The Josh Duggar legal troubles have focused a spotlight on the Duggars in general and also on Bill in recent days. In response to an inquiry by NBC, IBLP issued a statement (https://iblp.org/news/response-media-inquiry). Three ringleaders of the failed 4 year, $8.5 million, 17 plaintiff lawsuit against Gothard and IBLP, feeling a bit of wind at their back again, decided that now was a good time to come out and launch another attack themselves (https://medium.com/@frostyrach/three-former-plaintiffs-respond-to-the-institute-in-basic-life-principles-978d88d15872). We were encouraged to not respond, but a few of the statements were difficult to stomach, so we will lift a few quotes and offer some perspective. Some of these topics probably deserve their own OP. Read the quoted comments in context in the link provided above:
As they begin, they accuse ATI of
” …physical and psychological abuse encouraged as child-training and counseling methods”
Bill followed the teaching of the Bible in the wise and restrained use of physical punishment to teach wisdom. Most kids consider being rebuked for bad behavior “psychological abuse”. ATI was guilty of supporting both of these, and it was not abuse.
“Gothard and Staff were mandated reporters and they heard many accounts of abuse of minors which they did not report.”
“…they didn’t stir themselves to call civil authorities even once when he was allegedly engaging in sexual misconduct with staff and minors for over four decades.”
The recent massive 4 year lawsuit was the opportunity to get that on the table. Those are things that carry criminal consequences. We know for a fact that that was being discussed by these same plaintiffs as a cornerstone of the lawsuit. What happened? Apparently there was no evidence available in support because it was never pursued. Stop making defamatory allegations that cannot be supported.
In fact, that second statement is blatantly defamatory. I would hope that the three women making this allegation are absolutely sure they have the evidence to back it up. IBLP and Bill emphatically deny that to be the case and for our part our team found no evidence in 17 years of looking.
“Sexual Abuse Counseling”
The women posted a diagram and several other documents used by Bill and IBLP when counseling victims of sexual abuse. We have heard of many, as they undoubtedly have as well, who have through this found life long freedom from hatred and guilt, and associated mental illnesses. They testify to this with great passion and joy. Forgiveness is a powerful weapon.
A recent episode of “Forensic Files” detailed a woman savagely and permanently harmed by a serial criminal. She survived, and though permanently damaged was stunningly happy when interviewed, living her life her way. She said, “I won. I forgave him.” She could leave the man to God’s judgement instead of demanding vengeance. That is the principle here.
What is the alternative to this counseling diagram and the message in the other pieces they posted? It is to tell the victim that God knew what was happening during the abuse, yet stood there and watched and did nothing. Leaving the victim to decide whether the Lord is cruel, indifferent, or helpless. There is no healing, faith ends right there, no matter how we talk around it. No wonder the world is rejecting the God that Christians, eager to declare and claim a God-given human right to a long healthy, happy, pain and trouble-free life, are promoting.
Bill, in counseling, in the three publications posted and in many other venues, courageously and correctly assures the broken heart that God furiously loves us as He allows such tragedies. And he explains precisely how that is the case.
A prominent Christian leader once told Bill that the reason for his effectiveness was his ability to “creatively explain the sovereignty of God”. He boldly answers the question, “Why did God let it happen?” Whatever he is, Bill is a believer. And he is right.
The heart of saving faith says through the pain, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him” (Job 13:15) An unbelieving world that rejects the sovereignty of God will reject Bill who explains it as well. When Christians themselves fall into the pit of self-centered doubt we become powerful weapons in Satan’s hand “to steal, and to kill, and to destroy”.
“How about their widely-shared umbrella illustration? Women can’t even get to Christ directly. The whole “principle of authority” places men as superior in almost every situation, and is purely a social construct.”
First of all, we checked with HQ and as far as anyone knows this diagram did not emanate from IBLP (if this is not correct point it out and we will edit the piece). The umbrella, the way Bill draws it, represents a generic leader, focusing on the very real God ordained “super power” protection they directly provide for those under them. It is drawn with the government as the umbrella, church leadership, or an employer.
Here are some personal notes, as the material was presented in the Basic Seminar in the 1970s. Shows how submission to authority gives us a mighty advantage in standing against Satan’s temptations. Highlighting the reasons we must pray for our authorities so their personal failures and weaknesses do not allow Satan an opening to attack us through:
Umbrellas are a protection. The more protection you have, the healthier and happier you will be. Walking out from underneath may not be the end of the world, but you begin to suffer the consequences of battling demonic influence directly. Satan gets an advantage. Which is frankly not very smart.
It has nothing to do with “getting to Christ” or even being “superior in almost every situation”. Whatever conclusion we apply to other leadership as an “umbrella”, we may make nothing more of it when applied to a husband or father. All three of these ladies know that. They may not like the fact that God has granted specific authority to husbands, which is called “patriarchy” as a slur these days. That is a different discussion, unrelated to “umbrellas”.
“IBLP may not know details on everyone who participates in their programs, but you can bet your jean jumper that they know about their “star” program participants, the Duggar Family”
The Duggars, as public as they are, have always lived their own lives. Nothing about their show was ever cross-checked with IBLP or Bill specifically. Indeed, the show revealed liberties in their private lives that might be frowned upon by some of the faithful. We got to know them, got to know Josh, have loved them all over the years, but have little more to go on on the issues at hand than what is reported in the media. I spoke with Jim Bob at some length a few years ago. He avoided talking about Josh. While much of their lives has been on display they expect their private matters to remain that way. Mail us the jumper.
“IBLP knows plenty about their founder too, even if they would like us to forget about him.”
We have spoken with IBLP leadership repeatedly about their issues with Bill. And they have repeatedly assured us that, despite whatever doubts swirled in 2014, they unanimously do not believe that he ever abused or molested a single girl or woman. When they met with a jointly agreed to and respected mediator to seek to resolve the “Bill problem”, that pastor debriefed us afterwards. He emphasized that IBLP never raised a single concern about moral issues when asked to put their issues with Bill on the table. They focused entirely on Bill mishandling staff and associates, matters that they felt he needed to make right. People offended, bad blood.
IBLP leadership and Bill are in a strained relationship at present because Bill is demanding to be reinstated and they are not sure that he will handle it to their satisfaction. Perhaps the fact that current leadership has worked against him in the past figures into this. His age has been brought up. Our position is that that is God’s problem and not theirs to determine. But it remains that the moral matters highlighted in the lawsuit are no longer on the IBLP radar.
“They were willing to call the cops on him for trespassing on IBLP property”
Yes, they were. We addressed this in the piece, “Bill Gothard Went Down to Texas”. That event remains a horrible black eye. It was a power struggle, pure and simple. Early on the complexities of the legal process were cited as they sought to enforce a “No Trespass” rule, but this event happened after that. We believe they knew that the people, interacting with Bill, would quickly demand his reinstatement, and pull their support from IBLP if not.
“They forgot to mention the nice income they have received from all the “apprenticeship” students who *paid* to serve at IBLP headquarters and training centers”
That “income” pretty closely matches expenses incurred by these ministry opportunities. For example, one of our team had a son raise $2,000 to attend a one year program. The $40 weekly stipend he was given for living expenses to go with the free room and food consumed that all by itself.
“No mention of Jesus. Just Bill”
The government is not concerned about Jesus, just about what a duly incorporated entity is supposed to be doing under Illinois law. And that government purpose of IBLP was to support the ministry of one William Gothard, nothing else. Hence the lawsuit.
“Check out the Recovering Grace website for some gut-wrenching personal accounts.”
Recovering Grace was an expression of “midlife crisis” for a generation of ATI trained young people. The main organizer had severe OCD symptoms which he jointly blamed on Bill and his fundamentalist church. Others had marital or kid or relationship or mental health issues. They blamed him for their life problems and they were determined to take him down, no matter what.
Fact checking on RG was at a bare minimum. If it sounded reasonable, they published it, as was shown as story after story exploded under the spotlight of the legal proceedings they were instrumental in setting in motion. Check out the articles on our website for the facts.
“Plaintiffs turned over everything, including their entire Facebook accounts as legally requested.”
This one stunning statement was enough to make us get our pens out and craft a response. Here is what we know: For the entire time from the preparation to sue in 2014 to the closing days of the lawsuit in 2018 the plaintiffs and their Recovering Grace handlers collaborated furiously about the matters of the suit, daily, minute by minute, day and night on a host of social media venues. First was Facebook Messenger followed by several restricted Facebook groups. The group solely dedicated to plaintiffs and Recovering Grace legal folks was called “R2D2” and was how they coordinated their stories, media appearances, responses to legal inquiries (the name was supposed to throw off poor clueless non-Star Wars savvy IBLP types . . Like us). After lawsuit discovery forced over 60,000 pages of Messenger chats to be turned over the plaintiffs started getting worried. They then demanded that their law firm set up a new chat group on a protected server that they somehow believed was protected from discovery. It was, of course, not protected.
The legal teams found repeated evidence of these additional venues and demanded them to be turned over. ALL communications between plaintiffs and others relating to the suit or the matters in the suit are “discoverable” and have to be turned over to the defence. The only exception are direct communications between individual plaintiffs and their legal representatives. With as much impeachable evidence as was gleaned from the Messenger chats the defense legal teams could only imagine what a treasure trove those chats would be. After 3-4 fruitless demands the judge issued a pointed subpoena identifying most of the chat groups by name, with response required by February 18, 2018.
Messenger chats between plaintiffs showed that they – including some of those crafting this amazing statement – hurriedly deleted large portions of R2D2 to avoid discovery. One of plaintiffs stated in a Messenger post:
“To be crystal clear, ALL plaintiffs have withheld R2D2 on purpose”
One of them tried blacking out certain sensitive parts of the chats she did turn over. These acts carry serious legal consequences. On the day that every post was to have been turned over, all of the plaintiffs quit instead. Citing “complexities”.
The truth is never complex. Had they and their stories been truthful even their private banter would have strengthened their case. We can only wonder what they didn’t want the defense to see. The Lord knows.
So, no, that statement is patently false.
“doesn’t mean any of us changed our story or felt less strongly about the need for accountability.”
Here is a challenge, sort of an acid test.
- The statues of limitations for defamation is one year after the most recent statement of a “false fact”.
- Publicly stating that “every charge in the lawsuit was true” starts the clock ticking anew for any charge that is, in fact, a lie.
- False allegations of sexual abuse, say claiming that Bill was doing otherwise ordinary things “in a sexual way” under standard definitions of law, are defamation “per se”.
- The truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
- Bill has started actions relating to defamation. He wants to clear his name.
Given these realities, do the three plaintiffs hereby affirm that, as of today, every charge of sexual malfeasance against Bill in the lawsuit in their names – not changing their story a bit – is accurate as stated? See, we suspect that if ANY of the charges had had substance their high powered secular for-profit lawyers would have gotten them the half million dollar pay day each and trip to New Zealand for a vacation in paradise they promised their recruits.
In weighing their allegations here are some actual statements the plaintiffs made, statements their law firm knew Bill’s defense was readying for trial:
“He [Bill] hasn’t done anything immoral like sexual abuse, as far as I’m aware”
“My story isn’t that big of a deal”
“I don’t like my name associated with the words “sexual harrassment” … maybe others who experienced much worse will speak up after this”
While we are on the topic, these three plaintiffs, by their own testimony, pulled this legal action together not for any damage to themselves but because of stories of alleged abuse that other women told that they believed simply had to be true. They wanted to defend and vindicate them.
And yet the women they so wanted to protect silently disappeared just before interrogatories, one even before the final iteration of the suit was filed, which would have finally forced them to declare their matters under oath. And, lo and behold, we saw evidence that some plaintiffs formally warned the legal team and others that some of them were, in fact, liars.
When someone lies Satan wins, nobody else. We know for a fact that some of these ‘victims’ were skillful liars. Incredible eternal damage has been done as a result, ATI kids and their families, IBLP alumni losing hope, in some cases abandoning not only Bill but all he taught them about the Lord. They may not care, but we care, and we believe the Lord cares intently. If they now suspect these women to have lied, at least on some issues, they owe a debt to the Lord let along the world that believed these three spokespersons to set the matter straight.
“There was not a protective or confidentiality order from the judge”
The judge allowed a number of the women to remain in the suit anonymously and their identities were indeed protected by such an order. That is presumably no longer the case because most of the women ‘outed’ themselves voluntarily, and their lawyer identified the rest in a ‘victory photo’ when the women celebrated barely escaping not having had to pay for Bill’s legal costs.
“Victims have been asking to be heard, believed and validated for nearly 40 years within IBLP”
There are many actual victims of sexual abuse in this twisted world. That being the case, alleging such a thing when it is not true so a woman can hurt a man she despises – or, God forbid, to get rich – is crime against them all.
Every woman has been heard. In the media, in court, in 5 stuffed boxes of legal documents that we have in front of us. They were believed, and a lot of people staked a lot of money on them telling the truth. The validation would have been to stick to their guns and secure a jury verdict. Their discussions in private corroborating their public statements, not contradicting them:
- One plaintiff alleged an immoral act in the suit, then said, “Well, that never happened to me” when asked by friends in private.
- One told others that they had “made it up” as a means of vengeance.
- One confessed that her tale of abuse in the lawsuit was actually a dream.
- One told the court that Bill molested her, yet when a policeman took a report told him that he hadn’t.
- One told a PI gathering evidence that the worst thing Bill ever did to her was “almost kiss me once”.
Those things damage the believability and rights of actual victims in indescribable ways.
And, finally, dragging us back 40 years:
“The victims of the 1980s IBLP Scandal were shamed and silenced with very few avenues to seek vindication.”
And yet somehow we forget about the $4 million lawsuit filed on behalf of those same victims of Bill’s brother. All of the women were deceived, but all were adults – and despite some early missteps in the investigation they were not shamed and they were not silenced. Even though he had personally done nothing wrong, Bill even stepped down as President for a time so that things could be judiciously addressed. It just ain’t so.
Much more could be said, but we will leave it there.
[The comments on this website, including this article, are our own. We do not speak on behalf of either Bill Gothard or IBLP]
You’re defending a man who like all other humans in this world has faults. Your fundamental issue is still trying to defend a man with corrupt teaching. You must wake up and acknowledge this because thousands of people have been hurt by this man and His teaching and you STILL fail to see it every single time something new comes up about it.
There are REAL theological issues with ATI not to mention a lot of other nonsense. You all need to wake up and realize it before too late. God sees and hears all. And I’m convinced and know for a fact that you are blind to this truth because of loyalty to a MAN.
A human man who can’t even admit his own faults.
Wake up and see the wolf in sheep’s clothing before it’s too late.
Hello . . . We have done our level best to deal with all of those theological issues quite openly here. We would argue that we have been pretty objective. I can tell you that not all of our team agrees with everything Bill has taught and pursued. But, again, generalities get us nowhere. What would you like to focus on. The stage is yours.
It seems there is some public scrutiny being paid towards IBLP’s finances. They are clearly selling off real estate to stay afloat.
Interesting that they point out the very small salary Bill took of $25,322 when he led the organization. I wish that other ministry leaders followed that example. Pretty big contrast with what the leadership pays themselves now.
https://julieroys.com/bill-gothard-institute-faces-uncertain-financial-future/
People delighting in and profiting from the misfortunes of others. As much as God hates talebearing there will be account that will soon be rendered to Him. Thanks for the comment – to this day he continues living in the childhood home he grew up in, using his kitchen table as a desk, driving old cars, some that he buys at auction. All will soon be revealed and made straight by the Lord Who doesn’t miss a thing.
re: adjusting for inflation
If Bill Gothard was earning $25,322 from the beginning of IBLP, that is within middle-class income in today’s currency. In 1976, that figure had the same purchasing power as almost $130K in 2022. That is greater income than a trailer park resident, but less than the local Oak Brook professional class.
Hi David.
You said:
“If Bill Gothard was earning $25,322 from the beginning of IBLP, that is within middle-class income in today’s currency. In 1976, that figure had the same purchasing power as almost $130K in 2022. That is greater income than a trailer park resident, but less than the local Oak Brook professional class.”
David, apparently you did not read the article and not sure why you’re plugging in 1976 to obtain a present value of Bill’s salarly. The $25,322 was his salary in 2013 not 1976. So, your present value calculation is way off.
In 2013 $ 25,322 only had a little more buying power than it does today and it was a very modest income. In 2013 this level of income was way below the average US household income and, in fact, closer to the poverty line than the average household income.
As to what Bill was taking as income in the 70s, I don’t know, but I would imagine that it was not nearly in the $25,000 range. I imagine that the moderator could dig that figure up if he wanted to.
I can verify his meager salary. Of that I believe he was given 6 month severance pay when he was pushed out.
re: speculation about Gothard’s compensation
Admittedly, I was floating a possibility without any evidence when I speculated about Bill Gothard being compensated at the same nominal figure over the course of many decades up to 2013. But Bill Gothard is a man who blithely drove outdated cars. Given his modest expenses, might he also have been content with a salary which never adjusted for inflation?
I attended IBLP in Minnesota, three (3) separate years. If I could go again, I would.
I have many friends and family who attended in 1970s and 1980s also.
God’s Holy Spirit has definitely anointed Bill Gothard to head and teach this sacred instruction to multitudes.
For six (6) full days each time Bill came, he taught solely about the LORD, God Principles, and pure Scripture. After he took time to personally speak with attendees and minister to them.
Bill Gothard had my 100 percent approval then; and I will always thank God for him. Bill is my brother in the LORD, and yours too, if you truly love God!
It is your duty to pray fervently for Bill, NOT BE JUDGMENTAL! Just exactly who do YOU believe it is who appointed YOU as Judge or Jury?
Unless you are privy to the “true facts”, mind your own business. Stop stoning and crucifying a man you have no intimate knowledge of his life. Period.
Note: Jesus came to save Sinners, not Self-Righteous Snobs! Stop judging other people and start judging your own life; get your own affairs in order!
True Christians will not condemn people. They will do everything to restore a person to Jehovah God. JOHN 3:17
If one sheep 🐑 is lost, those who follow Christ’s teachings will bring him back to God’s flock. If you believed this about Bill, shame on you for not following God in this matter!!!
Rather, YOU cowered to Satan and took it public! God knows the host of souls YOU CAUSED TO LOSE THEIR WAY back to Father, God, because YOU DISOBEYED GOD.
. ~ Matthew 7:21-23
Stop throwing stones!
William Gothard has done a huge, amazing works being obedient to God … work that has prepared multitudes to live in God’s Kingdom. My relationship with God has matured – increased in Wisdom, is much more secure and peaceful since studying God’s plan of salvation taught by Bill Gothard.
What have YOU done for Jesus?
. ~ Karma
ATI homeschooling program shut down?
https://atii.org/
Yes and somewhat no. Yes to the enterprise – IBLP is moving away from being a home schooling “program”. No, inasmuch as the materials remain available for purchase. That was how it was explained to me. I am no longer paying a yearly fee, in other words.
IBLP had ambitious goals with a number of programs launched in the 1980’s and ’90s. ATI was always much more than a “home schooling curriculum”, scoped rather as a while-life discipleship program involving the entire family. For many families abandoning public schools for this brave new world of “home schooling” – and Bill was a primary motivator for that in his widely attended seminars in the ’70s and ’80s – ATI was a great match. Many pulled out of other aspects common to society to dress differently, raise their own food, etc. The discipleship torch is being carried by many now, and it has lost the dramatic appeal of the early days. Who knows . . . Maybe there will be a major rush back given the current rate of societal decay.
A “discipleship program” requires a tremendous amount of support. The pipeline of young people volunteering to serve to this end has all but dried up. That figures into it as well.
CharacterLink was another program that was discontinued, that several decades ago. The internet simply could not be contained by the manual controls that this required, every site being reviewed and certified. It met a need at a time where there was little else and I am grateful for it.
re: end of ATI
I posted the following on RG when this topic came up:
“Bill Gothard seemed to like bold innovation, so with ATI he hijacked the young homeschooling movement of the 1970s to make it an extension of his seminar ministry. During the ATI era, other homeschooling flourished on its own. But ATI was Bill Gothard’s baby. When he left IBLP, ATI lost its energy source and ran out of juice.
If you disliked ATI, you rejoice at that. If you liked it, you lament. My lamentation is like that wistful feeling when you put away the decorations after Christmas. It is time for the other activities of the year, but part of your heart is consigned to the attic with the boxes.”
re: second thoughts about the end of ATI
One benefit of ATI ending is the release of Wisdom Booklets for retail sale at a lower price than ATI enrollment. I might buy a set for my former students who are now homeschooling my grandchildren. If they are interested in having a set to use as homeschool enrichment supplements, they may be a nice grandfather gift.
In the past, Bill has expressed concerns about his legacy. It would appear that things are not looking good in this department for him.
Out of curiosity, I did a search on YouTube entering only “Bill Gothard”. It made Bill look very bad. I’ve provided the link below. I did not see one positive video surface – all were very derogatory. Some of the videos had very high viewership.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bill+gothard
This video alone has 192k views. Many of the topics you cover on your website are discussed by this woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5FZaz42LV8
There was even a mini documentary which has almost 800k views, called “The Cult Next Door.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16OLr-EXuOo
With the high budget Amazon documentary in the works, I see this only getting worse over the next couple years- probably a lot worse.
At this point in his life, is Bill still concerned about his legacy, or has he given up trying to fight what appears to be a rising tide? Has he thought about putting our a counter documentary to tell his side? You are clearly a voice of defense for Bill, but I get the impression that your reach is very small and the anit-Bill voice would appear to be getting the attention of millions. IBLP has a larger platform, but I don’t get the sense that they have any interest in defending Bill’s legacy.
Bill is in good company on this:
2 Peter 3:3 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts”
2 Timothy 3:1-5 “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
1 Corinthians 4:12-13 ” … when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.”
Luke 21:17 “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.”
2 Timothy 1:15 “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me … ”
There are a lot of “good” reasons to hate Bill Gothard. Just like there are many reasons to hate conservative Christianity – Christ Himself, actually. It is an indictment on our culture, gathering evidence which will be presented at the Final Trial on the Last Day.
Bill was hated long before his enemies were able to craft false accusations against him. You and I both know that if there had been any shred of actual evidence against him, the $8.5 million 4 year lawsuit against him with 17 plaintiffs and 3 respected law firms opposing him would not have just ended in a whimper as the plaintiffs all collectively . . . Walked away.
We do what we do because we have to. We are not alone. The most important person to focus on is the Lord – He writes the last chapter of every book.
It is funny that you seem impressed by “The Cult Next Door”. Did you watch it? Bill and I watched it together. It was almost an advertisement for the reasons Bill exists, what has drawn so many millions to follow him in the first place. The author, BTW, was a high school student and he did it for a class. If you haven’t watched it, do so, let me know what you think. We understand that he had a relative that was a lawyer and that likely – wisely – instructed him on what he could and could not put in there to avoid defamation charges.
As to Amazon – and we are aware of another effort that has been working for a decade now – we will see. Not everyone gets to slander an innocent person, even one “everybody” hates, and can get away with it. In the final analysis, “Vengeance is mine – I will repay, saith the Lord” (Romans 12:19)
i think that James is right in the thing that he should do a documentary himself, explaining his perspectives in everything, from his faith to the IBLP. Or even a podcast or a youtube channel. There’s a lot of ways in these days that he can do that.
Perhaps he will 🙂 Much of that legacy is expressed in EmbassyUniversity.com and the over 50 books that he has written over the past 3 or so years. It lives on in the hearts of all of those that have been deeply changed because of his ministry. We continue to hear from them constantly as they reach out.
yeah, but it would be better if it was something opened to everyone, wether they we’re on embassy university or not.
I do know that Bill is a big proponent of accountability. Things that are so accessible to be considered “public” are easily abused, misquoted, plagiarized, which has the effect of damaging the message. Regardless, I know he would be happy to hear from you and respond himself. Bill@BillGothard.com will reach him, and he almost always responds directly.
But i also think that he should do something open to everyone, so he could attracted more christians, not something enclosed only to embassy university.
I see two posts the look identical, except this one is longer. If you want the other approved too, just say.
There is nothing limiting about Embassy University. It is 100% online at present . . . And from my understanding there are no costs to join. If the Lord directs Bill is ready to expand the reach in many ways. Worth a look – EmbassyUniversity.com (also Embassy.University)
re: Gothard auto-documentary
What message would Bill Gothard send in a documentary that he has not already sent? Gothard has already spent a lifetime producing more material than most people would produce in many lifetimes. The market is saturated with Gothard material for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. How would additional material satisfy those who don’t? Probably, Gothard materials have not been tried and found wanting. Rather, they have been found difficult and left untried.
re: Gothard legacy
Has Bill Gothard has expressed concerns about his legacy? No doubt his enemies wish he were half so obsessed about his legacy as they are. Yet Gothard’s published materials and statements give evidence of a shy, even introverted public figure. A half-century ago when his seminar began to fill large public arenas, Gothard’s name could barely be found in the materials which he sold by the millions, and his photograph was also absent. That never changed.
This raises the question, when a man is so indifferent to his legacy, how do we explain the extremes to which his enemies go to smear him? How much energy will Gothard expend to rebut the bulls of Bashan who compass him? Apparently none.
Eight years ago, Gothard quietly resigned from IBLP and invited his enemies to accuse him to his face. He had no takers. Instead, Gothard’s accusers pecked at him from keyboards.
David said:
“No doubt his enemies wish he were half so obsessed about his legacy as they are.”
“This raises the question, when a man is so indifferent to his legacy, how do we explain the extremes to which his enemies go to smear him?”
Interesting to label them enemies. Some would call them victims. From the interviews and testimonies I’ve seen, they would not appear to give any energy towards speculation or wishing about how Bill perceives his own legacy. Rather, they seem intent on warning others.
I’m not so sure that Gothard is as indifferent to his legacy as you suggest. The published emails from Gary Smalley to Bill would suggest otherwise. Gary refers to discussions which the two of them had, or planned to have, about Bill’s legacy. From the emails it sure does not sound like he is indifferent. I would imagine that Alfred would have a pretty good idea as to whether he is indifferent.
“Enemies” is not an incorrect term. Enemies would certainly want to warn . . . They would also want to damage, and even profit, say 1/2 $million each. Perhaps the clearest difference would be that enemies most definitely would not want to reconcile, unless “reconciliation” accomplished the objective of destruction or permanent sidelining.
Bill does care about “legacy”. All of us want the record straight, lies destroyed. In his case he knows he has messages from the Lord that, were they to be heard and applied, would solve endless problems for individuals, families, churches, and even our nation. Anything that is remotely under his control that can help to that end, he is more than willing to exercise.
What he has an amazing ability to ignore are the things he cannot control. He has pointed out that there was a time when the Savior spoke . . . And there was a time when He “opened not His mouth” in the face of the most outrageous lies. Ultimately the only record that matters is the one being recorded in heaven, the one we will all shut our mouths at and bow our knees to. Severe opposition is one of the clearest signs that someone is doing the Lord’s will. And that gives him a lot of strength.
Gary Smalley was a complex individual. A great man, an honorable man, yet one that almost single-handedly destroyed Bill himself when he was upset that Bill had not taken his insights and warnings about his brother seriously. It led him to give some extremely salacious, much quoted, and, as he clarified a mere year before his death, very false testimony. http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2015/10/19/did-he-do-it-the-cabin-story-and-more/ Gary went out of his way to author and sign a statement in latter years that he was not aware of any moral improprieties committed by Bill. Was he an enemy? I don’t think so and I believe Bill does not think so. To his credit he was godly enough to own mistakes made.
A number of others were proven to have given false testimony as a result of the meticulous documentation demanded by the lawsuit they initiated. With $8.5 million – before any punitive damages – on the line they, one by one, departed. A group left just before interrogatives, where they would, for the first time, have to declare their charges under oath. Something scared them off. The rest left just before depositions, where they, under oath, would have been examined on their charges. Some of these continue to declare themselves victims. They will answer to the Lord, as must Bill and all of us.
re: victims or enemies?
Which term best describes those who employed the internet to accuse Bill Gothard? Shouldn’t the late lawsuit settle that question? Ultimately the accusers dared not accuse Gothard before a neutral magistrate.
Was the risk of adversarial cross-examination too great? Might the facts transform accusers into accused? Was discretion the better part of valor? What made the accusers retreat to their keyboards before the hour of decision?
Answers to these questions would settle whether Gothard’s accusers are pitiful victims or malicious enemies.
How is Bill doing these days? I’ve not heard much from him lately. Can we expect a resurgence at some point? Is he going to try to wrest control from the IBLP leadership with lawsuits? Does he have any active cases? I heard Amazon Studios was going to make a docuseries about IBLP/ Duggars. Is that still going on? I’ll be honest, I disagree with your perspective on most items, but I do appreciate the info you share. IBLP is like a black hole that emits only small amounts of noninformation. – Knocking on the front door of secret IBLP headquarters possibly in Texas? Hello, there are like 100,000 students out here that have some interest in what is going on. Are you selling all the properties we spent the “best years of our lives” remodeling? How are you spending the moolah? You did fire the Grand Potentate of Navy and White for undisclosed behavior and all we get is a measly two paragraphs on the homepage? It wasn’t very bad what he did, but it was very bad enough to fire the Father of 15 Passenger Vans and call out the Texas Rangers when he rides onto the Ranch?
Hello 🙂 Thank you for the creative and heartfelt post. Understand that “we” do not represent either Bill or IBLP in any way, shape, form. We are very much pro-Bill and seek to defend and explain him as to all we know. We have the advantage of having been brought in directly on the legal team defending him in the massive lawsuit deployed 2015-2018, have the entirety of legal documents in our possession.
Beyond that, we are not directly or even indirectly involved in the current legal efforts. Yes, Bill is seeking to obtain a legal ruling against the Board for illegally seizing the ministry and assets away from him and the others that have worked with and for him all over the world. We know that there was a summary judgement against the coalition bringing the suit, of which Bill is a part, and that that judgment was overturned in the Appeals Court November of last year. It is being pursued on the merits. That is all we know.
The Board’s purposes are not fully known except that they intend to divest (“sell”) all property except HQ in Big Sandy and, presumably, use the proceeds to continue operating at some level. ATI is no more, perhaps that is what you were referring to. For his part Bill has a new ministry, Embassy University (EmbassyUniversity.com) which he is actively growing. I hear of big things on the horizon. May the Lord be glorified.
As to what Bill did or did not do, we invite you to read that section on this website (“Did He Do It?”). As far as we know, there are no voices raised against him. The time to do that was during the lawsuit. The team representing 17 plaintiffs (three legal firms, including one that is arguably one of the most well known, politically connected entities in Illinois) was desperate to get as many on board as possible, with a requested payout of $500K PER plaintiff, this before any punitive damages. In the end, EVERY ONE of the plaintiffs quietly walked away . . . Ones and twos, a group here, then the rest in 2018. No settlement, no moneys paid out, with the ability to refile for a year. That option was not exercised. You KNOW that if ANY of the accusations had legs, no high powered firm in their right mind would have quietly eaten the quarter million dollars in expended effort.
And the Board has communicated in several different ways that they are clear – now – that Bill did not abuse, molest, take advantage of a single woman. We have documented this repeatedly here. The current administration is offended at Bill for other reasons, ways in which they feel he hurt them, individually. That, of course, leaves the world still believing that they have “dirt” on Bill. They do not, nothing that can withstand any legal or formal inquiry.
Yes, the police were called on him attempting to attend his own conference as a paid participant. We documented that here as well (“Bill Gothard Went Down to Texas”). They answer to the Lord, every one of them.
Thanks for the updates. We do appreciate them.
re: me too
My questions are like Dan’s on 6/21 above. But I am not curious about moolah. IBLP moolah is drying up. Productive men no longer support IBLP at the lavish level they formerly supported Bill Gothard’s IBLP. Can you blame them?
General Patton once said, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” Gothard’s IBLP was an obvious winner. (The Grand Potentate of navy and white made certain that it dressed for success.)
All this raises the question, do the officers of post-Gothard IBLP want to win? Sometimes we evangelicals have a poor sense of proportion. Back when Doug Phillips resigned (supposedly in disgrace) from Vision Forum, the “offense” which he confessed was inordinate emotions. IBLP officers accuse Gothard of nothing worse.
Dan has a good point. The Gothard scandal narrative is unconvincing. What truth lies behind the phony narrative?
Disclaimer: I am not a religious person nor am I affiliated with any group for or against your ministry. Just an outside observer interested in what influences the world around us.
Two observations in the first 5 minutes of reading: Censorship of comments on Bill Gothard’s Facebook page and running the line of violating HIPPA with personal attacks of those who have left your ministry doesn’t seem like a very Christian thing to do. To my first point, isn’t that what the religious right is supposed to stand against, censorship? Or is that only when it is applied to other “Christian” leaders like Donald Trump?
To my second point, simple human dignity and respect, anybody knows that. Besides, personal attacks cheapen a counter- argument. They make one look as though they lack a strong counterpoint. You may have valid discussions in this regard but when you start by spotlighting someone’s personal struggles as a negative; it tends to shift people’s natural emotion of empathy towards your opposition.
I am sure I will not get a response; nor will any of what I said be considered; being that I am a non-believer. You are entitled to your opinion and beliefs; respond or don’t. Just checking the pulse to see if open and free dialogue is dead in this organization.
Feel free to reach out to me: theskyisfalling32@yahoo.com
We have a habit to responding to everyone, other than those that just want to be nasty. So thank you for the post.
We are not aware of any HIPPA related violations, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Public information, voluntarily released, part of a lawsuit, does not fall into that category, right? All of the details, for example, of Depp v. Heard may be freely cited . . . Forever.
Censorship of comments on Bill’s public page is an openly stated policy, pinned post. This is one place where his supporters get to enjoy posting without the defacto censorship of trolls. “Cancel culture” is really not very fair.
With regards to “personal struggles”, those are very private and should be respected. Except when they become the basis of very nasty, very public lawsuits. One of the comments we made when the 17 – originally 18 – plaintiffs stepped out of the shadows to publicly accuse Bill Gothard of some very evil things . . . Was: “Lawsuits are not a game.” The rules change at that point. The rung bell can never be unrung. Individuals made very personal attacks in their accusations, things wherein they had already or subsequently impeached themselves, evidence that was ready to be thrown into the ring as soon as the right time emerged. When others insist on citing those lies after the plaintiffs walked away from those accusations, it is more than fair to generally cite the evidence to the contrary. We have a duty to protect data disclosed during discovery if it can be reasonably tied back to an individual.
As to shifting opinion to against him and against us, my friend, I suspect that you have some sense that there was little further to fall. Bill was to be cancelled. Everybody hates the specter of a strong, loud, religious – white male – leader that has been secretly breaking all of the rules, particularly in moral areas. We actually all share that disdain. Unfortunately that gun is being aimed with abandon at anyone in the white, male, strong, loud religious category these days in a concerted effort to kill them all off. THAT is wrong. So I hope that, given the facts of what we knew we were dealing with, you can forgive us for taking some of this very personally, especially when it involved people many of whom we happen to know quite well. “Family”, really.
I still say I haven’t seen any evidence to contrary, other than “Bill denies that.” I assume this is because it can’t be shown due to some legal restrictions?
As I have said before, this leads me to conclude that the narrative is at least plausible. At worst, it means more than the Recovering Grace crowd is fudging the facts.
Is there any way to see that evidence outside the courtroom? I’m still very curious about it.
Forgive me . . . The display we see here gives us your comments completely out of context. Not completely sure what you were responding to.
Evidence to the contrary . . . That he molested girls? 17 individuals joined the lawsuit that he had, and we have the documents related to that. Had any of the 17 had anything substantive you know that the powerful, secular legal firm of Meyers and Flowers would have dragged it over the finish line, so at least they would have gotten paid. They sunk a lot of money into this.
In terms of things we know, how about a statement that one of the plaintiff leaders drafted as a representation of the concerns the “leadership team” had with the “amended lawsuit”, the one that contained the final charges and they rode all the way until they dropped out 2 years later. See what you think:
“Dear ___ & ___ [lawyers], Thank you very much for your (and the entire team) hard work on our behalf. We plaintiffs are very excited that the lawsuit has been amended and refiled. Now that the big push to make the deadline is over, it might be nice to schedule a conference or Skype call in the next week to give us an update. I know you’re used to the legal process, but most of us are not. There has been some concern over our specific allegations in the lawsuit and several of us would like to have them corrected. While the compilation of the details was a gargantuan task, none of us were able to see our portions prior to them being filed (that I’m aware of) and many of the errors could have been caught if we had. We do understand the concern for security and that not all of us are perfectly trustworthy. It’s a tricky situation.”
So we learn that the plaintiffs apparently did NOT see let alone approve the statements put in the lawsuit in their names. For the record, the statements were in fact never changed. Seems like a big conscience issue before Jesus that has never been corrected to this day. Maybe that is why about a third of them dropped out just before interrogatories, and the rest just before depositions were to be taken.
That last statement: “Not all of us [plaintiffs] are perfectly trustworthy. It is a tricky situation.” Indeed. Some of the more prominent ones admitted privately that their own stories did not have enough “beef” to survive the lawsuit, but they were sure that the others with salacious stories did and would bring them all home. What they found was – they were dealing with “untrustworthy” individuals.
Well, you have claimed and keep claiming this evidence. I have simply asked you to show it. You keep not doing so.
I appreciate this response. There was actually something here. But it was posted in a reply to a post. How do I know you didn’t just make it up on the spot? Surely, you have that letter ready to display. Is it displayed somewhere on your site? That would go a long way to help.
I’m also not convinced plaintiffs dropping out of testifying is proof of the opposite. There are a number of reasons why one wouldn’t want to be on record. But I agree it doesn’t help the opposition.
I understand you likely have access to documents you cant just display. If they were part of legal proceedings, or part of discovery, they might be sealed or something. I do get that. But I want you to see that simply saying “trust me, it’s there” is not a sound strategy.
That is all I say. That is a I have said. I am not convinced of the molestation charges, either. But when you have a claim and some witnesses for that claim, the opposition needs to rise to the occasion. A simple “Bill denies that” doesn’t suffice here.
It’s nothin personal. I just have to call it as I see it.
I showed you evidence in all of the detail you are permitted to see it. Legal documents in front of me. If, my friend, you are not moved – even stunningly claiming that no “evidence” has been provided – there is nothing else that will convince you. And maybe that is the point. That is your prerogative. But not a game we need to play.
re: Bill denies, that settles it
Fortunately for all of us, our accuser always bears the burden of proof. If I accuse you, you may either admit guilt or deny my accusation. If you deny my charge, you are presumed innocent unless I produce enough evidence which meets a threshold. Sometimes I must prove you guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other cases, I must produce a preponderance of evidence that you caused me harm or loss.
Unless new evidence turns up, we must presume Bill Gothard’s innocence. His denial settles the question unless his accusers meet their burden of proof.
Well I do agree, except. . .In this case, there have been claims made by both sides. Both sides need to back it up.
It’s a sticky point, and I know you guys are sick of hearing it. But the Moderator did a good job in the past of actually showing some things, such as the by-laws (which didn’t actually make his point, but they were there).
In a simple case of he-said, she-said, I would agree. But here, we have she-said, and then witnesses that will confirm some of the aspects (very allegedly) of those statements. That gives she-said some degree of preponderance.
He-said has to rise to the occasion. Fortunately, there were some legal quirks that worked in Bill’s favor, such as the plaintiffs backing out and the like. That helps.
But if there is this evidence to the contrary, as the Moderator has claimed, it needs be displayed. Maybe there’s something keeping it from being displayed. That is fine. It just doesn’t help. And it is that simple.
“Plaintiffs backing out” should be a lot bigger blip on your radar than it appears to be. Bring that data point into the real world. There really is no explanation. Not for 17 plaintiffs and the amount of legal fire power involved, real money simply lost by very savvy firms.
re: ad hominem and HIPAA
As Outside Observer says on 6/26 above, personal smears alienate and do not persuade. This raises the question; which ad hominem attacks are we considering? smears against Gothard or against someone else? and which violations of medical privacy are we considering?
Donald Trump is NOT a
“Religious Leader.” Neither he nor any real Christian ever said President Trump is a religious leader … you did.
Donald Trump IS a
“former President” who happens to be a newly born-again Christian.
Don’t compare s newborn to an established adult as Billy Graham or Oprah Winfrey.
The only Leader and commands a true Christian follows IS
. JESUS.
On July 6, 2022 – 12:36 am Moderator said the following:
“Forgive me . . . The display we see here gives us your comments completely out of context. Not completely sure what you were responding to.
Evidence to the contrary . . . That he molested girls? 17 individuals joined the lawsuit that he had, and we have the documents related to that. Had any of the 17 had anything substantive you know that the powerful, secular legal firm of Meyers and Flowers would have dragged it over the finish line, so at least they would have gotten paid. They sunk a lot of money into this.
In terms of things we know, how about a statement that one of the plaintiffs drafted as a representation of the concerns they had with the “amended lawsuit”, the one that contained the final charges and they rode all the way until they dropped out 2 years later. See what you think:
“Dear ___ & ___ [lawyers], Thank you very much for your (and the entire team) hard work on our behalf. We plaintiffs are very excited that the lawsuit has been amended and refiled. Now that the big push to make the deadline is over, it might be nice to schedule a conference or Skype call in the next week to give us an update. I know you’re used to the legal process, but most of us are not. There has been some concern over our specific allegations in the lawsuit and several of us would like to have them corrected. While the compilation of the details was a gargantuan task, none of us were able to see our portions prior to them being filed (that I’m aware of) and many of the errors could have been caught if we had. We do understand the concern for security and that not all of us are perfectly trustworthy. It’s a tricky situation.”
So we learn that the plaintiffs apparently did NOT see let alone approve the statements put in the lawsuit in their names. For the record, the statements were in fact never changed. Seems like a big conscience issue before Jesus that has never been corrected to this day. Maybe that is why about a third of them dropped out just before interrogatories, and the rest just before depositions were to be taken.
That last statement: “Not all of us [plaintiffs] are perfectly trustworthy. It is a tricky situation.” Indeed. Some of the more prominent ones admitted privately that their own stories did not have enough “beef” to survive the lawsuit, but they were sure that the others with salacious stories did and would bring them all home. What they found was – they were dealing with “untrustworthy” individuals.”
There you go again. The fact that the lawsuit was dropped voluntarily does not prove anything. You have claimed that you were a member of the defense team. We expect you to claim this proves something. It does not. Cases are very difficult to win when the statute of limitations has passed. If it were so easy, then Bill Cosby would have 50+ lawsuits. Only one case was within the statute of limitations and that case was successfully prosecuted. It does not mean that the other 49+ women made up their stories.
You letter does not prove anything as well. Plaintiffs are to be given the opportunity to review filings with their claims before they are filed. If this fell through the cracks and was not reviewed by one or more of them, this is not conclusive of anything.
You claim nothing was modified about the filing. I guess people can take your word for it if they are so inclined. We don’t even know that this letter was written after the filing. Perhaps this was in response to the copy that they were to review, and they did not understand that it had not yet been filed. I have seen this happen, in which the plaintiff mistakenly thought that the review copy was the actual filed copy. Conveniently, you haven’t provided an actual letter with a date, just typed some words in, or copied and pasted what suited you. People can add whatever credibility to this letter that they want to and this will depend on how well they know and trust you to objectively present information.
But, set aside the legal filings if this causes one to doubt the accuracy of them. Many of the women have testified in court and have written at length about their experience on various platforms. Some have been interviewed with the videos posted online. So, anyone who has followed the case can rely solely on their spoken word and written word, to hear their side of their stories, if they so choose. And despite your constant claims of “no evidence”, testimony is evidence.
You’re a member of his legal team or were at the time. Your perspective comes as no surprise given your decades of defense and the deep personal relationship that you have with Bill Gothard. You have said that he is family to you. Well, family hears what they want to hear and believes what they want to believe and dismisses what they don’t like. You, David and a handful of others have your view. It seems that the vast majority of those who have paid attention do not share your view. There is a reason why he is not back in leadership.
Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether they believe the women, and there are lots of them. They can also choose to believe “no I didn’t”. Many people believe the women.
“The fact that the lawsuit was dropped voluntarily does not prove anything.”
It would definitely prove something. 17 plaintiffs with $8.5 million on the line and a strong public following let alone face to save do not just quietly walk away. We have been over the SOL – The judge overtly passed the lawsuit through despite the SOL giving the expert legal teams plenty to work with. SOL was from the get-go a non-issue, provided that the plaintiffs could prove the fact that they did not realize the damage or the scam, as they saw it, until recently. And they all attested that this was true.
“It does not mean that the other 49+ women made up their stories.”
There never were 43 or 49 or 60+ women as the Recovering Grace originally stated. When the legal matters started getting active and they were challenged to get the evidence ready, RG dramatically changed their story. Basically they were counting any woman who showed up with “me too” as a hit … and publishing it. Playing legal games. As proven by the 17 presumably “best” witnesses that put their reputations on the line, the cancel culture feeding frenzy was in fact . . . Nothing.
“You letter does not prove anything as well.”
And here I had hope that someone was actually ready to review the evidence impartially. Of COURSE it proves something! They were ALL uncomfortable with the accusations listed, feeling that they could not stand behind what was said.
Here, BTW, is an exact quote from one of the plaintiffs . . . 06/06/2016 . . . She speaking to another plaintiff, one of the coordinators:
“What if I’m wrong, ____? What if my brain is playing tricks on me? What if [lawyer] just led me on? regarding BG molesting me?”
She is quailing . . . Because their big lawyer had talked her into a scenario that she, frankly, literally – and there were a lot more comments to confirm – could not remember. She was by far not alone. You wonder why the case fell apart.
We hesitate to put things out because we have to protect individual privacy. And, frankly, we were tired of people trampling things underfoot as fast as possible to try to get back to the old narrative. That letter should have been highly significant to you. But . . . Apparently hearsay is far more interesting?
“Many of the women have testified in court and have written at length about their experience on various platforms.”
Let’s start with “court”. WHERE? No, no they didn’t. Not a single accusation made it that far. The deposition step – under oath – would have gotten us close. Remember: They all ran off before they had to – for real – stand to their statements under penalty of perjury.
Yes, lots of stories. We have examined pretty much all of them. Not one can be corroborated, other than incidental things. Remember: One of the key plaintiffs stated, for the record (to a PI): “The worst thing that Bill ever did to me was almost kiss me once.” I have that in writing. See the problem? After lots of public statements and details she is left with the worst thing being her imagination that he wanted to kiss her. Which he vehemently denies.
“Some have been interviewed with the videos posted online.”
We have listened to a great many of them. We are most interested, because Bill is interested. Any accusation in public of sexual malfeasance is defamation “per se”, meaning, you do not have to prove damage – it is assumed. So, if you have any that you would like us to ponder, send the links. The truth is the absolute defense against a charge of defamation. So . . . “Bring it on”.
“your decades of defense”
No one from our DG team is a lawyer or has had any legal training. A chuckle cannot be suppressed.
“the deep personal relationship that you have with Bill Gothard”
I and my wife have sat across from him and grilled him about every detail from every story that we were aware of. We have taken his responses and gone back to accusers for reflection and perspective. That is what took us to Gary Smalley, for example. We purposed before we ever got directly involved that, should it become clear that Bill was into bad stuff, we would personally take that information to the IBLP Board, and then to ATI in general. Bill knew this as a condition from the get-go. We never intended to get as deeply involved as we did, particularly in the lawsuit defense as it turned out. But because we did our homework, we have the evidence and facts to rely on. “The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.” (Proverbs 14:15)
“It seems that the vast majority of those who have paid attention do not share your view.”
Is that you? Have you paid attention? Have you validated even the smallest detail of any of these tales you appear to take at face value? See, I know for a fact that the BOD did the same thing, took a “mountain of accusations” at face value, expected there to be SOME truth in there SOMEWHERE, and acted. That is a crime against the Lord. Their job was to search the matter out thoroughly and “establish EVERY word”. We did that. They did not.
Today you have some detailed facts that have not been disclosed prior to now. The seeming lack of interest generated is startling, based at least on your professed lack of bias. The Lord judge between you and me and Bill.
re: paying attention
Perhaps the most disappointing part of the Gothard lawsuit scandal has been the BoD. Why did they not search out the accusations leveled against Gothard and settle the questions conclusively? Why invite perpetual gossip when they might have settled all?
Was Gothard tried and found wanting? Or was settling the truth found difficult and left untried? A least some of the claims are being sifted on this blog. Hopefully the sifting glorifies God.
Boards often act secretly and to their own ends. It is the way of it.
My guess would be simply that they believe the matter settled. No not that Bill did it necessarily, but more that Bill’s time is done. It’s time to move in a different direction.
If that is the case, we can’t expect them to do anything other than simply cut and move on.
Boards are not permanent staff. They don’t have offices in the company where they are always doing work. They are usually disparate members from here and there that only meet when the need arises. As such, they may have many differing opinions about how the company should operate.
And yes, that leaves many questioning why even have a Board if it can be so out of touch with the company’s purpose (which can and does happen). But that is the way of it.
You said:
“The judge overtly passed the lawsuit through despite the SOL giving the expert legal teams plenty to work with. SOL was from the get-go a non-issue, provided that the plaintiffs could prove the fact that they did not realize the damage or the scam, as they saw it, until recently. ”
Not true that SOL was a non-issue. The judge let the case proceed, but he did not rule on whether they had proven that they just remembered the events recently nor that they had enough of a compelling case that SOL would not ultimately have caused it to eventually be tossed out. As you have noted, I believe that there were issues of when they remembered things and there may have been electronic records to show that they remembered things before the lawsuit claimed that they had. It is hard to know how Popejoy would have ruled on it. The case never got to the case where he ruled on it.
My sister and I have different stories on who first noticed that Dad was losing his memory. I believe my wife and I were the first to notice. In fact, at his 76th birthday party she confronted me about the fact that I had encouraged him to get medically evaluated. She said he was crying and upset that I think he might have dementia. She is in the medical field, and in her opinion he was normal for a 76 year old. She also felt that I should not have upset him like that. Others, including my brother, heard this conversation. Now, 3 years later, there is a diagnoses and no doubt of his condition. Yet, to hear her tell the story, she believes that she was the first one who was aware of his condition. She is not lying. That is how she remembers these events.
But, there are facts that no one doubts. He has dementia. He had a birthday party and we all were there. Trying to remember when someone realized something from years ago- that is not easy. So, I think there were problems in them proving that they just remembered recently, and perhaps some solid evidence to the contrary. This does not mean things did not happen. If someone is touched in a certain way, this is not something one generally forgets. When scores of women remember certain behaviors or touching, this becomes a very strong case that something happened.
“It does not mean that the other 49+ women made up their stories.”
“There never were 43 or 49 or 60+ women as the Recovering Grace originally stated.”
You took me out of context there. If you go back and read my post, I was clearly using the Bill Cosby case as an example. Bill Cosby had over 50 accusers, but only one case was prosecuted. My point was it does not mean that the other 49+ cases, of women who had accused Cosby, were false. Wikipedia says there were 34 accusers of Bill Gothard. They appear to have this information from Recovering Grace and Recovering Grace still has articles up claiming 34 women. That is a lot. 17 joining the lawsuit. That is still a lot of women who are making this claim. It reaches a point, with the number of accusers, where it is hard to believe “no I didn’t” and that nothing happened at all. Remember, Bill did confess to some of the things alleged in his letter which he published on the internet, before he took it down. So, this would suggest to anyone paying attention that their stories, at least part of them, were not made up, due to Bill’s own admission.
You said, regarding the letter:
“Of COURSE it proves something! They were ALL uncomfortable with the accusations listed, feeling that they could not stand behind what was said.”
I don’t find your statement accurate. It is from one person and she uses the word “some” not all. It would appear, from the letter, that some of the claims made in the filing for some of the women were innacurate. There is not clarity on how many and which specific details.
Here is what the letter you presented actually said:
“There has been some concern over our specific allegations in the lawsuit and several of us would like to have them corrected”
“Here, BTW, is an exact quote from one of the plaintiffs . . . 06/06/2016 . . . She speaking to another plaintiff, one of the coordinators:
“What if I’m wrong, ____? What if my brain is playing tricks on me? What if [lawyer] just led me on? regarding BG molesting me?”
That would bring her individual testimony into doubt for sure. It speaks to her uncertainty over her own memory.
But, when you take it here:
“She is quailing . . . Because their big lawyer had talked her into a scenario..”
She is wondering. You jump to your conclusion and speak about the idea that maybe he he talked her into a scenario as if it is a fact that he did. This is what bias(yours) will do to a person’s interpretation of events.
“That letter should have been highly significant to you. But . . . Apparently hearsay is far more interesting?”
Interesting contrast that you are trying to paint there. Your letter, is not an actual letter just words you typed on your own website on the internet. It would not be permitted into a court of law unless you had the actual letter. There is no way, at least none that you have provided, that one can determine that the letter you are claiming is real or represents the actual words of one of the accusers. On the other hand, I have watched hours of video testimony, listened to a lot o actual courtroom audio and read court filings of transcripts of their testimony. That is not heresay. That is direct testimony of the women.
You claimed: “Let’s start with “court”. WHERE? No, no they didn’t. Not a single accusation made it that far. The deposition step – under oath – would have gotten us close. Remember: They all ran off before they had to – for real – stand to their statements under penalty of perjury.”
If others want to fact check you, to see if any of the women testified in court, they can follow the links provided below to the transcripts. This was from the case brought against them for sanctions, which Bill Gothard lost. Testimony and cross exaxamination for several of the women:
JANE DOE III
DIRECT EXAMINATION 25
JANE DOE III
DIRECT EXAMINATION 42
CROSS EXAMINATION 48
JANE DOE IV
DIRECT EXAMINATION 66
CROSS EXAMINATION 75
RECROSS EXAMINATION 91
JANE DOE V
DIRECT EXAMINATION 114
CROSS EXAMINATION 122
ELIZABETH CHARIS WOOD BARKER
DIRECT EXAMINATION 131
CROSS EXAMINATION 137
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 141
RACHEL FROST
DIRECT EXAMINATION 3
CROSS EXAMINATION 20
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24
MEGAN LIND
DIRECT EXAMINATION 57
CROSS EXAMINATION 67
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Transcrip-of-hearing-AM-01-10-19-WILKINSON-VS.-IBLP-AM_2.pdf
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Transcript-of-Hearing-pm-01-10-19-WILKINSON-VS.-IBLP-PM.pdf
“See, I know for a fact that the BOD did the same thing, took a “mountain of accusations” at face value, expected there to be SOME truth in there SOMEWHERE, and acted. ”
We both know that you have not seen the report containing the investigation, conducted for IBLP, regarding the of accusations. The results were used as the reason for Bill’s removal and the statement that he would no longer be permitted to be in leadership of IBLP. Apparently this meant forever. It should also be noted that most, if not all, of the accusers who went public were not questioned for the report because the attorney, hired by IBLP to conduct the investigation, wanted the women to sign a non-disclosure agreement and they were advised by counsel not to sign said document. Yet, according to the BOD, the report still had enough damaging information that Bill should be forever removed from office. Were there other witnesses who did not go to Recovering Grace? None of us have seen the report so we don’t know, but it is also unfair to speculate that the board is just believing things without evidence.
I share your view that this report should be made public or at least made available to Bill. In my view, this would only be fair. Yet, having not seen the report, I also feel it is not fair for you to make this accusation that the Board connected dots and just took the mountain of accusations at face value. You don’t know what they know. Neither do I.
“The judge let the case proceed, but he did not rule on whether they had proven that they just remembered the events recently nor that they had enough of a compelling case that SOL would not ultimately have caused it to eventually be tossed out.”
SOL means the case cannot be tried, because too much time has elapsed. Open and shut. The judge ruled that the SOL clock – for them – started the day they realized they had been abused, this due to a psychological illness that caused repressed memories . Pretty simple burden of proof. EVERY one of them alleged in their section of the suit that they had been diagnosed with this condition.
“When scores of women remember certain behaviors or touching, this becomes a very strong case that something happened.”
Stunningly, it may also be a symptom of a documented problem called “Sexual Abuse Hysteria”, where a group of people tied to an individual or situation start feeding off each other and concocting memories of abuse that never happened. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-modern-witch-hunt/2015/07/31/057effd8-2f1a-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html The modern “Me Too” movement is driven in similar manner. Some of those that are innocent – Johnny Depp coming to mind – can afford high powered lawyers to get justice, others, like Bill, can afford a small office in an old building randomly picked off a court supplied list. The Lord was gracious, and it was enough.
IBLP was ripe for this sort of thing, tied together more like a family than anything else. Good clues that this was the case was that not a single plaintiff had a complaint to remember until RG started actively hunting for dirt. Even then several of the plaintiff leaders, while shocked at some of the stories being published, openly declared that Bill had never done anything to them. Morphing in the end into demanding $500K each from Bill . . . For “sexual abuse”.
IBLP is the perfect microcosm to breed that kind of mischief. One thing the plaintiffs demanded from the beginning was that they be able to talk and corroborate during the case. They were in constant contact. We have only a fraction of their chats because they illegally deleted the most incriminating. They fed off of each other. I personally interviewed women who alleged certain events having taken place, which after we pursued it meticulously on all sides they admitted that it never happened. Their memories were echoes of what others had said.
“Bill Cosby had over 50 accusers, but only one case was prosecuted.”
Right. You need only one. They never found one for Bill.
“Remember, Bill did confess to some of the things alleged in his letter which he published on the internet, before he took it down.”
Here we have the witness of interrogatories which, for Bill, focused almost exclusively on that very statement. So we know what he meant by it. As you may well know, interrogatories are signed legal statements that are impeachable. I sat with him and his lawyer going over each question in great detail, seeking to jog his memory so that no instance or matter was left out. When he said, “touching the hair” he was referring to a single incident where he pulled a ponytail out of a coat of his secretary. He went back to her the next day to apologize and she laughed it off. By “touching hands” he acknowledged that some women were uncomfortable with the courtesies that men used to afford young ladies, such as placing the open hand on the small of the back to assist in entering a conveyance, or, for those known well, clasping a hand in two of his while expressing something heartfelt. And by “feet” he recognized that some people apparently were uncomfortable with the tapping he did to signal affirmation or gain attentiveness. We had testimony ready to go where he most definitely did that with young men as well.
NOTHING he acknowledged approached sexual activity. It was misunderstandings, fueled perhaps by the olden world he came out of and very much still respected. He thought that would help signal sincerity, but regretted it from almost the very beginning.
“It is from one person and she uses the word “some” not all. It would appear, from the letter, that some of the claims made in the filing for some of the women were innacurate. There is not clarity on how many and which specific details. ”
It was not just any “person” but part of the small group that drove the lawsuit recruitment and coordination effort from the very beginning, speaking overtly for the others. Of course we don’t know, but given that they were serious enough to cause grief, we should have seen SOMETHING by way of revision. That, of course, is not how lawyers do things. Christians do, secular, money greedy folks do not.
“She is wondering. You jump to your conclusion and speak about the idea that maybe he he talked her into a scenario as if it is a fact that he did. This is what bias(yours) will do to a person’s interpretation of events.”
I hope I have never given you any reason to doubt my veracity, even to my own hurt. At some point maybe you can accept that I have pages and pages from this one plaintiff alone, day and night, saying the same thing. I can only present limited excerpts as this comes from discovery.
“There is no way, at least none that you have provided, that one can determine that the letter you are claiming is real or represents the actual words of one of the accusers.”
So, you do believe me to be a liar? At some level? Please confirm. I, personally, have no further interest in this discussion in that case.
The testimony you cited with the women was NOT establishing the facts of the case but rather the very narrow matter of whether they believed themselves to be victims or were, in fact, making it up out of whole cloth. As we have stated, Bill’s original lawyer walked away after filing this action because, we believe, he knew he should and would be going after the high powered law firm across from him, instead of the plaintiffs. Likely costing him years of work and a damaged reputation (yes, the “Chicago Way” had a role here).
“We both know that you have not seen the report containing the investigation, conducted for IBLP, regarding the of accusations.”
We have testimony of at least one person who has who stated emphatically that there was nothing in that worth cutting Bill off from the ministry. We also have statements affirmed by the BOD that, to a man, none of them believe that Bill ever did anything sexual with a single woman.
I don’t recall the details of our past interactions. Maybe we got here last time or two. But I for one am not interesting in continuing this discussion if you continue to assert that I am not telling the truth, the whole truth, nothing else. Why would you even want that? The world is full of untrustworthy people. When the sun sets all I have is my conscience before Jesus. That is a “ball” I will take and go play elsewhere.
re: mountain of accusations
The BoD’s mountain of accusations against Gothard sounds like the child who on Christmas morning found a heap of horse manure under the tree instead of presents. The child was not discouraged. His parents discovered him enthusiastically shoveling the manure as he exclaimed, “With all this manure, there must be a pony somewhere!”
Instead of a pony, did the IBLP BoD find only a convenient excuse to evict Gothard?
David said:
“Instead of a pony, did the IBLP BoD find only a convenient excuse to evict Gothard?”
Are you suggesting that the men who had been his friend for decades are evil and turned against him?
You said:
“But I for one am not interesting in continuing this discussion if you continue to assert that I am not telling the truth, the whole truth, nothing else.”
I believe you to be an honest man. I trust that you would not fabricate a letter. However, I do not trust your judgement. We all have goggles on, colored by our own personal life experiences. You and I can look at the same flower and you say that it is orange, and I say that it is blue, neither of us lying, but our interpretation is shaded by the goggles we wear.
Similarly, there is a term known as trust but verify. You believe it is imperative to, in your own words, “validate even the smallest detail”. So, how is one to do that with just some words you typed on the internet, without the ability to verify the letter? Perhaps the letter was drafted by another- perhaps drafted by someone on Bill’s team, intended for signature, but the person never signed it? Who knows? Maybe you have a copy of the letter, which you believe to be authentic, but is not. To be clear, I do believe that you think it is authentic. I feel confident that you would not fabricate such a letter, in my judgement. In reality, the letter may or may not actually be authentic.
But, I do find your insistence on being trusted interesting. I could apply the suggestion that we “just trust you” to other areas. The board has essentially said that there were some things in the investigative report that were so bad that Bill had to be banished. So bad that should he ever set foot upon IBLP property again that he should have the authorities sicked upon him. You have documented this. Now, what if they were to tell you that you should not insist on seeing the report and should just trust them? Well, they basically are telling you this and, also, that if you don’t trust them then take your ball and go play somewhere else. My take is that this approach does not sit well with you.
“The world is full of untrustworthy people. When the sun sets all I have is my conscience before Jesus.”
And yet you seem to believe that the board does not view themselves as accountable to Jesus?
I do believe that the report should be released. You and I share this belief. But that is not without problems. I would imagine that many of those who testified in the investigation were given the promise of confidentiality. Releasing the report complicates this. The report could be released, but with names redacted to protect privacy. From your past statements about how you feel entitled to “validate even the smallest detail”, I’m sure that you would ultimately dismiss such a redacted version unless you could personally verify every jot and tittle.
As to Bill’s version of what he meant by the apology letter, trying to explain things away, I’ll say that I don’t trust him the way that I trust you. I have read too many accounts to the contrary and have friends to whom things were said which later tuned out to be completely incorrect. You trust him, so clearly these explanations will satisfy you.
“So, how is one to do that with just some words you typed on the internet, without the ability to verify the letter?”
God is my witness that that is copied word for word from the Facebook Messenger dump – “Bates” discovery document – that one of the plaintiffs provided as required by discovery. Chat with other plaintiffs. Said it was a draft, concerned it was too “harsh”, asking for input before sending on behalf of the group. Date and time Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 10:36pm EDT
The draft email to the lawyer team goes on quite a bit further expressing their need to collaborate “securely” and that there would have been no lawsuit without furious collaboration in the past. Speaking of others that they would like involved. Nothing that changes the thrust of the part copied. Next two comments:
[Second voice] Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 10:43pm EDT
That’s good. I might play down the fact that group conversation brought about the lawsuit. (Which might seem like we planted ideas in each other’s head) but more that when we realized we weren’t alone in our experiences, our relationships with fellow victims became extremely important as it validated our confusion/pain/trauma for the first in our life.
[Third voice] Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 10:43pm EDT
I think it’s lovely ____, very nice spirit and doesn’t come across too harsh at all. Just a thought to maybe finish it with a reiteration of why you’re writing, just to drive that point home again, in case they’re in a hurry and only read the first and last paragraphs the best.
So, those speaking agree with the primary thrust, no comments to the contrary, that they could not review their accusations before the suit was filed and that they have problems with what is stated in their names. Upset enough to worry about coming across harsh when emailing the lawyers. AND that some of the others were “not trustworthy”. We don’t know whether it was sent or what changes were included, but really don’t care. This is the raw expression of where they were at.
Also . . . A moment of lucidity . . . They were absolutely right that others might suppose that the endless talking between themselves would taint their testimonies and invent some convenient new memories. We have a number of other examples from chats with plaintiffs expressing their struggles to remember ANYTHING (“my head hurts”), then later were grateful for others “refreshing their memories”, then later again putting that “refreshed information” into the suit. Not that any two plaintiffs were ever together in any setting involving Mr. Gothard. But . . . They all helped each other “remember”.
That is the truth. If you really trust me, then let that be the end of questioning the authenticity.
“I do believe that the report should be released. You and I share this belief. But that is not without problems.”
Of course. But they could easily have handed it over for review to the good pastor that agreed to be the mediator between the Board and Bill – and, again, he was not a Bill groupie. That was why he was there. Instead they completely avoided any discussion of moral issues involving Bill, from beginning to end. You tell me.
“As to Bill’s version of what he meant by the apology letter, trying to explain things away, I’ll say that I don’t trust him the way that I trust you.”
And as I explained, I have the advantage of the lucidity commanded by interrogatories focused on that statement and nothing else . . . That Bill had to complete under oath. There was no room to “explain”, just raw facts . . . Every instance, what happened, who was there, what followed. Lawyer was so nervous that nothing was left out, mirroring my concern. I trust him and think you should too.
So why no have photographs of these letters, if handwritten or typed, and the transcripts posted on your site as evidence?
Why not post screenshots of these Facebook messenger posts? It’s not difficult to do.
You need to do something other than just claim it in these comments. That’s what is making it look suspicious. Anyone can type anything in these comments.
You are in the position to establish this. You can. So why not?
This information comes out of “discovery”. The mass of documents that are required to be exchanged between the plaintiffs and defendants which include private emails, photos, social media posts, publications which involve communications about the case with anyone other than the legal team. They are protected for privacy reasons. As an example, that email contains the plaintiffs name, phone number, email address, and website. We are permitted to provide snippets as long as they do not obviously trace back to an individual plaintiff. Photos would be boring anyway. Basically pages of chats as printed straight out of Messenger or other venue, marked by the obligatory “Bates” document tags so they can be referenced in court. This is as good as it will ever get. Not interesting? It is all we have (a lot more than this, BTW, but given the lack of impact more of the same will not help).
Against my better judgement I will make one further effort. This is a snap of the document (PDF) showing the Bates document number. What’s more, in doing a search on key words I discovered that we did in fact have the 2nd and presumably final draft dropped into the chat stream the following Sunday. So you will get a second witness. Understand that chats are read in reverse, most recent chats first:
See. This is good. This is ultimately what I’ve been after all along.
Now, look I do understand the privacy reasons. I have only asked that you understand as you keep them hidden that it is a problem for your side. It is that simple.
I have tried to be impartial here. I have no personal gripe with Bill. I don’t have a vested interest to see him suffer. At the same time, he is not my friend. I have no interest in seeing him succeed, either.
I hope you understand the position this puts me in. I hear from one side a lot of complaints. You side counters those complaints, as is your right. But the other side has other witnesses. As I’ve said, that gives them an advantage where I sit.
I need more from you than just “trust me it’s there.”
So I more than appreciate this snapshot. You’ve not gone against your better judgment here. This goes a long way. Solid job.
Thanks for that vote of confidence. At the very least I trust it will give you confidence that we can back up the statements of fact that we make. With regards to the witnesses that are strongly influencing you, present your most convincing or troubling and let’s see if we can address them. We have thrown open every closet we have been presented with, in the fear of the Lord.
To be completely fair, though, this only confirms that the plaintiffs wanted to go over the statements before getting to trial.
In other words, it doesnt prove they made any of it up. Nor does it prove the statements are fraudulent. It only proves there were errors in the original filed report. What those errors were is still unanswered.
What this statement does for me is solidfy that you have something in THIS instance. No, it doesn’t give me complete confidence that you can back up everything you’ve said. (But dont fret on that – I’m not completely sure I could always back up EVERYTHING I’ve ever said. That is the nature of time and remembrance.)
I think we’ve discussed some of this before. Part of my contention stems from Charlotte’s story (as does yours in a different way). No, we don’t have witnesses to the molestation, but we have one witness who puts her in the car with Bill when she claims and another that places her in his office after hours as she claims. From where I sit, that makes the story plausible. It doesn’t confirm the racier aspects of the story at all, but I believe you said simply “Bill denies that” in reference to those sightings.
Preponderance of the evidence would work against Bill here, unless you have something that could counteract it.
I also have strong contentions over your statements about Bill and the Board, as we’ve discussed. But that I believe is more a matter of what is legal and what is right. We both agree and disagree on major elements there
If you look at the frustration exhibited in the first draft, the attempt to force herself to be professional and not mad, would point to a deeper level of concern. I will attempt to dredge up some of the discussion around that.
As to “Charlotte”, Gretchen Wilkinson, the entire suit was built around her. It is her name that adorns the action. She was also one of the first to abandon the suit and the others months before it collapsed, just before having to commit her story to interrogatories, under oath, subject to impeachment. The social media chats show that she had lost the confidence of the group long before this all ended. I have an hour long deposition with her mother in my possession. There are statements that others report she made that I would love to show you, but I cannot.
Yes, of course she was in the car, as many other were as well. It was always parked in the staff center area, massive big windows, with those coming and coming, including to eat, having to pass by on either side. The notion that she claims, openly in her “story”, that she “forgot” about serious, brutal molestation for decades before suddenly remembering in time to join the lawsuit? We were anxious to have seen her on the witness stand. But she bailed long before that ever was an option. She was the biggest reason for the suit, the loudest voice slandering Bill in interviews, and frankly the biggest reason the action so precipitously collapsed. You are free to draw your own conclusions, but I assure you that the allegation of sexual contact is completely false.
IF you have access to any of the plaintiffs, why don’t you ask them about Gretchen yourself? I can’t say for sure, but the “not perfectly trustworthy” tag may well have been aimed at her.
A couple of snips from the discussion leading to the drafting of the email. The point here is that what came out in the lawsuit did not reflect reality. The degree to which this was so may be determined from their level of grief. Again, the flow is from bottom to top in each snip, but the snips are positioned chronologically:
===============================
And just for the record, a plaintiff – whom we know was one of the ones upset with how their allegations were represented – made this statement elsewhere:
IF the “worst thing” that Bill ever did to her was “almost kiss her once”, can you understand why the legal team would feel a need to “beef things up” a bit without consulting them? There is no plaintiff in the suit for which the worst offense was Bill almost kissing. She was an adult when she imagined he almost kissed her … once. That is not going to get you $500K, not even $50 for a single count of “gross negligence”. There is a second voice there, also asking for $500K . . . One who believes that his “emotional abuse” transcended everything else. It seems inconceivable to me that a sexually violated adult woman would make a statement like that.
re: questioning the IBLP BoD
On 7/10 above, brother James asked whether long-term friends of Gothard were evil traitors. That would be a very harsh accusation. It also raises further questions. Was the 2014 BoD which evicted Gothard comprised of long-term Gothard friends? possibly not.
Back in the golden age of IBLP when ATI was thriving and optimistic, the BoD probably was comprised of hand-picked Gothard loyalists. But that was decades ago, and IBLP politics may have changed. We judge a tree by its fruits and a BoD by its fruits. The eviction of Gothard from IBLP raises questions, especially if the basis for eviction was a mountain of dung.
I personally knew all of the BOD for a decade in the “golden age” during the mid 80′-90’s. This was the era when ATIA started and most of the women in the suit worked at IBLP. Though the BOD were hand picked by Bill, they were all independent thinkers and highly revered in their personal lives and businesses. None of them worked full time at IBLP, nor were any of them paid by IBLP. Most of them lived out of the area. They all loved Bill, but were not past reprimanding him. I know for a fact that they strictly prohibited him from meeting with any women one on one in his office alone. He felt some counseling situations with young ladies required one on one meetings, but he did so against the counsel and advise of the BOD. It is sad, because THIS is what allowed the door for these accusations to exist. He violated his own rule that he made for the male apprenticeship students, and sent the m home for it, and he has suffered great loss because of it.
The eviction of Bill was based on Bill not “avoiding the appearances of evil”. Maybe the more extreme accusations are dung, but the whole mountain is not dung. He met with women alone, he played footsie, he held hands too long, he did not keep his own rules when it came to interacting with women. Is it prosecutable by law? No. Is it worthy of “evicting”? After 20+ years of Bill not listening to his BOD on these matters, the current BOD said YES.
That the BOD consisted of good people is not in question. It remains that the group that was in place at the time this all “went down” did not fulfill their responsibility to either IBLP or the body of Christ. The entire point of a Scriptural “discipline process” is, as the Savior said, to “establish every word” (Matt. 18:16). That way anyone can come and ask what happened and what was done and why it was done, and a clear, factual answer can be given. You and I and everyone else knows this did not happen. To this day Bill has never been given a clear reason for their insistence that he leave, the barring from the property. Generalities do not cut it. The bloody 4 years lawsuit that followed demonstrated a complete lack of evidence. I have the entire proceedings in my basement, 5 boxes of legal sized papers.
NO, he never “played footsie”. That is an allegation of sexual misconduct, and that never happened. Witnesses were prepared to testify to that, but the trial never happened.
The BOD owed Bill that, the ability to face the charges let alone face his accusers. We believe the BOD was more worried about the pending lawsuit than they were to get to the bottom of this. The two board members who disagreed with the collective actions were pressed into resigning.
The notion of a BOD over a work of God is itself questionable in my mind. I recall what Dr. Dobson’s BOD did to him when they disagreed with his level of political involvement (if the explanations I have heard are correct). God raises up a man, not a ministry.
Regardless, at the very least they had a difficult job to do which they did not do. The Lord sorts it all out. He could have vetoed their actions, He did not. The Coming Day will tell all.
re: appearance or substance?
Is it probable that the BoD permanently expelled Gothard because of dubious appearance? The better the men on the BoD, the less probable that seems.
Was the BoD really like the 12 angry men in the old Henry Fonda movie? Without Henry Fonda’s character, the thoughtless jury might have railroaded an innocent man on the basis of mere appearance.
Good Christians maintain proportion. We find the principle is in 1 John where the apostle distinguishes between “sin unto death” and lesser sin about which Christians pray. The old Westminster Catechism makes the same distinction.
The BoD’s duty is to sift through dung to distinguish appearance from fact. They must reserve their most severe censure for severe sin, not rumor or gossip.
“Is it probable that the BoD permanently expelled Gothard because of dubious appearance? The better the men on the BoD, the less probable that seems.”
– Jesus said the opposite and so did Bill. Bill sent guys home because of “dubious appearance”, in fact it was the MAIN reason people were kicked out of the ministry, and ultimately it was why Bill was kicked out. Just took longer!
Good Christians DO NOT maintain proportion with sin. Have you never heard Bill’s “GAP THEORY”? Bill came down really hard on appearance.
Evidently when you spend time alone with women in your office, it allows “dubious appearance” to become an “evictable appearance”.
Bill was not “kicked out” but stepped down with the specific purpose – as IBLP acknowledged – of allowing him to sort out the issues, and reconcile with those that he had, in fact, offended. What he found was a mass of ultimately baseless accusations and – with a few exceptions – individuals who had no interest in reconciling. The Board justified a separation from Bill during the time of the lawsuit due to legal entanglements. Once it was done it was their responsibility to either present him with their own charges, or bring him back. They have, repeatedly, refused to provide any charges when pressed, with the exception of focusing on a number of staff members – all male, from what I could discern – that he had treated harshly or unfairly. This is what came out of the formal “reconciliation” process that was executed with Bill’s pastor as the mediator after the lawsuit evaporated. To my knowledge all issues they put on the table have been addressed.
Young people entered Bill’s sphere of jurisdiction as directed by their parents. He was ever clear on what was expected, and part of that was an understanding that they served at his wish, as he saw fit. And the fact remains that he BOD was NOT responding to actions that they had observed but rather the coordinated smear campaign by a group of ex-ATI students that called themselves “Recovering Grace”. We have access to background – and open – chatter that was part of that process, where they specifically went looking for sexual dirt because, they knew, that was the only way to bring him down. Yes . . . They initially had no such accusations, but in a deliberate and coordinated way went looking for them. It was the BOD responsibility to properly deal with all of that, “establish EVERY word”, and “not follow the masses in doing evil, nor … testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice” (Exodus 23:2) Instead they did the easy thing, which was to wash their hands of him and “move on” with the ministry he had built and the resources he had collected toward that end.
re: proportion and sin
Where is Proportion is most important if not concerning sin? That is the message I quoted from St. John on 10/25 above. Is it hypocritical to neglect appearance even while emphasizing appearance? indeed. Was Gothard guilty of this? His accusers said so. But were their accusations true? (the jury is literally out).
Did Jesus contradict St. James about proportion? of course not. We see this in his Sermon on the Mount. After quoting the eye-for-eye proportion law, Jesus warned us not to use it as an excuse for personal retaliation. Proportion was law, but grace was gospel. “Mercy rejoiceth against judgement.”
Moderator, The accusations of Bill touching feet were true. Even Bill confessed to the touching of feet in his statement letter in 2014. The quote from the letter reads “My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair of young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong.” And that is the reason all of this happened. He crossed the boundaries of discretion for years and years, and it caught up to him. To dispute this, is ignorant, after the man himself confessed to it! I’m not sure why anybody would defend a perspective that Bill himself didn’t hold to.
I was with Bill in the timeframe he crafted that statement, and have had ample opportunity to explore it with him. Indeed, that appeared to be about the only thing the interrogatories from the plaintiffs focused on. So he got to, under oath, as those documents are considered, declare it. Make a mistake, and that is impeachable. So both his lawyer and I grilled him on the basis of all the alleged events. And he signed.
Bottom line, he did NOT ever, not once, “play footsies”, a sexually motivated behavior. He DID have a habit of signaling or requesting attention by tapping a person’s foot. This was documented from his youth.
We spoke at length with a woman who was in about as close of a proximity as anyone was to him. She told us that Bill may have done that 3-4 times to her, but that it was nothing but what I just described. This being a woman who knew the ways of the world and of men before getting saved. She also recalled seeing him do that to a male Assistent (MGA) he had, a good friend of hers, on van rides. Doesn’t add up.
In fact, it is remarkable that not one person made note of it through all the decades, including the time of the major scandal with his brother in 1980 when they all were under intense scrutiny . . . Until Recovering Grace rolled in. They had meetings where they discussed the fact that Bill would not go down without a sexual scandal, so they went hunting. First they declared every April as “Sexual Abuse Awareness Month”, openly asking for any instances of sexual abuse noted at IBLP, including failure to report as mandatory abuse reporters are required. People were wracking their brains . . . And then we had this and we had that and eventually somebody remembered that Bill tapped feet. And the delight that ensued to label Bill as playing “footsies” was sickening. IF this had been a real thing, it would have come up years, decades earlier. Surely in the two lawsuits that were filed in 1980 that also were looking for sexual dirt. But . . . Nobody remembered that.
The same thing for “touching hair” and even “hands”. Bill noted every instance that he recalled of the former, including pulling a ponytail out of a jacket of a secretary as he thought it looked better. He went to the woman the next day to apologize but she laughed it off. Others took exception to his placing the flat of his open hand against the small of a young lady’s back as he assisted her into a van. That was chivalry in a day gone by. One of the first complaints on RG was that Bill held the hand of a young lady as he spoke to her heart. They all noted that it was in front of an open window, and often in front of everyone at staff meetings. Once again, accepted in a day gone by.
The possible insensitivity of not understanding more modern boundaries, THAT he did apologize for, but the “inappropriate” extended only to previously unknown sensibilities. To that end we will trot out a picture displayed elsewhere on this site . . . Showing a reenactment of the “Shepherd of the Hills” novel in Branson, MO. We just happened to run across this at random . . . Nobody screamed, nobody winced as the actor playing the “shepherd” grasps the hand of the young motherless girl he has been helping in his, and earnestly instructs her. Because . . . It isn’t bad. Bill did nothing sexually “inappropriate” in his life. We were there too.
If only it was as innocent as you portray, then Bill would not have apologized. I am assuming you don’t have access to the internal investigation documents from 2014 that the BOD conducted? I wish you did… then you would understand it is not as innocent as you portray. Bill was very clear in his letter that he crossed the boundaries of what was appropriate, I believe he also apologized for having a “double standard” for himself, in this area. What Bill wrote was very clear, and validated many concerns expressed throughout the 90’s by the 90’s BOD and employees. I have a friend that left during this time because of Bill inappropriately touching her calf and foot on the plane coming home from NZ. Surely you have read of that account. It is as true of an account as you will ever read. Many of the other stories of conduct beyond foot touching and hand holding came from women who were not reliable or trustworthy (speaking from a personal perspective of knowing each of them) and I believe Bill never went beyond the foot touching and hair and hand holding, but the foot touching was NOT just a “attention signaling”. No sir it was different.
It seems like it would be helpful to simply acknowledge Bill’s indiscretions that he has admitted to, and move on. Defending actions he has apologized for is like trying to convince the world that WWII never happened. Not only do we all see and live with the impact, but it is also very well documented.
You would find the information in the internal investigation docs very helpful and enlightening, especially seeing the BOD’s perspective. Maybe you could make an appeal to see those documents, surely Bill was given a copy?
“If only it was as innocent as you portray, then Bill would not have apologized. ”
I have heard Bill apologize in a multitude of situations in which he was marginally – frankly if at all – involved. He is quick to humble himself, express that there is much that he misses. However, from many earnest conversations with him directly as well as what he put in his legal responses – under pressure and under oath – it was no more than what was stated.
“I am assuming you don’t have access to the internal investigation documents from 2014 that the BOD conducted?”
We do not, and, notably, neither does Bill. No, he has never been given a copy. So he has to this day been unable to respond to any of his accusers. That is the greatest failure on the BOD part, men I love, BTW. They failed in a solemn responsibility to not “quench the smoking flax and break the bruised reed”. We should NOT be having these conversations as they would have “established EVERY word (account)”. Bill was expendable.
However:
1. We have met multiple times with those in leadership that have. They took several of these secret accusations, presumably the most egregious, and presented them formally to us. We took these things, contacted the respective individuals where possible, conducting hours of interviews, went over them in detail with Bill for response, and presented our findings back to leadership. In one instance a woman made a startling claim to us directly, headline worthy, mirroring things reported in the press, then, to her credit completely reversed the narrative on the following day on further reflection. We took our investigation of what was given us – 3 matters – and presented it back to leadership – and even after several requests we were never given a response, rebuttal, clarification. This is how it has been, in every instance.
2. Bill and the BOD agreed in 2018 to a formal process of reconciliation, as mediated by his pastor, one who is friends with both sides. He graciously debriefed us afterwards. When he met with the BOD and asked about their concerns with Bill, not a single matter of moral “impropriety” was ever presented. They only spoke of his “inappropriate” attitudes and actions toward (male) staff, some of which he apparently hurt very badly. This pastor was clearly not a Bill sycophant.
3. ANYTHING of substance would have become part of the lawsuit. 3 teams of plaintiff lawyers spending what had to have been at least 1/4 million dollars would not have walked away without a single penny of settlement otherwise.
4. Someone who definitively DID see the Gibbs investigation that has been sealed all this time told a friend with some energy that there was nothing in there that was worthy of the BOD severing ties with Bill.
“I have a friend that left during this time because of Bill inappropriately touching her calf and foot on the plane coming home from NZ.”
We would love to have your friend make her case with us, fairly sure we know who that is. All we can say is the amazement we have had after several high profile accusers have completely changed their stories when interviewed directly. Most notable certainly was Dr. Gary Smalley. IF Bill “did it”, we have all agreed we will see justice done. That was our agreement with Bill directly. We love him enough to visit him regularly in jail, but we would help him go there if required. BUT . . . 20, 30 years does insane things to memories. HOW could a man of Smalley’s character convert the HQ office into a remote cabin (that had not even been built) and lingerie for a woman that he knew quite well would never even go to the mail box without being formally dressed? We have his emails alleging what he did and we have his emails to us – and a signed affidavit – stating otherwise.
“the foot touching was NOT just a “attention signaling”. No sir it was different. ”
I have spoken to those that tell me something completely different. Folks that have been estranged from Bill for decades and have no reason to sugarcoat things.
“acknowledge Bill’s indiscretions that he has admitted to, and move on.”
We stated his “indiscretions” above and would love to “move on”.
I appreciate hearing the details of your knowledge and involvement. You certainly have applied yourself as a true brother to Bill, and I’m sure he appreciates your love and support. I do agree that Bill was/is a humble man and was unaware of many of the offenses that he caused. I also agree that the BOD should have shared the investigation details with him, that is too bad.
From where I sit, I believe that Bill’s indiscretion were not illegal, nor were they morally egregious… however they were not appropriate for a leader of his caliber, and his repeated ignoring of cautions and mandates of the board were also very concerning and deserving of eventual removal. The restoration plan should have gone differently, but I am also well aware that Bill likes to do what Bill likes to do, and being under a board was a constant challenge for both Bill and the BOD, and why the door continually revolved on the members.
We have different perspectives because of the people we know, and the conversations we have had. I am sure if I heard the conversations you have had, and you could hear mine… both of our perspectives would change a bit. Thanks for being so thorough in helping me understand yours, and kind in your responses.
And thank you for being gracious in your interactions.
“they were not appropriate for a leader of his caliber, and his repeated ignoring of cautions and mandates of the board were also very concerning and deserving of eventual removal.”
I am going to trapse back to Numbers 12 . . . When Moses’ “Board of Directors” called him on the carpet for “improprieties”:
Numbers 12:1-2 “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.”
We will never know what exactly the issue was . . . But being “black” was not a prejudice in those days from all I read. It was an “inappropriate” matter with a woman. Not befitting a leader of God’s people. It is interesting that in His response, the Lord never brings the matter up. Not that He could not have – He certainly had His issues with Moses, some of which got him barred from entering the Promised Land. No . . . He focused on the fact that when HE raises up a man for service and bestows a special blessing on him, it is HIS matter to deal with, not the “authority” in the structure brought in to support.
Numbers 12:6-8 “And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
So . . . There are those of us – and I am interested to hear your response – who believe that the Lord’s anointing is on Bill Gothard in unusual ways, an anointing that has provided him tremendous insights from Scripture that have changed – and continue to change – the lives of millions. I can only speak for the moment for myself, when as a boy of 15 I attended my first Basic Seminar and the entire direction, tenor of my life was changed.
In all of that which has transpired I have continually gone back to the very bottom line. That being that the Lord reached through Bill and effected a revolution in my life that I have never recovered from. This being the testimony of so many others.
So I ask: At what point do a group of men, similarly impacted, gathered about him to support the work that God gave him alone, gain the right, the authority, to declare his ministry over . . . Unfit because of “inappropriate” behavior? And at what point would they feel a need to lay they hands on their mouths – and “be afraid” to blame him, as the Lord said to Aaron and Miriam?
As I said, at the very least they should have done all that we have attempted to do, “establish EVERY word”, every account, to the point that they could answer every person that came asking. I have personally spoken to Dr. Levendusky about this. God is my witness, he remained – and apparently remains – uninterested in any of the details. He – and the rest of the Board – excluding the two that supported Bill and were driven away – have concluded that “it is time to move on”. “He is old, had a long life and ministry”. Dr. L told me, “We think the ministry should go on”, and have busied themselves in making their vision of that ministry happen. That purpose was important enough to call the police on Bill when he came to Big Sandy – paying his fees – and threaten him with jail time if he ever set foot on these properties again that the Lord had provided.
I don’t know what the Lord is going to do. I know He never misses a thing, or is a day late. I know He allowed Paul to spend his last days in jail, with “all of Asia” against him, surely for “improprieties” and “indiscretions” as they found them. There is a time for conferences and there is a time for prison.
All I can say – the MINIMUM required of that group of men was never fulfilled. We are a poor substitute for what they should have done. If your friend is willing to talk, we would be thrilled to interview her. We will strive to keep our consciences clear before the Lord and man in these last days.
And forgive the bit of passion . . . And, again, thank you.
re: apologizing beyond guilt
Among Christians, “extra mile” apologies are not unusual. To make peace, many will scour their conscience for the remotest possibility of blame. For the sake of peace, these conscientious Christians accept blame beyond the call of duty.
Such peacemakers deserve much credit. They comprise an answer to Christ’s intercessory prayer recorded in John 17. Unless we have extra-mile saints, can we expect the harmony for which Christ petitioned the Father?
One senses an obsession of Captain Ahab proportions. Why are some so determined to pin something carnal — anything — on Gothard? to indulge in armchair psychology, do Gothard’s enemies need something to offset the burden of their own carnal guilt?
That is quite a judgmental statement. You’ve missed the point of the conversation sir.
On 11/16 above I made one statement, followed by two questions. Indeed, my statement judged some of the DG traffic to seem obsessive, which raised questions. Of necessity I judged (inferred a conclusion from facts). Was the judgment just? exaggerated? unjust?
Moderator, I wholeheartedly agree that “the Lord’s anointing WAS/is on Bill”. There is no doubt God used Bill in the past, especially when the seminars were in full swing and SO many lives were touched, for the gospel. I am not saying that God stopped using Bill, but by Bill’s own admission, he allowed things to crowd into his life, that took his eyes off the mission and it appeared God’s blessing was not, as it once had been. The last decade of Bill’s ministry with IBLP was diminishing. You could look at the seminar and ATI numbers and see that. If you look at Bill’s own teaching on the seeds of disintegration within a ministry, you can see some similarities and an explanation for the fallout. The ministry began as a proclamation of the gospel, and making the Christian life, clear and palatable to all. But as it wore on and ATI started, and all the other ministries… it seemed to shift the focus to man’s approval of IBLP/ATI and making a “perfect” social status within christendom. Buildings were being acquired (some without BOD approval), prominent political figures and business men were onboarded, and it seemed to be about building the IBLP/ATI brand, and creating followers that fit that mold. Was good happening in those buildings and under those people? Yes! However, there was a clear shift in the focus. You have heard all the criticism… we were told what to wear, what to eat, what to listen to, etc. The heart behind all of this was well intentioned, but somewhere along the way it stopped being about removing worldly obstacles to seek God, through Jesus, and more about looking right, acting right, and doing right. The focus got skewed and rather than the mission, it became more about man and his methods, as good and pure as they seemed to be.
That combined with Bill’s ignoring the BOD at times, especially when asked not to meet with women alone (his very own standard for all other male staff members), which then gave way to all the accusations, wether they are true or false, which partly led to Bill’s eventual removal. I agree that there should have been a better path to restoration or at least communication for the purpose of healing. However, anyone who has worked closely with Bill would tell you that if Bill disagreed with somebody, Bill always got his way. Maybe he has changed, and it is too bad that the current BOD won’t have conversations with him, or share with him the details of the internal investigation, but I have a feeling their experiences have led them to the lack of communication and restoration offered. The feeling may be – once bit, twice shy. The Big Sandy incident is the perfect example. If you ask the BOD, they said they told Bill not to come onto IBLP property. Bill says he signed up for the seminar and paid his fee and they “accepted it”. Lol, that is far from the BOD approving him to come. That was probably an administrative error more than anything. When He shows up, the BOD had every right to ask him to leave… they tried to do it peaceably and you can even hear him on the recorded video acknowledge they asked him to leave and he didn’t want to. He tried to change his story, and when the cop refused to allow that, Bill wouldn’t let it go. I call it a cringe moment when Bill asked the cop for his paperwork and said “if you can’t change it, let me”. So disappointing to hear him ask that. Why couldn’t he trust God with that little piece of paper? After an encounter like that, I can understand the BOD not wanting to engage with him any further. I get it, the communication was confusing, and Bill claims they wanted to meet with him. But once you communicate “you must leave” then walk away, and certainly don’t try to talk an officer in to letting you do something that he repeatedly told you he couldn’t do! That was the last public encounter with Bill I am aware of, and sadly, it leads you to believe, as scripture says, “a leopard doesn’t change his spots”. Jer 13:23
Psalm 75:7, says God raises one leader up, and tears one down. If God’s word be true, then it is God’s hand that has allowed this. Yet it appears Bill does not look at it this way. One of Bill’s biggest confessions in 2014, was repenting of a spirit of hypocrisy, where he had one standard for others (higher), and another for Himself. Yet even after repenting of this hypocrisy, Bill is still not abiding by his own teachings (Biblically based) on “not suing a brother in a court of law”. You and I can defend Bill and his right to be back in leadership, but BIll’s own teaching on Yielding Rights would lead Bill to give all of this to the Lord, bless his “enemies” (the BOD) and seek success where God is blessing currently. Bill would have NEVER counseled anybody to sue a brother, no matter what (I know this, because I saw him counsel this way). His display of defending his rights in a court of law and suing his brothers in Christ, lead me to wonder whether Bill is actually repentant of “having one standard for himself, and another for others”.
I agree with you assertion of the minimum required of the BOD. More could have been done, but all Bill can do is focus on himself and make sure that “His ways are pleasing to the Lord, so that even his enemies would be at peace with him”. Only God knows the answer to this question, but are all the suits Bill has filed, pleasing to the Lord? If Bill thinks so, then he will have to change quite a few of his own teachings from the Basic and Advanced. I’m not saying others are right with what they have done, but we are specifically talking about Bill for the moment.
So why even talk about this or bring this back up? At the heart of this whole thing, I care about Bill. I wish the best for him. When I see you and others denying the wrongs he has confessed, even if he recanted, it feels like self protection and pride. I hold no ill will toward Bill, but I do long to hear of the day when he, like Jesus can stop defending himself. Wether he was right or wrong, it seems very appropriate for Bill to follow Jesus example on this… for we KNOW Jesus was innocent, and yet he still didn’t take maters into his own hands.
For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 1 Peter 2:20-23
I hope if I am ever in this position, I can do the same. I do not judge Bill, but pray sincerely for him.
Moderator, thank you for this platform. It is helpful. When you were apart of something for so long and it had a tremendous impact on you and others, it is sad to watch it lose its effectiveness. When you were close enough that you knew the truth, but see it denied, it is frustrating. Especially when you want to believe there could be an answer and pray there is hope for a turnaround. But as long as Bill is defended and he defends himself, I have to wonder if that will ever happen. , like others, do not wish to have any personal conversations with Bill, I have been down that path already. But I do hope and pray that maybe those of you who are close and have a voice with Bill, that maybe he would heed what God may be telling him through others. It feels like too much water is under the bridge, but isn’t that when God loves to act? I long for the day when once again we will hear stories of miracles happening for Bill because of his complete and utter dependence upon God, not on his reputation, the men around him, money, or a legal case.
A long response, and I am not sure I can do it justice, but I will try.
“There is no doubt God used Bill in the past, especially when the seminars were in full swing”
You misunderstand my idea of “anointing”. Anointing is the finger of God on a man, a ministry, not the relative external degree of success. Moses, for his part, spent 40 years after his “anointing” as an unknown shepherd, and also faced a series of disasters, not the least of which was losing the heart of the entire nation, or close to it, on several occasions. IF that is the standard, brother, then Paul had clearly lost his anointing by the end of his life.
“That combined with Bill’s ignoring the BOD at times, especially when asked not to meet with women alone (his very own standard for all other male staff members), which then gave way to all the accusations, wether they are true or false”
“Whether true of false” is really a big deal, right? Especially in this age of “cancel culture”. We have seen over and over the ability of a disgruntled group to sabotage an effective leader. Fact is, it is false. If you have any doubt in your mind, let’s bring it to a point where that doubt is removed.
As to ignoring the BOD, I would make two points we have often made. First is the complete lack of Scriptural support for a BOD over the work of a man of God. If I am wrong, point it out in the Bible. We have mentioned George Muller who cared for thousands of orphans and the vast resources required to do so, reporting to no one. I believe it is the snare of the devil, based on the fear that God cannot govern those that report directly to Him.
The second – Bill is not his interns and disciples. I know in one sense there is no comparison, but the Lord Jesus had no BOD and was known as “a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners” (Matt. 11:19) Women, including former prostitutes, traveled with Him and cared for his daily needs. That scenario would be vetoed by any modern ministry BOD. Bill’s standards for his young men were required by the parents that gave them to his care. In some cases I place governance on my young people that I do not on myself. It is how it works with the young and inexperienced.
Bill made judgment calls and saw many lives transformed even while remaining free of compromise. We have mentioned on this blog several times the main incident that the BOD gave us as “proof” of Bill’s malfeasance. In the meeting the BOD scheduled with my wife and myself two staff women testified that Bill called for a young woman under their care to be brought to his office late at night for counseling, deliberately clearing everyone else out. That was it, that was the crux of the complaint, along with their uneasiness over the matter. It fell to us to gather the details.
Bill recalled the incident immediately, and his recollection was confirmed by his then MGA who spoke to us as well. The woman had come back from an absolutely traumatic – almost satanic? – experience at a “Journey to the Heart”, with suicidal depression, openly threatening to kill herself that very evening. Bill had attempted to counsel her previously but she refused to open up with anyone present, and the crisis was then and there, that evening. Bill counseled her, the immediate crisis was averted. Several individuals “debriefed” her afterwards, including the MGA, and her testimony was that everything was above board and professional.
As the servant of the Lord with the Lord’s anointing, what do you think he should have done? Besides the appearance, was there anything incorrect? The answer: Not at all. “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)
If Bill followed all of the worries and scruples of the believers around him he would never have done a fraction of what he did. AND . . . At what point did the BOD worrying about the reputation of “the ministry” becoming more important than God’s commands to Bill?
IF he did ANYTHING out of line where he was ensnared by counseling sessions with young women, then there is a post mortem need to figure out what went wrong. It didn’t happen. The personal sensibilities of the staff gathered around him do not trump the direction of the Lord to him.
“they tried to do it peaceably and you can even hear him on the recorded video acknowledge they asked him to leave and he didn’t want to.”
There is so much more to that story. Have you read Nate Garcia’s account, he being the young man that drove down to Texas with Bill? Yes, they asked him to go, and promised him a meeting with the BOD to declare his complaints as a condition he required. There were several outright lies involved, starting with that one. When he got to the place the meeting was to take place, Gil Bates told him no meeting was happening, with the policeman waiting in the shadows. A little white lie to get him out of view of the attendees. Mr. Bates also told the group that had gathered around Bill, “We would never do anything to hurt Bill – we love Bill” . . . As he was, in fact, setting up the deception to get Bill thrown into jail. If you do not have it, tell me, I will email it to you. If you happen to be a member of the “Friends of Mr. G” group, it was published there.
“Bill is still not abiding by his own teachings (Biblically based) on “not suing a brother in a court of law”.”
There is much more to Bill’s teaching than just “don’t sue a brother in court”. 1 Cor. 6 is predicated on both sides wanting reconciliation and willing to submit to a common church authority to do so. Other Scripture suggests that, given that Bill is grieved, the leadership should refrain from offering anything else to the Lord until the matter is resolved. Jesus speaking: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.” (Matthew 5:25) Failure to push the panic button and find a way to resolve the issue quickly results, as the Savior says, in legal action – before the authorities – to rectify it. Fact is that the BOD has steadfastly refused to hear him, let alone do anything about it. Bill has written several papers on this topic – perhaps we will publish them on DG.
“When I see you and others denying the wrongs he has confessed . . . ”
This is where it gets frustrating. What wrongs? He adamantly denies the event your friend wrote about ever happened. Surely someone has gone to her and obtained the right to go to witnesses and search it out? She got her parents involved at some point. Did their testimonies ever get recorded, as critically important as this all is? And if not – and so far we are batting 0 – WHY not? So far, for every matter that has been pulled into the light, with all the facts to bear, has been shown to be either a lie, or a misrepresentation of an innocent event. Do the facts matter?
“When you were close enough that you knew the truth, but see it denied, it is frustrating.”
Then work with us, please. “The truth” is not the allegation of someone you trust, not until it is cross examined with impartial judges let alone disbelieving ones. Based on all you know, did you expect Bill to escape the legal process with 17 plaintiffs and 3 legal firms with national scrutiny . . . With everyone silently pulling out? Especially given the grief of the plaintiffs that were assembled? At what point does it become possible to reexamine your understanding of the matters at a fairly deep level?
Thank you for your kinds words.
I’m just going to respond to a few things here… sorry it has been busy season!
It appears you and I have a very different perspective on what truth is, and I can’t blame you since you have not heard testimony from the mouth of the people who have been involved in the instances I have shared.
You said “As the servant of the Lord with the Lord’s anointing, what do you think he should have done? Besides the appearance, was there anything incorrect? The answer: Not at all.” – If you believe this is an appropriate attitude and behavior from a man of Bill’s influence, then we don’t see scripture the same. Bill placed himself under the original BOD. Bill is the one who set it up that way and submitted himself to a panel of men, for Biblical reasons, and accountability. Maybe you should ask Bill why he formed a ministry with a Board. His response to counseling a young lady “on his own”, should have been an immediate “My board has asked me not to counsel women alone because it is unwise, is there another women that you trust that could sit in on this counseling session with us?” If she said no, then Bill should have had his sister or another trusted female join them. Here is why I simplify this entire conversation with this one point. A complete and blatant disregard for this rule of not being with women alone, is what led to his entire downfall. If Bill would have sought to stay under the very authority structure that he established for himself then most of, if not all, of these accusations could have been avoided. You asked ““Whether true of false” is really a big deal, right?”. Absolutely, but it would have been so much better if Bill had witnesses, and not been alone with these girls. That is my point… you can debate wether Moses needed a BOD, or if Bill should have actually heeded their cautions/instructions, but it matters not when Bill is the one who established it and submitted himself to his own BOD and then did whatever he desired. Bill should have never had a BOD if he wanted to do whatever he wanted to do without any red tape… which is exactly what he did. He essentially “swore to his own hurt” by establishing a BOD.
“The truth” is not some allegation for me. “The truth” is first hand knowledge of the people I know and trust that had these conversations and encounters directly. Everything I know and believe is because I have first hand knowledge of the conversations and accusations from the people themselves. You talk to Bill and believe him, I talk to the people that had these encounters… high level staff, Old BOD members, and even some encounters of conversations I had myself with Bill, and I know them to be true.
The plaintiffs in the case had no grounds for anything legal. I know all of them personally and half of the accusations were a stretching of the truth. I do not believe Bill ever had direct sexual contact with any of them. I don’t believe he ever kissed or groped anybody. Those accusations came from girls that weren’t even trusted way back then. The only accusations that were actually true were never prosecutable by law, but should have never been named as behavior of a man with Bill’s position in a ministry, and those repeated offenses (which I have previously mentioned) were worthy of his removal coupled with his ignoring the boundaries of the very BOD, that he established for himself.
Thank you for responding, yes at this most busy and glorious time of the year.
“Bill placed himself under the original BOD. Bill is the one who set it up that way and submitted himself to a panel of men, for Biblical reasons, and accountability.”
You and I have a different understanding of Bill’s stance toward the BOD. Bill was forced to accept this panel as a part of the incorporation process in the state of Illinois. I have never heard anything from him to suggest that he has ever found a Biblical mandate for this. The Board was a way to meet those requirements much as many of we homeschoolers spin up “schools” to protect our non-school homeschooling.
I have seen much evil come from this love of Boards of Directors. God raised up Dr. James Dobson for a unique world-wide ministry that blessed millions. He was cut loose at the height of his effectiveness by a BOD that took exception to his involvement in politics. God calls the man, not the ministry. George Muller ran every aspect of his huge orphan ministry, including the management of vast sums of money, with no accountability. Indeed, even in his home church (“Plymouth Brethren”) he was one of a plurality of “elders”, no one over him. THAT is how God would run His affairs with those He directly calls, no artificial authority structure because we don’t trust the man nor the God that overshadows him. Can you find ANY example or precept in Scripture otherwise?
Others have complained about Bill’s fast and loose observance of building codes when constructing cabins for the “cabin ministry”. If you were there you observed that. While he never failed to comply with overt rules, he certainly interpreted them in favor of speed and frugality whenever possible. The BOD was exactly like that.
” . . .it would have been so much better if Bill had witnesses, and not been alone with these girls.”
Perhaps so. Tie me back to Scripture, however, to make that a mandate. A mandate that must never be violated, especially in a gross emergency as with the matter previously detailed.
“He essentially “swore to his own hurt” by establishing a BOD.”
Sorry, that seems silly to me. The BOD serves under the state to see that their interests and citizens are not harmed by financial mismanagement, compliance with laws. What you are suggesting is an ecclesiastical authority, and that is completely inconsistent with the legal footing the BOD was on. Please, let’s get clear on this.
“I talk to the people that had these encounters… high level staff, Old BOD members, and even some encounters of conversations I had myself with Bill, and I know them to be true. ”
Then let’s get together. We have made it our business to dive straight in, no holds barred. In EVERY instance what has come out is nothing like what we were hearing initially. We are in no way bound to believe every word Bill says either.
When we started down this road we had numerous trustworthy individuals before us, not the least of which was Dr. Gary Smalley. You have no idea the stomach knots that were involved into throwing open these skeleton closets because we knew that the Lord would not allow us to deflect any matter of substance. The shocking reversal of Gary of his “cabin story” is only one example of several. We have interviewed a great many principals in the ministry, have ongoing discussions to this day with senior management at IBLP. We were debriefed by the pastor whose was appointed by the BOD to work on reconciliation, he interviewing both the BOD and Bill extensively. Let’s do this.
“half of the accusations were a stretching of the truth.”
We have direct evidence of a number of lies at the center of that, that evidence in the form of direct contradictory statements.
“The only accusations that were actually true were never prosecutable by law, but should have never been named as behavior of a man with Bill’s position in a ministry”
Strange . . . How the plaintiffs – to a woman – who were not liars saw no problem with Bill’s “behavior” until the day when the whisperers at RG started sewing doubt in their hearts. Besides the warm letters and emails that came to Bill every one of them stated this to be the case in their part of the lawsuit. These are intelligent, married women who were anything but “Gothardites” by this phase of life, 20 years or more after serving. And I can point you to multiple allegations that were made after that point that were the result of blurry decades old memories blending with the statements of others, many of whom WERE liars.
Let me give you one other example, this a woman who was not a plaintiff but who has published a lengthy account of Bill’s “creepy” interactions with her. The one critical moment is when she describes being in Bill’s house during the time she was helping to take care of his mother, when Bill carefully instructed her – showed her – how to fold his underwear. Her disgust is evident and is the ultimate proof of Bill’s weirdness. When I interacted with her directly years later in a Facebook forum, she relayed the same event to me as proof of her close working relationship with Bill. But in an unguarded moment she now detailed how it was Mrs. Gothard – elderly Mom – who told her how to fold those undergarments. When I called her on it, she became angry and said unkind things but did not alter what she had just said. Minor point? As often and as publicly as she presented it this was very much a key moment. AND it never happened. It is what happens with memories.
If someone with the integrity and walk with Jesus of a Gary Smalley can recall events that never happened in a cabin that was not built, it suddenly starts making sense. If it happened to him, it certainly can happen to these women that you know and trust.
The greatest failure of the BOD for which they will stand and give account in that coming day is not doing the dirty work to establish “every word” of every accusation in meticulous detail. What they did was take the accounts at face value and run with them. “So and so would not lie”, is what several of the current leadership have stated to me. Dr. Levendusky told me directly at an event not long after Bill was forced out, “You know, if it turns out he molested girls, I would not be surprised”. This told me that he did not know, and that he had not investigated it. He has sought in recent years to distance himself from that statement, even deny it, but I was there and it was in direct conversation with me. Others in leadership have told me multiple times – with the clear blessing of Dr. L – that no one now believes that Bill did any of that. This is carelessness not befitting the role that they were thrust into.
At this late stage many witnesses are in glory or soon there. Yet the accusations – with no foundation that I have seen – continue to attack Bill at every turn. That is completely wrong.
May the Lord richly bless you and yours.
“Bill was forced to accept this panel as a part of the incorporation process in the state of Illinois. I have never heard anything from him to suggest that he has ever found a Biblical mandate for this.”
I am sorry sir you are very mistaken on this point. I can’t tell if you are trying to tell facts that are not true, just to fit your story, or if you are just ignorant to the actual truth… I pray it’s the latter to be honest! The state of Illinois requires 3 members of a board to be legal. In the 90’s Bill had 7 board members (I can name them if you’d like). When he formed the 90’s board, after the 80’s debacle with Steve and the current BOD, Bill asked the 90’s BOD to come on board and specifically read them scriptures and laid out a clear description for their role (one of the BOD shared the story with me, of Bill’s earnest pleadings for this new group of men to have a high-level of avoiding sin in their own life, and hold him accountable for the same). Everybody on staff in the 90’s knew that Bill highly revered his BOD and spoke very highly of them. He would introduce them whenever they were in town, and often they would speak. There was a very healthy mutual respect among all of them, and Bill acted toward them with high regard. SO MUCH SO, that when several of them started to step down in the early 2000’s that Bill formed what he called an “advisory board” (were you aware of this?). As three of them stepped down around the same time, he placed them all on the advisory board, this was something Bill WANTED and asked for. The BOD members really didn’t want to even be on the advisory board, but did so for a few years out of their love for Bill, and wanting to support him still.
Your claim that Bill was forced to have these men is ludicrous. A legal requirement, yes, but he only needed 3. To have 7, and then as a few started to leave that he really did NOT want to leave, he formed a special advisory board for them! And the fact that you have never heard Bill share a biblical mandate for having a BOD over him is simply because you haven’t asked, or if that is what Bill told you, then he is simply lying or forgot. I remember him devoting an entire Sunday night meeting to the importance of Biblical authority, and he told us his… was the BOD, which he said he “willing placed himself under”, and was “so grateful” for their love, care, and concern for Him, but even a greater love for God. I am pretty sure I still have a journal entry from those meetings. I’d love to find the specific notes so you could hear how Bill spoke of his BOD back then.
I cannot compare my knowledge with yours as I have only been interacting closely with Bill since the 2014 timeframe. I believe that you are accurately reporting what happened (although it was stressed to me in recent years that 4 was the required panel number, perhaps that was a more recent legal change). His brother’s indiscretions were a shock to him and the entire family and demanded a bold and humbling response. But as you have noted yourself he never regarded the role of the BOD as absolutely definitive.
He has in recent decades made this statement many times: “You can disobey and be respected for it, you can obey and be despised for it”. This is an expression of balance in the entire principle of authority for which he is so well known. When he deliberately, openly sent all others away in the fairly recent case (no more than a decade ago) so that he could counsel the suicidal young woman alone, do you believe he was being rebellious, or forgetful? I think you know him better than that. He knew exactly what he was doing and how this synchronized with all of what Scripture teaches. When we interviewed him on this matter, consistent with his stance with the others that challenged him on this, he was crystal clear that this was his responsibility and his conscience was clear.
At the very least, those two roles – oversight/counseling vs. control of the ministry – are separate. As he points out, while remaining the objects of lifelong fear and honor, parents of adult young people act in a primary counsel role, not a directive role. For the BOD to move from “you shouldn’t” to “you can’t” is where I believe we crossed the line. And use that to justify cutting him off. No BOD over a man of God should ever have that kind of power.
” . . .it would have been so much better if Bill had witnesses, and not been alone with these girls. – “Perhaps so. Tie me back to Scripture, however, to make that a mandate. A mandate that must never be violated, especially in a gross emergency as with the matter previously detailed.”
Prov 11:14 Where there is no guidance, a people falls,
but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.
Prov. 15:22 Without counsel plans fail,
but with many advisers they succeed.
Prov 24:6 for by wise guidance you can wage your war,
and in abundance of counselors there is victory.
When Bill decided he knew best, and went against the counsel of his advisors, he isolated himself and chose to go against biblical wisdom. It’s no wonder that all these proverbs tell the story of his demise.
Proverbs 18:1 Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment.
I was told that several BOD wives had offered to sit in these “emergency” type meetings. They told Bill if they weren’t available then they would find somebody. The first girl that was sent home because of BIll’s “extra attention” was not an emergency type situation. She should have never been sent home, the BOD should have sent Bill home, and maybe some of this could have been avoided. But knowing Bill it would not have changed him! Your repeated declaration that the BOD should have had no authority over him must be coming from Bill, which tells me he is still going to do what he thinks is right, despite an “abundance of counselors” telling him the opposite.
Counsel, yes. As Bill has often pointed out, the abundance of a particular counsel is not in and of itself proof of God’s direction. In the multitude you will, however, find the Lord’s voice, somewhere.
That does not speak to “oversight”, however. That is what I was looking for, the Scriptural requirement for a man counseling a woman to have witnesses present, however wise that may be. The Savior did not, and He functioned not as an exception to the law, but as under it.
“Proverbs 18:1 Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment.”
Bill has NEVER been isolated. He thrives on interactions with others and regularly seeks input. I know this because I get random calls asking for my perspective on a pending matter. Others tell me the same.
“I was told that several BOD wives had offered to sit in these “emergency” type meetings. They told Bill if they weren’t available then they would find somebody.”
Back to the fact that ANY other person in the room, another set of ears would destroy the ability of many of these young ladies to share their truest and deepest heart. Most counseling is not effective because it focuses on surface issues, and Bill is all about getting to the root, the “reins”. I presume you have daughters as I do and can understand that. A solution to that might have been recording such sessions with only, say, members of the BOD with the ability, with controls, to access that. That would, in my mind, solve that.
“The first girl that was sent home because of BIll’s “extra attention” was not an emergency type situation. She should have never been sent home …”
Again, this was before the BOD stepped in, correct? We are all aware that “sending home” was not always a fair thing, overall. One of our team – who absolutely adores Bill – was “sent home” over a misunderstanding. Bill clarified that with him some time later. It was however how Bill rolled. Personal loyalties were secondary to the mission at hand.
” … the BOD should have sent Bill home, and maybe some of this could have been avoided.”
So we kill the ministry either way? I vector back to Moses and his “BOD” and their attempts to correct him. Paul was “cancelled” in the end by the fruits of his labors – “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15), “defamed … made as the filth of the world, … the offscouring of all things” (1 Cor. 4:13). No matter how well we cross and dot our letters, it appears these kinds of false accusations are at some level inevitable. The more important we are to the Kingdom of God, the more so. The BOD’s first responsibility was to validate that Bill had in fact done nothing wrong – or prove that he did. Appearances are not a crime, even though we are to avoid appearance of evil.
Based on Dr. L’s first hand testimony, he mistakenly believed at the time that Bill was likely to have sinned with these women. Bill did not, and Dr. L has acknowledged this. The “False Accuser” was busy destroying God’s work and the BOD let him. And in the end, according to their current stance, Bill’s actual and final offense . . . was not listening to them. The sheath trumps the sword. We will all give account and I have great sympathy for the situation the BOD was in and I would tremble to be one of them because it was so stressful and consequential … but they did not do their job. At the very least they should – now – acknowledge this and remove this onerous ban on him.
re: good policy for ruling and ministry
I served on the lay board of a church in which the ministry offices and the ruling offices were well-separated. The board ruled and administered the church. Meanwhile, the clergy fed the flock of God. They preached the gospel and administered the sacraments. It seemed a good division of labor, with structural checks and balances.
The analogy applies to IBLP. The BoD should administer the organization, manage money, and maintain the physical plant. Although the BoD has power to regulate all things, Gothard should have broad executive discretion for ministry.
When Christians deal in good faith, such a policy works well.
re: Gothard expelled a girl from IBLP because of his attention?
Among the accusations which have been leveled against Gothard, the one above sounds new.
Did a woman accuse Gothard of wrongfully expelling her from IBLP because of spite? or because she rejected his amorous advances? is this one of the accusations from an RG web page? or some other forum for online gossip?
Nothing new here, David. A lot of young people – and families serving – were cut loose abruptly for sometimes minor and seemingly unfair reasons. I assume that Bill, like all good exhorters, instinctively understood the advantages of turnover, so personal loyalty was not a major factor. Acknowledging that spiritual gifts are spiritual, actualized at the time of salvation, but also that these inclinations manifest in all of us before salvation . . . Think about President Trump, and Elon Musk in this regards. Both function like “exhorters” – big idea, motivate the masses, keen sense of what works – and both are known for high turnover, with a string of hurt people in the wake. Indeed, Elon fires the bottom 10% of his workforce every year, and hires new.
Some people were deeply hurt as they had sacrificed much to be there. In many cases the reasons were subject to interpretation, often the charge of too much fraternization with members of the opposite sex. The young lady referred to – and I am not sure which one it is of a number of possibilities – must have been sent home for spending too much time seeking Bill out. Several who “were there” have told me of several of the plaintiffs, that they were well known to be quite aggressive in that respect, without having evil intentions.
Regardless, the balance here is that we serve the Lord, and not man . . . And if the Lord directed us into a support role, He will care for us regardless of the mistakes of the ones we are attempting to serve. As mentioned