Bill’s team reached out to us to ask alumni of his seminars and ministry for some vital help. Due to an ongoing legal action there is a need for those that are willing and able to make a declaration of their personal involvement and blessing via an affidavit that will be presented to the court. The affidavit expresses the degree to which the corporation, which started out as the “Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts” and later rebranded as “Institute in Basic Life Principles” (IBLP), was formed and has existed in a function solely dedicated to supporting and enabling Bill’s ministry, unlike other prominent Christian entities. If that is the case for you, please take the time to complete the form below. They must be received before May 31st, preferably several days prior as it takes time to prepare them for presentation.
A request for emails went out a year or more ago over social media, and this has much the same purpose. If you wrote an email, please take the time to also complete this. This is now a formal – albeit short – legal document and requires a signature.
The first two links should allow you to fill in and sign (with your finger) and return the form in more or less of a single motion. These are PDF documents and Adobe Acrobat based, so please make sure you have that free software installed on your computer, tablet, or phone before beginning.
The fields are irritatingly short, so summarize and abbreviate. If there is a range of years, indicate that, i.e. “1973-2013” The list of seminars might read, “Basic, Adv., Anger Res.” Other facts can be approximations, but need to be realistic. The form requires a verified email address to refer to, so you may be asked to open an automatic message mail and respond to verify. Once you declare the form as “Final” it will be automatically sent to Bill.
If the first preferred PDF link is not working for you, print off the Word document below that, complete and mail in.
Please get the word out to others who you know would wish to have their part in this. A large, vigorous response would do more than you can imagine.
Bill wishes to express his deep personal gratitude to each alum that takes the time to help him with this.
El equipo de Bill se acercó a nosotros para pedir ayuda vital a los ex alumnos de sus seminarios y ministerio. Debido a una acción legal en curso, existe la necesidad de que aquellos que estén dispuestos y sean capaces de hacer una declaración de su participación y bendición personal a través de una declaración jurada que se presentará ante el tribunal. La declaración jurada expresa el grado en que la corporación, que comenzó como el “Instituto en Conflictos Juveniles Básicos” y luego rebautizada como “Instituto en Principios Básicos de Vida” (IBLP), se formó y ha existido en una función dedicada únicamente a apoyar y permitiendo el ministerio de Bill, a diferencia de otras entidades cristianas prominentes. Si ese es su caso, tómese el tiempo para completar el formulario a continuación. Deben recibirse antes del 31 de mayo, preferiblemente varios días antes ya que lleva tiempo prepararlos para su presentación.
Hace un año o más se envió una solicitud de correo electrónico a través de las redes sociales, y tiene prácticamente el mismo propósito. Si escribió un correo electrónico, tómese el tiempo para completarlo también. Este es ahora un documento legal formal, aunque breve, y requiere una firma.
Los dos primeros enlaces deberían permitirle completar, firmar (con el dedo) y devolver el formulario en más o menos un solo movimiento. Estos son documentos PDF y están basados en Adobe Acrobat, así que asegúrese de tener ese software gratuito instalado en su computadora, tableta o teléfono antes de comenzar.
Los campos son irritantemente cortos, por lo resumidos y abreviados. Si hay un rango de años, indíquelo, es decir, “1973-2013”. La lista de seminarios podría decir: “Básico, Avanzado, Resol. De Ira”. Otros hechos pueden ser aproximaciones, pero deben ser realistas. El formulario requiere una dirección de correo electrónico verificada a la que referirse, por lo que es posible que se le solicite que abra un mensaje automático y responda para verificar. Una vez que declare el formulario como “Final”, se enviará automáticamente a Bill.
Por favor, haga correr la voz a otras personas que sepa que desearían participar en esto. Una respuesta amplia y vigorosa haría más de lo que imagina.
Bill desea expresar su profunda gratitud personal a cada alumno que se toma el tiempo para ayudarlo con esto.
PDF Forms with Electronic Signature (preferred, requires Adobe Acrobat)/Formularios PDF con firma electrónica (preferiblemente, requiere Adobe Acrobat):
Bill Gothard Affidavit (English)
Declaración jurada de Bill Gothard (español)
Complete the Microsoft Word documents below ONLY if you cannot complete the PDF documents above – print, complete, sign, mail back to:
Gothard Affidavit
1027 Arlington Avenue
La Grange, IL 60525
Bill Gothard Affidavit (English Word Document)
Declaración jurada de Bill Gothard (documento Word en español)
I am so glad to be able to do this!
The amazing ministry of Bill Gothard reset the direction of my life and I am indebted for the interpretation of Biblical wisdom that has guided me and always proved to be sound
from 1970 to the present. I praise God and count it as one of His greatest blessings that my life coincided with the ministry of Dr. Bill Gothard!
Hear, hear! This is a sweet opportunity to make peace.
I too have been greatly blessed by IBLP and the teaching of Bill Gothard.
I went 1st at the age of 20.
I am now 71 years old. I was very hungry for the things of GOD in youth. For over 10 years I’d drive an hour one way to the Basic Seminar in Long Beach, California to attend Monday-Thursday,
7-10 p.m. But the biggest impact came in 1992 when Bill hosted a pastor’s conference. Our Pastor attended and shared the teaching, and heard of The Ten Cannons of GOD’s Law there. The LORD used this message to bring me to repentance and faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ in 1994. I praise GOD for HIS mercy upon me!
Galatians 4:4-6
Is there a form if we are… of the opposite viewpoint? Any time (4 years of my life) and money I donated to IBLP were not for Bill… these gifts were in service to God and other people. I think you would be hard pressed to find folks that honestly feel like Bill Gothard would or should be running the show at 89 years old.
It only seems fair that both perspectives be heard. Do you really seek the truth, or are you trying to give the judge an incomplete perspective?
No, this is not a venue for a gripe session. In that case, don’t sign the affidavit.
The position that you are trying to represent to the judge as a broadly accepted fact likely isn’t actually true for even his most ardent supporters. Sure, they want Bill back in charge. Fine. Yes, he made the materials and led the seminars. I think IBLP should give him back the rights to the stuff he created.
Did folks give their time and money in support of “Bill’s Ministry” or in support of the Lord’s work?
I don’t think anyone would say the former other than with fingers crossed to help him regain the saddle. But apparently my honest take is a gripe session.
We are going to strongly disagree on your assertion that support for “IBLP” is and was emphatically support for Bill and a response to the blessing that he has been. IBLP has been functioning for 10 years apart from Bill. They continue and are doing good things but you can judge for yourself whether the loyalty is comparable. There are an astonishing number of alumni still unaware that Bill is not running IBLP. Regardless, those that sign the affidavit are under no compunction to do so – nobody is going to notice if they do or don’t. They sign because they support and want Bill back.
The venue here is open for a “gripe session” as long as it it respectful and with a motive higher than just trying to tear Bill down. There is literally no legal venue to express a contrary opinion.
I have been trying to recover born BG teachings for 50 years. And now I see all of these other people coming forward. And I see the destruction in the Duggar family, and now we have learned that their whole life was pretty much a fraud please, Mr. Guthrie, come forward and tell the truth. Are you actually expecting us to believe that 60 women are lying, and the thousands of others who are trying to recover from what you’ve done to them
All these other people coming forward? 🙂 Have you watched any of Holly McLean’s videos? [Shiny Slander] The people coming forward a liars of the worst kind. And there is no destruction in the Duggar family. Other than Josh’s troubles. And I bet you can find instances in the families of Bill’s biggest enemies that would match that. From all we know the family still loves each other very much. Jinger has “fallen away” from Bill’s teachings to embrace Reformed theology, which others, from a distance, find almost indistinguishable from what Bill taught. Jill feels jerked around financially – it is really, really tough for families that live in glass houses for the world to examine. But the family is still together, an amazing feat in this evil world. 19 kids! Who does that. They do.
60 women? There were never 60 women. [Check this out: New Math] There were never 34 women. All they ever collected after months of beating the bushes was 18,and two of those were men, and one dropped out before the final suit was ever filed. 180 counts the lawyers dreamed up. And in the end they all quietly . . . Walked away. Leaving the personal injury firm of Meiers & Flowers eating what had to have been $250K in legal expenses. They could not get even one (1) count through to a jury trial. And, no, it was not the statute of limitations, because the judge passed on that in the early days when Bill team asked for the charges to be dismissed on that basis.
A lot of people are trying to recover from life. Somehow the tallest pole in the tent always attracts the most lightening. To blame Bill for his selfless investment in the lives of so many is just not right. Eternity will tell all.
Holly McLean’s videos don’t demonstrate that a bunch of people are lying. Half the time, she’s just demonstrating that some random, scattered information in the documentary is untrue, and the other half, her “evidence” is either “I don’t personally find this story convincing” or, “I talked to a bunch of people still involved with the group, and they said XYZ isn’t true.” No reason given for why she believes it must be those speaking in the documentary who are lying and the people she talked to who are telling the truth, and not the other way around.
Well, there are a lot of videos there with a lot of first hand information, direct information. The ease at which you dismiss all of that at the very least does not suggest that you are doing any differently than you accuse. Worth the time for anyone really interested in the truth.
The whole reason people like Holly are speaking out now is because a lot of people have direct, first hand information that makes Gothard and the IBLP look very, very bad. It’s not just the Shiny, Slander documentary and it’s not just the sexual abuse allegations. This very website is a response to another website. Very few people are naive enough to think that none of the people criticizing Gothard could possibly be lying. But people would also have to be pretty naive to believe that that many people–with no apparent motivation–are just randomly lying about their own families and upbringing. I need an actual reason to believe that, and so far, neither Holly nor anyone else has provided one.
When we are evaluating broad claims from many people we look to our own experience to start, and, if inconsistent we begin to evaluate the claims. When every single one that we investigate comes out materially different than alleged, THEN we start looking for a common thread or purpose, i.e. a conspiracy, even if loosely tied together.
Holly started with her own experience, noting that the seminars she attended did not remotely resemble the claims in SHP. That was her first video, “Was I in a Cult?” To her credit she began investigating the claims – she reached out to us along the way, but has done hundreds of hours of interviews and fact finding independently of any information we have provided. Along the way she extensively interviewed Bill Gothard, the first to do so. And now she is working her way through the documentary accusation by accusation. Every finding is presented in meticulous detail. Fact is, the claims, at least so far, fail even basic veracity tests.
As to a conspiracy then, is there any possibility that a group of people might be on a committed, concerted effort to slander Christians, conservative Christians, Christian homeschoolers and anything they support? Of course there is, out in the open. AND is there a chance that opportunists might try to capitalize on the world-wide interest in the Duggars to make a ton of money on a sleaze piece? Check again. It is really not complicated.
The “another website” was created by a group of ex-ATI students that were going through “mid-life crisis” at about the same time. The tallest pole in the tent gets hit with lightening, over and over. That pole could be conservative denominations, like the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches or their institutions. Sometimes it seeks out evangelicalism in general. Bill Gothard is everything to become the perfect lightening rod for boldness and “radical Christianity” . . . Support for Biblical roles in the family let alone large families . . . Rejection of rock music and dancing . . . Support for Bible based corporal punishment . . . On and on.
If it matters little enough to you to not take seriously, that is your call. To do nothing to check into it but still snipe . . . Isn’t fair at best.
Lying is serious sin, and impenitent liars “have their part” in the lake of fire. Former liars can be saved, but not those who justify their lies. So this is dangerous territory.
One definition of a lie is “falsehood with intent to deceive.” How do we prove intent? Holly McLean shows video clips of Gothard’s enemies contradicting themselves. Is this conclusive proof of lies? perhaps not, but it casts serious doubt on their intent.
Beware of trading accusations. Nothing pleases Satan more. Are we plagued with “lusts that war” in our members? Do we have not because we ask not? do we receive not because we consume upon our lusts?
In response to the moderator: Starting from your own experience is—not research. Research is not looking at things you disagree with, just expecting to find problems with them, and then accepting anything that confirms your bias. Research is looking at both sides objectively, trying to eliminate your own bias as much as possible. Holly has clearly not done that. Interviewing the very person whose integrity is in question and assuming he’s telling the truth is not good research. What would he have said if he was lying that’s different from what he did say?
If the whole SHP people documentary was trying to slander conservative Christian home-schoolers, they did a very bad job of it. Because the documentary wasn’t about conservative Christian home-schoolers broadly. It was about Gothard, the Duggars, and the IBLP. Secular people, who often lump all Christians together, made a documentary—not about “Christians”, but about that one group. In other words, the group is so far afield from mainstream Christianity (including conservative Christianity) that even people who don’t care about Christianity can readily see the difference.
I take this very seriously. That’s why weak explanations don’t satisfy me. You can’t dismiss scores of accounts by saying “oh, they’re just going through a mid-life crisis.” Going through a mid-life crisis doesn’t cause someone to lie about their childhood and upbringing.
I’ve listened to some of Gothard’s messages. Radical Christianity is practiced by the Christians in other parts of the world who are willing to face imprisonment, torture, and death in order to embrace Christ. It’s not moralizing in front of thousands of people with Bible verses randomly sprinkled in. (Nor is it making millions off of parading your children on TV wearing funny clothing.) Gothard uses Scripture in the same way Joel Osteen does except that Gothard’s message is moral living rather than positive thinking. Of course Gothard says some good things, but there’s far more of his personal opinion than there is of anything the Bible teaches. That’s why people are leaving now, in marked contrast to the Christians in other parts of the world. His message never had the power of God.
Well, we could not disagree more. You have said your piece. The Lord, in the end, is the final judge of all. Thank you.
I disagree that all the women who have come forward are “liars of the worst kind”, as you say. I ca my attest to all the allegations but many accounts claimed by them are almost identical to things that were done to me. I worked at Oak Brook and ITC from 1993-1996. I worked in Bill Gothard’s office in 1994, and traveled extensively with him and his office staff. He regularly met with me in his closet for prayer sessions, just the two of us in a tiny room with the door closed and our knees touching. He’d hold my hand on his lap. In his office he’d remove his shoes and rub his sock feet against my feet and ankles. This happened under the conference table and at least once when I was sitting next to him at the head table in the staff center at lunch, as well as in the van on road trips. Sometimes he would hold my hand on these trips in a tight grip and I couldn’t pull away without causing a scene. In my first private meeting with him he wanted to know the details of any physical relationship I’d had with any boyfriends back home. There were other invasions of privacy, such as opening my mail and personally dictating how I was to wear my hair to his liking. These crossed the line of appropriate behavior of a boss toward his employee. I didn’t know what to make of these behaviors. He’d regularly give me hundreds of dollars to go clothes shopping and was usually very kind to me but many of his behaviors crossed the line of appropriateness and also didn’t gel with his teachings of avoiding all appearances of evil and fleeing temptation. I did not join the lawsuit against BG for several reasons, one being that my parents still worked for him at the time (Mike and Mary Davis) but also I was busy raising my six kids. I will not shy away from telling the truth.
Thank you for coming forward. I personally remember your father well as a frequent speaker, much appreciated his ministry.
At the very least it appears that you, who have lived the “worst”, can attest that Bill is no cult leader, IBLP and ATI were no cults. There was no sex going on, nobody was sworn to secrecy . . . You did not get involved in “exposing” for personal reasons, including respect for your parents.
Bill was openly well known for all of what you described. The “hand holding” – confirm or deny – was routinely done out in the open, when speaking to a young lady in front of a group. The “foot tapping” has been much discussed, but we have been told by women – one on our staff here – that it was never sexual. Our friend observed him doing that to one of his “MGA”s, male assistants on van rides. It was a quirk, but nothing more than his way of gaining focus and signaling affirmation.
Bill had general recommendations for hair consistent with the “Dress for Success” principles he followed (yes, he read John Molloy). Did you see it any differently? As to asking for private information, Bill has taught openly that counselees will often cover the real issues causing their problems, offering up lessor things to divert attention. The counselor must at least ask for all of those deep issues overtly, which challenges the commitment and desperation of the one coming for help. Since the guilt from prior sexual failures is arguably the cause of many deep seated problems, especially those being raised to live “good” lives, that is, we believe, appropriate. There are evil “counselors” that use that as a means to weaken a woman to ultimately violate her. The fact remains, as seemingly confirmed by what you said, that Bill did no such evil. His motives were pure and responsible and any accusation to the contrary has, to this point, been proven false.
And “employer/employee” relationship would hardly describe working for IBLP. Am I right? It was more like a fellowship, a “cause”, a commitment that exceeded anything like a need for employment, money. All of us here have lived it. Interactions would slide closer to a family or a close church setting, people you know very well.
Thank you again. You do know that very, very few have come on here to disagree, at least in a respectful way. If we are anything we are committed ultimately to the truth and the glory of the Lord Jesus. We want reality, no matter where it leads. I know for a fact that Holly would appreciate the opportunity to interview you, if you were so inclined. You may not be, and this is no pressure, just know that you could have a wider voice if desired.
AMEN !!!!
What does it mean to “recover from” teaching? We either believe or disbelieve teaching. If we believe well, we deserve some credit. But if we are gullible, we deserve nothing. Our volition needs temperance, not recovery! Why not try more adulting and less whining?
Above, we ask whether sixty hypothetical women are lying. Of course not. Hypothetical woman can’t lie because they don’t exist. If we name sixty actual women we can test whether they are lying by weighing the evidence.
Is anyone lying about the sixty women? We recover from lying by repentance. Why not begin now?
On 3/31 above, we read a complaint which compares Bill Gothard to Joel Osteen. We are told that Osteen teaches positive thinking, while Gothard teaches moral living. But virtuous living and hopeful thinking are good things.
Is it easy to smear messengers, but difficult to smear the message? We are also told that Gothard’s use of the Bible is inadequate. Hope, virtue and Bible deserve to be taught somehow, by somebody. Are Gothard’s enemies doing a better job of teaching them?
When terms like shine and happy are weaponized, something is wrong. When we sneer at virtue, how shall we escape vice?
I agree that virtuous living and hopeful thinking are good things. I don’t criticize that. But it’s not Christianity. Atheists and Buddhists and Muslims can be “virtuous”.
What I criticize is someone who claims to be a Bible teacher who teaches generic true things instead of teaching the Bible. I wouldn’t have a problem with Joel Osteen if he presented himself as simply a secular motivational speaker instead of a pastor.
The problem with Gothard is that along with his generic true things, he also advocated a rather extreme lifestyle. The idea that all families should have as many children as possible and that fathers should be the sole breadwinners while the mothers homeschool their children is extreme. The Bible says nothing of the sort, and many parents can’t adequately provide for their children that way, especially these days.
As for the terms shiny and happy being weaponized, I think it’s just a way of saying that the apparent shine and happiness was hypocrisy. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that perspective, but surely if someone is hypocritically pretending that everyone is happy when they’re not, it’s right to point that out.
Why is loving children and having as many as possible “extreme”, let alone the husband/father being the primary breadwinner? Both are definitely supported in Scripture. Seems pretty normal to us. We live in strange days.
It’s extreme because these days, a lot of people can’t afford it. It worked in the past when more people lived on farms because more children meant more hands to help with the work. And half the children died before they reached adulthood, so bearing 20 children didn’t mean feeding 20 mouths for 18 years or so. That’s not true anymore. And there’s nothing loving about having children that you can’t provide for. To encourage couples to have lots of children regardless of their financial situation is extreme. And name me one verse that says that only husbands should provide for the family, that couples must have as many children as possible, or that parents are required to homeschool their children.
There is no evidence that half of children died before reaching adulthood in Bible times. In fact, God stated that He would personally see to it that that was not the case, those that feared and honored Him. We live in the richest time in history – it is foolish to assume that we are somehow less able to afford large families than folks “back then”. AND those two arguments cancel each other out, meaning – which do you think it is?
An interesting research study for you might be to see which children of large families which they had never been born. Compared with children of small families. Include the poor and rich in that study. We selfishly assume that because we have to suffer to have them and raise them, they resent that we did so. We seem to see quite the opposite. Those that had faithful parents that scraped and did without to see them survive seem to – with tears – express their deep personal gratitude for that expression of selflessness. And so many scions of the rich hate and resent their parents in sometimes unimaginable ways. Sort of backwards from what you suggest.
God’s ways work. Because He invented them and He is God. “And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.” (Matthew 18:5)
There are plenty of verses that command wives to support the family from within the home and to bear children. To serve their family instead of being the slave of some other man or family.
“But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” (1 Timothy 2:15 NASB)
“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” (1 Timothy 5:14)
“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Titus 2:4-5)
The verses are there. God, who wrote them, has not changed His mind.
Are we normal or are we extreme? On 6/10 above we are told that these days many people cannot afford their own children. Indeed! In all days of human history, some parents lose their children to starvation.
But we Americans lose our sense of proportion. The poorest 1% of Americans are fabulously wealthy compared to 99% of our world’s people. Is our problem insufficient wealth or excessive covetousness? “Let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with such things as ye have.”
Well-trained children are assets, not liabilities! More well-trained children equals more wealth. Who can’t afford more wealth? Shame on us when we over-consume and underproduce. We covet more than we earn. Extreme sin needs extreme remedy. Our remedy began on Calvary’s cross. If we repent and believe, we enter the abundant life of Christ. What abundant life? Why not family life?
“Both are definitely supported in Scripture.”
Okay. Where?
Full sentence: “Why is loving children and having as many as possible “extreme”, let alone the husband/father being the primary breadwinner? Both are definitely supported in Scripture.”
That is three things:
“Loving children”: Titus 2:4 “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children . . . ” Greek is φιλότεκνος, literally “lover of children”.
“Having as many as possible”: That in not a commandment, but in support –
Matthew 18:5 ” … And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.”
Psalms 127:3 “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” 1 Chronicles 26:4-5 “Moreover the sons of Obededom were, Shemaiah the firstborn, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, and Sacar the fourth, and Nethaneel the fifth, 5 Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peulthai the eighth: for God blessed him.” 8 sons were a special blessing from the Lord. God rewards those He loves with children – there is less reward and more reward – more is better.
Coupled with a complete lack of encouragement for birth control, in fact quite the opposite. 1 Cor. 7 says don’t abstain, Onan was killed because he had sex while making sure no kids were conceived (Genesis 38). In fact 1 Tim. 2:15 says that women are saved through childbearing . . . Saved from all kinds of mayhem that Satan has in mind for them and their families and, frankly, society as a whole. That is in context and it is literally what it says. No number, but if that is the cure, it is a good thing, a blessed thing.
“the husband/father being the primary breadwinner”: The wife is to be the “keeper at home” (Titus 2:5) Her job is to love and prosper the family, back to Titus 2:4. That makes that her primary role – doesn’t mean she can’t contribute, financially. Interesting that In Exodus 20 – 10 commandments – we have a list of those in the household who are not to “work” on the Sabbath – see if you can find the household member quite deliberately not mentioned:
Exodus 20:10 “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:”
Even the cattle are mentioned, because they work. Why did the Lord leave the wife out of the list? Because that is not her role, unlike say the servant maidens and even the children. Obviously wives work very hard – but that is not their primary God ordained role.
Where? in our Bibles, where there is much we would rather not see. In our Bibles, we are compared to inert idols. We have eyes but see not; ears but hear not. We would rather coddle our sin than expose it to God’s word. That’s why we need a savior. But we cannot have it both ways. We cannot simultaneously retain our sin and yield it to Calvary’s cross.
On 6/6 above we read a critique of “generic true things,” which can be promoted and practiced by lost heathen. Indeed they can, and sometimes are. But have we noticed the effort which Jesus and his apostles devoted to generic true things? Our New testament is planted thick with generic true things. If virtue is not what Christianity IS, then it is what Christianity DOES. Are we real Christians or phony pretenders?
When a rich young ruler asked Jesus how to have life, Jesus insisted that he keep God’s commandments. Those were generic true things. Jesus said that saved sheep practice generic virtues but damned goats do not. A good tree brings forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
How do we account for the weeping and gnashing of teeth in hell? Is it the lament of fake “Christianity” with correct theology but no fruits of true regeneration?
Are the Duggars shiny and happy? Who knows? Why don’t we ask them? The Amazon producers did not. In a famous scene from the Bible, Pilate asked Christ whether he was “king of the Jews.” Remember that the Lord answered Pilate’s question with yet another question? “Sayest thou this thing of thyself?”
Did the Duggars ever call themselves shiny and happy? the Amazon series did not say. or were those terms drawn from the lexicon of bitter sarcasm?
If Bill Gothard advocated an extreme lifestyle, it was mild compared to what our Lord commanded. Jesus talked about laying down our lives and submitting to torture if necessary. That is extreme. But compared to what? to our “normal” self-absorbed lives of sin, divorce, and alienation? When our normal lives produce misery and disaster, we need an extreme savior. “Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.”
Whether the Duggars themselves used the words “shiny and happy” or not, they presented themselves on TV as a wholesome family, all while their son was a sexual deviant and they were pressuring their children to be on TV whether they wanted to or not. That’s either common knowledge or else in the books that their own daughters wrote.
And there are plenty of Christians–who love God, and read and obey the Bible–who don’t follow the lifestyle Gothard taught and who don’t live lives of misery and disaster. Yes, Jesus talked about laying down our lives and submitting to torture. But He also rebuked the Pharisees for adding heavy burdens to the people that God never intended for them to have. Perhaps you’re right. Perhaps it isn’t unusual or extreme for people to add human rules and regulations on to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps it’s normal for us proud humans to want to add to what God said, to seek the comfort and assurance of our own effort and rule-keeping. But Scripture presents us with the hard and humbling job of trusting in Christ instead of ourselves, of showing our love for Him by keeping /His/ commandments, not by inventing our own and following them.
The Duggars never presented themselves as anything other than what they were, and the minute that they became aware of problems with Josh, they firmly dealt with it. Check out the videos that Holly put out documenting that. You DO know that one of the ways God brings justice to false accusers is to bring upon them the very circumstances that others being decried had to deal with. You don’t want that, unless your record in regards to that is squeaky clean and able to endure the kind of stress the Duggars were subjected to. *I* think you are being very unfair with the Duggar family.
As to the rest, I am not sure what commandments you believe Bill was “inventing”. We just dealt with the matter of wives bearing children and keeping the home instead of “breadwinning”. If there is something else Bill taught that you object to, let’s see where Scripture sits.
Like Bill Gothard, the Duggars have accusers. The accusations are being systematically debunked by the Shiny Slander YouTube channel. What does the preponderance of evidence show? Every man is presumed innocent, and has a right to face his accusers. Have we heard both sides?
Shall we make a distinction between “adding” to what God said and simply DOING what he said? What if we actually did? Are we adding rules and regulations or simply adding obedience? Doing is adding obedience to hearing!
We are such sissies! Ours is indeed a hard and humbling job of trusting in Christ. What is the fruit which proves that we trust him? is it our doctrine or our deeds? St. James settled that question, didn’t he? Which of his metaphors describes us? are we the forgetful hearer who is mystified by his own mirror? or the DOER who lays aside his mirror and gets to work?
Truth is messy. It doesn’t always follow a neat, ordered line.
As for the police officer, try a basic google search.
As for Josh Duggar, he’s in prison. That means he was found guilty, guilty of a crime serious enough to put him behind bars. Whatever his defence, it didn’t stand up in a court of law. Despite all the money I’m sure his dad put into lawyers to spin a story that could make him sound innocent. Despite his good-boy persona because of his upbringing and the show. Of course it’s possible that he was unjustly imprisoned, but an unbiased court said he was guilty and it’s biased friends and family who find his defence plausible.
And it doesn’t take expert hindsight to know that telling a bunch of your buddies is a woefully insufficient response when someone commits a crime. That sounds like the reasoning of a child. “I didn’t hide it. I told someone. I told my friend. That makes everything okay.”
As for Gothard, he wasn’t their dad. He was a grown man unrelated to them. People aren’t just randomly making something out of nothing. Everyone who’s not in the group can see as plain as plain that there is no setting in which it’s appropriate for a grown man to rub his foot against adults that way—men /or/ women. And it’s extremely disturbing to many people that grown women could be so sheltered and so out of touch with reality that they don’t even recognize basic inappropriate behaviour just because it may not cross the line into a crime.
And the one difference between you and I is that I know all of these people, including some of the plaintiffs. I know Josh, I know the Duggars, I know Bill, see him, talk to him frequently. I was there during the suit that extended from 2015-2018. If even a fraction of what you allege were true, there is simply no way 18 plaintiffs with 180 counts and a well known, successful personal injury firm driving it, with 2 other firms in support, would walk away from what had to have been a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees . . . Unless there literally was nothing to it. That is the touch of reality that brings it all into focus.
Fact is it was an internet driven attempt to cancel Bill Gothard by a group of adults going through some degree or other of midlife crisis. Every part of the process was scripted and organized, including which woman would speak to which media outlet with which story. Every one of them – every one – declared in their pleadings that they simply could not remember what had been done to them . . . Until joining the cause with a projected $500K payout per person. So every count was a “recovered memory”. From decades past. And they openly contradicted themselves – impeached – and freely acknowledged that none of them – not one – had seen the charges brought in their names until after the lawsuit was filed. With the more honest of them angry and demanding of the lawyers to make changes . . . Which they did not.
No, there is another explanation that makes way more sense. You give account to the Lord for your baseless allegations, and we will continue dealing with what we know.
If you would like to make more comments, please restrict yourself to factual matters. Add to the discussion. The above post is anything but that.
You respond with information unrelated to what I was talking about and then tell me to add information. I wasn’t talking about the things that Gothard was charged with in court. I was talking about (a) Josh Duggar, who was found guilty, and (b) Bill Gothard playing with young women’s feet, which isn’t what he was being charged with. You yourself said it was well known. Neither of those are baseless accusations. Those are established facts. Neither knowing the family nor talking about an unrelated court case changes that.
There’s no such thing as a grown man who’s head of an organization “innocently” playing with someone’s feet. Whether you call it “footsie” or not, that behavior is usually considered a romantic gesture. And when it’s not, it’s something playful between friends, not a “quirk” for a grown man to use with people young enough to be his kids.
Besides, run of the mill conservatives, far less strict than Bill Gothard, typically have a policy of not being alone with a female. Have you heard of the Billy Graham rule? Why would Gothard, who emphasizes strict standards and the dangers of temptation, be alone with a female like that and start touching her feet? That’s more intimate than a public side hug. At best, it means he holds others to a higher standard than he’s willing to hold himself. Knowing him personally doesn’t change that.
And the reason that juries aren’t composed of the friends and family of the people involved is that people close to the situation are terrible judges of it. You can’t be objective. Of course you want to believe the best of people that you know. I was a little shook up when a relative of a relative who I had only met twice raped a teenager. He had seemed to me like a nice guy. Furthermore, he had a wife and kids who didn’t know he was like that. But he was caught in the act. So much for “knowing the people involved”.
Whatever quirks had with jabbing or tapping the feet of those he was working with, he did it to young men as well as young women. Unless you think Bill is perverted that ought to pretty well clarify that for you. One of our members here lived at HQ and was continuously with Bill for years. She laughs about the “footsie” myth, and yes he tapped her feet at times. This needs to get off of the talking points list. The case DID charge Bill with “footsies” . . . And, again, the personal injury firm (read: “Does this for a living”) couldn’t get a single count through to trial. Didn’t happen.
Billy Graham was Billy Graham, and Bill Gothard is Bill Gothard. Billy told Bill once, admiringly: “I could never do what you do”. Bill is a counselor, Billy was a leader and a preacher. Billy Graham led Bill Gothard Sr. To the Lord, and Bill Gothard Jr. led one of Billy Graham’s daughters to the Lord. They had a deep respect for each other.
Just because some people are secretly evil . . . Does not mean all public Christian leaders are evil. With Bill you have the added advantage of a 4 year trial, 5 boxes of legal documents and something like 70K electronic pages of social media chats and letters and doctor reports from discovery. Somewhere is a point where you shed your prejudices and open your eyes and look.
To the moderator: can you tell me with a straight face that the Duggars /weren’t/ trying to present themselves as a wholesome family? Of course they were. That was their whole thing. They were showing the world what a family who follows God looks like. That’s in Jill Duggar’s book, as well. I’m not making it up.
And as for Josh Duggar, he committed a crime, his parents knew about it, and they didn’t immediately tell the police. That makes them accessories to crime. It may or may not count as a felony under Arkansas law.
I have no intention of making money by presenting myself as uniquely wholesome, so if I don’t come out as squeaky clean, I’m not a hypocrite.
As for Scripture, the verses you cited earlier don’t say that women may not work outside the home, nor do they say that women must have as many children as possible. So those ideas are invented.
Stop right there. Who told you that they did not “immediately tell the police”? They in fact did. And remember – this is a 15 year old kid satisfying his sexual curiosity at the expense of his sisters . . . And confessing it, the only way it was ever known. The hammer you seem to be so much in favor of lowering on that kid at that time, by what judgement you judge, you will be judged. Same standard.
I repeat what I said. They presented themselves exactly as they were. No more and no less. We know them.
The Scriptures presented say that the woman is the “keeper at home”, taught to love her husband and her children. I might add the following observation:
“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates” (Exodus 20:10)
Note who is missing? Why, yes – the wife! Why? Because it was so obvious that she was not working in any official “work” capacity. At the very least, she was not the slave of any other man.
As to having “as many children as possible”, We would agree that is not God’s command. In fact, God deliberately limited baby-making times, notably eliminating the possibility of “Irish Twins”, as they are sometimes called. But nothing in the Bible – Nothing – encourages small families and, in fact, conversely universally considers large families as a sign of God’s favor. The notion that we are smarter than the Lord to be able to choose which children are essential and which are non-essential seems foolish. A lack of faith. God personally weaves together EVERY child. Does He EVER make a mistake?
That being said, it is a personal decision between a couple. Given the instructions in 1 Cor. 7 it is clear that neither husband nor wife has the authority to make that decision unilaterally. We also note that whereas Daniel was prepared to die rather than eat “defiled” food, he made no such stand when they sterilized him, i.e. made him a “eunuch”. Whatever birth control is, it would be wrong to call it a sin. Lack of faith, foolish? That is we think appropriate.
Addendum: It should be noted that not everyone on our team agrees with the above statements. Some believe birth control to be a sin and it has lead to some spirited discussions. The current Moderator (me) has used birth control on occasion when one or the other did not have faith. Based on 1 Cor. 7 that seems God’s command. In no other area of married life are spouses on an equal footing like this one and that consideration one of another would appear to be more important to the Lord than having lots of kids. Still ended up with a large family. God is good.
I didn’t say anything about “lowering a hammer”. If they had gone through the proper authorities, I think the law would have gone relatively easy on Josh because he was so young, he freely confessed, and he was so sheltered. He might have got the help that he needed before it was too late.
But it’s well-known that they sent Josh to do construction work at some Gothard place. That’s also in the book written by their own daughter. It’s not hear-say. And Josh didn’t get the help he needed. He became more and more brazen and arrogant until he ended up a hardened sexual predator. I know he’s ultimately responsible for his own choices, but let’s not pretend (as Holly does in her YouTube videos) that the parents did “the only thing they could”.
Are you telling me that the parents did tell the police right away, and the police were completely okay with them sending their son to do manual labor with people with no training in how to deal with that sort of thing rather than getting him any kind of qualified, professional help?
I AM telling you that! The truth does not make for a very salacious story. Encourage you to watch Holly’s several videos on that. They went to their local sherif office with their friends the Holts as witnesses and one of the authorities there – who was known to the family – wrote up an official police report and spoke to Josh. That record was then sealed under law because Josh was a minor. The entire episode was thrown into the public light when the police chief, not a friend of the Duggars, as a parting act of evil, leaked the sealed report to the press. Just another act in “Cancel the Duggars” . . . Whatever it takes. For the record, the victims here – the sisters – sued the county for harm that came to them as a result.
And my question to you: Do you have any statistics that support the notion that recidivism rates are better after “professional help” than with some old fashioned spiritual discipleship training? If not, stop finding fault. And you assume so much about “hardened sexual predator”. The facts as Josh was convicted under – and I do not have access to them – were strongly disputed by Josh and the family and others that know them well. You do know that an “adult” actress that sued Josh for large amounts for abuse allegedly incurred during violent sex they had was forced to withdraw the suit with a public apology, admitting that they had never even met.
Someday we may gain the right to make specific inquiry for our own elucidation. Some part of this does not make sense. It reminds me of some other very high level “cancel” programs. The Duggars represent the juiciest of targets to attack on the way to corral and body slam conservative Christianity.
Believe me, I wish the truth weren’t so salacious, but I’m afraid it is. Did Holly mention in her videos that the police officer friend who kept everything quiet was himself jailed four years later for viewing child pornography and then jailed again for distributing it? Do you think that just might be relevant? Do you really want to portray him as the good guy in this story?
Is it all a lie that an adult Josh Duggar had child porn on his computer? Viewing child porn means watching a child being sexually abused. That passes the point of teenage curiosity.
Recidivism rates for minor sexual offenders are pretty good, actually. But I’m not sure what I’m comparing them with. It seems that everyone around Josh Duggar was more interested in hiding and downplaying what he did than in helping him to understand how wrong it was.
The whole group consistently defends all sorts of inappropriate sexual behavior. As if, provided that there’s no absolute proof that someone full-on raped someone else, then the person is completely innocent and just being needlessly persecuted. You do that with Gothard himself. Any manager in any secular workplace would at lest be severely reprimanded (if not immediately fired) if he rubbed his sock foot against an employees feet. If he tried to say that it was an innocent and non-sexual quirk, he’d be laughed out of the room, because everyone knows that’s not normal and appropriate behavior.
We are wandering all over the place. No, I do not know that. About the police officer. May I have your source? And in what way did he “keep things quiet” other than follow the law for a minor with a minor, self reported offense? You have completely lost touch with the matter at hand. Nobody was hiding or downplaying. If you catch a child with porn, you throw the book at him? Hindsight makes us all experts. And for the record, I heard about that incident years before it hit the press. His mother shared with friends, and they mentioned it on an email forum I was part of, circa 2005. It was dealt with, it was not hidden. We think they handled it appropriately.
I do know there was child porn on his work computer, this an adult Josh. He claims it was someone else that had access to that work computer. There were others, others that had had prior known moral issues. I don’t know, I just know the character of those that were defending him.
Things appropriate in a family or church or camp setting would not be appropriate in a secular work setting. Kind of the point. This was not an office setting, more like boot camp. The entire foot thing has been completely misrepresented. Bill worked with shoes off, feet being damaged by so much time on them in seminars 6 days a week, for decades. That tap or nudge quirk happened with young men as well as women. We talked at length with those that were there – no, nothing that could be construed as sexual. There is a reason that nobody thought to bring this up until decades had passed and finally the group determined to take Bill down realized the way this could be spun. It remains the proverbial “nothing burger”.
We read a good point on 6/16 above. Who is helped by qualified professional help? Professionals help themselves. “Professional” means a cartel which is protected from competition. Professionals operate behind a shield of political power, which punishes anyone who dares to out-perform them.
How often do we hear a sequence like this? “Mr. and Mrs. Smith were quarreling. Next, Mr. & Mrs. Smith went to professional counseling. next, Mr. & Mrs. Smith are divorced.” Is that pattern common or uncommon? How often do Mr. and Mrs. Smith thrive after counseling? sometimes, but rarely!
Have we noticed a similar pattern among the people we know? Winners speak of “my accountant,” but losers speak of “my therapist.” Why do winners have accountants instead of therapists? How effective is professional “therapy” compared to the alternatives? How often do we see fat physicians and dietitians? Physician, heal thyself. God save us from qualified professional help!
You criticize professional help when it comes to marriages, and I can neither agree nor disagree. But when it comes to sexual abuse, it’s conservative religious groups which have an abysmal reputation. They have a documented history of downplaying the seriousness of sexual abuse and failing to protect the victims, to the point of breaking the law by not reporting sexual abuse to authorities when they’re required to. I think Christians would do well to solve their/our own problems before we blame the big bad secular world.
Do Christians have a poor reputation among the heathen? When has it ever been otherwise? Blaming Christians has been popular ever since Nero!
But what reputation have we earned? That is within our control. Are we justly or unjustly accused? That is up to us!
St. Peter had to deal with these questions back in his day: “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”
In America, Christians aren’t persecuted for being Christians. That’s happening in many places in the world, but America isn’t one of them.
Neither Gothard nor the Duggars nor that group in general are being criticized because the secular world is holding them to some unfair or unreasonable standard, nor are they being criticized for having Christian beliefs and morals. They’re criticized because they presented themselves as uniquely moral, more so than most other Christians, all while failing to meet the basic moral standards of the average secular person. Things like, not breaking the law, not defending people who break the law, not playing footsie with people under you who are half your age, not treating your children so badly that when they grow up, they leave in droves and start up a website. If a group can’t manage even that much, then they deserve a poor reputation.
We could not disagree more sharply. You must be far from the marketplace to believe real persecution is not happening.
And “footsies” – a sexual term – never happened. Kindly stop referring to that unless you have some independent confirmation of that. Again, if any part of that were true, you know that the crack personal injury firm that brought the 180 count $8.5 million lawsuit would have brought at least one (1) count to trial.
On 6/26 above, we read a reference to former followers leaving in droves and starting up an adversarial website. We infer that the leaving and retaliation were caused by mistreating children. But is this true? Maybe not. As St. John documents in his famous biography of Jesus, much greater droves deserted Jesus Christ than ever deserted Bill Gothard or Jim Bob Duggar. The volume of desertion was so great that Jesus asked his closest followers whether they were also leaving. Was Jesus deserted because of his defects (God forbid!)? or because of defects in his followers?
“Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”
Good men make enemies. That is sometimes the cost of goodness. But they also make good friends. Bad men also make enemies, but only wicked allies instead of friends.
On 6/17 above, we read a reference to police corruption which was so serious that a police officer was incarcerated. How can this be? Aren’t police “qualified professionals” to solve problems and rectify injustice?
Police corruption is so widely acknowledged that it is sometimes included in popular movie scripts. Even so, we are told that the policeman is a “minister of God.” How do we reconcile this contradiction?
This proves yet again that all men (including police) are sinners, so sometimes we need protection from our protectors. We trust in God instead of men. “Hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him for the help of his countenance.” “And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Let’s be faithful instead of cynical!
So let’s faithfully hold our Christian leaders accountable for both their actions and their teachings rather than (a), letting them do whatever they want in independent groups and (b), making excuses for them when it turns out that they did and taught wrong things. We’re not responsible–before God or man–for what all of society does. But we are responsible for representing Christ. We’re stand before God and answer for that, and society also has the right to expect us to practice what we preach. And if we don’t, we don’t get to play martyr when society treats us (or our favorite Christians) like the hypocrites we are.
To David Knecht–the people who left Jesus didn’t have allegations of inappropriate behavior or oppressive treatment. Jesus was popular, even with children. In the event you’re referring to, He had just fed over 5,000 people. They were ready to make Him king. Jesus deliberately taught a hard, confusing teaching so the people wouldn’t try to make Him become king when it wasn’t the right time for that.
And in spite of so many people “leaving” Him, He was still so popular that the religious leaders were afraid to arrest Him during the Passover for fear of the public uproar. They ended up arresting Him then anyway because Judas betrayed Him, but they had to hold a hasty illegal trial overnight in order to get away with it.
Even Jesus’ enemies had to stretch to find fault, and they came up with things like “He violates the Sabbath” or “He eats with publicans and sinners”. They couldn’t find any inconsistency between His lifestyle and His message. In order to get the attention of the Romans, they came up with the idea that Jesus was advocating a rebellion against the government, and all it took was a few minutes of questioning for Pilate to realize that it was bogus. None of the people close to Jesus–including Judas–could find real fault with Him.
Bill Gothard is the polar opposite of all of that. You can always find a way to dismiss people who find fault with Gothard, but at the end of the day, they’re there, and with Jesus, even His enemies couldn’t come up with much.
Unlike Jesus, Gothard created extra-biblical rules; he didn’t free people from them.
And Gothard didn’t have all the regular people supporting him (even if they didn’t actually follow him) while the religious people get jealous and try to discredit him. Gothard has the hyper-religious people defending him at all costs, while the regular people are left hurt and confused.
You’re dismissing the type of people that Jesus reached out to while defending the type of person that Jesus rebuked.
I am not David, but . . . What in the world does the “sinners” part of that equation mean? Morally dirty women, in part. “Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.” (Luke 7:39) The former prostitute(s) that followed Him, ministering to Him. You imagine that they didn’t imply some hanky panky going on?
And as for the “Common People” vs. the “Religious People”, you simply have no idea. Look at who were – are – writing the books attacking Bill. They have lots of letters after their names. I so remember the relentless attacks by Dr. Earl Radmacher of Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon, one of the most respected “religious people” of my day. Down below you will ironically see him writing one of the 7 women compromised by Bill’s brother, not having any dirt on Bill but longing for the woman to be able to produce some. She never did . . . And she later called HQ to say that she was ready to testify for Bill if and when he was sued (he was, two lawsuits around $2 million each, quickly dismissed) because he never mistreated her. The “Common Folks” to this day write Bill and call him – we see the testimonials continually.
And I am still amazed how you continue to hold to your allegation that there was ANY dirty matter that was proven for Bill. There was none. If there were, the powerful personal injury firm driving the $8.5 million, 17 plaintiff, 180 count lawsuit would have come through with something, rather than cutting their losses and quitting. Do you understand how big of a deal that is? $200K in legal expenses and literally nothing to show for it? And ALMOST getting a Rule 137 sanction for filing a frivolous lawsuit?
I didn’t say all the regular people are against Bill Gothard. My point is that Scripture doesn’t record /any/ of the regular people talking about how Jesus hurt them or harmed them in any way. None of them. Zero. Not the crowds who left him when His teaching was hard. Not the rich young ruler who didn’t want to follow Jesus because he loved his riches. Not the disciples, even though Jesus was always scolding them. Not Judas. Not any of the Gentiles Jesus interacted with. Nobody. And even some of the religious leaders, like Nicodemus, ended up following Jesus. The /only/ people who spoke against Jesus were those who had power and didn’t want to lose it. You can’t say the same for Gothard.
You all keep obsessing over the court case. The only thing the court case proves is that there wasn’t sufficient proof that he did any of the things he was formally charged with. That’s it.
It’s not proof that he’s a good man, or honest, or that the way he presents himself is the way he really is. Many people have first-hand accounts of bad things that happened in the group, whether directly from Bill Gothard, or from others as a result of his teachings.
The only defense I’ve seen is,
(1) he wasn’t found guilty in court
(2) oh, they’re all just going through a mid-life crisis, and
(3) that can’t be; I know him personally!
Those are all very weak defenses.
(1) As I said above, the court case doesn’t prove he didn’t do other bad things, things he wasn’t formally charged with.
(2) People going through a mid-life crisis don’t just randomly start lying.
(3) You can know someone personally and not realize how bad they are. I think of the guy who shot up the Amish schoolhouse back in 2006. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, google it.) His own wife had no idea he was going to do that.
If you want people to believe that Gothard is a godly man who’s being unfairly persecuted, you need a much better explanation than anyone has provided so far.
For myself, I was never part of Gothard’s group and I have no firsthand accounts, but I can tell from listening to his Basic Seminar videos that he was unqualified to be a Bible teacher. He didn’t teach Bible. He taught his personal opinion with Bible verses randomly sprinkled in. His opinions weren’t even always bad. A lot of times they made good sense. But it’s not right to call it Bible teaching if it’s not.
(P.S. To whoever’s in charge of this website, is there any reason that you never post my posts until someone also has a reply? What’s with that?)
THAT is funny, about regular people not complaining.
John 6:66 “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”
Yup, MANY of the fishermen and farmers and shepherds . . . Left Him.
How about Paul?
2 Timothy 1:15 “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.”
So . . . Bill is in very good company.
Sitting in your easy chair and pontificating about possibilities regarding matters you know noting about is not helpful. And, sorry, anyone who cannot find significance in the VERY CHARGES being bandied about being brought to court with huge rewards offered, anonymity guaranteed for the plaintiffs who chose it, nothing to lose, driven by people who brag about the billions they have extracted from big entities for the “common folk”, all of that coming up with NOTHING, no settlement, no judgement . . . No lawyer fees . . . That person is willfully prejudiced. For that you stand before the Lord and will give account. We are just so weary of it.
We have posted just about if not all of your comments, right? We all have full time jobs and don’t have time to work this continually. We have to read and then release your post. No one sees it until we do. And if we feel there is something worthy of our comment, we will add that as part of the release.
To accuse him, the Lord’s enemies indeed had to stretch. When they could not find fault, our Lord’s enemies sneered at his dubious parentage, “we were not born of fornication.”
For lack of better material, Bill Gothard’s enemies also attempted to come up some unchastity charge that would stick. Was Romans 2 operating? We tend to balance guilt with blame. Were Gothard’s accusers unchaste? Some of them were. When they got too greedy, their tactical error undid them. When they sought a big payday from the IBLP treasury, they risked judicial discovery which would have exposed their secret plans. Their next form of revenge was a recent video production.
Jesus of Nazareth was popular, and so was Bill Gothard. A couple million people did not feel oppressed by Gothard’s teaching. But a few did. They gnashed their teeth in outrage, and plotted revenge. Sometimes, popular men make determined enemies.
A court case is instructive when it illustrates ancient principles of justice. A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and his accuser bears the burden of proof. Gothard’s accusers did not meet their burden. Did Gothard’s enemies accuse him under penalty of perjury? If not, why should we believe them? Was Gothard’s defense weak? Was it weaker than his enemies’ accusations?
When an accuser does not prove his accusation, we must presume it is false. Is that a weak defense? A weak accusation deserves no better!
Did Bill Gothard do any man harm? Prove it, under penalty of perjury. Put up or shut up. Whining doesn’t count.
Was Bill Gothard a Bible teacher? That depends upon what we mean by our terms. Bill Gothard did not teach academic Bible exposition like seminary faculty. Instead, he taught a seminar about Basic Youth Conflicts. Much of Gothard’s material and concepts came from his academic setting as a student at Wheaton College. But the main idea was to help young people navigate life in their world.
Some of Gothard’s harshest critics were academics. So what? Gothard set out to please Christ, not academia!
Is Bill Gothard a hypocrite? Did he live differently from how he portrayed himself? The question is nonsense because Bill Gothard did not portray himself. Neither his name nor his image are featured in his materials. But his enemies used both his name and image as spitefully as they could.
Joanna, can we agree to be absolutely fair here? Can we come to consensus on that?
I’m sensing you have a big tif with Bill. Okay. You don’t have to like him. You’re a free American (I’m assuming) adult. You do you.
Let me introduce myself. I grew up around friends who were die-hard Gothardite, but my family didn’t follow him. I grew up not caring about it
But you know what? The issues of truth and justice are MUCH bigger than you and I and the backgrounds and experiences we come from.
We CANNOT simply jump to judgement. We cannot. Just because someone is accused, that person is not automatically guilty. It can’t be that way.
We havs a Constitution in this country, which prescribes to all of the right that we are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
It does not matter if you are convinced by the accusations. That does not a guilty man make.
We have to adhere to this, even if it disgusts us at times. Our Founders decided it was better for a guilty man to go free than an Innocent man go to jail. That might be hard to swallow, but that is the country we inherited.
Now, let’s also be fair in another area. No one is saying we should ignore or put down accusations about our favorite speakers. No one is saying that. What we are insisting on is absolute fairness.
Accusers of Gothard (and Duggar) rarely accuse him of any particular personal offense. So they evade their duty to prove anything. They keep their accusations vague and remote. They accuse him of everything in general and nothing in particular. One way to evade the burden of proof is to to deal only in innuendo, which can be neither proved nor disproved.
To the moderator: I didn’t say the people didn’t complain about Jesus at all. I said they didn’t talk about Jesus harming them. Those are two completely different things. There’s also no record of people complaining about Paul mistreating them. They accused him of all sorts of things, but being abusive or oppressive wasn’t one of them. In fact, apparently some people thought the way he came across in person was “weak” (2 Cor. 10:10). That puts Bill in a completely different company from Jesus and Paul.
As far as the relevance of the court case, let me give you an illustration. I work in a grocery store. And I get frustrated with workers who goof off and barely do anything. I think that ethically, they’re stealing from the company. They’re being paid to work and they’re not working, and that shows poor character. However, the fact remains that being a lazy worker is not a crime, and that taking objects from a store without paying for them is a crime.
Now, say that someone got mad at one of those workers and accused her of stealing from the store, and the store reviewed all the camera footage and they had no evidence that she stole, would you say that meant she was a good person? Of course not. They were checking camera footage for whether she stole items, not for whether she was lazy. The fact that she didn’t steal is irrelevant to the question of whether she’s lazy. If I said, “okay, there’s no evidence she stole products from the store. But she’s still lazy”, would you say I’m just wilfully prejudiced against her? Would you defend her by talking on and on about how they reviewed hours and hours of camera footage and there was no sign that she took anything? That would be bizarre, because it’s completely irrelevant to my point.
So why are you doing that with Bill Gothard?
All KINDS of people accuse both Jesus and Paul for ruining their lives. Are you kidding? 🙂 We have such a tiny window into life in NT times – it is inconceivable that SOMEBODY – especially in a day of open homosexuality and powerful “women’s rights” movements – didn’t blame both. Plus there was hardly enough time for Paul-raised children to enter their version of “mid-life crisis”.
I am baffled by your comment. Bill is not perfect – Bill has been known to be – in my mind – petty and insensitive and sometimes has lacked good judgement on the type of people that he has trusted. But he never, ever messed with a woman, let along girl. Didn’t happen. The suit was focused laser-like on those charges. Five years of desperate digging, public appeals for “victims” to come forward . . . And there was in the end not a shred of evidence to drag even one (1) count for one (1) anonymous woman through to trial, let alone depositions. It was as spectacular of a collapse as you will ever see.
THAT ought to be enough to stop continuing to act like he is guilty of some level of sex crime. We get so weary of it. He is not. Three law firms, 19 plaintiffs, 180 counts say so with about as much emphasis as you could ever care to find.
As Joe Sobran once said, Jesus is the man they still hate. http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991202.shtml
The answer to you Joanna is quite simple. Bill was accused of the very thing that they found no “proof” of.
Your comparison does not match.
The employees here had a problem that was not the crime they were accused of. That is not equal.
Why all the teeth-gnashing on 7/11 above? It seems like exasperation that Gothard’s enemies cannot prove any of their accusations against him. Why, there must be SOMETHING which justifies all our bile, even if we cannot prove anything.
Somewhere, there must be a needle of sin in the Gothard haystack! So where is it? What is it? What if we spent half as much energy loving our neighbor as hating Bill Gothard? What if we spent half as much energy producing fruit of the spirit instead of works of the flesh?
Are we desperate to find sin in Bill Gothard so that we can justify our own sin?
I mean the people who knew Jesus and Paul in person, the way people today know Bill Gothard in person. Certainly it’s possible that people in Jesus and Paul’s day accused them of doing things that are harmful, but what he have recorded in Scripture is that even Jesus’ enemies couldn’t accuse Him of that.
I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the idea of a mid-life crisis. Since when does a mid-life crisis cause a whole group of people to randomly start lying?
I never said that Bill Gothard committed heinous sexual crimes. I still believe that his foot-touching was highly inappropriate and inexcusable, but that doesn’t make him a criminal. I’m asking myself, “is he a good man? Is he who he claims to be? Is he worth all the effort you’re putting into defending him?”
And I see a man who is not above reproach. Even if he never did any of the sexual things he was accused of, he put himself in situations where he could be accused of that. I grew up in a rather conservative Christian family, but not quite as conservative as Gothard and his group. And it was taken for granted that a man shouldn’t be alone with a woman that way, both in the interests of avoiding temptation, and for the purpose of being a good testimony. So how could a man in charge of an even more conservative group not do that? At best, it shows a lack of good judgement which would disqualify him from being in Christian leadership.
Furthermore, Gothard held other people to a high standard of little to no physical contact between the sexes, and he didn’t follow it himself. That doesn’t make him evil, but it does make him a hypocrite.
I see a man who claims to be all about the Bible, but of all his teachings I’ve had access to, all I see is him giving his personal opinion sprinkled with Bible verses taken out of context. And everyone I’ve ever seen who defends him does the same thing. It’s all over the place on this website. And there are examples of Michelle Duggar doing it in Jill Duggar’s book. And other places on the Internet. I’ve not seen a single person who defends him who has a decent grasp on how Scripture works.
Also, the people who defend him don’t seem to understand other basic things. Like how research works. Or why it’s inappropriate for a man to touch a woman’s feet when he’s twice her age. Or why a TV show showing off your family just might be considered hypocritical if your son is a sexual deviant. Or the difference between “there’s insufficient proof that this person is a criminal” vs. “this person is a good person.”
If Bill Gothard is a good and godly man, why is it that the only fruit I see is poor judgement, mishandling of Scripture, and general ignorance about life?
“Since when does a mid-life crisis cause a whole group of people to randomly start lying?”
When the stress level gets high enough, all kinds of things start happening. If anything that the women alleged in the lawsuit were true, they would have gotten a payday. “Repressed memories”, look it up. Self delusion. EVERY one of the plaintiffs claimed this psychological condition in their pleadings. They needed Bill to be bad.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544012/
On 7/18 above, we close by accusing Bill Gothard of general ignorance about life. The statement is so absurd that it reflects ignorance about ignorance. It also reflects contempt for a couple million seminar attendees who for many years spent many hours drinking in Gothard’s wisdom about life. Sneering is easy and cheap. But teaching millions is difficult and expensive.
Gothard’s accusers have the burden of proof. When they accuse him of evil, they must prove him evil. Gothard need not prove anything. A man is presumed innocent.
We also question whether men randomly start lying in middle age. Shouldn’t we ask whether they deliberately continue lying at every age? whether they have earned a lifelong reputation for integrity? How would Bill Gothard’s enemies fare under the scrutiny they are lavishing on him? What if we turned the tables? Who would be the worst hypocrite? Gothard? or his accusers?
Since several people answered at once, this answer will serve all of them. I’m not talking about the lawsuit. I was never taking about the lawsuit. I don’t know why you keep bringing up the lawsuit. The lawsuit is completely irrelevant to anything I’m saying. If the lawsuit against Gothard had never happened, my point would still stand. Anything you say about the lawsuit is a complete red herring or straw man argument when it comes to any point that I’m trying to make. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/red%20herring https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man
My second comment here was that people are saying bad things about Gothard that have nothing to do with the lawsuit.
On May 29, I said “It’s not just the Shiny, Slander documentary and it’s not just the sexual abuse allegations. This very website is a response to another website. Very few people are naive enough to think that none of the people criticizing Gothard could possibly be lying. But people would also have to be pretty naive to believe that that many people–with no apparent motivation–are just randomly lying about their own families and upbringing. I need an actual reason to believe that, and so far, neither Holly nor anyone else has provided one.”
I gave a whole illustration about the lazy worker, and about how proving that someone is innocent of one thing doesn’t prove that they’re innocent of something completely unrelated, and you still missed the point. I’m NOT accusing Bill Gothard of the same thing the lawsuit did. I never was. And you’ve spent this whole time talking about the lawsuit, the very thing I explicitly said I wasn’t basing this on. I’m running out of ways of saying that my point is not the lawsuit!
There are enough undisputed facts—things you yourself agree with—that call Gothard’s character into question. And whenever I bring them up (and I’ve brought them up multiple times in this thread) you ignore them and say, “that doesn’t make him a criminal, because after all, there was this lawsuit and he wasn’t found guilty.”
So what? Is that your standard for Christian leadership? “He’s not a criminal.” I haven’t been found guilty of a crime, either. Does that mean I’m a good, qualified Christian leader and people should go to seminars I hold, and buy my materials, and agree with how I use Scripture?
You enjoy talking, and for now – fine. You are an armchair quarterback. That is not worth much.
No, you don’t get to just sweep the lawsuit away. It is the absolute proof you are wrong. The best charges, 18 plaintiffs, 180 counts, anonymity for those bringing charges – a plaintiffs dream come true. Everyone that believes as you do had a chance to prove it. And spectacularly failed. They all went down together. Because it was all one, gigantic lie.
Indeed, the lawsuit matters MOST, because that’s where Gothard’s enemies must bind themselves with oaths, which are enforced by God and man. That’s risky. So instead of the lawsuit, they attacked with internet gossip, which is not so risky. Were they recovering cowardice? May they someday recover integrity! May they repent and believe!
To the moderator: can you name even one statement that I’ve made which was disproved by the lawsuit?
Yes! Unwanted sexually “inappropriate” behavior in a workplace is sexual harassment. If Bill was “inappropriate” sexually – sexual advances, sexual “grooming”, unwanted sexual attention, however you define it – then he was guilty as an employer and should be punished. The entire lawsuit was to recover damages from such activity. Never happened, or else at least one of the 180 counts across 17 plaintiffs would have found its way to trial. If his behavior is not “sexual harassment”, then your opinions of “inappropriate” remain your own and are completely irrelevant.
On 7/24 above, a commenter (who denies being a criminal) asks whether she should teach Christian seminars and produce Christian materials for the public. YES! A thousand times, yes! Of course she should teach better Christian seminars and produce better Christian materials than Bill Gothard. So why doesn’t she? Perhaps it is much easier to accuse Bill Gothard than to surpass him?
Of what does she accuse him? We are not told. So Gothard must be evil despite his enemies’ failed attempt to prove it? Do any of us want to be treated that way? “For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged.” How will we fare when we are accused of everything and nothing?
If Bill Gothard is a poor Christian leader, how much better is she? “It is not the critic who counts. . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.”
To David Knecht: Are you telling me that the Bible teaches that anyone who isn’t a criminal should be a teacher? That’s the opposite of what James 3:1 says. It says we shouldn’t all try to be teachers because teachers are under greater judgment. Anyone who can’t handle that shouldn’t be a teacher.
For those of us being taught, we have not only the right but also the obligation to make sure that teachers are doing what they’re supposed to. In I John 3, believers are told to test the spirits before believing them, because of how many false prophets there were. In I Timothy 5, Paul tells Timothy not to accept a charge against an elder unless there are two or three witnesses, but he didn’t say not to accept a charge against an elder by someone who isn’t themselves an elder. The idea of Christian leaders having so little accountability is foreign to Scripture. In Acts 11, after Peter went to Cornelius, he had to defend himself before the believers in Jerusalem, and it specifically says, “the apostles AND brethren.” The apostle Peter didn’t just have to answer to his fellow apostles, equal in position to him, but to other Christians as well. Should Bill Gothard be less answerable for his actions than the apostles?
And I have told you what I’m accusing him of. At best, he showed a lack of good judgement by being alone with females the way he was. Touching people’s feet the way he did was inappropriate. And no, it doesn’t somehow make it better than he did it to guys as well. He teaches standards which he himself doesn’t meet, like expecting people to have a lot of children and home school them on one income, while he himself has the financial benefits of being single. His supposed Bible teaching is his personal opinion sprinkled with verses usually taken out of context. I said that before. How is that “everything and nothing”?
“Being alone with females the way he was”. Even his enemies acknowledge that even those incidents where there was no one else next to him during counseling he had the door open, and he had big windows with no curtains. Or he was siting out in the open in his big car with a young person in the passenger seat, with a stream of young people coming and going on all sides – I have seen that myself. It wasn’t anything like you imagine it.
You have no way of evaluating his “touching” of feet. It was so innocuous that it was a known Gothard quirk for 5 decades before folks labeled it “sexual” and made that an offense. It was a tap to get attention or, like a tap on the shoulder, a way to signal attention. He did it to males as well. Please imagine this and then get back to me as to what you think was inappropriate.
Ummm, I don’t know how to tell you this if you don’t already know it, but there are plenty of behaviors which are socially inappropriate without being a crime. Some of them even vary from culture to culture. The idea that it’s inappropriate to touch someone’s foot “just to get their attention” isn’t just my random opinion. That’s a social convention in this culture. That’s not how we get people’s attention. Asking me to explain that would be like asking me to explain why you shouldn’t stare at people while picking your nose. It’s not a crime. You don’t sue someone over it. But it is something that most people understand as inappropriate.
Outside of Gothard’s group, the only adults I can think of who would find that at all confusing are people who have autism. People with autism can be wonderful, intelligent, law-abiding citizens, but they have a hard time with social cues that most of us take for granted. If nobody saw a problem with Gothard’s behavior for decades, that means that Gothard surrounded himself with people who have the same amount of social awareness and understanding as people who have diagnosed neurological disorders. Make of that what you will.
It helps to actually talk to someone that was there. Then you would understand that THIS is not worth worrying about. But, when one has an agenda to take someone down, cancel them, well then every little thing becomes reinterpreted to that end. Let’s drop this.
We read a good point on 7/27 above. Teaching is risky and difficult. That was obvious to Christ’s apostles, indeed to anyone who has tried it. This is one of the reasons we are exhorted to confer the benefit of doubt upon our elders, especially Christian elders. We need not fear that our teachers will evade accountability. Indeed, they suffer from excess accountability, which is a heavy burden. That is part of the cost which St. James warned us to count before teaching!
We also restate some of the hearsay accusations which third parties leveled against Bill Gothard. These accusations have important things in common. They are vague, using language such as “inappropriate.” The accusations are also decades-old, raised no objection at the time, and difficult to prove or disprove.
How can a bachelor like Bill Gothard exhort homeschooling fathers like me? just as St. Paul did.
To David: Where does James say that the greater condemnation of leadership is excess? The message throughout Scripture is that it’s right and proper for leaders to be held to a higher standard, not that we should go easy on leaders because they have that burden. (To give just one example from the Old Testament, God didn’t allow Moses to enter the Promised Land because he lost his temper once when he hit the rock instead of speaking to it, while the Israelites complained time and time and again before God finally said that anyone above 20 (except for Joshua and Caleb) wouldn’t be able to go into the Promised Land.)
Requiring two or three people to accuse an elder is hardly giving elders “the benefit of the doubt”. It’s just acknowledging that a leader in a communal society who’s wronged one person has probably wronged another, and so if there’s only one person complaining about that elder, it’s probably nothing worth getting the elder in trouble for.
And whenever you hear very specific accusations, like “he touched my foot when we were alone in a room”, you dismiss them and defend Gothard. If I were to give you specific examples of where he takes Scripture out of context in his messages, you would still defend him.
Bill Gothard didn’t claim to be an apostle with apostolic authority. He claims to be “just teaching the Bible”, a claim the apostle Paul never made, for obvious reasons. If Gothard says he’s teaching the Bible, he should teach the Bible. If he wants to give his own opinion, that’s fine as long as he doesn’t claim to be a Bible teacher. But the one thing he can’t do and retain his integrity is claim that he’s “just teaching the Bible” and then teach his own opinion. And that’s exactly what he’s done.
“Not many [of you] should become teachers [serving in an official teaching capacity], my brothers and sisters, for you know that we [who are teachers] will be judged by a higher standard [because we have assumed greater accountability and more condemnation if we teach incorrectly].”
James 3:1 AMP
As followers of Jesus it is our duty and responsibility to submit to the Word of God through all wisdom & understanding given by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, and to welcome His correction. He disciplines and corrects the one He loves (Hebrews 12:6) and constantly shift our beliefs and actions in obedience to the conviction of our righteousness. Surely we will not be able to enter the kingdom of heaven lest we become teachable, correctable, innocent and trusting in GOD alone like little children by the LORD and HIS WORD not the words of men, not submission or loyalty to a man.
(Matthew 18:3)
I am a young woman and follower of Jesus Christ, I believe in His Word and Submit to His voice (John 10:4-5) alone. I did not grow up in any religion/ traditional system of belief, the Lord chased me down as a teenager and I submitted myself to Truth – that no matter what I had thought in the past I would bring my mind into alignment with the True Jesus. The voice of a stranger I will not follow.
I have nothing to say to you regarding this man or this case, I think it’s obvious and speaks for itself to anyone of a sound mind and pure heart. Vengeance is the Lord’s (Romans 12:19) and I leave Justice in His hands.
My concern is for you, the moderator and staff, who is more worried about the Loyalty to your leader than to the Lord. More worried about his (Bill’s) defense, than the defense of Truth. Your unwillingness for submission to the correction of The Lord is blaring. Every comment response the goal has been to prove YOURSELF and YOUR LEADER correct. Meanwhile, you deceive
Gods precious people and for that there is a much greater judgment.
I tell you this to warn you. That the eyes of your heart would be open to understanding (Eph. 1:18) and that you would repent of your wrong believing, wrong speaking, and misleading others.
If your response is anything other than repentance or a true desire to seek Truth, admit that you might be wrong, that you might not know everything, that you need Jesus and His wisdom alone and you will truly seek the Lord on this …then you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And you will be held accountable. Don’t waste your time trying to deceive me, I see you very clearly. You have been manipulated, groomed and deceived. That was not your fault, but it is your choice to be free and walk in Truth now.
I pray that your mind, heart and soul would be free, at true peace, filled with the precious Wisdom of the Holy Spirit – and that the transformative Love of God would bring you into intimate relationship with the True and Living God – not a man who claims to know it all. Bill can’t save you. You can’t save yourself. On Judgment day God isn’t going to ask you to defend or answer for Bill – you will answer to yourself. I urge you to repent and walk free in His Grace.
I will not argue with you. I only care to seek the Truth of God and the freedom & salvation of His people. All else, is nonsensical, a waste of time and damaging to the Body Of Christ.
I took the time to write this because I care about you as a son/daughter of God. I care about your heart, soul and salvation. God knows. You are doing the devils work. Wake up. “Awake, you who sleep, arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light” ( 5:14)
Blessings and freedom to you all.
Thank you for your concern. Most of what you write we would agree with, in terms of the Lord’s burden on each of us to submit to His Word and love and pursue the truth regardless of consequences.
A bit of a problem with two comments:
“Every comment response the goal has been to prove YOURSELF and YOUR LEADER correct.”
This website is set up for that purpose. Many have gone about to decry and condemn Bill – without proof – so we decided to set the record straight. If we have not properly addressed any matter you are aware of, please let us know.
“Meanwhile, you deceive Gods precious people and for that there is a much greater judgment.”
That is a solemn judgement, which we would strongly deny and reject. Please provide evidence of that. I know you would not want to be guilty of speaking evil or lodging a false accusation.
Thank you.
“Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?”
On 7/30 above, we hear from an anonymous woman. She denies having any Christian background, and now affirms a mystical solo-scriptura Christianity.
Our commenter rebuked the worry devoted to defend Bill Gothard. Has too much effort been expended to defend Bill Gothard? Shall we compare it to the effort expended to attack Bill Gothard? The attacks have been extravagant in their duration and intensity. In comparison, the defenses of Gothard have been modest. They can be summarized in two words, PROVE IT!
If our commenter is really neutral about Bill Gothard but rather concerned about deception and damage among Christians, why did she not also post her warning to the communion of Gothard’s enemies over at RG?
On 7/31 above, we hear from a woman with yet another accusation against Bill Gothard. Supposedly, he touched her foot when they were alone in a room. Was this room on Mars? Let us give credit where it is due. Gothard’s accusers craft their accusations very artfully. Their setting tends to be “alone in a room,” to make verification impossible.
BILL GOTHARD? Was there ever a less likely playboy? His graduating class probably voted him “least likely to be coveted by women.” Yet in 2024 his enemies would transform him into an evangelical Hugh Hefner. Bodice-ripper Bill is not very credible. Does Gothard need any defense against absurd accusations? hardly.
Does Bill Gothard’s teaching make claims? indeed. But they are not claims about himself. Rather, they are claims about the ways of God. Have Gothard’s accusers tried God’s ways of repentance and faith? or left them untried?