a forced thing in some circumstances of which I find sickening. In observation of those I knew that went through his seminars, I really don’t think too many people followed his fasting, journaling or memorization and even some OT eating habits. Through-out scripture, fasting is part of repentance or intercessor prayer/ spiritual warfare/deliverance and done with others in community.
Not quite as nutty as you think. The OT precept definitions were not friendly to eating on the “Sabbath”, Saturday instead of Sunday, of course. They could not gather wood, light a fire, gather manna. And I know of at least one worthy, Robert Chapman, preacher, who would lock himself in his wood shop all day Saturday and not eat, working on various projects, “not to be disturbed” as he meditated on God’s word. Once, when someone had to interrupt him for something vital, they said his face shone for the joy of the richness of all that he was experiencing with the Lord.
Some things were forced on young people, but I can tell this has never been one of them. The pressure is more psychological, but nobody has EVER been deprived of food if they wanted it. For someone in a grumpy mood who knows that the implication of this would send others rushing to their aid, it is an easy one to spin. Mostly, again, because fasting was normal and encouraged. But no one was EVER not fed if they declined to participate.
In my world they were at least universally respected, and a great many followed it. On and off, perhaps, but over time. I know of several fasting in regards to the significant court hearing tomorrow. Obviously that is not for “insights” and may track closer to some of your points. Regardless, the fasting teaching did, in fact, take firm hold with many.
Yes, they were not suppose to gather wood to cook. What developed was a long simmering stew called a cholent. which cooks over a low heat and was eaten on the Sabbath. Observant Jews still do cholents for the Sabbath observations and eat big on the Friday night for the Sabbath meal and then on Saturday night after sundown, often go out to eat. It’s not a true fast and they were also able to gather enough Manna on Friday to cover Saturday as recorded in scripture. The one funny story I read was someone copied a cholent recipe from a Jewish friend and later went to them and wondered why it didn’t taste as good as what they shared with them and the reply was that the cholent needed the Sabbath blessing to make it special and delicious.
That is it, the Shabbat blessing. :-). Correct, no command to fast. He just saw it as . . . Motivation to eat less, and maybe to fast. Whatever it was, it was never given as a commandment. He is more into leading by example.
re: Sunday fasting
I was recently introduced to a new version of Sunday fasting.
Sunday screen fasting is abstaining from screen time, whether TV or smart phones, tablet computers, etc. on Sunday. In my house we are going to try it.
Not a bad idea! The olden days had a lot of Christians restricting “frivolity” on Sunday to reading the Bible . . . And Pilgrim’s Progress.
2019 predictions.
It’s that time of year where everyone likes to make predictions for what to expect in the new year that is upon us. As this website revolves around Bill Gothard and IBLP I will go out on a limb and make a few about what 2019 holds for each:
I predict that IBLP will continue in their current direction, with more and more emphasis on family conferences, with the gathering together of like minded folks.
I predict that the attendance for the family conferences will grow slightly.
I predict that IBLP will continue to strategically consolidate, selling properties that have become obsolete to the new direction, reducing maintenance expenses in the process.
I predict that 2019 will not see Bill Gothard return to lead IBLP.
I predict that Bill will publish a few more books.
What are other people’s predictions? Let’s see how we did by same time next year.
“Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in AN ATTRACTIVE DRESS, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself”
St. Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” (emphasis added)
re: attractive dress and error
Was Irenaeus objecting to heresy only, or also to attractive dress? Wikipedia says he was writing to oppose Gnosticism.
Of the objections against Bill Gothard over the years, has Gnosticism ever been among them? Some people think he is too authoritarian, but too mystical? Hardly.
Gnosticism has many branches, fingers and toes. It is not a monolithic set of ideas. St. Irenaeus was also taking to task Marcion and Valentius and Simon Magnus. The point of the quote is that errors make themselves look attractive, so on the surface whether you want to just focus on clothing or what sounds good is that heresy, errors, false teaching or whatever you want to call it makes itself look good on the outside to attract people. Mormons and JW look good. They dress nice, try to have good first impressions. That first impression covers up their heterodox ideas. I recently read a blog from an Evangelical theologian that praised the Mormons for looking nice. It’s a cover. It’s a sad compliment because Mormons are very much heterodox. In reading “Against Heresies”, I’ve certainly come to learn how complex and twisted Gnosticism is. There is an emphasis on secret or hidden knowledge that only the super spiritual will obtain. With similarity to Bill, he defiantly de-emphasized the physical and emphasized spiritual over and above. Bill’s teaching likewise is complex. Maybe you won’t see some of the parallels, but I can.
re: Bill Gothard and his -isms
Bill Gothard has been accused of:
• legalism — excessive adherence to law or formula
• asceticism — severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence
• a remote form of Gnosticism?
If Gnosticism is so broad that it includes all preference for pretty instead of ugly, then who is not a Gnostic? Where do I apply for my Gnostic membership card? does it qualify me for a discount on cologne and shoe polish?
Whether one wants to or not see some Gnostic tendencies in Bill Gothard, the quote was about falsehoods, heresies etc. dressing themselves up (either directly or by trying to sound good) to be appealing and cover up false and heretical teaching. He was saying not to be fooled which is the point of the quote. Gnosticism is much broader than trying to reduce it to just anti-physicality. It basically is a synthesis of pantheism and paganism dressed up in Christian type of terms. It denies that there is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit that created heaven and earth ex nihilio. That was key argument St. Irenaeus had. It is ignorance and flippancy to say you want membership in paganism and pantheism in order to buy cologne on discount.
re: Bill Gothard’s fatal syllogism
major premise: Gnosticism is bad
minor premise: Bill Gothard is bad
conclusion: Bill Gothard is a Gnostic. Q.E.D.
Back to Gnosticism, I just read in a recent brilliant article “Gnosticism Still a Challenge to Christianity” this: “Unfortunately, Western culture has in many ways devolved into a form of Gnosticism: an anti-incarnational, dualist ideology of the separation of body and soul. Gnosticism is a fall spiritualism that values the soul or the mind as the true self. It denigrates the body as an object, a lesser creation, an encumbrance for the soul, or it greats the body as raw matter to be manipulated by the will.” When someone like Bill gives the advise that he has to rape victims that “it’s just your body”, he is falling into this trap. When someone picks out for staff members in his organization (which is what this article was trying to justify here), he is falling into this trap. When someone like Bill repeatedly as part of his teaching the belittlement of the body and that the spiritual is what is most important, he has fallen into Gnostic ideas. When someone like Bill has a bizarre complicated teaching about music that renegades the “beat” of music to the “physical” and that music shouldn’t have a “strong beat”, he is promoting Gnostic ideas whether he (Bill) is aware of it or not. To come up with a weak and phony syllogism signifies that one can’t really refute any of the above.
A couple of comments. If Bill believes the physical does not matter, why would he be so troubled by physical beat in music? That makes no sense. That music touches your ears, not your soul.
And the fact that Gnosticism values the “spiritual” as all important and the physical us unimportant does not mean that those that value the spiritual as infinitely more important than the physical are Gnostics. Here is what Paul says:
2 Corinthians 4:18 “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (I heard one of the stars of the Golden State Warriors quote that in an interview a week ago)
Jesus said:
John 6:63. “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Is Jesus a Gnostic? Of course not.
re: Lions and tigers and Gnosticism, oh my!
I wonder. Are we Christians so uninterested in (or afraid of) real spiritual battles that we must recycle old scary-sounding terms like Gnosticism so that we can appear to be saying something important?
Can anyone claim with a straight face that western culture of today is more hyper-dualist than hyper-worldly and hyper-carnal?
This calls to mind what C.S. Lewis said about the education of his day, “the task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts.”
Are Christian leaders of today facing jungles of Gnosticism, or numb souls in sated flesh? How about some irrigation for spiritual concerns such as pride vs. humility, fear vs. faith, lust vs. grace? Don’t these merit more attention than scary old Gnosticism?
You know, you can mock this all you want. There is a famous quote “Those who do not learn (or remember) history are condemned to repeat it”, George Santayana. There was a recent survey done on evangelicals and CT published it about views on the trinity etc. and what shocked the researchers was that too many “evangelicals” shared the views of Arius than traditional orthodox Christianity. The problem here and with your expressed views of blowing all these things off is that these “old” heresies recycle themselves and come back. As King Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun”. When people want to mock some “old” heresy, they probably are unknowingly have fallen into it. When our culture encourages and promotes people that are willing to mutilate themselves to become another sex, then Gnostic dualism is alive and well, because their body counts as nothing and what they “think or feel” is reality. That is the similar advice that Bill gave/gives to rape victims, “it’s just your body, get over it”. If ignorance is bliss, then ignorance will also be one’s downfall into heretical beliefs.
re: transgenderism, Gnosticism, old causes with new effects
Indeed, nothing is new under the sun. So why look only to modern causes for modern symptoms? Why overlook the sin much older than Gnosticism?
Rob noted that transgenderism is a symptom of something seriously wrong, but what? Contemporary Gnosticism? dualism? Possibly.
Why not simply blame the ancient worldliness that John warned against in his epistle? Lust of flesh, lust of eyes, pride of life? Shouldn’t these be as likely to trigger identity confusion? Why insist that a pervert has embraced only a newer something-ism?
Anyway, aren’t the Gothard teachings pretty much in line with 20th Century Evangelical Fundamentalism? Anti-worldliness? Sure. Anti-carnality? Big time. Spiritually mystical and carnally indifferent? No way.
re: Gnosticism, flesh and spirit
Okay, but. The Crisis article (https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/gnosticism-still-a-challenge-to-christianity) made good points, but don’t think it says something which it doesn’t.
Nothing in it nullifies the words we read in Romans 8 warning us that fleshy-minded people aren’t the spiritually-minded people they ought to be. Preachers long before and long since Bill Gothard have warned against carnality and the spiritual damage it does.
The Crisis article reminds us that the material world is good, as Holy Communion is celebrated with material bread and wine, and we miss the good if we retreat into the phony (pardon the pun) world of our smartphones.
” “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” while taking two expression of Paul’s without having perceived the apostle’s meaning or examined critically the force of the terms but keeping fast hold of the MERE EXPRESSION by themselves, they die in consequence of their influences, overturning as far as in them, lies the entire dispensation of God… for then they will allege tat this passage refers to the flesh strictly so called and not to fleshly works as I have pointed out so repressing the apostle as contradicting himself” St. Irenaeus in “Against Heresies”.
What he was trying to say here is that the gnostics were taking one or two Bible verses out of context in order to justify their teachings and views and not looking at the whole context as well as considering other verses that would contradict their interpretation. There is nothing new in this no matter what the heresy is and for the most part and St. Irenaeus pointed this out very brilliantly in “Against Heresies” is that heretical teaching is built around bits and pieces of the Bible, a here or there in order to justify false teaching. He pointed out how Marcion would only focus on Luke, the Ebionites would only focus on Matthew and that all four Gospels were needed to give balance and true authentic teaching of Christ. Again this was written around 180 AD and before the final Cannon of scripture was settled. So the understanding of Romans 8 would need to be balanced out by other parts of the Bible and most often when St. Paul is referring to “flesh” the context point more to our sinful or selfish nature than actual physical flesh which is the point of the above quote.
re: Against Heresies and in favor of beauty?
Of course. Apparently brother Iranaeus insisted that people must receive the scriptures honestly in good faith. Bill Gothard, decent Christians and even decent pagans would agree.
If Iranaeus was as good a man as represented here, it seems probable that he would be against heresies without being against beauty. Saints presumably brush their teeth and comb their hair (except possibly John the Baptist).
I’m not following you line of reasoning here. So I won’t try
In the above quote, I did not mention beauty. You are shifting focus to things not even said or mentioned.
Sigh…. St. Irenaeus was talking about proof texting scripture and plucking verses out of context to try and prove a teaching or idea and that focusing on a verse or one section as opposed to looking at the totality of scripture is how heresies spring up. Ideas and teachings have consequences and leads to destruction. This has nothing to do with brushing teeth or combing hair. That is a very poor attempt to deflect what is being said here and more of a sign that the well is dry and empty of any sort of rebuttal. The article from Crisis talking about objectification of the human body. One of the consequences of this is that a very confused person thinks they’re one sex when they physically are another and so finds willing doctors to mutilate themselves to be the other sex. Bill in surrounding himself with attractive young women is also objectifying them in that they either serve some sort of idea of “looking good to to others” or using them to satisfy his own gratification which is buried under spiritual mumbo jumbo of “ministry”. Heretical ideas have consequences.
I would have to respectfully disagree. I do not say that Bill Gothard had a sexual motive in having beautiful women work at his headquarters or on his staff but I disagree with the reasoning behind it. Every child of God is a prince or princess, simply because they are a child of the Great King of Kings. None should receive preferential treatment over any other, as James points out. It is a natural human response to show respect to those that dressin a rich manner and ignore someone who may be dressed poorly because that is all they have but James says that is a bad thing, not a good one. The Bible gives no commands on our way of dress, other than women are to dress modestly and men are not to dress as women and vice versa. Other “guidelines” that are stated by IBLP for their manner of dressing are simply additions and related to what Mr Gothard believes is acceptable in our cultural context. To make them almost a requirement to be a good Christian is to add a burden to God’s people that He did not give us. It also ignores other cultures around the world but racial and cultural inclusiveness is not something IBLP is known for. The beautiful women who worked at IBLP and were shown in their advertising have been blessed with those stunning features. Does that make them any more spiritually blessed or specially called than another woman? No it does not. Our Lord Jesus you could argue had the most important ministry there ever has and will be, yet Isaiah tells us the was no form or comeliness in him that we should desire Him.
The emphasis on beauty also seems to contradict IBLP’s teaching that women’s bodies are a stumbling block to men. On one hand, they teach that men will lust after a beautiful woman, yet here is Mr Gothard himself saying those with physical beauty have a special calling from God and should receive special training. I agree that the politcally correct inclusiveness of participation trophies and no winners has gone too far but I do not believe that should apply to physical appearance unless one is competing in a beauty pageant.
I was one of IBLP’s “alumni”, as was my mother and stepfather. One of the principles is to accept yourself the way God made you, including things you don’t like. I hated my skin and was being told to accept it’s blemishes, yet those with beautiful skin and overall beauty were told God made them that beautiful for a special purpose. To a teen that is not beautiful, that outcome of that is that I am not destined for a special purpose like those women. Now, that may have not been the intent of the teaching but that was it’s conclusion and I’m sure I’m not the only one who arrived at it.
For the record, I believe women should dress in an attractive manner out of respect for the beauty God has given them all, not out of shame that her body and beauty is stumbling block to men or that only beautiful women have a special purpose.
The requirements for the priests’ appearance and lack of physical “defect” was to show the very high standard that the law required, a standard that we could not acheive. Someone may be physically perfect like the priest, yet commit sins. Someone may have a “defect” yet keep other parts of the law. The law is to show us the need for faith and a Redeemer because we could not keep it. The priest was not righteous in God’s sight because his robes were correct, he had no blemishes and he offered the right sacrifices. The blood of bulls and goats never took away sin. He still needed to have faith looking forward to the coming Messiah. Now the Messiah has come, those laws are fulfilled and done, it has served it’s purpose.
If that is the bottom line, then why was Paul so fussy about the qualifications for positions in the church? The fact that we are princes and princesses has, in fact, no bearing on who is chosen to stand up front, and who sits down and listens and obeys. Would you put a convicted, yet saved, child molester in charge of your children’s ministry? If not, then you have invalidated your argument. And God clearly uses physical markers to point out the ones HE has chosen for particular roles, which we have sought carefully to document. Charles Spurgeon, for example, selected men for his “Preachers College” in part by the power of their voices. His reasoning was that if God gifted a man to preach, he would also. have given him the tools to do it with.
Of course. But that does not make them invalid. In Africa in some settings naked or almost naked people regularly attend church. In our culture anyone trying that would get the police called to escort them out of church.
I insist you address the matter of the faith of Moses parents based solely on his physical appearance before discussing this any further. It was one of the first points made.
No, it most definitely could be achieved or no one would be able to stand as a priest! Some could, some could not, all based on physical appearance. You really need to take this seriously. Remember, the Lord who made that law is Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and forever. HE made that rule to teach us something, just like the rule about oxen, Paul tells us, is made for churches so they learn to take care of their workers. The lesson you proposed is not part of this example. So . . . What other lesson might there be for us?
So . . . Start with Moses and his parents. It is a fundamental point. I know there are many ways to deflect this . . . But hit it head on. A major point is made about faith here.
Silver,
So very well said.
“I hated my skin and was being told to accept it’s blemishes, yet those with beautiful skin and overall beauty were told God made them that beautiful for a special purpose. To a teen that is not beautiful, that outcome of that is that I am not destined for a special purpose like those women. Now, that may have not been the intent of the teaching but that was it’s conclusion and I’m sure I’m not the only one who arrived at it.”
This is an excellent point highlighting the danger of this emphasis on physical appearance, something that has no place in a Christian ministry. I am sure you were not alone in feeling this way.
“For the record, I believe women should dress in an attractive manner out of respect for the beauty God has given them all, not out of shame that her body and beauty is stumbling block to men or that only beautiful women have a special purpose.”
I like that.
If that is the conclusion then we are not paying attention. Bill has highlighted, not sought to diminish “blemishes” as specific marks for specific service. As he has often pointed out, although he longed to be respected for his prowess on the football field, the fact that he was short eliminated that from possibility. Although he felt bad, the Lord was not being mean. He was just focusing his time and energies elsewhere. That is the lesson, special for different purposes. If the only standard that we can accept is outward beauty and the respect of the masses that comes with it, we have missed His purposes completely.
You know, I would like to sell you the Brooklin Bridge. Bill never did sports. He had always belittled sports involvement for youth. His testimony concerning High School activities was that he focused on “spiritual” activities and not due to any desire or let down in that he didn’t or couldn’t make the football team.
We will have to disagree on that. Sports were a prominent part of examples he would use to encourage, even as Paul used such examples. I do not recall this “belittling”, perhaps others do. Having young people working for him, that is simply not accurate.
The logic and argumentation here isn’t working. One cannot write an article that tries to justify why Bill stacked his staff with attractive young women most of whom were not in the public eye, then turn around and claim that Bill highlighted “blemishes”. This doesn’t work except to further prove that Bill taught one thing and practiced another. If Bill really wanted to emphasize the “blemishes”, then those sorts of people would have been front and center on his staff, either publicly or not. Your whole article here about trying to give “biblically” justification for the reality that Bill used attractive women on his staff is just beyond the pale. He obviously has a problem. That’s why he is out. That’s why his counter suite to shut people up about his behaviors failed. Your whole article here confirms their stories about their interactions with Bill. Trying to text proof Moses isn’t working either.
Let’s try again to get one minor point clear before moving on. Bill has yet to sue ANYONE. I am not sure that it is not going to happen, but to date not a single lawsuit has been filed by Bill against any person or institution. Every legal action taken has been as a defendant, a man trying to defend himself against the legal actions of others.
That having been said, if preponderance of accusations is the standard for guilt – “obviously has a problem” – well the Savior and a great many others stand condemned. There are reasons other than malfeasance that have motivated scores of folks to try to “get” Bill. The charges have changed dramatically from generation to generation – the only thing that has remained is that some folks have a deep seated need to hurt Bill. Consistent with someone that the devil has a particular animosity towards.
So back to your points. We have established why Bill gave extra attention to some that were undeniably attractive, male and female. If he had nefarious purposes he would have stumbled sometime, certainly repeatedly over 50 years of ministry. The fact that the multitude of public accusations against Bill has once again failed to connect on ANY point remains significant. Given the motivation, the animosity, the isolation, the financial incentive . . . There has to be a point where you too have to admit: His escape is truly amazing, consistent with a man who is, in fact, innocent before the Lord.
re: preponderance of accusations
Ha! Preponderance can get ponderous, no? But “blessed are ye” if the reviling is equivalent to that borne by the “prophets which were before you.”
RE: David Knecht
David, I believe Rob was trying to say something with that lion and mouse parable. I might disagree that this an ad hominem attack. Here’s what I believe she is trying to say:
The mouse assumed if the lion were Christian, the mouse would be safe – no Christian lion would harm a fellow creature. But a Christian lion still has to eat, and is made to eat fellow creatures. The only difference that resulted was the lion’s humility in giving thanks for the meal supposedly provided by God. The moral is – do not count on Christianity to keep you safe from the perils of the world.
I suspect Rob wanted to use this to show that there are indeed lions in Christian ministry, many of whom will consume prey while wearing a face of religiosity. It appears to me she was chiding you on refusing to see that end of things. I don’t take that as an ad hominem. This does not seem to be a direct attack on you. In fact, she encouraged you to take it to heart (perhaps a bit more sharply than she should).
I do feel this warrants a response. I appreciate your attempt at humor, but I feel more can be said here.
If this is what Rob was getting at, I will tend to side with her here. It can be a frightening thing indeed to be part of a church or institution that you believe is good for you, only to find the ones who run care more about the furtherance of their ministry than the individuals who help run it. This kind of thing can happen unless leadership is keenly aware of their actions. It is then our duty when we look at ministries and complaints, such as have been leveled at Gothard, and exercise our wisdom. We should probably not assume all of it is correct, but we should also consider all this as well. The truth is often a mixed bag hanging somewhere in between.
This is what I took from her parable. She is welcome to correct my understanding. (That’s a hint, Rob. 🙂
The house of God functions far differently than the normal affairs of man . . . And that is no more true than for leadership. Here are the rules:
1 Timothy 5:17-20. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”
There is an involved, very personal process to go through coming, in the end, to 2-3 witnesses that have thoroughly investigated the claims, “established every word”, gone through a process of attempted restoration and correction. Those witnesses can be queried by anyone wanting to know the matters. Before those witnesses have completed this thorough process no-one else is even to “receive”, consider the accusations.
That process has never, to this date, been done. If so, point to the witnesses. We have accusers, but we have no one that has investigated the process, giving a formal process for Bill to answer for himself, and an established process to correct any matters that remain. The closest we got was an attempt by Bill’s pastor. He met with the Board, alone. He testified to us that during that meeting not a single charge of moral impropriety was raised by the members of the Board. The point they did make was that Bill had offended former staff members and needed to make this right. Toward this end Bill and the pastor and his assistant met with Bill and Dr. Levendusky to hear Tim’s complaints against Bill. He brought up several, again, nothing moral in nature. Bill assumed responsibility for being insensitive, hurtful – which me may well have been – and asked his forgiveness, which was granted. They met a second time for Dr. Tim to address the matters Bill had against him. My understanding of the meeting was that all of these issues were dismissed by Tim as “Board matters” and he refused to assume any responsibility. And there it ended.
I can supply the name of Bill’s pastor (with his permission) for any that want to check my data out. The Board has NOT followed the steps of Matthew 18 in any way, shape or form. Yet they have openly condemned Bill of yet to be named offenses of impropriety, which they did not disclose to the Pastor nor to Bill. We believe they were expecting the lawsuits to handle all of that messy stuff. With no voice raised against Bill in any formal sense, that burden falls squarely on their shoulders.
For our part we have published our investigations and results here openly and responses to each inquiry and challenge. Our conscience is clear. May the Lord look on Bill and each member of the Board, let alone each one that has openly condemned Bill without the Biblical process having been engaged, and judge righteously and with mercy.
I don’t disagree with you on the process involved in Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5. I do wonder if you meant to respond to me here. I was kindly reprimanding David on not answering Rob’s parable about the lion and mouse properly. I’m not sure why you brought up all these “board matters.”
I believe Rob was trying to say there are lions in Christianity as well, and we do wise to be cautious in all things.
Now on to your matter. You are right in applying Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5. BUT a case can be made that 1 Timothy 5 is talking about CHURCH management, not management in general. In this case, it would not apply to Bill and his ministry. He’s not an Elder of a church. You would be stretching it to apply it here, which may explain why the Board responded the way they did.
David Cloud has written a lot about Matthew 18, and I find his conclusions interesting. Matthew 18’s context concerns private matters between believers. There was no church at the time (unless you believe Jesus established the church in His ministry – very controversial topic). Jesus had to put something in place to give His followers a way to settle disputes before the establishment of the church as a body. So it may not apply to the situation expect in just general principle.
But the situation with Bill is not simply a private civil matter between believers. Bill is a public figure. If he has done something serious (and I will give you the jury is still out on that one), it is something done to the body as a whole. It is also not a matter of an Elder in a church. It is furthermore a case of alleged crime (I stress “alleged” here). This last one would demand more authority than church authority here. Since we are dealing with a case of alleged sexual abuse, criminal authorities must be brought in.
The affairs of the church do operate differently, all things being equal. But all things are not equal here.
And again, I stress, I want to see Rob’s parable responded to. I don’t believe that has been done yet. Rob was trying to say that both lion and mouse in her parable were believing Christians. Both were innocent, trying to do right, but both had diametrically different experiences. So who is ultimately right? Can we draw such a conclusion? In this case, what moral does it carry forward to us here?
I would like to see this discussed. Rob, are you listening?
“Elder” here is . . . A senior, important, respected Christian leader, not restricted to a church office. As to the response, it was a tad of a reaction to try to make Bill out to be a lion, destroying God’s “mice”. He should not even be talked about in that context until the scriptural process has been followed. And everyone concerned should – individually – be demanding that that happen. First. Before adding their name to the list of those implying condemnation.
No. I would sharply disagree. The context of the passage is church. Therefore, the Elder must be a church elder. That is the only way we ever see that word used in the NT. It is never describing simply a leader. Therefore, Bill doesn’t count here.
As to Bill being a lion. I didn’t mean to imply that. I think that was the principle Rob was referring to. IF it fits BIll, okay. But I would shy away from that myself. I would simply run with the metaphor Rob was trying to promote.
I might slightly disagree here too. I think we should take a defensive driving stance in relation to most things. What I mean is this. We know there are folks on the road that will wreck and cause wrecks by driving haphazardly. We take cautions to be aware of such things. We call it defensive driving. I suggest we do that with regards to Christian leaders as well. This would mean viewing them as neutral with potential – possibly bringing much blessing and possibly causing harm as well (whether intentional or not).
In that regard, I would say yes. Let’s not talk about Bill in terms of the lion yet. But let’s not talk about him in terms of the mouse either. I would start neutral here. But I am already down the road reading the accusations and the response. So my position will seem a bit more confused at present. I’m trying to sort it all out, and I find some convincing arguments on both sides.
And I would as sharply disagree with your disagreement. It is a general principle that “important people” are handled differently than “ordinary people”.
Romans 13:6-7. “For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
“Ministers of God”, even completely separated from the church.
“Defensive Stance”: We are to be “wise as serpents” while “harmless as doves”. Guileless as children. That does not suggest an endlessly suspicious person, right?
Having said that, thank you for your professed objectivity, which I am seeking, in that same spirit, to accept as genuine. Your attitude is refreshing.
JM,
It seems like this parable or riddle struck a cord with you. Not sure why but it seems like it has caused you to critically think. Please see my response on June 18th. There isn’t always one answer to things, there can be more than one which one can disagree with or not, I don’t have any concern either way. For people that have been steeped with extreme black or white type of thinking or explanations similar to Bill’s black or white, one answer only mode, stepping out of that box maybe a new thing. To go down the road of “who really is a Christian between the two animals” isn’t really what it was about. Since I don’t subscribe to OSAS or even black and white assurance of salvation, that conversation won’t be going anywhere productive if that is what you are looking at or trying to discuss. Trying to judge who really is a Christian or who really is saved is a road that no one should be going down or trying to even judge of someone else including Bill Gothard.
Well I didn’t “start” thinking critically because of it. I’ve been doing that for more than 20 years now.
But I did believe you had some profound insight here. I have been the victim of lions in Christianity. I always find myself surprised who they are. I also find myself shocked to look in the mirror – I find myself acting in the same manner at times.
It’s no laughing matter. There’s obviously a lot we could say about all this. But I think the parable was sufficient to stimulate conversation.
“And I would as sharply disagree with your disagreement. It is a general principle that “important people” are handled differently than “ordinary people”. ”
Trying to make an argument that “important people” should be handled differently than ordinary people, when scores of women make serious allegations against them, is not likely to get you anywhere with anyone. Good luck trying to convince a single soul with that one.
Romans 13:7. “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” Our job is to figure out the ones that God has targeted for special honor . . . And make sure we give it. Can you read that any other way?
“Romans 13:7. “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” Our job is to figure out the ones that God has targeted for special honor . . . And make sure we give it. Can you read that any other way?”
That verse does not say what you are trying to say. Honoring someone does not mean that “important people” people whom you have decided are important, get a different system of justice than ordinary person. Your twisting scripture to come up with a meaning that is convenient to your cause.
Try to imagine it is someone else whom you are not as fond of to see how absurd your special treatment argument is.
Bill Cosby’s attorney:
” Your honor, these charges should be dismissed because my client, Bill Cosby, is an important person and deserves special treatment under the law.”
Your special treatment for important people argument is so contrary to the message of Jesus.
Romans 2:11
“For God does not show favoritism.”
Can you interpret Romans 2:11 any other way?
Bill Cosby DOES deserve special treatment. Both in terms of having a harder time believing his accusers . . . And also the severity of punishment if he actually did it. That is the way it is supposed to work. Note that there is no suspension of justice . . . But the mark to hit, the precision of the investigation before declaring guilt is much higher. There are proper reasons why politicians are immune from ordinary punishments, like charges for speeding and such. Why a President cannot be sued or imprisoned. “Give honor to whom honor is due.”
The mouse made some bad assumptions about a “Christian Lion” that if the lion became a “Christian”, the lion would be instantly transformed into a vegetarian. Lesson 1 is that bad or faulty theology can be deadly.
Lesson 2. The Christian life and character transformation is a process, not an instant magically transformation. So if someone is a lion, or bear or shark or whatever before becoming a Christian, it will take time to undo or not be that lion, bear, shark or whatever.
Lesson 3 is the one you observed which is that there are lions, bears, sharks etc. in the Christian world, unfortunately, taking advantage of others that are weaker.
Lesson 4. all of us can and should do self-examination to see if one is that “lion” in Christian garb even if using correct “spiritual language” (like the lion saying grace before he is going to eat the mouse begging for his life). The comment was suppose to licit self-examination.
Lesson 1: Agree
Lesson 2: Disagree. A new man in Christ is a “new creature” . . . Old things have passed away. I personally know those who, overnight, changed completely, never looking back.
Lesson 3: We are to discern false prophets and steer clear of them. The implication is that we can spot them fairly easily if we are focused on it. Of course, we need to be very careful in using that brand – “False Prophet” – and be absolutely sure. The Pharisees calling the work of God that – of the devil – was dancing with the “unpardonable sin”. If you are sure that Bill is a false prophet, well, that is yours to proclaim. A great many of us are absolutely sure he is a man of God.
Lesson 4: There is no possible way we can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing without knowing it. The entire premise there is a very complicated, deliberate deception. If anybody knows a person went to great lengths to conceal their true motives, it is the one doing the great lengths.
I’m not sure how your use of “new creature” fits in with Bill’s “please be patient with me, God is not finished with me yet” which has been featured in a button and even pictured on this blog. Self-examination or maybe what is call “examination of conscious” if used properly not scrupulously can be a healthy beneficial thing.
Response to the notion that people cannot change “overnight”. I know that is not correct. The original creation changed everything in 6 days . . . And the work of the “new creation” is no less dramatic.
Well, I will challenge you on Lesson 2. You may know SOME who did change overnight. That does not mean ALL will work that way.
Here’s the problem. Rob is right. For many, they are new creatures, but they still deal with the “old man” as Paul describes it. Remember, Paul battled with his flesh daily (that is why he said he “died” daily). He was certainly saved and a new creature, but he still had a process going on inside him.
The new creature aspect is what we would call justification, which happens only once, at the moment of salvation. The process we are describing is sanctification, which Paul talks about. It is the process Rob is referring to here.
“New man” is far more than something done in heaven. It is very practical, on earth, inside our hearts. Shoe leather Christianity. A real Holy Spirit that changes . . . EVERYTHING. Even while we continue to be “sanctified”, as you say.
Well I for one think you did a fine job of it. I know some here are not going to agree completely with your conclusions, but they are logical. I like the parable. I might have to use it myself sometime.
thank-you. It seemed like it touched a cord with you. I appreciate your thoughts and insight.
re: the lion and the mouse decoded.
Brother JM gave me a credible paraphrase. That helps. I enjoyed the old joke, but missed the connection to Bill Gothard.
Re: Important people handled differenly
Again, Moderator, I challenge you on this. When you quote those passages, are you CERTAIN they are not in context of the church. We know the 1 Timothy passage is. It’s 1 Timothy, which was one of three pastoral ministry manuals written to preacher boys. These epistles contain information on church management, which is where the phrase in question (“Against an elder receive not an accusation”) occurs. As far as Timothy goes, it is solid. That is in church matters.
You are correct in that Romans 13 is not in the context of the church. Actually, it’s far different. Those are “higher powers” as the first verse states. These are civic offices. Paul uses the term “ministers of God” to show that God is the one behind government systems, at the extreme end. We know they exist as God’s appointment for us.
But rendering them tribute would not negate being on alert for wrongdoing. Nor would it mean they fall under the guise of “receive not an accusation but by 2 or 3 witnesses.” It is a bit telling that Paul would say that to Timothy and not to the Romans. And I believe it’s obvious. Civic offices have their own way to deal with misconduct. It’s called the criminal justice system. Important people treated differently?
Didn’t James say not to have respect for him that wears the gay clothing (which might mean something different today than it did then). It does not appear that important people deserve any special treatment. In fact, I read Paul’s statements about elders as they deserve the SAME treatment we give to everyone else (it needs 2 or 3 witnesses). After all, Jesus told his followers to do the same, regardless of “rank.”
But all that aside, the verses that deal with such handling of matters are contextually about the church. We’re not dealing with a church here. We’re dealing with a para-church ministry. No, I would say Bill does not fall under that protection. You can’t demand a private entity behave like a church, and the minute you have a Board of Directors, it doesn’t, unfortunately.
Furthermore, it can also be argued that the matters Jesus and Paul addressed were not criminal offenses, but ordinary offenses. If something involves a crime, other steps would need to be taken. If there is a matter of sexual abuse or child abuse, you must bring the authorities in. That’s not a case the church can handle legally. Failure to do results in something called Obstruction of Justice (and yes, I can prove this – a number of pastors have indeed come under fire for it). It’s a serious matter. I think we agree on that. It’s the matter of how it applies to Bill that we would split on.
To understand an “elder” you would have to have a bit of a Jewish perspective. Back in the day the “old guys” were most definitely accorded special honor. They were the judges and the rulers, so it kind of all blends together. Against an esteemed one, older one, one with rank and authority . . . Do not “receive” an accusation that has not been vetted by the 2-3 witnesses. That is NOT the same as the ordinary folk. When you hear an accusation against we more moral ones you start dealing with it immediately. The 2-3 witnesses are definitely a requirement, but you cannot get away from the idea that the benefit of the doubt automatically goes to the elder, not the accuser.
“Gay clothing” is honor afforded the rich . . . For no other reason than having a pile of cash. That is NOT what we are talking about.
And we will disagree on whether Bill qualifies. Those singled out by the Lord with special calling, gift, use should get special treatment. It is a general principle that we honor those that are due honor. It applies to “the covering Cherub” currently known as Satan, who still carries the honor of his special status and creation. If true for him, goodness, it is also true for Bill.
Jude 1:8-9 “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”
No. No. No. No. No.
This isn’t simply a matter of disagreeing. It’s what the Bible says vs. what you are claiming it says.
You don’t need the Jewish perspective here. The verse you have quoted is in TIMOTHY. That is a manual written to a young man in GREECE building a church of mostly GENTILE converts. It is not a matter of Jewish perspective. This is also countermanded by the Matthew 18 passage you so love to quote. That was Jesus telling his followers to do it regardless of rank.
No. The Bible is painting a clear picture that all of them are in fact equal in the eyes of Biblical justice. It’s not that certain of them get special treatment. That is not the case. Sure they get benefit of the doubt. That is what the 2-3 witnesses requirement affords. It’s that they get no MORE benefit just because of title.
It’s not a question of whether Bill qualifies. These verses are in context of the church. Period. It is that simple. You can’t apply it here. Furthermore, these verses are not dealing with CRIMINAL accusations. That is what we do have in this case. It would still not apply here.
Are you really suggesting we need to honor Satan? Sure, he was created with an exalted title, but Scripture also calls him the Deceiver, the Serpent, the Dragon, etc. These are not titles of honor. On the whole, Scripture is negative toward Satan despite his creation. I would say this doesn’t help you at all. Michael chose not to accuse him, not because he had respect to Satan’s position (something the Devil did not hold at the time), but because the “rebuking” statement carried more authority. I don’t believe this helps your case here.
I disagree with your interpretation of 1 Tim. 5 and I think I have good justification for doing so. My points have been made, as have yours.
Rob took strong exception to the verse about Satan as did you . . . So we’ll have another go at that. Will repost for reference:
Jude 1:8-9. “Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.””
The lead in . . . Is stupid people blaspheming “the glorious ones”, people, entities with inherent glory. And the example of how a non-stupid entity handles things with “glorious ones” is given by Michael. Clearly an equal in power and as righteous as Lucifer is evil. And yet . . . Treating him with respect.
Just another clue:
Job 2:1. “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.”
Even the Lord treats him with respect . . . Allowing him to make his presentation among the other “sons of God”, i.e. angels. As in: Job 38:7. “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Satan was there, singing and shouting for joy. C. S. Lewis captured much of this in his Chronicles of Narnia.
Have another look. There is really no other way to understand this other than – “Honor to whom honor is due”. Even those that we are furious with.
I worry about your interpretations of these. The Michael passage in Jude is still an example of higher authority (the Lord instead of Michael – that’s a name that even Satan cringes at), not simply respect.
Satan sang for joy because he had not fallen yet. Remember, he was in Eden UNTIL iniquity was found in him. In other words, he was a perfectly decent angel right up to sometime in the Garden. He fell during the Garden period. That’s when he went to ruin mankind.
I’ll give you that some of this makes some sense. BUT as I said on another post, this might be a matter of academic popery. Even if I gave you everything you have here, it wouldn’t argue for what you are arguing here.
You would still need to prove that this respect system of accusations (such as 2-3 witnesses) exists for non-church personnel. See, respect is not the issue. Bringing an accusation against someone isn’t automatically a sign of disrespect. If that were the case, was Paul in the wrong when he confronted Peter about his eating habits? No. Paul still had respect for Peter and his ministry.
It sounds like you want it both ways. You want Bill to have respect; therefore, he should not have accusations (except with the witnesses needed). This is a false dichotomy. Surely some have accused with no respect, but that does not mean there can be no accusation.
The bottom line here is we cannot directly apply Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5 to Bill specifically because he is not church leadership, as those passages directly relate. It is that simple. If you want to show him respect, that is fine, and necessary I would say. But then again, these are not simple church matters. This is an alleged CRIMINAL accusation. Authorities must get involved. We can deal with him in the church if you want, but you can’t negate the civil authority.
Doing so invites an Obstruction of Justice charge. Try it sometime. I know two pastors who have been the victim of just such things.
I can see you are thinking :-). The context makes the meaning clear. Here it is in the ESV:
“In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!””
They “reject authority” and “heap abuse on celestial beings”. Unlike Michael, given as contrast.
Here is a verse that sounds interesting:
Exodus 22:28. “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.”
Now I am aware that most “modern” translations turn “gods” into “God”. The word “Elohim” can be either. But the context seems to scream for something closer to home. Putting the Lord in the same verse and context as “rulers” of earth just seems out of place. Another use of Elohim:
Psalms 82:6 “I have said, ‘Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.’”
Here Jesus explains that “Elohim” actually and truly refers to . . . People:
John 10:34-36
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?“
Now you are left with a problem. Either “Elohim” ALWAYS means “The Almighty” . . . Or it can mean ordinary folk, as well as angels, in some context. I am pretty sure you will agree with me that we are not “GOD”. So not reviling “Elohim” seems much more likely to be angels, or even those revered as such. Or even as Psalm 82 points out, those who are “children of the Most High”.
I find the verse interesting. We should not be cursing out false gods – that is an unChristian thing to do, even while we vigorously oppose them. We don’t curse the devil either, but say: “The Lord will take care of you”.
All coming back to: “Give honor to whom honor is due”. Be honorable and respectful of “dignities”. Rank and glory – Things God alone bestows – are to be treated with honor afforded to those the Lord wishes to honor.
Psalms 75:6-7. “For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.” <— No “promotion” aside from the Lord. As to “alleged criminal matters”, Jesus was accused of a great many of those. They finally got him on “sedition”. All “trumped up” charges, of course. No, I don’t think we should be seeking for intervention from civil authorities to help evil people destroy a leader in the church that they despise. Do you?
re: Jewish perspective, Part 2
Why wouldn’t epistles composed by the self-identified Hebrew of the Hebrews represent a Jewish perspective, regardless of their Greek audience?
N.T. Wright makes a pretty convincing case that Paul brought the Jewish perspective to everything he wrote.
It’s simply not the issue. The question is not whether we respect our elders, but whether THOSE elders are the ones discussed in 1 Timothy 5. The context of the entire book makes it clear that it is not. It is that simple.
Representing a Jewish perspective would not make sense to the Greek audience, unless there was a reason for it to make sense. I argue you have no such thing in this case.
If what you believe is to be held, then they only pay leaders that preach well, or serve well. Meaning they are “an elder” and yet . . . Not get paid . . . While still being an elder. No, it makes way more sense that the older and experienced ones are “elders”, and those that distinguish themselves get a “double honor”, i.e. get paid.
1 Timothy 5:17. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”
But since you appeal to the “context of the entire book”, let’s look at the beginning of the chapter:
1 Timothy 5:1-2 “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; 2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.”
That is NOT a contrast between church leaders and “others”. Nope . . . Older men, older ladies, younger men, younger ladies. Same word, same chapter. This is a much wider class than “church leaders”.
Just when I think the excuses or justification of Bill can’t get any more bizarre, you take another turn. The verse from Jude have nothing to do with showing respect for Satan as a lead Cherub. It has more to do with the archangel Michael deferring final judgement of Satan to God and then made a comparison to false teachers which is what Jude was talking about and that they revile “what they do not understand and are destroyed by what they know by nature like irrational animals, Woe to them.” Satan is the father of lies. There is no “respect” given to the father of lies. When Jesus dealt with him directly or in expelling demons, He just rebuked and sent them off. Trying to make the case that Bill is someone in a special class, deserves special treatment or honor or consideration or whatever is really grasping and desperate. The archangel Michael did what Jesus did in dealing with Satan and his minions, he rebuked him and basically sent him off, there was no engagement or dialogue because one can’t dialogue with the devil. I’m not sure if you realize it but bringing up Satan as an basis that Satan is given respect because he once was the head Cherub and then trying to use this to justify “respect” or honor or whatever for Bill ends up equating Bill with Satan. It doesn’t get more weird or bizarre but the hole being dug hear to defend Bill at all costs is getting deeper and deeper and a trap for yourself. I don’t think you were trying to say Bill is on the level of Satan but basically what is what you just did in your defense of Bill and that is what a lot of people think of Bill.
re: Jews, elders, and southerners
But why invoke only the Jewish sense of eldership? Even we southern white boys know we must be polite. And we don’t wear gay apparel. Not even rainbow lapel pins.
We goyim have no less a duty to be deferential to those elder than we. Even a (presumably) non-Hebrew like Elihu in Job acknowledged his duty to elder men. “Respect your elders” is proverbial in Western Civilization. You mustn’t sass the older dudes.
I grew up in the South under the same traditions as did you. It’s good social policy.
But is it Biblical? Well, that’s the subject for debate. I see nothing in Scripture commanding us to respect those who are simply older than us. Whenever you see that tone of respect in Scripture it is typically in regard to some religious office, such as a rabbi, priest, or NT office.
The cases where it is not are in regards to extreme elders, such as the “hoary head” exhortation of Leviticus, or for patriarchs. This is due to extreme age. I am trying to stress here that the issue is not simply respect.
I have respect for Bill while still maintaining the accusations are worth investigating. It’s not mutually exclusive. Respect for him does not mean we cannot wonder, we cannot investigate, or we cannot acknowledge wrongdoing.
The issue the moderator is bringing up is that he is worthy of respect as an elder and deserves the 1 Timothy exemption. But this is not an exemption given Matthew 18. It is actually putting leaders on the same level as everybody else since we are all supposed to follow the 2-3 witnesses model. But they are still worthy of honor as office-holders.
The real question is whether 1 Timothy 5 would apply to Bill. I say emphatically no. That passage was written to a preacher boy in a manual (1 Timothy) on how to build and run a church. This is about church leadership. Bill does not qualify; therefore, the Board would not need 2-3 witnesses to show cause for removal. That is simply all there is to it.
In most church matters, I agree we should do this. But this is not a matter of a local church, no matter how much a leader you consider Bill. And this matter is criminal, not civil, as those passages imply.
I think this issue of respect has derailed the real matter of the conversation. It’s not a question of respect. It’s a question of how we handle this matter and what Biblical passages apply. 1 Timothy 5 does not. Sorry.
re: wondering, investigating, probabilities
I would go farther than brother JM in being curious.
Jesus gave us a couple of commands which seem contradictory on the surface. He commanded us to withhold judgement lest we entrap ourselves by our own hypocritical standards. We know he intended this for sexual conduct because that’s how he treated the woman caught in adultery (and especially her accusers!).
Yet he also commanded us to recognize fruit-bearing patterns to tell whether a tree is good or corrupt. So my curiosity would extend at least as far as pattern recognition. Some people like Bill Gothard love hymns composed by Isaac Watts and Fanny Crosby. Other people love funky carnal tunes. Which is more likely to mind the things of the flesh or the things of the Spirit? Which is more likely to bear spiritual fruit or carnal fruit? Isn’t that a question to investigate? Or does it pretty much answer itself?
Trying to link someone’s taste in music to that person bearing “good fruit” is not possible. There are plenty of people that knew Bill and worked with him that testify to a pretty bleak picture of his character and fruit and character and fruit come from within a person not from this false connection just made to what hymns they may have liked. The “thou shall not judge” from the Sermon on the Mount refers more to final judgement of someone’s soul while at the same time and the next verse over, one can investigate or look at the fruit they bare in their lives and it has nothing to do with music, music isn’t even mentioned anywhere in Matthew 5-7. Likewise, there are plenty of classical music that was written by less than stellar morally upright people if one even bothers to look at many of the major classical big names. Many of their lives were pretty raunchy and Bill was a proponent of classical music along with hymns.
I am curious why you see these as contradictory.
In many cases, contradictions are resolved by context. That is why context of the passage is of such importance. Remember that no Scripture is of any private interpretation. Everything has to be seen together. We may however disagree on how broad a context to take; i.e. some looking at just the immediate passage and others insisting to look at a book as a whole and even others insisting weighing it all in the entire Canon. I suggest there is value to all these approaches, but the one that resolves the controversy is the simplest and best answer.
In the example you mention, there is no command not to judge. The command is “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Oh, so many of us stop there and forget the rest of the passage – “for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged.” The meaning of the passage when all statements are read together is simple – however we judge is the standard by which we will in turn be judge – so make sure you look in the mirror before you go judging.
The matter of the woman taken in adultery was the impetus for this. So yes, the matter pertains to sexual misconduct. I should note here that in today’s society this matter is not as much a legal matter as it was for the Jewish audience presence. Therefore, it may carry a different weight to us here. (That is, unless a prenuptial agreement is in place, or the matter is an issue of statutory rape or incest, adultery is a matter between legally consenting adults and not a criminal matter. Jewish law saw it very differently.) We should be careful applying this principle to other matters, but I don’t think that is so much a problem.
The issue of judgment can be further answered when we consider that Paul urged the church to judge “righteous judgment.” He said “the spiritual man judgeth all things.” Why then are we confused over this matter? Well, Rob War is correct in that there are different KINDS of judgment to be made. The reason Jesus chided the Pharisees over it ought to be obvious – it meant ending a life. Those men were just as guilty of her misconduct as she was (they had perpetrated the event just to trap Jesus – which is an act of fraud), and Jesus was not to be fooled (ever try pulling one over on someone who knows all things? ).
If they insisted her life must end, theirs would be forfeit as well, and Jesus basically called them on it. Remember, also that He came to fulfill all the law. In the NT era, things are done differently. We don’t need to worry about stoning adulterers anymore. We are to love them and lead them to repentance, not death. Therefore, there is still a need to judge all things, but the judgment of the NT era is less deadly. It does not result in ending a life (or damnation as the case may the be).
Therefore, there is no contradiction in what you are discussing. Finding whether a tree has good or corrupt fruit does not end the life of the tree. It is necessary to judge what is proper for a Spiritual diet.
And be careful with your music analogy. You are awfully close to saying “obviously old hymns help us mind the things of the Spirit better.” This is dangerous. You don’t know how any tune affects the mind of others. You can only judge it for yourself. This would be the proper application of Jesus’ teaching.
Moderator, you still have not given any ample argument for applying 1 Timothy 5 to Bill. The context of that passage, nay the entire book is that those elders are church authority. I hate to play the commentary card, but you will not find any commentary on the book that fits what you are trying to get out of it. The context is that clear.
Again, I stress. I worry about your interpretations here. But it is simply not the issue. The issue is not whether we respect authority. It is not that we respect our “elders.” The issue is whether it is this generic elder that we are not to receive accusation against in 1 Timothy 5. It is not. It is specifically a church office, but given that Jesus instructed His followers to follow the same principle, it really places all of us as equal, on that plane. Surely, church office demands some things from us.
So to sum it up: the issue of respecting elders – we agree – though I add a caveat as I have stated earlier.
The issue of not receiving accusation against an elder, except for 2-3 witnesses – we agree.
The issue of whether Bill qualifies as one of those elders – we do not agree.
Let make this clear. This is not simply an agree-to-disagree issue. This is a matter of what Scripture actually says. In this case, you are trying to argue for something that the context of the passage does not allow. And you are trying to proof-text to make it fit. That does not work. I can give you that we should have respect for elders. I agree there. But that is not what we are talking about. In this case, it does not apply, since it is only church offices that are afforded this level of protection.
You have also not addressed the other half of my concern. The issue before Bill right now is a CRIMINAL accusation, not a simple civil church matter. At that point, the proper authorities must be involved. It is that simple. No one escapes that. I will grant you that it is just an allegation (though I don’t entirely agree there). But it is a criminal charge – something that does not meet this burden of proof. Criminal charges meet an entirely different set of standards. That is why things are where they are unfortunately.
I answered you on “elder” in the other chat. You also said several times: “The issue before Bill right now is a CRIMINAL accusation, not a simple civil church matter.”. What CRIMINAL matter is before Bill right now? Or ever? I did answer you . . . To note that criminal matters were charged against Jesus and against Paul . . . And against about anyone else who has made a mark for the Lord. And we are fools to think we are supposed to help evil people with their “fake news”.
That having been said, please clarify what criminal matters are in play here. The suits were all civil charges, and they could not even get that through to depositions. I am not aware of any criminal charges.
No you have not. The reason you gave for holding Bill to the 1 Timothy 5 standard is insufficient. I have refuted that. Actually, it refutes itself by simple context. You are attempting to make it say something the passage does not, that it applies to any elder in any context. You have good reasoning for treating elders with respect, but that respect does not automatically make that elder meet the standard of a 1 Timothy 5 accusation. It’s not equal here.
I’m not going to just disagree with you here. This is a matter of what the Bible says vs. what you are trying to get it to say. I’m not giving you this one.
Sexual abuse is by definition a criminal matter. No, it wasn’t tried in criminal court, but that does not change the accusation. This is likely why the Board reacted the way they did. I will grant you that they are just accusations and need to proved. But they are still accusations of a criminal matter, whether or not a CHARGE is filed. It is still a serious matter, and one that does necessitate more than just 1 Timothy 5 or Matthew 18. It is my contention that those proper steps were taken.
Working backwards, the Board established early on, in the first weeks, that Bill was not guilty of any criminal offense. I have spoken directly to members of the Board and others in leadership and they have confirmed this. Thus . . . The Board has no criminal matter before them, never has. Accusing someone of sexual abuse, why, that happens all the time. There has never been a credible support for that as far as Bill is concerned. So, it is time for you to move on from that, like everyone else has.
I am amazed that you can dismiss so quickly the fact that the entire chapter in view starts with a definition of “elder” that means “old man”. Of course you can disagree, but it is not on any credible foundation. Unless you care to address that fundamental point. Treat old fellows with respect, and other classes of folks in appropriate ways as well. Especially old fellows who have proven and exercised a gift God has given to the blessing of many. Bill qualifies.
JM is correct and you are trying to twist the meaning and use of “elder” ti fit Bill Gothard and it doesn’t work. Here is a brake down of elder on a conservative web site:https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/elder-in-the-new-testament/
Bill was not in a Church nor serving in any Church in any overseer or pastoral capacity. Even in an adjective use as seniority doesn’t fit. Now you are trying to inject a modern culture usage to try and have all of this fit Bill. Not working for you.
Up until he voluntarily released the church so as not to encumber them while he worked out the matters that were being slandered against him Bill was ordained . . . By a church. His position, spiritually, as a leader and mentor is undisputed. And I have seen at least three responses now that have failed to address the fact that the CONTEXT of the verses imply a much more general role of “respect older person in the church” than a church position. Either way, we are covered. It applies.
Another perspective on “Bill and the Beautiful ones…”
Bill’s ministry is to troubled youth: Basic Youth Conflicts > IBLP. It was designed to be both preventative and healing for dysfunctional families and children. If I were to describe his ministry it would be from Malachi 4:6. His seminars expanded Biblical principles into practical, common sense actions and attitudes, and has been a blessing to thousands of families with lasting results.
The Biblical model is shown with Moses and Israel. God wrote the 10 Commandments in stone. These were put in the Ark of the Covenant under the mercy seat. Then Moses was given the “Mosaic Laws,” to be kept in the side of the Ark. These described in practical principle how to keep the 10 C, recorded in Exodus to Deuteronomy.
When a person, child or adult, is very ill or severely injured they are put into an ICU with various levels of Intensive Care. The “beautiful ones” associated around Bill were put into his “Intensive Care Unit.” Kindly, fatherly attention and counsel was their needed relationship. They were girls who had already been broken and were there to receive ministry. That they were “beautiful” was both a possible cause and a possible result of their being exploited. Think of slimness as being a possible eating disorder, as well as obesity. As a rule pretty girls are exploited more often than plainer girls, so wouldn’t it be the better part of wisdom for Bill to keep those most damaged the closest?
Damaged, exploited girls have a fractured sense of self. Bill’s Intensive Care program was designed to heal the fractured self-image, introduce the girls to a personal relationship with Christ, build healthy self esteem and promote Biblical femininity in both dress and deportment. There were others who, though not as severely damaged, compared themselves to those in the “Intensive Care Unit,” who were perhaps “plainer” and felt inadequate within themselves. Jealousy doesn’t tend to seek truth…
Transference is a well-known facet of counseling of which every male counselor or pastor has to be cognizant when dealing/counseling with young girls or women. When romanticized transference is not reciprocated in kind, well…. This describes at least some of the “offended” ones.
Did you know that Christ had many women around Him in His Intensive Care? (Luke 8:1-3; Matt. 27:55, 56).
When the law suit was dropped it was not only a deliverance for Bill, but also a very merciful God showing His love and compassion for those who were being exploited by another ministry. I marvel at how only the God of heaven could have conceived of such a merciful plan—not willing that any should perish, but that the goodness of God would lead to repentance.
Sadly, there are some who still refuse to see God’s hand at work, who continue to condemn Bill, including some who have never met or known Bill, judging through the lens of their own glasses. I want to especially acknowledge the Moderator here who has demonstrated rare patience, kindness, honesty and truthfulness over and over again. May God continue to bless you with His wisdom.
Very perceptive perspective. Thank you.
NO!!!!! The context does not begin there. It begins with the start of the book. This is 1 Timothy. It is a manual addressed to a young man who was handling the duties as pastor of the CHURCH at Ephesus.
That is why Paul includes language about which bishops to appoint. The entire book is about church handling and leadership. THAT is why you cannot use this to just mean any elder ever. It does not fit your interpretation.
This is NOT a matter of disagreement. You are simply wrong here.
Look. You are correct in that we should respect old folks. That is not in dispute, and it is not the issue. The issue is whether Bill qualifies for this specific protection. Given that IBLP is not a church, nor was Bill an elder in it, he does not. The Board is under no obligation to follow this.
It doesn’t matter if he is ordained. The issue is that IBLP is not a church. You cannot take this verse as proof that it was not done properly.
Rob and I have the credible ground here. We are interpreting this properly. You are the one with the minority reading and opinion. You need to look into this closer. Your interpretation is simply not correct. Period. That is it.
I would be very curious to hear what the Board has to say about Bill and the accusations today. My hunch is that they do indeed believe he is guilty of sexual abuse, which is used to justify their actions. I understand the court case was over civil charges, and I understand that they have said to you he is not guilty of criminal offense. But I wonder if they would still claim that. I am guessing no. Folks do get accused of sexual abuse all the time. But that does not change the fact that it is a criminal charge, as I stress. And these allegations should be treated seriously.
Things that are true stand up to scrutiny. Things that are false do not. That is where I prefer to leave it. I see nothing that might convict Bill necessarily, but I see little to definitively prove it false either. Given the nature of accusation, if I were on the Board, I would likely have voted for Bill’s dismissal. But you and I were not there. We’re only going by what they tell us.
You claim they have told you there was no criminal activity. Okay. I didn’t hear that. How would I confirm that to be true? What would the Board say today, now that the investigation and the court drama is over (mostly)? I guess they would say something else, as is evidenced by the statement they made at the hearing in March.
No, I still suggest the accusation is criminal and should be treated seriously. And yes, that would affect the discussion at present. It would make this matter more important than a church dispute. But Bill doesn’t qualify for the 2-3 witnesses clause anyway.
On “elder”, I am not seeing a way forward here. Obviously, we disagree. I still find it amazing how quickly you brush of “old woman”, “young man”, “young woman”, and . . . ELDER, referring to “old man” . . . Mere verses away from our focused passage.
“I would be very curious to hear what the Board has to say about Bill and the accusations today. My hunch is that they do indeed believe he is guilty of sexual abuse, which is used to justify their actions.”
Call them :-). Call HQ and ask that question. I have sat with leadership and representatives of leadership and have been told that repeatedly, fairly recently in fact. They do not consider Bill guilty of any criminal activity and do not believe he is a sexual pervert, predator, whatever. They are appealing to a more subtle standard of “inappropriateness” for a leader “of a Christian ministry”, i.e. “in the church”. We have been laboring for these past 6 years to get them to articulate what exactly is troubling them. In every instance when we have had these chats we have had a conversation that resembles the following (picking up the discussion at any one of the points):
“Bill did not listen to the Board, so he cannot be President” (we ask for examples and we respond)
“Well, the real problem is that Bill lied to the Board” (we ask for examples and we respond)
“Actually, the matter remains his interaction with young woman” (we ask for examples and respond)
“Truth is, the major problem is that he deeply offended many staff members and needs to make it right”. (we ask for examples and respond)
“The Board is most concerned about his mismanagement of money” (we already know all of the examples, we get excited, and respond)
“Well, it is time to transition to new leadership, for Bill to retire” (we are left without words)
I have witnesses, with me, that will confirm this. This sequence has been executed multiple times, spanning hours of discussion.
More confirmation – and if you want to work with me I can get you in touch – Bill’s pastor told me directly that when he and his assistant met with the Board last year for the purpose of reconciliation, there was not a single mention of moral concerns by the Board to him. They focused exclusively on point 4, that Bill needs to make things right with offended staff members. All of this makes the Board stance I presented crystal clear – Moral malfeasance in ANY criminal or legal perspective was officially off the table for the Board for years. Everybody has a reason to be mad at Bill, and all those old grudges have come to the front. The lawsuits simply were a convenient way to not have to deal with him. But this is an unrighteous way to address the matter, no matter what. At the very least, they need to give Bill the opportunity to officially, formally address each and every matter. When we brought that up to the President years ago, he said: “We know that whatever we tell Bill to do, he will do it, so we are not going to tell him anything.” Do you see a problem with that? We do. They are tired of Bill and they want to do their own thing. As children walking free from the authority of “the old man” (my term, not theirs). If the Lord doesn’t care there is nothing to be done. But based on 1 Tim. 5 and a host of other passages, He does care. There is unfinished business, however unpleasant the steps may be for the Board to walk through.
re: why the IBLP BoD shuns Bill Gothard
The 7/12 explanation above sounds plausible. That kind of thing is common wherever there is power and conflicting agendas.
Appearances are, the BoD likely wants to transition IBLP into a form of Dobson lite. Hence the shift in emphasis away from ATI and Gothard content, toward “family” content. Leadership by Gothard himself might threaten that agenda. Bill must be purged to usher in the Brave New IBLP (apologies to Shakespeare and Aldus Huxley).
I have no idea how ATI and IBLP/IBYC was not “family content”. If someone has left ATI a while ago, why is there concern on if IBLP is shifting anything to be “Dobson lite” in order to be more current and considering all the negative fruit of ATI and IBLP per testimonies, I would think they would want to shift focus even if that is possible. I think even Focus on the Family has had problems and cut backs. Can’t see how IBLP can morph into “Dobson Lite” since the basis of ATI and IBLP is Bill Gothard and his ideas which were quite different of Dobson and his use of psychology, something Bill Gothard taught against. Conspiracy ideas never seem to stop and are an excuse not to look at the real problem of Bill and his behaviors.
re: Dobson and Gothard comparison
The Dobson and Gothard wiki pages show that both men resigned from executive leadership in their respective ministries; Dobson in 2003, and Gothard in 2014.
According to Wikipedia, Dobson moved from executive leadership to board leadership, from which he resigned six years later, because of differences with the executive leadership.
FotF thrived while Jame Dobson was leading. IBLP and ATI thrived while Bill Gothard was leading. If those ministries ceased to thrive without their founders, might their be some connection between founder leadership and ministry results?
And might the current leadership of each be seeking different results from those which the founders delivered?
Dobson resigned because his son Stephen who was divorced and remarried could no longer work for Focus on the Family. It had nothing to do with James Dobsom’s own behavior with staff or even females on staff. Dobson also ran into conflicts with his own eagerness in the political realm which others in Focus on the Family wanted to back away from. James Dobson never took a salary from FoF. Likewise James Dobson never had a brother on staff that became immoral with others on the staff. FoF had about 100 different types of ministries under it’s umbrella that didn’t have a direct connection with James Dobson himself. Many of them like the magazines geared to youth and teenagers ended due to the rise of the internet and changes modes of communications. This is also true the radio show “Adventures in Odassey”. The two men and the situations between them are not connected at all.
Methinks you have some wires crossed. Dr. Dobson has two children, Danae and Ryan. I have never heard of any divorces . . . except his first co-host Gil Moegerle, whom Dr. Dobson let go because of his broken family . . . and who then sued and wrote a book, I think, decrying him. If you find out anything else, let me know. No, if you look past the official stances and statements I believe you will see that the Board of Directors felt he was getting too political for their tastes, and they muscled him out.
Interesting. Kind of like when Steve Jobs left Apple Computer in 1985 because he did not agree with the Board. (After leaving, Steve Jobs helped to make Pixar a success.) The Apple Computer company floundered during those years while Steve Jobs was gone. Stock value was dropping fast. Then in 1997 Steve Jobs rejoined Apple Computer, and totally turned things around. And eventually the iPhone was marketed.
I do wonder about the future of IBLP and ATI. Do they have anyone who can fill Bill Gothard’s shoes? And lead this ministry to the next level?
Because our culture is always changing, the ministry will need to stay fresh, adjust, and refocus so they can continue to hit the target. That effort takes LEADERSHIP.
re: Bill Gothard, Steve Jobs, Donald Trump, leadership & energy
IBLP seems no more likely to find energetic leadership apart from Bill Gothard than Apple was apart from Steve Jobs. Surely the reason is obvious?
Who has more skin in the game than the founder? Should we associate energy with an old man? How about the old man in the Oval Office? When in 2015-2016 he dismissed his political competition as “low energy,” we believed it. Compared to him, they were.
Well, Steve Jobs did come back but he also had changed himself by his involvement with Buddhism. He has since passed away and Apple is doing very well even without him. If an organization become so dependent on one person to “run it”, it is not healthy. Someday Bill Gothard will pass away too and for those that want him back ought to think about the future of IBLP/ATI without him due to death.
My mistake, his son’s name is Ryan. Ryan had a brief marriage to someone that wasn’t too committed to marriage and divorced him. He did remarry and per FoF’s own policy, those divorced and remarried couldn’t not work for FoF. This was a factor in Dr. Dobson leaving FoF. Likewise, Dr. Dobson’s political efforts were causing Christian radio stations to cancel his hour long show. I know this because we use to listen to him on a local station and they pulled the show because it was too political. Ryan was being groomed or working for FoF to take over for his father. The whole thing was is sad story.
I verified the Ryan divorce, really too bad. As to that having a factor in the Board pushing Dr. Dobson out? That is not clear. Meaning, in that case Jim would have left, not the other way around. So, yes, his “political efforts” embarrassed the board. See, having people turn away from you because of convictions is not necesssarily a problem, in fact, it is a badge, as Jesus said. So, if that is the case, the Board finding themselves “embarrassed” by Dr. Dobson to the point of ripping his ministry from him, shame on them.
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.”
The persons closest to a “prophet” are often the least qualified to judge his work:
Matthew 13:57. “And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.”
Dr. Dobson resigned from the board but retained the radio show. Then Obama was elected and I think FoF wanted Dr. Dobson to tone down his outspokenness about many of the policies of Obama. Dr. Dobson refused and then was removed from the radio show. I’m not really certain what happen with Ryan, it was a very brief 2 year marriage. Very sad. I’ve noticed a number of the children of big name pastors and Christian celebrities having their marriages end in divorce such as Oral Robert and John Piper’s children. Maybe there is a lot of pressure on these children or they enter into marriages under pressure or expectations to do so or then attract people that are attracted to the celebrity status of the family, I’m not sure. I can’t imagine the kind of pressure someone would have whose father is Dr. James Dobson. I’ve noticed that the daughter has not married.
There is not a thing you said that is not true. Not just celebrities, through. The stunning number of homeschooled young people, that kissed dating goodbye and really sought to avoid that catastrophe as best they knew how, succumb. The devil is in a full scale assault mode, knowing that his days are short. All of the attacks on Christian leaders falls into that as well. Not all leaders are innocent, some are . . . But the attacks are noteworthy, regardless. We must pray for ALL those in authority, even those, like Josh Harris, that were highly esteemed as leaders in a general sense. Some of this is perhaps due to our inattention to their unique needs. And we must pray for each other, and especially our young people, in the middle of the bloody, demonic fight.
The sad story of Josh Harris who is a “celebrity” due to his book that he has recently renounced and apologized for probably has more to due with his neo-Calvinist theology, poor training to be a pastor in a mega church, and major sex scandal in that church. Now three children will suffer due to this divorce and announcement of renouncing his faith. There are many spin offs into atheism from the rigid neo-Calvinist world, as well as the fundamentalist world. His own tragedy shows that his “courtship” ideas promoted in his book did not produce and stable and happy marriage obviously. I did not read the book, it sounded like Bill Gothard’s ideas on courtship. Maybe you can clarify if true.
The book was, as I understand it, not having read it, just rubbing shoulders with many who have . . . Would match most of his perspectives. I would modify your comments to say that those ideas do not GUARANTEE stable and happy marriages. Since it has produced plenty of both. NO model seems to be able to guarantee that. But Scriptural admonitions to not “defraud” members of the opposite sex, that the Lord personally is the avenger in those cases, well, that suggests that at least from the perspective of making the Lord happy, less sampling behavior and broken emotional bonds before marriage is better than more.
re: sons and daughters of leaders
Hear, hear!
Whether the offspring of Dobson, or Gregg Harriss or whomever, an excellent father can be a tough act to follow. Small wonder that some do not follow well.
Tom Stanley raised that point in his books about millionaires back in the 1990s. Wealthy entrepreneurs often do not want their sons to follow their footsteps too closely. Dad’s path to wealth was often one small step from disaster. They don’t want their sons to face the catastrophes they narrowly missed, so they steer them into professional fields like medicine, accounting, engineering, etc.
As the country song says, little bitty can be better than than big and flashy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo2OIUpWznY
My impression of the book was that Josh was promoting similar ideas that Bill Gothard taught concerning courtship. I remember interviews with him on FoF and other places. The book “Courtship in Crisis” very fairly and even handedly discusses what is wrong with this flash in the pan movement in the conservative evangelical world. That the book points out was that either people rushed into marriages that turned out bad due to the fact that they spent very little time getting to know each other at a slower dating pace or that no gets married and remain single and as one does get older, the field of available singles becomes smaller and smaller. I think one can see both problems just in the Dobson’s children. Ryan quickly entered a marriage that probably should have never happen and Danae has never married. I also think of the late Ann Keimel Anderson that rushed into a marriage that probably shouldn’t have happen and at one point they did separate. Looking back on this whole movement, it is curious why so many people went with advice on how to find a mate from either a single man that never married or a 21 one year old that came off of a broken dating relationship. The issues of courtship as taught and promoted have nothing to do with the underlining basic Christian morality that the other extreme is pointing to but has more do to with taking time to getting to know another person, taking time to know oneself and not hyper-pressurizing any relationship in a courtship mode with some of it’s insane rules about basic human affection.
Hindsight, as they say, is almost 20-20. Once the marriage has failed, boy can we explain why. No matter than others right next door, following the same pattern, are spared a tragedy. Again, we have seen courtship work well. “Flash in the pan”? :-). It is far, FAR older than our current “dating” culture.
re: courtship vs. dating vs. arranged marriage
I once read of a study which compared long-term happiness outcomes between western-style romance-based marriages and eastern-style arranged marriages. Supposedly the western style yielded greater happiness up to the five-year mark. At five years, the happiness curves intersected and flattened out. The arranged marriages matched the romance-based marriages at the five-year mark and ran parallel to them out beyond five years.
Conclusion? Tevye and Golde were right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_y9F5St4j0
David,
you are forgetting something, Tevye went ahead and broke with “tradition” and did not follow the matchmaker’s choice for his oldest daughter because she loved someone that was her own age, not the rich old man. Tevye sold it to his wife by coming up with a dream of the dead visiting them. The whole thing with his daughter made him think about his own marriage with Goldie, thus the song. It wasn’t even the parent’s arranging the marriages, but a professional matchmaker.
Well, Moderator. There is no way forward on “elder” if you are going to insist that it is just an old man in general. It is not. The context makes that clear.
I do not brush off old woman, young woman, etc at all. I acknowledge that the passage does mention aged persons. The problem is that it is all in all in regards to CHURCH management. That much is inescapable from the text. Furthermore, the elders mention are not referred to old men or women, they are “elders.” That is a specific church office. That is why I am taking special interest here. Your interpretation of this is not valid. This passage is about church management, as is the rest of the book.
As such, sorry. It does not apply to Bill in his situation.
I will gladly contact IBLP and their Board. That’s a good idea. BUT their attorney did voice that apology to the women in court last March. That would seem to tell me they do at least sympathize with the criminal accusations. I agree it remains to be seen, but it appears to me that they at least believe Bill may have done something amiss.
That “apology” was as interesting as it was troubling. Those women had just wasted a quarter of a million of painfully acquired donations of ministry money, where the Institute was hemorrhaging $11K a day in deficits. The suits were against IBLP primarily, Bill secondarily. IBLP had reached out to the women beforehand to try to work things out, but, well, I guess they wanted the limelight . . . And lots of money, $500K EACH as the starting amount. And when the opportunity came to seek to hold both them and their well-heeled firm accountable for this scandalous waste, by asking a paltry $30K per woman back . . . IBLP refused to join. And THEN to apologize to THEM? That was wrong on every level.
re: IBLP BoD apology
Can you supply a link to the BoD apology? I remembering seeing it somewhere and noticed the wording was similar to apologies Bill Gothard warned against in the Basic Seminar. But I may be mistaken.
There is no record of it, just something a number of us overheard as we were waiting – for almost an hour – for the judge to make his ruling.
The apology came during the recess, while the judge was preparing his ruling. That is why it does not appear in the transcript. I wish we had the actual words, too.
Every side agrees it happened, and no one is contesting Recovering Grace’s wording on it. I have to conclude that it did indeed happen, and the wording at Recovering Grace is solid. Still, I do wish we had the exact words.
I would split that it was wrong on every level. It is clear that the Board believes these testimonies. If that is the case, they believe they are responsible in part – the Board had authority to step in and stop things and did not. It would therefore be their own fault that they were hemorrhaging money – not the women. The apology is an olive branch – no hard feelings.
I am a bit of hearing loss, but I heard most of it, sitting a couple of rows back. The gist as I understood it was to make it plain that IBLP was not behind the attempt to recover the monies from the lawsuits . . . And that the Board wanted to help. That is admirable on one level, but, well, disgusting on another as the lawyer walked right by Bill to do so. Do not believe this was an admission of guilt in any way, or that they believed the testimonies. THAT would be a most foolish thing to do – talk about setting up for another round of lawsuits or appeals. Rather an attempt to mend fences, just as you said. Given what we absolutely know about the deceit that went into these claims, gunning as they were for $8 million, proven by the embarrassing way the well heeled law firm had to walk away from something approaching a half million in legal expenses, well it was just wrong, no matter how you take it.
re: Josh Harris, Bill Gothard, Romans 2, and Jesus
Did Josh Harris kiss Jesus goodbye because he was a Calvinist? Or Bill Gothard get sued because he opposed fornication, or dating, or whatever?
Sometimes religious leaders can be hypocrites, as we are warned in Romans 2. But might there be a flip side to that coin? If a teacher teaches holiness, how likely is it that he will not at some point live unworthily of the high calling he preaches? Fortunately C.S. Lewis said something helpful about this:
The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful, but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.
Josh Harris said that he was “no longer a Christian”. He did not state or define what he thinks or a Christian is. He didn’t mention Jesus or even God and what he believes or doesn’t believe about God, the Trinity or whether or not Jesus is the Son of God or the second person of the Trinity. Considering who he was a protégé of and the TULIP hyper-neo-Calvinism he was involved with and that the TGC crowd considered themselves the only “real” Christians, I would conclude that he is kissing John Calvin good-bye and not God. I came across an article a month or two ago from the TGC crowd that the 21 Coptic Christians that were beheaded on a beach in Africa were not martyrs for Christianity because “they were not real Christians”. I just about threw up. So 21 very brave men who were beheaded by a knife no less and died while saying “Jesus” on their lips as recorded by the video are not real Christians then that ought to show you how sick the TGC crowd is and that included Josh Harris.
There is a big difference between teaching something very specifically and directly by the likes of Bill Gothard and then turn around and behind closed doors and practice and live something entirely different. If you want to brush it off as “well everyone isn’t perfect or everyone is a hypocrite” then be my guest but such things are condemned repeatedly in the Bible. Christian leaders ought to be living out what they teach.
I like to think of these things in terms of the Broken Clock. (Or Bloken Crock – Engrish is so much fun!)
A broken clock is still right twice a day (provided it’s not a digital face that simply turns off when not working). It is not uncommon for false teachers to hit on something good or right in their teaching. This is where many get led astray. We hear something that sounds good, look it up, and find that it is correct. So we get to thinking that the teacher is good because of that one truth that helped us.
Thus, we wind up swallowing so much more just because there was one good nugget in the patch. This is dangerous indeed. I believe we would all agree that great caution is needed when accepting teaching, from any source, including the ones we are most familiar with. Paul applauded the Bereans because they searched the Scriptures to verify his own words. (They didn’t just accept the word of the Apostle!) If we put more of our teachers to scrutiny, we would have fewer confused Christians.
I do believe there is a flip side, though. In understanding a teacher to be false, we should still acknowledge the things he got right. Give him credit if he did. Just be sure to remember him in his place. If we took this approach, it may frame the discussion differently. For what it is worth, this is where I find Bill. He’s not wicked, not even close. But I find he did teach error in many parts. Granted, he had the best of intentions. AND there was MUCH truth accurately captured in his teaching.
But that makes him, in my estimation, neither hero or villain. Just . . . human. Flawed. But not too far off the appropriate path. Of course, I am dealing just with the Biblical side here. The accusations brought against him are not just on his teaching but regarding his demeanor. That changes things for me a bit.
re: the blocken crock
That 8/10 post from brother JM had a point well taken about overgeneralizing about the favorable nuggets we find in any source of teaching. Nice whimsical opener, too.
Well, Moderator, again I split with you about something being wrong. The Board’s decision to make that statement does imply that they believe the claims, or at least believe they are credible. This puts a certain nail in the coffin for Bill’s return to IBLP, if you ask me.
I have not seen evidence of deceit. Therefore, I cannot agree that this is wrong. For one, the Board doesn’t answer to Bill. They don’t need to talk with him. They furthermore do not need to formally present their statement to him or his attorney. It wasn’t during the course of the trial or testimony, and it is not germane to the hearing itself. There’s not a need to give that side a heads-up. What they did is perfectly legal. And I say it’s right to extend the olive branch.
It sounds to me like you think what they did is wrong, because they didn’t stand with Bill. Well, why would they? He’s not been on staff for a few years, and the Board had a very visible disagreement with him at Big Sandy year. Relations between him and the Board are not rosy right now.
Yeah. This is one we’re split on. But you will keep hearing from me on it if you keep using these universal terms – “absolutely know,” and “wrong, no matter how you take it.” I understand you see it in those terms. I do not, and I believe it is perfectly logical and reasonable to see it other ways.
You speak . . . As though the Board and Bill are on equal footing in this matter called IBLP. That is not a given. They were entrusted to be caretakers, helpers, of the ministry the Lord gave Bill. That was directly given them by God. Can you think of anything comparable in Scripture? I can’t. Even David, who committed horrific crimes compared to anything Bill is even accused of, was slotted back into the ministry God gave him. No one else was qualified, in God’s eyes.
Well you’ve got to be careful appealing to Scripture for ministries like IBLP. IBLP is a parachurch ministry – it is not run by one church, nor is it a ministry of a church. The NT from the Acts onward deals with the church and church management. Nothing in Scripture deals directly with parachurch ministries, which is exactly why so many of the Independent Baptist fundamental persuasion believe they are bad (yes, they do – I have heard the sermons many years at many different youth camps).
You also have to be careful comparing David in the OT to what we are talking about here. He was not in charge of a ministry. He was a king ruling a kingdom, a secular authority. And the OT has a lot to say about government. David’s spiritual qualifications may or may not have disqualified him from his office. We could debate that. I doubt you will found much Scripture in the OT to argue it either way.
But Bill is not a king, and you are trying to argue for him from the NT guidelines over being restored to his ministry. That is problematic for this ministry, since it is not a church, and is therefore not directly addressed in Scripture. That is why you have a hard time understanding this.
The Board and Bill are not on equal footing. Not at all. Legally, the Board is his authority. And yes, it does go back to legal questions here. The minute you establish a Board, all pretense of this being Bill’s ministry goes out the window. It must.
I find it strange you are arguing that the ministry belongs to Bill. You challenged me before that it belongs to God. So what is it? Ultimately, if you want to pursue this “God gave it to Bill” argument, you need to be arguing for the dissolution of the Board, not for Bill to return. The Board is the boogeyman in your argument. You need to be calling for them to dissolve.
But you can’t do that. You have no authority in their operations; neither does Bill. According to Bill’s own teaching of the umbrella of authority, they are Bill’s authority. That’s the way it works. They have the power, given by God no less, to remove Bill if they feel he is harmful.
The Board owes Bill nothing here. They are not on equal footing. They are his authority. They do not answer to him. That’s not how it works. Nothing they did here was wrong.
Besides the specific deacon-driven widow care program that was instituted by the Apostles, what “ministry” is given as “church”? The Lord moves individuals, and they respond to Him. As we have pointed out repeatedly, the notion of a church directing, controlling a man of God in his ministry is simply missing from Scripture. Board’s of Directors are extra-Biblical. To put it another way, the Board is as absent as the “para-church ministry”, in terms of an edict. But an individual ministry, a man sent out by God? That we have a lot of.
You keep insisting that Bill is or was under the Board’s authority. Prove that. The only reason that is true is by edict of the government. The government asks them to watch the finances for them and see to it that the served by the Non-Profit Corporation under the umbrella of the State of Illinois does not cause harm to the State or its citizens, and particularly the consumers of the services provided by the corporation. NONE of that has anything to do with the Lord’s Ministry, given directly to Bill by Jesus. That vastly limits this authority of which you speak, just like the government’s authority itself is limited by the authority directly vested in His People by the Lord.
That’s the point, Moderator, a point you are not connecting. All of this, your arguments and mine, are not found in Scripture. We must therefore look at them in the context where they appear. That is, they exists for secular or for practical reasons and must be viewed within the framework of that.
A Board is certainly not described in Scripture, but that is what IBLP has, and has it at Bill’s founding. It is legal at that point, and yes, Bill is under their authority.
There is something you are missing in these discussions. Bill may have promoting Scriptural teachings, but he did so from a BUSINESS. That is our key here. IBLP is a ministry in the sense that it helps people, but it is a BUSINESS first, last, and foremost. That is why it has a BoD. (And before you say anything, the “it’s a ministry, not a business” defense did not work for Kent Hovind – he was sent to prison for the way he ran his business).
As a business, it must operate according to legal and business principles. You are correct when you assert the Board’s situation under Non-profit status. I will challenge your understanding of that. A Board defined is the highest authority a corporation can have. It is that simple. The President acts as the Board’s representative for the execution of the company’s directives.
This idea of one man at the top is not how the corporate world really works. There is a layer of accountability above that one man – that layer is a BoD. I don’t have to prove Bill was under their authority. The titles make it so. The fact that he has a Board makes it so. Otherwise, he needed no Board. You can’t have it both ways. Either the Board exists to have authority, or it is not a Board.
Some companies have such programs. Some companies have “consulting agencies” (they may call them by a variety of terms – I have seen about a dozen). These groups work like a Board in that they meet regularly with the President or Head of a company, but have no authority in the company’s affairs. They exist solely to review the company’s procedures and practices and give recommendations on moving forward. These can be an invaluable help to a company, but they are never called “Board of Directors” and for a reason. That title means something.
There is no limitation to the Board’s authority here, save only that which is defined legally. We are outside Scriptural precedents here. You realize that. You acknowledge that. Then you can’t go back and argue a Scriptural precedent when it does not apply. You are trying to have it both ways.
Now if you want to discuss how much NT is given to the church, we can do that. I am prepared to do that. In fact, there is so much there that you have to have your head in the sand not to see it.
“Bill is under their authority”. Bill is also under the authority of the policeman, the water district, the planning commission, the atomic energy commission, the customs officials . . . On and on. None of those authorities are endless in their scope of influence, AND ultimately the Name of Jesus trumps them all. If the Equality Rights Authority comes knocking on his door and commands him to either stop preaching against sodomy or stop preaching altogether, Bill will either not respond or will tell them he will not comply. And he will never stop preaching, including calling adultery and lust and sodomy sins.
The BOD is also so limited. They have a job to support the government’s oversight of entities in the State of Illinois to ensure no one is defrauded. And . . . No one was. The Board did have a responsibility to check into that when others accused him otherwise. They did investigate, and cleared Bill on day 1, practically, of any matter that would trouble the government. At this moment the ministry is operating in the red and in some danger of collapse. The apparent goal of the Board is to continue selling assets until something positive happens. Bill has a proven track record of running in the black, acquiring, as he did, hundreds of millions of dollars of assets in the process. A case may be made that fiduciary responsibility alone would compel the Board to bring Bill back, the idea guy, the guy with the connections. But to tell Bill what he may and may not do in ministry outside of things that cause damage to the “user base” or the ability to follow the states rules . . . That is not the case.
The BOD is, on the other hand, made up of believers in the Lord Jesus and under the jurisdiction of Scripture. Scriptures commands them, who consider themselves more spiritual than Bill, to restore him. Or if they have “ought against him” to go to him, work with him, get 2-3 formal witnesses involved as necessary, and see it fixed. And to respect and obey those that are their spiritual fathers, which they all acknowledge Bill is. THAT is the elephant in this room. I just spoke at length with members of management. To a person they again, as they have over and over, testified to the unique, life changing role that Bill has had in their lives. Those kinds of people are given to us by God to honor, respect, obey, support, bless. If Bill had hired people from the community or corporate America to staff the IBLP board it would be different. But it is not different. These are the things that flip this issue completely around.
re: definition of church, caesar’s regulations
Aren’t we wading out of our depth here? Aren’t there too many stakeholders in the definition of church to form a good-faith consensus for who qualifies as a church?
Assemblies ranging from the Church of Rome to local IFB congregations have claimed a monopoly on that term, each with some justification.
Is IBLP a church (assembly) of men following Jesus? At least in the sense which matters most? Why not?
But are the followers of Jesus bound by caesar’s parsings of Christian authority? Yes and no. Who wants to face the business end of that sword caesar wields? But might both the IBLP BoD and Bill Gothard have mutual duties which are none of caesar’s business?
As for the definition of church, might Matthew 18:20 permit us to take a liberal view? Jesus promised to be present with (and hear the prayers of) a very small assembly of his followers. If Jesus shows up to broker petitions by such small assemblies of his followers, who are we to fuss over definitions of church?
So why not apply church polity principles to IBLP? Even when caesar’s polity for non-profits orders them differently?
As a person who identifies as an Independent Fundamental Baptist I would like to comment on the history of the movement in relationship to para-church ministries. We have long supported Bible Colleges as valid para-church ministries and have gladly sent our children to them. Over the centuries The Lord has raised up various men and women to accomplish his Kingdom purposes. Moses, Joshua, Deborah, David, Job, Daniel, Paul, Barnabas, George Mueller, George Whitefield, Bill Bright, Bob Jones Sr. Billy Sunday, Corrie Ten Boom, Billy Graham, Bill Gothard, to name a few. For Bill to have the ministry he poured his life blood into cut out from under him because of a few false accusations is a travesty of justice.
Well, no we haven’t. Not all of us at least. The folks at First Baptist in Hammond, IN are notorious examples of such. Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap BOTH inveighed heavily against it. Most churches who follow their sphere of influence are the ones I have addressed. To write that off as minor is an understatement. These men had considerable sway among our churches, and still do to some extent.
There were and still are churches that consider themselves Hyles churches. And there are many that wouldn’t go that far but still revere Hyles as a great teacher. It’s no minor thing.
I have no problem with para-church ministries. But I do many of us in IFB circles have. I have sat under preaching where places such as BJU and PCC were derided just because of that. Yes, they do exist. This is probably not the case in your neck of the woods. The IFB diaspora is much larger than most of us realize, with many variations.
It’s not a travesty of justice for Bill if the accusations are legitimate. In my opinion, that’s where we’re splitting here (not you and me necessarily, but this site v. RG and the like). I don’t believe we’ve established it either way. But the women who met him in court certainly believe something happened, and the judge believed their stories were valid. We need to entertain the possibility that they might be true.
One of the qualifications of a bishop according to 1 Timothy 3:7 is that he must have a good report of them which are without. I’ll let you ruminate on what that means and how that can be applied if you’d like. Many have weighed in on it in the past. I take no dogmatic stance here, but Bill could be argued to have slipped in this area. Many folks outside the ministry believe he has no good report. If that is the case, he is disqualified. Action needs to be taken.
Of course, that counts entirely for church leadership and not simply the leadership of a ministry such as IBLP. I say we would need to follow different guidelines. Perhaps the by-laws that establish a Board of Directors for instance?
“But the women who met him in court certainly believe something happened, and the judge believed their stories were valid. We need to entertain the possibility that they might be true.”
Forgive me for jumping in. The women do not necessarily believe something happened. We have seen the evidence, including some quailing because their lawyer encouraged them to include stuff that they, well, could not actually recall. Possibilities, even a dream. Over and over they justified not being completely truthful or exaggerating because, well, what Bill did in other areas was so much worse. See, THAT is where the bravery came in. Not in disclosing long dark secrets as much as staying the course in the face of a great deal of doubt and even self condemnation.
The judge made the statement about finding them “believable” while dismissing the request to have them pay some of Bill’s legal costs for having to defend himself from an obviously frivolous lawsuit. The point being defended was whether they were believable enough to allow the suit to proceed, not that the suit should have prevailed. And he was most certainly preparing for the expected appeal . . . In Appellate Court. If the judge was convinced of their truth the opposing, well healed, very experienced legal team would have picked that up ages ago and figured out how to at least get their quarter million in legal fees back. You can’t sustain the point you are trying to make.
We have ALL entertained the possibility that they were true. Some of us stated on Recovering Grace toward the beginning that we believed the women’s stories, all except Gretchen (“Charlotte”). But after having walked this painful, bloody path for the past 5 years we have all lost any shred of belief that “it happened”. The evidence screams otherwise. And as stated, when the sun sets, a professional personal injury firm walking away from 17 plaintiffs and at least $250 million in legal fees if not double that, not able to get even one charge for one plaintiff through to a payday tells you that, no, we no longer need to do that.
Oh puh-lease. Yes, the women believed something happened. I will appreciate if you do not ever claim I agreed with you here. The last thing I want is to be accused of victim-blaming. You can have all of that.
I can absolutely sustain the point I am trying to make. I am on that side of this judgment. It’s been made in favor of the women.
I have not seen any evidence that these reports are false, nor have I seen any evidence of this “quailing” and “reporting things they could not accurately recall.” This sounds to me that either you have access to documents that are not access to all, or you are simply making stuff up.
I think you are spinning what happened with the suit. It was voluntarily nonsuited. That’s not the same as walking away. This was going to be an expensive longshot. All knew that. But not one of them has recanted their stories. That ought to tell YOU something. Not to mention the women at the hearing all testified that their reports were true. None of them recanted.
The only judgement made was the judge defending his decision to let the now withdrawn suits proceed in the light of a great deal of evidence let alone laws – statutes of limitations – that should have cause him to not have done so. Wasting a half million dollars in the process. The last word on this has likely not yet been spoken.
We have in our possession the entire proceedings. We can assure you that there is a stunning amount of condemning evidence that would have sunk the cases in court had the women elected to proceed. Actually we are fairly sure they got an ultimatum from the law firms engaged here – they had no choice. You are free to believe what you want.
Moderator, it’s a bit sad that we can’t reply ad infinitum here. We are limited to how many responses we can make. It may appear one or the other has the last word, when the subject is far more complex. It’s probably a sit issue, but it’s weird nonetheless.
Okay. You are I now agree that Bill is under authority other than his own. Good. You seem to agree that he is under the authority of the Board. Good. You don’t seem to understand that we are discussing BUSINESS principles here and not CHURCH principles. That’s important. And I will keep saying it, keep making new comment threads, until it starts to click.
You and I do not disagree that God is ultimately in control. I understand that. I believe that. But you don’t seem to understand context behind the commands you yourself are quoting. That’s dangerous. The commands for the elders to be counted worthy of double honor and not to receive accusations are CHURCH guidelines. It’s not any elder anywhere. We know that because of the passage, where widows are mentioned to be taken into “the number” (this was how the church took care of its widows). The elders here are those who teach and rule well in Scripture. IN THE CHURCH. That’s the point. We deal with issues like this in churches when accusations come up.
The point is we’re stretching this Scripture to apply it to Bill and this situation. IBLP is not a church. I would agree they are under Scriptural authority. The problem is what Scripture applies directly to a para-church ministry? You won’t find any in Scripture, because there were none in those days. It is even more complex when you consider that this is a BUSINESS we are discussing. They have their own rules they follow as practice. For example, staff takes lunch at certain times. Would you argue from Scripture for that? Or is it simply good practice?
As such, sure, the Board is limited. This is where I don’t think you grasp this concept. The basic functions of a Board of Directors is to appoint AND REMOVE executives from leadership. This is the primary understanding of it imparted to students in business schools (and yes, I can vouch for that). You are quoting Illinois statutes, which is good. But you need to understand those statutes are not the be-all and end-all of Board operations. Far from it. State laws only establish a framework within which a Board may operate.
If you want to raise a challenge, here is what I will accept. Find me the IBLP by-laws from when Bill established his Board. That will be your smoking gun here. That document (should one exist) will outline the powers and limitations of the Board. If the by-laws do not state that they remove an executive, I’ll grant it to you. You have this one. But if they do, you have no leg to stand on. Argue what you want, even go to Scripture, but you’re out of luck.
I also see this as a matter of some simplicity. Bill went on administrative leave then resigned. When that happens, certain things are assumed AND understood. If you resign from a job, you have to go through the application process again to get it back, and even that is a longshot in most companies. So why are we fighting for this? The Board is doing what they believe they must for the ministry. If it collapses because of this, I would caution against laying that blame at their feet. Bad press involving the founder has nasty consequences, even if untrue.
I am very concerned your loyalty for Bill is serving as confirmation bias here. Even if he did nothing wrong, and the Board did clear him on Day 1 (neither of which I challenge), that doesn’t mean he gets his title back. He still resigned. You can’t just recant a resignation (unless you’re Al Gore). There just isn’t a way forward for Bill here. And the Board would have no need to get his approval to say something to the victims. No authority there. No need. They did nothing wrong. You think it’s wrong because it hurt Bill. Sorry. That’s unfortunate. But that’s not the same as wrong.
We hear your grief, on the thread situation. We are breaking out a separate topic to continue – look for it soon. Until then, we can produce the bylaws for the corporation, at least as of 2010. We know that at least one section was changed around 2014 when, because of two Bill loyalists on the Board, they modified the “unanimous” rule to become a simple majority, thus effectively neutralizing the opposition. Both men subsequently resigned.
Well David,
A church is not simply an assembly of believers. Yes, that is what the word (ekklesia) means, but the meaning goes beyond mere denotation. Paul wrote three epistles that help us here (1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus). These epistles give us the blueprints of what a Biblical church HAS. I say HAS and not IS, because some do draw distinctions at places.
We know a church must have a meeting place. The members have to gather somewhere, else “not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is” would be pointless. In the earliest, the NT church(es) were meeting and at regular intervals. So for practical interpretation, we conclude a church, in order to be called so Scripturally, must have a place to meet. Of course, that leaves the door of where, when, and how often wide open (and these are valid questions that I do not intend to address).
A church must also have officers. Paul describes two – Bishop and Deacon. Many have weighed in why Bishop and not Pastor. It’s an interesting discussion, but I am taking it very basic here. A church needs officers to call itself a church.
Further, a church needs some form of service structure. We could debate on this, but we do know that Paul spoke heavily about preaching, and he spoke about things being done “decently and in order.” And he mentioned this order when refuting the Corinthian tongues confusion. All we can glean from this is that there must be some form of order or semblance of order in services. I don’t think we can get dogmatic about what needs to be where and how much of it, but order must exist. I know a church that starts its services with preaching. They go right into it. After the message is delivered, they look at how much time is left, and they do singing in the time remaining. I may not like this setup (in fact I do not), but they have an order to their program. It is consistent. Therefore, I cannot conclude this is wrong. (By the way, this pastor is a Gothardite.)
But why are we discussing this? Well, to argue that we apply this to IBLP raises some concerns Scripturally. They would only meet these qualifications to be counted as a church in the LOOSEST sense of the word. Why? Well, they don’t exist AS a church. Do people from the community come and join it as they would a church and put their tithes there?
If we were to call IBLP a church, we may need to accept a number of other ministries and companies to be fair and consistent. I don’t believe that’s what you want to do. IBLP is a business. Yes, it works for the sake of ministering to others, but it is still a business, in the same sense that the Sword of the Lord is (my former employer). We have to draw the line somewhere. In this case, we have a business that has governance with a BoD. You won’t find that in Scripture. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that IBLP is not a church.
This is also important when weighing which Scriptural commands or principles apply to IBLP and its affiliates. You can’t just quote Scripture and say “see there.” Look at context. Look at the big picture. If the verse occurs in a passage discussing church management, we would be stretching it to make it fit. The manual doesn’t match the territory. This is very important in Scriptural interpretation.
One of the earliest description of Christian worship and assembly is this:
“On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or country-side gather in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader has finished, the president instructs and exhorts them to imitate these good things. Then we all rise together and pray. When our prayer is ended, bread and wine with water are brought forth and the president offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability. The people assent ,saying “Amen” and there is a distribution to each of the Eucharistic elements. The deacons carry a portion to those who are absent.” Justine Martyr in 155 AD, “First Apology”
Christian assembly always involved the public reading of scripture, a talk about what was just read and communion afterwards. Bill’s seminars did none of those things. He isn’t a Church, didn’t run a Church and the seminars were not worship nor even communion with bread and wine. it’s getting beyond the silly to even try and twist this around to say so.
“Church” is far more than the gatherings of the church. We are in Christ, and part of the church, 24×7. And no more so than when we are working together, striving for the faith of the Gospel.
re: Justin Martyr’s description of ancient church meetings
What? No overhead projector like Bill Gothard? No youth conflicts resolved?
Or no praise band? No funky music? No PowerPoint? No stage lights and drums? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAWgWZ9lEuI
Talk about Troglodytes! How could those ignorant savages get by with just the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Christ, and the Scriptures?
Or might they have known something in their simplicity which we have smothered in our sophistication?
You can You tube or Google search “liturgy of St. James” and watch it and compare that to the nonsense portrayed on your link there. Liturgy of St. James is the oldest known rite and is attributed to the Apostle James of Jerusalem (the James of the Counsel of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts). Earliest written records date to the 200s. Likewise confirms Justin Martyr’s description of early Christian worship. One thing for sure, early Christians did not worship using rock band nonsense.
Actually, Rob, the oldest mention of Christian worship is in the book of Acts. They were all in one place, all in one accord, and they were given to fasting and prayer, waiting for the promise of the Comforter. That is about 110-120 years before Justin Martyr.
The difference here historical record vs account. We know when Justin Martyr’s First Apology was written. But the events described in the NT didn’t happen at the moment they were written down. The earliest gospel was Mark (believed to be circa AD 90 at earliest). But it describes events that happened nearly 50 years or more earlier.
That means we need to look beyond mere historical sources for records of the church. Fortunately, we have them. We have what Paul wrote the churches across the Empire. The epistles of Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Romans, and especially 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus give us good pictures of how the early church operated.
I’m drawing a distinction here, but I do not ultimately disagree with you. Bill isn’t a church, nor is IBLP a church, unless you take the very loosest meaning of the word. By that I mean, I understand the concept of a universal church. I accept it and believe it exists, even can be argued Biblically. Many fundamental independent Baptists do not, and in fact charge those who hold to it as heretics (yes, this is true). I am curious how Bill’s followers and IBLP would respond.
I understand the universal church concept, and agree with it. But that is a different matter than a local assembly, which is largely what Paul described in his writings. I think we have to keep our definitions and these matters clear.
Moderator, I again express great dismay over the way these threads work. I did not see your response to me on the charges made by the women, and it is apparently closed. So it appears you had the final word.
Really, I have to again challenge you on the FACTS of the matter. You claim you have evidence that would cast all those accusations into question. I challenge that. Provide this evidence please. I hope it is nothing more than “Bill doesn’t remember or denies it happened.” That’s not what we need here.
The judgment that was made in regards to a set of sanctions that Bill wanted regarding the charges brought against him, charges which were technically dropped in the now-unsuited suit.
AND the judge addressed the SoL issues. All of this is a matter of public record. You are not the only ones with access to these proceedings. I challenge you to produce your evidence. That red flag is on the field. I look forward to seeing this.
We are spinning round and round in wearying form. No, no thread was closed. To reply when a thread it all the way to the right . . . I believe you have to go to the last post in that thread one level less . . . And reply to that. I have no such constraints given a much more reasonable interface. For that I apologize.
The lawsuits encompassed 17 plaintiffs, each with around 10 counts, charges, each of which carried a request for $50K. I am not sure what you would like, objectively, to do. If you have a particular plaintiff and a particular charge we would be happy to seek to address it. But at the bottom line – not a single charge carried enough believability to allow one of the most premier personal injury firms in the state to collect a single $ on behalf of their plaintiffs, let alone the likely quarter million in legal fees expended on the plaintiff side. That should be worth . . . Something.
re: proving falsehood without indulging in logical fallacy
The burden of proving non-existence is impossible to meet, so our attempts are logical fallacies.
But the burden of positive proof belongs on an accuser. Gothard’s accusers did not meet their burden. Why shift the burden to a defender?
Where was the evidence to support the anti-Gothard accusations? That question was settled in court.
I agree with you in most cases, David. But you are missing something. The defenders here are claiming things as well. They are claiming that some of these reports are fabricated or exaggerated and claim to have done research to prove it. But where is that visible research? I’ve heard much about and do not see it here.
On the other hand, when the team here tackled the Gary Smalley issue, there were emails and affidavits that were posted. This is great. This is tangible proof for what they are talking about.
It is not a shift in the burden to ask them to produce evidence of their research into the other claims. That is standard. It is not strange at all.
I believe there was evidence to support the anti-Gothard accusations. RG has two witnesses for Charlotte (three if you include Rachel). Ruth’s cancer battle also speaks of it – the stress that the doctors confirm caused it stemming from her time employed under Bill.
But the team at DG claims Rachel’s story is a lie, and that Veinot erred in his research. But where is that tangible proof here? These are things that can be verified. Let’s do it.
It’s not worth anything to anybody if you claim something and cannot back it up. See, I might disagree with you on “not a single charge carried enough believability.” That’s not worth anything to me.
I have seen you claim several times that the women backed off their claims or were strong-armed to admit to something they were uncomfortable doing because the lawyers wanted the accounts included.
Do you have proof of this? You see. When someone goes to RG, they can read “Charlotte’s Story,” one of the accounts you dispute. BUT, RG has two witnesses for Charlotte, and she connects to “Rachel’s Story.” I understand you dispute this, but can you claim the same as RG here? Have you two witnesses to turn it away? This is what I’m getting at.
You’re claiming a lot of things here, but some of this is not visibly backed up. You did a great job covering Gary Smalley’s account. There were emails you posted and affidavits. It’s very good. Why can’t we have more of that when you are disputing Charlotte and Rachel, or the items in the lawsuit you claim to have happened?
I’m going to keep spinning on this on. This regards facts. It’s important to man that wheel.
Do you want to talk about “Charlotte”, whose real name is Gretchen Wilkinson? She, as you know, headlined the case.
Have a look at the “witnesses”. Please tell me anything they said that corroborates her charges against Bill. What her roommate did was prove that she, in her story, was not telling the truth. Gretchen claimed that Bill noticed her beauty, singled her out at the conference, begged her to come. The truth, as told by the “witnesses”, was that she was in rebellion against her parents and they had sent her with the hope Bill could help her. I heard as part of the legal proceedings, a lengthy deposition interview with her mother. Try to look at her story objectively. Note the fact that she claims that she “forgot” about salacious charges she made against her own father, things she claims she was in therapy for, and yet clearly remembered what Bill had done to her, all from the same time frame. And note that she, the headliner and by all accounts one of the primary reasons others joined the suit, dropped out long before the others, prior to interrogatories. You may draw your own conclusions as to why this was. But interrogatories are “under oath”, and statements made there are used to impeach witnesses. Obviously I am limiting my comments for propriety and the abundance of caution with privileged information, but there are many other things that might be said.
Again, can you prove she dropped out long before the others? I can’t seem to find any official documents that show that. This is what I am getting at. There are claims I see here that you cannot demonstrate. I can grant you that some of it may be privileged. That does happen.
But you do understand how that is a problem? You are essentially saying “trust me, it’s there.” That’s not enough. We need to see tangible evidence.
As for “Charlotte,” you must have a different account of the witnesses and the story than what I read on RG. Neither of the witnesses on RG claim she was in rebellion against her parents. Ryan says nothing of this at all. Dixie only says she was known as an encouragement case. This is not the same as claiming she was in rebellion.
But Dixie confirms that Bill picked her up between 4:30 and 5:30 am. Ryan confirms the hours she spent alone with Bill in his office and in his car. No one can confirm the actually touching – that was done away from spying eyes. But the essence of this part of the account – the isolation – is confirmed. So, we don’t have confirmation on the physical abuse, but that part can be considered reasonable because other aspects do line up with the witnesses.
As for the memories. That is a tough one, but not for the reasons you think. This is the realm of repressed memories. The judge spoke a bit about this, and I find his words sufficient. Repressed memory is not the same as simply forgetting about something. It is indeed possible to repress some events and aspects of the past and remember others clearly. What you have described does not impeach “Charlotte” at all, necessarily. I do have a psychiatrist I can consult on this matter if you’d like.
So again. I make the challenge. Is there any of this evidence that you claim to have done that can be viewed? Where is it? This is something that needs to be seen. If it’s a matter of privileged information, are there affidavits by attorneys that would speak to that (as in saying officially that something is there but cannot be shown)? This would go a long way for me. Otherwise, I may conclude that you are making it up.
Here is the order dropping Gretchen and several others: Order Dropping Gretchen, 11/06/2017 At the time we were asked to not publish the fact due to the 1 year timeframe allowed for refiling.
From Dixie, the “witness”: ““Many young people, some as young as 13, had started spending time at Headquarters during those four years. Late that summer, the girl you are about to hear from, “Charlotte,” moved into my house. She was a vivacious 16 year old, and she loved the outdoors. She was also what we called an “encouragement case.” In other words, she did not fit the mold. She dressed differently; she seemed much too friendly with boys, and we were told she had been giving her parents trouble at home.”” She was specifically told that Gretchen was having trouble at home – “encouragement case” is Gothard-speak for a “juvenile delinquent”, a kid in rebellion. Rachel – plaintiff – also recounted this fact. No, I cannot give you the deposition her mother provided nor facts obtained from it as they are not public record. But I can tell you that the legal team was eagerly anticipating her interrogatories and was getting excited at the prospect of getting her deposition let alone on the witness stand. Bill had nothing to fear from Gretchen. The lawyers knew it . . . And if you have personal access to any other plaintiff, ask – because in the end I think they all knew it too.
As to being picked up that early in the morning, Bill specifically and strongly denied that. Bill never counseled that early in the day. That was, especially at that time, time to work on projects, curriculum specifically. Gary Fraley and he worked tirelessly during this time frame on the ATI curriculum, beginning at that exact time.
Regarding Gretchen’s overall veracity: She told one of the major newspapers (all in the Did He Do It? section) that she had filed a police report with the Hinsdale PD. As you can imagine we beat down the doors for police reports, both in Hinsdale and neighboring Oakbrook. At least 3 FOIA requests. The police department did backflips to help. No police report from Gretchen was ever filed.
I had to take some time reading that order. Good job on posting it. Now we’re getting somewhere. But having any of these drop out isn’t the same as an acquittal. The fact that they reserved a right to refile argues against there being no evidence. This is a matter of interpretation.
I sympathize with trying to track down a police report. I have been in that loop myself. An old acquaintence of mine was accused of some serious stuff at the church he was working in nearly 15 years ago. The police came out and did some searches and questioned everybody. All of this was reported. It was not a secret.
But when I moved to the town a few years later, heard about the scandal, and tried to track down any information to confirm it. It had been just three years. All the officers who were said to have worked that case knew about the charge. Even the Sheriff at the time admitted something happened. But NO ONE could find a report on it. NO ONE. Your reaction might be the same as mine here. How could such a serious case not produce a police report?
Well. . .this is actually a known problem in the world of criminal justice. Police reports are not necessarily automatically entered into computer systems. And when they are, very rarely are they shared across state lines. There have a been a few Law and Order episodes about this.
Recently, this person in question came forward admitting to criminal activity. When the detectives of the state he was arrested in asked for witnesses/stories, all the stuff in Tennessee came up. These detectives went looking for old reports. . .none were found.
Point being. Be careful saying “no report found” = “no report filed.” These things get lost all the time, and we are not dealing with a case from 2003 (as was this one). I would say the lack of a report only means it was absent. It does NOT mean one was not filed.
I understand the term “encouragement case.” I think you missed what I was responding to. You claimed the witness said she was in rebellion. BUT all the witness say was that they were TOLD she was in rebellion. This is semantics, I know. But get it right.
It does not matter that Bill denies picking her up. “Charlotte” claims it, and Dixie backs her up. This is enough to question Bill’s memory of this. I would like to know if there is any way to prove that he had projects. Do you have anything by Gary Fraley that would prove they were framing the ATI curriculum at that specific time of the day, during these years? I want to see that, rather than hear them claim they did it.
Working backwards, how about you make contact with Gary Fraley, now chairman of the Board, and get his version of that timeframe.
You questioning me is your right, but not helpful. The facts are what I stated, she was in rebellion against her parents and had some serious issues. That statement would be defamation . . . If it were not true. So we state that with great deliberateness. If you were to actually allow yourself to consider her account with a critical eye you would quickly see that much of that is on the surface.
The police reports were subpoenaed as part of the legal case. I can tell you I got to be on a personal level with some of the public servants there. They did the opposite of stonewalling, hunting things down, calling us back when they did not have to. We are quite confident that all that was there was disclosed. If you decide to believe Gretchen over me, that is your choice.
Who said anything about acquittal? The first five withdrew in exactly the same way the other 12 did 3 months later. Without a settlement, without an explanation . . . Just left. Leaving us free to speculate on the reasons. The fact that those 5 bailed before having to submit their interrogatories we think is telling. Again, that is the moment you make legal statements under oath that you can be impeached on subsequently. Speaking of FOIA requests, our hunt for Gretchen’s supposed report brought us to one that one of the other plaintiffs had actually filed at the Hinsdale Police Department. Amazingly the officer interviewing her specifically asked her about whether Bill had touched her private areas. She said he had not. Later, when the lawsuit was filed, she said he did. The lawyers were anxious to compare her interrogatories with her statements to the police department. Instead of submitting them, she quit. Months later as the lawyers were anxious to compare the remaining plaintiffs statements in the several chat groups that they had set up specifically to discuss their case with each other, with their statements both in interrogatories – under oath – and in the lawsuit. Instead of producing those chats as demanded by subpoena, they ALL quit instead. You tell me. After their law firm invested what surely must have been a quarter million in getting them that far, they walked away. I hope you can drop your prejudices enough to actually objectively think that all through. THAT is why Bill went after some of them to try to get SOME of the money back that had to be wasted defending himself from that frivolous effort.
Again. This nameless plaintiff you are describing. It’s not Gretchen. You make that clear.
She told an officer that Bill had not touched her. Then she told a lawyer that he had.
This ought to be verifiable. Where are these documents? Produce them please. That ought not be difficult. If it’s privileged, and you cannot produce it, produce an affidavit testifying to its existence and veracity. I can’t side with you otherwise.
🙂 You can get the same document by issuing a FOIA request. The FOIA information has the name redacted as she was a minor at the time, although it is not terribly hard to figure out. We got the unredacted report during the trial. No, not going to pass that along. I could pass the redacted one along like I did the others, but, again, I am getting weary of this. Am starting to imagine no matter what we do or how long we do it we will still be doing this same dance. Will anything change on your end of I do? Please convince me I am not going to regret taking my precious time to try to take you seriously.
I’m trying to get you to see that that’s a problem – not being able to produce evidence when it is pertinent. It appears to many that you may be making it up.
If a FOIA is the only way to get it, that is fine. But you are trying to convince people of Bill’s innocence in these matters, and you are claiming that points of documentation exist. These ought to be where they are visible if you truly want to convince people. That is the only point I have tried to make.
Without it, you are arguing, “Trust me. It’s in there.” That will not be enough for many people, myself included, and will in fact turn us away from the conclusion you wish us to receive.
I stress this here only because you have done a wonderful job with it elsewhere. You produced the emails from Gary Smalley to illustrate that the Cabin Story has more to it than commonly believed. You produced the By-laws when I asked for them. You produced the Order dropping Gretchen when I asked for it. This is good.
So I hope you see why I’m holding you to this high standard. You’re already committed to it. But I do understand if you have difficulty due to privilege or sealed documents. Those things do happen, but again, there are ways to offer proof in the light of that. I’m not sure you yet see the value of that. That’s sad. You are trying to make a very good case here.
So no. From where I sit, this dance will continue. I’m sorry it frustrates you. It frustrates me too. But you need to see why people like me have a problem here.
I am trying to communicate that I don’t want to dance any longer :-). This is a waste of my time. By the time you have nothing left to complain about, you will walk away fundamentally no different that you are now. I extended the option to you to become actively involved and see for yourself and you made it clear you have better things to do. The same holds true for me. AND, for a regular casual participant, you simply have too many words, too much churning. Every day I am greeted with 3-4 long posts that repeat the same thing over and over and over. I can’t win.
You can’t win because you are not putting yourself in the position to win. Not to mention this really isn’t a contest of who wins or not. All I am asking of you is to put your money where your mouth is. You’ve made claims. I expect to see the proof of those claims. Anyone would.
I resent your fundamental claim about me. I have indeed modified my positions based on the evidence I have seen. I’ve done this a number of times in the past. But I do have to SEE that evidence first, AND I have to look over carefully to make sure it is being interpreted properly or that there is not another logical way to look at it.
The By-laws and Gretchen’s police report are examples. You claimed the by-laws must have been changed to give the Board power to remove Bill with a simple majority. I asked you to show me the by-laws, and I was able to show you how they didn’t need to change anything to do what they did. I also argued that a lack of police report is not necessarily proof that no report ever existed. This is what I’m talking about.
As for becoming an active participant, I sit back and say “What?” I don’t recall receiving such an invitation. You are welcome to contact me personally if you wish. That really doesn’t change the equation here much from where I sit. The matters we are discussing involve much committed in the public sphere (an organization, open internet blogs, and at least one court hearing). These are matters where information is already shared publicly, and will be expected to be shared publicly. It’s not profitable for anyone to keep evidence between private parties, especially when it can help.
Did not mean to be disrespectful or demeaning. But over the past 5-6 years a number of folks have come to us with a much deeper focus than the average person. Some have ended up our our team. Others have pursued things up to the point that was important to them in an honorable way. Sadly some have turned ugly, taking our help and access and . . . Turning around and stabbing us in the proverbial back. The article by Joshua Pease is a great example. I am at a loss to find any of the evidence we provided in his article, and the folks we put forward for him to interview that exonerate Bill . . . He never contacted. Every negative angle, however, was pursued. I bet he made a lot of money on that. The Lord is judge.
So I can only compare you . . . To me, and others on our team. When I was given a fraction of the information I have already given you I followed up on it. That was an expression of my commitment to see the truth come out. And I was prepared to “take it to the streets” if it turned out that Bill was guilty and IBLP was in a major coverup. You are right, you shouldn’t have to trust me. But I don’t trust others either. I pursued it on my own. Then I went back to those supplying their evidence and challenged or confirmed it. You don’t need any more evidence to pick up the phone or send an email. You have enough to know that the narrative supplied by Bill’s accusers is seriously flawed. That seems to matter a lot less to you than it should. Your apparent lack of interest in doing anything other than push us to give you what we have suggests it is, again, more of a game or intellectual exercise for you. Up to a point that is fine. But when there are real sensitivities – collateral damage – with some of this “evidence” you are demanding to be disclosed publicly that you appear to not appreciate, well, the risks exceed the benefits. For us.
Well, I don’t have the same evidence you have seen. You are claiming that you have access to things that are not readily available. That’s the entire gist of what I am saying.
You talked about an unnamed plaintiff that told someone her story was false, then had pressure from a lawyer to include it anyway. This is a claim that ought to have some support behind it. This story ought to have verification, but what I get from you is “pick up a phone – make a call.” Okay. To whom?
Again I say, you did so well with Gary Smalley and other issues. You posted those emails. You posted those by-laws. You posted the order dropping Gretchen. This is excellent. It’s what I and many others expect to see. But in many cases, you’re unwilling to do so.
Please understand. I’m okay with being contacted personally to get this information. I am NOT backing away from it. I do however believe that won’t fix the problem. This evidence needs to be made public. It needs to be out there for all to see, not hoarded like a dragon’s gold stash.
But I get where you’re coming from. Much of this is likely sensitive, privileged, or part of sealed documents. But again, you can still provide an affidavit that such evidence exists. That would be enough for me. There has to be something official to confirm it. If you can’t do anything but provide it personally, I’d be glad to take a look at it. But I will be looking at it with the intent to publish. I will do my best to make it known. That is my intention. It must be where people can see it.
In factual matters, it might be difficult to agree to disagree. Factual matters are not matters of opinion, which is why this dance has continued. I am, however, willing to relent on some of the fight with one agreement. I am willing to accept that you might have evidence here, if you would be willing to acknowledge that not producing the evidence creates a problem. I would just like to see you acknowledge that keeping it can cause justified suspicion for you and your team. That will go a long way for me.
If you haven’t understood by now that, regardless of what you may be used to with others, you can trust us to not make statements without having accurate, even legal, backup for them, then no amount of further disclosures will convince you otherwise.
That is simply not true. Disclosures will convince me. That’s what I am looking for. Without that, I really can’t trust anything you say.
Will you at least admit that you see how this is a problem?
If the substantial volume of data that has been provided publicly and to you specifically is not enough to make you believe in our trustworthiness, that we accurately report what we know, nothing further will either.
Moderator, you and your team have provided NOTHING in the way of the evidence that I am asking about.
I’m speaking of issues such as the unnamed plaintiff who withdrew her story then was pressured to put it back in. Where is this, other than your claim of it? These such claims need to be backed up, otherwise I am left thinking you’re just making it up.
I will indeed be convinced if stuff like this is made available, and it needs to be so publicly. Sure, send it to me privately. I’ll be glad to take a look at it (you know how to reach me). But we need to make it public.
Think of how many of these discussions you could end immediately if everything were displayed. How many Robs and Larnes (no disrespect to you guys) could you effectively silence with such hard evidence?
You’re retreating into this “trust me; it’s there” again. That’s not helping. It is handicapping your case. In matters such as these, it does not work.
Not sure which account you refer to. One plaintiff was pressured to include a vivid dream as an actual account even though she testified to no recollection of it – and then later quailed to the others that she feared the lawyer had deceived her into believing it was true. That was in discovery and so is private, not something I can share. Another woman, not a plaintiff, submitted her detailed accounts to IBLP and to us, then later asked with much passion that it be removed from all consideration and not be referred to. It would be a violation of a promise we made to disclose that to you.
But, again, if you still believe we are making it up, no amount of further disclosures will change your mind. You have enough proof of our honesty and veracity. And I am doubting your sincerity, truth be told. You may recall that we stuck our necks out with another “inquirer” disclosing some sensitive documents so that she could publicly validate our account. She saw the documents, and, after promising to keep them confidential, not only did not have the courtesy to confirm what we were asking her to, instead immediately forwarded them on to the plaintiff involved, which in turn promptly turned into a motion for a restraining order on us. We didn’t care on a professional level since we were exercising an abundance of caution and we actually were within our rights to disclose, but personally that was such a violation of our trust. The judge tossed that request with a bit of force, BTW, as well he should have. Regardless it left a proverbial bad taste in the mouth. I think we are good.
re: was Christ dressed for success?
Shanon raised the question 7/15 above. As Holy Scripture does not specify an answer, we are constrained to make the best guess we can. We must begin by asking what we mean by success. Both John the Baptist and Christ succeeded despite getting slain by their enemies.
John the Baptist had an austere look which suited his austere office. Through his grit, he made loyal friends and powerful enemies. At peak popularity, he yielded the stage to the “mightier” man whom God’s Spirit anointed at his baptism.
Was John’s mightier successor better dressed? We are not told. Like John, he had presence. He could not go unnoticed, although he sometimes tried. Years later, the armed men who were sent to arrest him fell to the ground at his voice. What garments adorned that royal presence?
Contemporaries called him both “rabbi” and “prophet,” so his garments should have suited both offices. Also, we identify him as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.
Though John dressed for one role, Christ dressed for many. Dressed for success in many roles? Why not? Even ordinary men can do that.
Augustine of Hippo added that Jesus was “beautiful as a child, beautiful on earth, beautiful in heaven.” He lamented, “too late have I loved Thee, Thou Beauty ever ancient, ever new. To late have I come to love Thee.” These are beautiful words about a beautiful Savior.
St. Augustine of Hippo was speaking metaphorically and allegorically in that famous quote of his from his work “Confessions”. He was talking about his conversion. The whole quote is this:
” Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but i was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you; now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me and I burned for your peace. ”
You need to realize that he was speaking very allegorically as well as spiritually. The beauty he was speaking about is spiritual not physical and the whole passage above when taken in context is about conversion and has nothing to do with Bill Gothard or his manipulation of putting and surrounding himself with physically attractive young women. At least I can commend that you are reading him or attempting to do so.
re: Augustine, Christ, and beauty
Of course Augustine’s conversion was an awakening to beauty, like the conversion of every man before and since. “Ye must be born again,” not materially, but spiritually.
Augustine’s full quote from his Confessions stated his case more emphatically than my excerpt. He contrasted Christ’s overwhelming beauty with his own underwhelming “unloveliness.” Of course the beauty he praised was spiritual. There is no other beauty.
Might there be material beauty? Material things are merely themselves, with certain mass and dimensions. Facts about them are neither beautiful nor ugly. My dictionary says that beauty pleases our aesthetic senses. What are aesthetic senses if not spiritual? The appetite which beauty gratifies is a spiritual appetite, not carnal. Augustine expressed that sentiment beautifully.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a book on beauty and stated that beauty consists of three elements: proportion, clarity and integrity. But what either Augustine or Aquinas wrote about beauty has nothing to do with Bill Gothard playing favorites and trying to surround himself with what he thought was attractive to him. That is perversion and sickening and is never justified. All this conversion has done is completely up ended the first night of the seminar which was on God’s design. Favoring one human being over another because of subjective personal ideas of what is attractive and beautiful is sick. Never justified and one verse out of Hebrews can’t excuse it either. We are all made in the image of God and all humans should be treated as such no matter what they look like.
re: Gothard in Aliceland
On 7/16 above, Shanon wondered whether Bill Gothard was so far down the rabbit hole that extraction was futile. If so, Gothard may have good company in Wonderland. God’s all-star roster is populated by many who were sneered at and called whacky. Governor Festus declared Paul mad with too much apostolic learning. Paul himself labeled his message “foolishness” among the perishing.
In Billy Joel’s words, “you may be right.” Gothard may be crazy. But he is only one madman among many. God’s men have long been labeled so.
“Governor Festus declared Paul mad with too much apostolic learning. Paul himself labeled his message “foolishness” among the perishing.”
Oh, here we go again. Comparing Gothard’s banishment to persecution of other Godly men like Paul, as if it had nothing to do with his behavior.
I would argue that the other occupants of this rabbit hole would be folks like Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. Not Paul.
You need to either produce proof that Bill did anything wrong, or stop slandering him publicly as though he had. Comparing him to evil men like that is defamation “per se” in the eyes of the law unless you have facts that can be proven otherwise. You don’t, and you know it. Yes, we will continue to compare him and his treatment to godly men.
You are the moderator and review all posts before deciding to post them publicly. That is why we get the message that our comment is “awaiting moderation” before it goes up and why it sometimes days several days for you to post our comments. Such a foolish thing for you to say because if you believe a comment to be defamatory, as the moderator and person who controls the board, then don’t post it.
If you write it for publication and I allow it as part of the discussion it remains you who are accountable for the content. We are not an organ of Bill Gothard – this would be between you and he. Take it in the general sense, however. It is wrong, under the law, to allege moral guilt without being able to prove it. It meets the standard for defamation “per se”. A public figure has to also prove “malice” in posting it. Regardless, it just isn’t right, right? You continue to imply that you know with certainty that Bill is morally compromised, has committed moral sins. You and I both know you have no proof and after all that we personally witnessed over the roughly 4 years the legal process dragged on, with full purview of the legal documents and evidence produced as part of that, you will not be finding any. That seems to spring more from hatred than any desire to do or be right.
re: a different comparison
On 7/28 above, brother James bristled at the notion of comparing Bill Gothard to Christ’s great apostle. So if we are looking for modest comparisons, why not look to modern evangelical history? Bill Gothard attracted 2.7 million evangelicals to sit through more than thirty hours of his Basic Seminar teaching at the cost of about $140 each in today’s currency. Let’s compare Got-hard to his seminar attendees and not to apostles.
Were Gothard and those 2.7 million insane to fill those auditoriums for such hours at such expense? We can sneer like Caiaphas that “the multitude is accursed,” or we can accept a more reasonable explanation for free men freely associating on that scale. Probably neither Gothard nor the multitude are crazy.
Is Bill Gothard a bad man? The jury is literally out, because his accusers withdrew their lawsuit. But is Gothard a madman? That’s crazy.
re: playing favorites
On 7/27 above, Rob accused Gothard of playing favorites.
It might help to find the distinction between “playing favorites” and favoring. Both God and man favor, but on what basis? As we saw above, Augustine of Hippo awakened to Christ’s beauty when Augustine was born again. From that moment, Agustine favored Christ’s beauty. Was that virtue or vice?
Was Augustine favoring lawfully or playing favorites? How was Augustine’s favor different from Gothard’s?
If we arbitrarily favor Augustine’s favor and disfavor Gothard’s favor, are we not playing dis-favorites?
It is amazing the amount of twisted reasoning and thinking someone puts themselves through in order to justify and defend behaviors of Bill Gothard and IBLP. There is a huge difference between playing favorites based on looks and God’s grace or favor. To try and even equate them is a brake with reality, reason and faith itself. Just so unbelievable.
Back to a primary point. God Himself makes a person physically beautiful and then favors them, using that so they attract extra attention, favor, friends and resources. Saul was extra tall and handsome, a deliberate point that God made . . . David was decidedly “comely” . . . Moses beauty as a baby, clearly a God thing, was so striking that they immediately knew that he was destined – by God – to be great. God creates genetic defects, then commands that all such be barred from serving in the temple.(Lev. 21:16-24) The modern “God of the Memes” would never do that . . . But the real God, the One before Whom we will all stand, naked and trembling, in just a few more minutes, does. Self-respect and respect for others has become the highest virtue in this day and age, almost “self-worship”. Do you disagree? How sad if something like that becomes the snare to destroy a person. I who speak these things am decidedly NOT one of the Beautiful Ones. But . . . I know God knows what He is doing.
re: complaining, gainsaying, and beauty
Christ assured his followers that they could expect “a mouth and wisdom” which adversaries could not “gainsay nor resist.” What symptom would show that the adversary is unable to gainsay? Find the answer above on 7/31. We see exasperation and smears instead of gainsaying.
Even so, can we agree on the axiom that beauty should be admired? Isn’t that a consensus among men of good will?
re: believable comparisons between God and man
Is it believable that the favor of God and man can be comparable? Not to Rob. On 7/31 above, she dismissed the notion as unbelievable. Yet that comparison is obvious in the well-known Bible account of Christ in his youth. The young Lord’s virtue was so obvious that both God and man favored him. Is it less obvious that both God and man favor beauty?
If Rob cannot believe the obvious, is that her defect or ours? Who is blind to reality, reason, and faith? Is it God and reasonable men? Or is it Rob?
https://rattibha.com/thread/1417874742808223745?lang=en
it’s time to move on David, I am done with this.
I wasn’t going to comment any more on this because the defenses and ideas presented are horrific but I came across this quote today and it reminded me of the ideas and defenses presented here. It’s from a 19th Century Priest, St. John Vianney and it is this, “The eyes of the world see no further than this life, but the eyes of the Christian see deep into eternity”. Placing value and focus on what people look like is the “eyes of the world”. Focusing on “dress for success” is the eyes of the world. Placing attractive people around you is the “eyes of the world”. Mormons do the same things as Bill Gothard did, they dress very nice, are clean cut, look good, are attractive, but all of that is a cover up for their heterodox beliefs. Mitt Romney is certainly well dressed, looks good etc. but that didn’t win him the presidency and many saw through him and his phoniness. Bill Gothard has “eyes of the world”. All of this is a focus on the wrong things and a cover up of them. That is all I have to say about this.
Trying to shade Bill by comparing his focus on beauty and precision to Mormons is like trying to shade him for eschewing birth control, like Catholics (or Mormons). We have given plenty of “dress for success” support in Scripture. This is where the focus should be, rather than the societal environment of our day.
re: politicians, John Vianney, and beauty
What does it betoken if one nattily dressed politician attracts fewer votes than another? We never cease to be duped by politicians.
I had not heard of John Vianney until Rob quoted him above on 8/2. The Wiki page about him shows a very good man, perhaps even a Gothardite of 19th Century France. Vianney gave homilies against “paganistic dancing,” which sounds similar to Gothard’s teaching against worldly music, etc. Vianny also exhorted Christians to “see deep into eternity.”
What virtues do we discover deep in eternity? We discover goodness, truth, and beauty. Augustine and Aristotle agreed on this. Beauty is a virtue. Is it Christian or worldly? Why not both?
Whatever similarity you think there is between the Cure of Ars and Bill Gothard is very minimal. Yes, in a very vague sense, there was a piety preached against behaviors like dancing. St. John Vianney also refused to have his picture taken while alive (remember photography was just coming into existence at that time period). But I can rest assure you that any similarities between them ends there. Just to wet your whistle here is a sample from his “Little Catechism”.
“If the good God send us crosses, we resist, we complain, we murmur; we are so averse to whatever contradicts us, that we want to be always in a box of cotton: but we ought to be put into a box of thorns, It is by the Cross that we go to Heaven. Illnesses, temptations, trouble, are so many crosses which take us to Heaven.” Likewise, ” How good, how great a thing it is to know, to love and serve God! We have nothing else to do in this world. All that we do besides is lost time. We must act only for God and put our works into his Hands…” Just a small sample on why he is so loved still.
re: wisdom from Vianney
Yes, that was very good teaching about our aversion to the suffering we need. He was especially wise to connect our suffering to our love for God and our fellow man.
Like others I prefer the box of cotton, but God knows when thorns work better than cotton. “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons, for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?”
Bill Gothard also deserves credit for good teaching about suffering. Suffering was central to his eight callings material in the Basic Seminar. According to Gothard, suffering refines a man for the eighth calling of charity.