Here at Discovering Grace we know that there are many questions surrounding both Bill Gothard and his teachings. This is the place to ask those questions and launch discussions on a number of topics we may not have addressed yet. Before posting a question or responding to one, please review our “Rules” page. We will do out best to answer as many questions as we can. Please keep the question focused on a single point – better to ask several questions than try to cover too much in one request. We will use the nickname or name you provide when we post the question – or not, if, for example, we are responding to several similar questions.
Has it ever been confirmed that John Cornish and Kari Underwood were indeed staff members at some point?
-John
Dr. John Cornish stated in his “testimony” that he was on staff – https://johndcornish.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/ati-ifb-childhood/ Kari has stated in podcasts that she too was on staff, according to some that recall hearing it.
Do you know if Mr. Gothard has spoken directly with Dr. Cornish or Ms. Underwood at any point while this has all been going on?
Dr. Cornish has been involved with Bill to a brief extent. We have heard him unhappy that he asked John for contact with the offended women, particularly Gretchen, so he could hear them out and respond to them directly, a request that John denied. I do not believe there was further contact.
Thanks for your reply!
Two quick follow-ups. A. What reason did Dr. Cornish give for not facilitating the contact? B. Why didn’t Mr. Gothard just contact her directly outside of Dr. Cornish? Surely Mr. Gothard wouldn’t want Dr. Cornish to have any part of his discussions with Gretchen anyway, as Dr. Cornish seems to have a definite agenda that doesn’t line up with Mr. Gothard’s.
Mr. Gothard has attempted to make contact with all the young women (8) that have posted comments there. With some he has spoken. One young women told him that personal forgiveness for him would be predicated on his denouncing all of his teachings as false and basically disappearing forever (my paraphrase). Most have refused to have contact with him.
Dr. John holds the keys to the stated “60+ women” who have allegedly told RG that they were sexually harassed. So far no further information is provided to Bill or his team other than what is up on the site – 8 women, declaring themselves in the last 3 years for events that allegedly happened 20 years past. If Bill were a predator as would be the case for the abuse of 60+ women, then he would most definitely have been doing evil up until very recently.
Such allegations by Dr. John and his team in Recovering Grace and privately must be grounded in truth, 60+ women who have something resembling an acknowledged definition of “sexual harassment”, or being the only source for that continued damaging, unsubstantiated declaration begins to meet requirements that define defamation. We would expect to be hearing from some of these 60 women in other venues, or by direct contact with Bill as he has openly pleaded for the opportunity to hear and correct any wrongs he has done. There certainly seems to be far less reason to be secretive, given all that has occurred. The deafening silence is telling.
Okay, that makes some sense, but still doesn’t answer my questions.
I really want to know if Dr. Cornish gave a reason to Mr. Gothard for not facilitating the contact with Gretchen, or any of the others for that matter?
Secondly, you stated that Mr. Gothard has attempted to make contact with all 8 women. Did he make contact with Gretchen?
Also, I did some more reading this afternoon on Recovering Grace, and came across this article, http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/03/update/, in which they claim that Dr. Cornish and Kari Underwood had a 90-minute conversation with Mr. Gothard and a third-party mediator. Was this before or after Dr. Cornish refused to give Mr. Gothard the names? Is this third party one of your team members, or someone who might be able to vouch for Mr. Gothard’s innocence in these matters? That seems like a pretty crucial conversation right there.
The third party would likely be Dr. Doty Murphy, who was involved last year. We know nothing about what went on there. We do know that Dr. John has refused all requests to contact Gretchen through him, and she, for her part, has stated publically that she will not meet with Bill unless he first publically acknowledges her story to be true. Since it is, according to him, absolutely not true, that leaves the situation as it is.
We do have a statement from his “accountability partner”, a “brother in Christ” (MD) appointed by the church that ordained Bill to examine him. After several months of regular meetings he published a “Document of Commendation” to certify that, as far as he was concerned, Bill had done all that he could and should do to address the matters he was charged with. That included examining the 10 page document detailing the attempts at and results of reconciliation. We will seek permission to make that available.
How long has Bill known this “accountability partner?” Did Bill have any part in selecting him for this role?
This is critical because two other men that tried to work with him in the reconciliation process both ended up walking away because Bill was unrepentant. I’d like to see you get a “document of commendation” from them.
His statement includes the following: “I have been appointed to meet with Bill Gothard on a periodic basis in order to be kept informed of his walk with the Lord, and his goals of reconciliation”. My understanding was that this choice was not Bill’s to make; we will clarify. The Board has been given this document.
We are aware of two other efforts to help Bill, being fairly closely involved in one of them. In both cases there were requirements placed on him that he felt he could not righteously satisfy, specifically publically confessing to things that he is adamant that he did not do. At least one of these statements, crafted by others, was handed to RG for review and actually presented to us subsequently as his confession from that source.
Okay, so it sounds like Bill drove away the first two accountability partners and then found one that wouldn’t actually hold him accountable. Slick move.
The one team continued working with Bill up until the last couple of months; the one that wrote the commendation concluded a year ago. So, no. It is likely this preceded the other two. We will ask.
If he had a letter of commendation a year ago, why did he keep working with another team?
Different teams had different objectives. The “Denver Committee” was almost exclusively dealing with the unresolved issues from the ’70s and ’80’s, Dr. Murphy to facilitate reconciliation in the present tense. The “accountability partner” was assuming a pastoral role, Bill being, thinking righteously. Our role has been to represent to some extent the concerns of Bill’s supporters, ATI families, as well as use social media to make contact with those that are concerned or grieved and so facilitate reconciliation, a role we had hoped RG was assuming,
your write:
“We do have a statement from his “accountability partner”, a “brother in Christ” (MD) appointed by the church that ordained Bill to examine him. After several months of regular meetings he published a “Document of Commendation” to certify that, as far as he was concerned, Bill had done all that he could and should do to address the matters he was charged with. That included examining the 10 page document detailing the attempts at and results of reconciliation. We will seek permission to make that available.”
We requested contact with Dr. Wood through Bill and it was never provided nor was there any attempt by Dr. Don Wood, former elder of the LaGrange Bible Church, or the other member Rev. David Shoaf, also Bill’s pastor, to contact us. So they must have done a real bang up job with their thorough investigation.
Larne, that is very interesting, but not surprising. It’s very similar to the way that IBLP conducted their “investigation” into the harassment allegations. Talk to Bill, talk to friendly witnesses, but by no means talk to those actually offended and/or victimized.
Mr Gothard is one of the most outstanding Christian men I have every had the opportunity to meet, and listen to.
The enemy of our soul has been attacking him for years through lies and inuendos. Mr Gothard is and always
has been a man of sterling character, and remains one of the hero’s of the faith.
All I’m saying is , while Discovering Grace is being so gracious to these who obviously don’t care about the thousands of us who have been so blessed by Dr Gothard’s ministry , we too can rise up against their witch hunt mentality and clear revenge for money motives with this . WhyDon’t those of you who are seeking money from him go out and do is we do and get two jobs and make your own money instead of trying to prey on others perceive weaknesses which have failed in court . What your doing is Totally against scripture but you’re not concerned with that because you’re your own little god and will not be able to destroy The thousands of us whose families have been blessed by this ministry and we will see you at the great judgment , where we will win again just as we did in the courts this year because the Righteous judge sees right through the motives of those who claim victim status to make a living .. how tragic you can’t Www was the rest of us who were abused by others growing up and simply forgiven restore a scriptural concept you don’t know much about, yet claim to be theologically superior . I too am from a long line of theologians And I’ve studied the Bible for over half a century and you have distorted everything I personally heard Dr. Gothard say. Again we will see you all at the judgement where The Righteous One will judge us all , And will separate the sheep from the goats those have repented with a sincere heart and those who have not which is for Him to decide not you or me.
His accusers don’t care about the thousands of us whose lives and families marriages were helped by Gods truth through him . Those who hate him for teaching God’s structure of authority will be in for a shock when they realize he NEVER preached blind obedience ! He said we have to be like Daniel ! Who respectfully lived a Godly life . Every prophet of God homered the king including Paul . What horrible scholarship by those who profess to be so Authoritarian themselves!!!
“His accusers don’t care about the thousands of us whose lives and families marriages were helped by Gods truth through him .”
How could you possibly claim to have knowledge of what his alleged victims care about? That’s pretty recklessly speculative.
Jim can speak for himself. What evidence might you offer to the contrary? That is something that has bothered a lot of us. The basic declaration . . . That Bill has never helped anyone, that most of those who think they got helped are deluded, and the rest, well, thank God, not Bill. “Because God draws straight lines with crooked sticks”. When someone credits Bill with saving their marriages, and in an amazing number of cases, their lives, the responses seem callous at best, if not cruel, maybe evil.
re: God draws straight lines with crooked sticks
That’s a cute aphorism. But compare it to the Lord’s statement; by their fruits ye shall know them.
How does Gothard’s fruit compare to the fruit of his enemies? Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?
The teachings of BG are very clear. He has said that blind obedience is just as wrong as open rebellion. First we are to create an alternative that satisfies the request. If still asked to do wrong, we are to appeal to God to change the heart of the authority. If that heart is not changed, then we prepare to suffer for doing right.
We are never allowed to do wrong.
Is it with this that some will disagree?
re: blind obedience and appeals
Throughout IBLP history Gothard had to answer the blind obedience objection. Here is the answer from the IBLP web site: https://iblp.org/questions/how-can-i-make-effective-appeal
I didn’t know Bill was a King. He obviously is in your mind and heart. Curious how those that rally to Bill and his teaching seem to never mention Christ at all, their stated gratefulness is to Bill, not God. I’ll leave you with this quote, ” Stat crux dum volvitur orbis”. You can look it up.
I do think that is a tad unfair. Bill’s supporters mention the Savior constantly. Also, if you read carefully, Jim was referring to general and focused respect for authority, which Bill teaches – Paul and Daniel honored the king, being his point.
There is a difference between making “mention the Savior” and focusing on Jesus, second person of the Trinity. Mention and focus are not the same thing. Likewise, the repeated “gratefulness” to Bill, not God indicates this as expressed by Bill’s supporters.
Likewise, the efforts of rebrand Bill’s heavy authoritarian teaching and obedience to authority doesn’t work. Bill might not have used the words “blind obedience” but what he did clearly teach about authority and unquestioning obedience to it equals the accusation of “blind” obedience to authority, usually focused on parents. While, Bill tried to put in the caveate of “appealing”using the example of Daniel and his three friends over food, that doesn’t temper or even roll back heavy handed authoritarian teaching, which is one of the hallmarks of Bill’s teaching. Taking a closer look at the over used example of Daniel, Bill doesn’t point out that Daniel and the three others were prisoners of war, they were mutilated by castration and basically had no options left. This whole thing had nothing to do with authority or obeying it or coming up with “wise appeals” in an effort to give a anemic balance to the heavy handed authoritarianism of Bill Gothard. To state otherwise or try and reduce it to “respect of authority” is disingenuine and dishonest and an anemic attempt to cover it up.
I just checked and the two brothers of our Lord Jesus, James and Jude, also hardly refer to Him. Interesting, eh? James refers to the “faith of our Lord Jesus” and His coming, but not to Him. Jude likewise. Based on the following, it appears that the more mature live and breathe Him so much that the time they spend in teaching . . . Is focused on what follows:
Hebrews 6:1-3 “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit.”
That passage has some very grumpy things to say about those that don’t “move on”.
There are those that consider Bill authoritarian and heavy handed. Others see the opposite. I have always found that interesting. Folks that I attended seminars with back in the early 1970s . . . One told me he felt Bill to be “cold” . . . I was stunned, could not relate. Sometimes it, as the last topic, comes down to where we are spiritually. Or even just personally. The Lord let’s us be individuals as He continues working in our hearts.
You totally missed what I was saying to you and it has nothing to do with how many times Jesus is mentioned, especially in the epistles of James and Jude, that is a red herring you are throwing up here. Mention is not the same as focus. When die hard supporters of Bill repeated mention “Bill save my marriage or family or etc.” and seem to think or indicate that Bill “saved their marriages or whatever, this looks like excessive focus or gratitude not to God but to Bill. That is cult like devotion. Your proof text quote from Hebrews can be countered with St. Paul writing that he choose not to preach anything but “Christ and Him crucified”. The letter to the Hebrews is about and directed to Jews not to turn back on Christ and leave the faith.
Well, to be Christ centered you DO have to talk about Him, right? James is a godly man. Sounds a lot like Bill, truth be told.
What you say is prejudicial. If your doctor saved you and 6 family members from COVID19 through a unique treatment which went on to save millions more, why, you would not be out of line to keep mentioning that doctor . . . Gratefully . . . Especially if people started attacking him of having some ulterior motive. Sort of like the blind man, giving credit to a man he never saw for healing him. Rushed to his defense when attacked by compromised important Pharisees.
The mantra I always here about Bill: “Give God the credit, not Bill”. This was how that sounded coming from the Pharisees:
John 9:24. “Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.”
The man was not out of line to give credit where credit was due. Forced into it by the baseless attack of an organized group of opponents. And remember, he had no idea who Jesus actually was:
25 — “He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. … 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.”
So . . . I don’t think we are out of line.
You missed the point. Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. The Pharisees did not accept that. The dialogue from the Gospel of John has nothing to do with my comment and even what others have accused you of, which is the placement of Bill Gothard before God.
The blind man had no idea that that man that healed him was the Son of God. But he gave credit where credit was due. Men that come with the authority and wisdom and power of the Lord . . . Will get the same rejection that their Lord did. And the same acceptance as well.
Matthew 10:24-25. “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?“
re: mentioning Bill Gothard, mentioning Christ
It depends upon our topic. If Bill Gothard is the topic of statements about Bill Gothard, what does it betoken? That we talk about what we talk about? True, but hardly worth saying.
Does Rob post about no one but Christ? Is that the pattern of her posts here? Or elsewhere?
I posted this on Bill Gothard’s FB page. His “moderator” told me that my questions should be directed here.
While Bill says he does not have anything to do with this website, he did make a suggestion that you change the name. How can he make suggestions if he has nothing to do with it? He talks out of both sides of his mouth!
Why in the world would you choose the name “Discovering Grace” when you know there is a website that publishes stories that tell how people were abused in ATI, IBLP and other Bill Gothard Ministries and by Bill Gothard?
Is it to further confuse those seeking truth? Is it another manipulation and deception? Because that is exactly what it feels like.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Bill. Your continued attempts at ministry and deceptive practices are further proof that you have NOT changed.
Once a narcissistic manipulator, always a narcissistic manipulator.
Yes, it is confusing. Already someone wrote about it in one of the groups I’m involved in. They called “Discovering Grace” “Recovering Grace”. It’s dumb to do that unless you are trying to confuse people. Which I believe someone is trying to do.
What rhymes with Recovering Grace?
Bill has been aware of this effort from the beginning but has no control nor input. The only suggestions he made were to change the name, and recently to delay launch in the light of ongoing issues.
The name was chosen by another team that was trying to set it up in 2013 in time for Bill’s 50th anniversary of being in ministry. That team subsequently transitioned it over to the current group. The name is clearly a play on “Recovering Grace” or a counter to it. Which you will see in the “About Us” page as one of the purposes we assumed.
Is this in response to the recent litigation that have been filed against Gothards organization?
Obviously someone has spent alot of time writing this with care. Where was that care when I was being locked in solitary confinement “prayer rooms” as a 14 year old boy and being denied food for a max of six meals (and since we were forced to fast on Sundays, it could be up to 3 days) because it was decided I was not memorizing scripture well enough?
I also was locked into my room for 2 weeks at a time. I was locked in because i wasn’t perfect, basically. If i thought for myself. If i defended myself, the list goes on and on. We all endured horrible things. I too have a personal history with Bill Gothard. I could go on and on about my years in his cult.
Joan: The ones I have spoken to have been adamant that no such lengthy “lock up” ever occurred. It is interesting that, after an Indiana Family and Social Services two-year investigation of exactly those kinds of accusations of ITC – initiated by a very public, multi-series muckraking exercise by WISH-TV in Indianapolis – the authorities quietly concluded them to be “unsubstantiated”. If you would want to provide more information, I do not mind chasing it down . . . as best I can after all these years.
.
Joan says: “I also was locked into my room for 2 weeks at a time.”
Alfred says: “Joan: The ones I have spoken to have been adamant that no such lengthy “lock up” ever occurred.”
And you wonder, Alfred, where all the accusers are? No, they’re not talking to YOU, and for good reason.
How many times have you heard about something that happened to someone then gone to the most reliable source you know (Mr Bill), who says it was all a misunderstanding, and he should know because (1) he was there and (2) he cannot tell a lie, and you report to the world that the original claim was bogus because the accuser hopped on an RG bandwagon?
Step one is listening. The above exchange indicates either your inability or unwillingness, or both.
I am sorry, Sandy, but after all we have been through with such tales, you can’t blame us.
Exactly these kinds of allegations were being made back in 2001-2002 timeframe. Indianapolis WISH-TV did a multipart expose on the ITC, highlighting a number of plaintiffs . . . which resulted in a full investigation by the Indiana Family and Social Services. At the end of it – May 22, 2002 – WISH had to post the conclusion (WISH-TV Report on Conclusion of ITC Investigation):
A crying shame . . . no substance, but that spelled the end of the program.
Back in 2001 a young woman calling herself “Rachel” posted her story at Rachel’s Story Claimed being locked up for lengthy periods of time and other abuse, finally performing a daring escape to get free, then living in hiding. Don Veinot picked up the story and featured it in “A Matter of Basic Principles”, pages 206-210. When I starting checking into it, the website was already gone . . . with a specific exclusion made by the owner to keep it from being archived. During the time I was on the Metochoi anti-Gothard forum we were told that she had joined. I specifically asked for any accounts from anyone that related to abuse at the ITC . . . and received not a single story, this again on a very violently negative Gothard and IBLP forum. AND, for the record, “Rachel’s” roommate Kendra posted her version of Rachel’s time at ITC on her own website . . . which is still up after all these years: Kendra’s Response Take the time to read it. It says in part:
So . . . when young people who have been remanded to a program from the courts come and complain about abuse, they need to be taken seriously. At the same time, maybe . . . just maybe there is a good explanation as to why their account of their time may differ from that provided by others, even Indiana State officials that placed them there to start?
So . . . we will check into any situation that is presented to us. One of our staff members was one of the early court appointed young people, going through the entire program, then observing it later on while on staff. We have the objectivity to get to the truth.
All that … (of which I am familiar with none, but is beside the point) … and what do you say to Joan???
You asked for details in a forum and never got them.
and “… we will check into any situation that is presented to us.”
Alfred – why do you assume if details exist, they must be run through you to be validated? Who are you to these people? I hate to burst your bubble, and I don’t mean it harshly, but you are a nobody. If you were given details and found them credible, what benefit is it to anyone? I am not one, but I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that Bill’s victims don’t give a flying flip if you believe them or not. They don’t owe you anything, and you’d do well to humbly accept that they don’t. They don’t owe Bill anything either. If they are brave enough to choose relief via the court system, they are obligated to cross-examination. If they don’t choose that relief, they can deal with their own history however they choose, but they don’t owe the firm of Gothard & Corduan one red cent.
And I’ll ask again – Joan just told you she was locked in her room for 2 weeks at a time. Can you come up with anything better than “that was proven not to have happened”?
Since the purpose of this forum is to actually check into allegations factually, seems like that statement, “Proven to not have happened”, would be kind of a big deal. I do hope you are not one of those that accepts or rejects an account based on how it makes you feel. With lawsuits and damage coming to the accused it is a very honorable thing to come to ground on such matters.
We pealed this discussion off as it’s own topic: TC: “Training Center” or “Torture Chamber” So that would be a good place to direct further comments.
As I’m referencing a post by another person in a thread, I’ll decline your invitation at the moment to jump pages.
“Proven to not have happened” may be a big deal to you, Alfred, but a minor point is that I hope you would acknowledge that an official investigation reporting no findings is not the same as “proof” that no wrong occured. A major point is that a human being described to you something that happened to her and all you can tell her is that that activity has been proven not to have happened, which you seem to think trumps the fact that she just told you it did. To her.
I don’t know Joan and I doubt you do, either. This is a forum, and she has shared what she says happened to her. Was she obligated to add her name, address, phone number, date, time, place, and references for you to check out first? You could have blocked the post if she was, considering every post here must go through you first. Could she be a troll and making the story up? Of course that’s a possibility, but unless you want to accuse her of such, it would be more appropriate to acknowledge what she actually said instead of what you actually believe.
I’m sure you want to move on. So we’ll just have to leave the question of what you say to Joan (besides “that didn’t happen”) unanswered. If she sees this, I will tell her that I am very sorry that it happened to her and very encouraged that she has apparently found freedom and perfection in Christ Jesus.
Proverbs 14:15 “The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
1 Timothy 5:19 “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.”
John 13
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Just wow. Add to the above that I’d also apologize to her on your behalf.
What will you be apologizing for, Sandy? I backed my general assertions up with the facts. If what she said is true – JUST her – the ITC would be guilty of abuse under Indiana state law. That is why I don’t mind going flat footed, looking people in the eye and asking for some kind of verification. Could be, certainly could have been, worthy of some serious cash. You can see why I get to be a skeptic. I do not believe anybody was ever locked up in any room for 2 weeks. ITC was simply not set up as a prison. You can’t tell me that would not be all over the Internet if there were any shred of proof. Or that any number of abused young people would have already sued . . . and won.
What would I be apologizing for? She told you what happened to her and you told her it didn’t happen. I’d basically apologize for the fact that you had to ask me what I’d apologize on your behalf for.
And now I am remembering why discoursing with you is such a challenge. If you are to be followed, just because someone comes with a complaint, it must be considered true. That is just not how it works. But, she is able to speak on her own behalf.
The initial effort to create Discovering Grace began two years ago, revived early this year by a second team. The launch at this time is not in response to any specific events.
If you would like to let us to help you in bringing your story and concerns before Bill, send an email to contact@discoveringgrace.com. We take all such reports very seriously, having started our own investigation in response to the Veinot book 10 years ago. We have spoken at length with the principals in charge of some of these programs and have had them deny emphatically that events of the severity you describe occurred. We know a detailed government investigation of the ITC in response to complaints came back “unsubstantiated”. Some of the original LIT there participate on this website and may chime in with their accounts, which were very different.
But we can likely arrange a phone conference to talk it out. Let us know.
I was not refering to any “events”, I am referring to the extremely traumatic personal experiences I faced as a young boy at the hands of Brandon M and others under Gothards direction. It makes it difficult to see the benefit of talking when the first response is to defend what you may not have been involved in or understand. I don’t want to open up old wounds just to be told people deny what happened because they are ashamed…
You need to accept that we have spent considerable time pursuing a number of allegations similar to yours. “Tough love” was certainly in the mix as they dealt with some fairly uncooperative young people. I have personally spoken in depth with the leadership at Eagle Mountain and heard the frustration. My defensive posture is with this in mind. I have also spoken with some that went though the disciplines of ITC and are grateful for all the program did and attempted to do.
Having said that, I accept that they will likely have misfired in some cases, and after many years of reflection you remain convinced that this was the case for you. If we can help get you to to a place where you can tell your story to some of the people involved and get them to assume responsibility for wrongs done and ask forgiveness, that would be a great thing. We can at least try. Even two days of fasting seems completely unreasonable as a punishment for a kid, let alone for not memorizing Scripture.
I don’t know that I need to accept that you have had to go through a little effort to clean up, or deal with, the messes of the man you are choosing to defend. I do know that it is challenging to have my personal feelings and my traumatic experiences invalidated and put down.
I was excited that maybe this was a way to continue my recovery but your harsh and demeaning responses have been very discouraging and I do not plan on making efforts to continue. This is the type of behavior that created the necessity of this site, which makes me sad.
If you change your mind, let us know. I spoke tonight with the past director of Eagle Mountain who assured me that nobody was forced to fast as discipline. If there are more details for us to follow up on, provide them. Thank you.
I am referring to the Indy training center and their solitary confinement “prayer rooms”. Not eagle mountain.
We have some on our team who went through the LIT program at ITC who remain unhappy with some aspects. But they were not aware of forced fasting for multiple days. We plan to follow up on this.
“B” just told you 4 times that s/he was abused in BG’s care. Here’s what s/he’s gotten back so far:
Some “principals” deny abuse of that degree.
A government investigation didn’t turn up anything.
Discipline was positive for some people.
One director at one site (not even the one B was at) says nothing like that ever happened.
A handful of people say they aren’t aware of that particular abuse at the site in question.
BUT – you ADMIT that two days of fasting for not memorizing scripture is completely unreasonable.
Basically, B says, “I was abused,” and you say, “Well we can’t verify that. Send details to Bill to review” … and pick apart … and then claim he never knew about it or sanctioned such “discipline” in the training center he micromanaged.
And you wonder why the abused don’t want to engage in discussion.
So, Sandy, what do you suggest we do? We are busy trying to find the director they were under so we can get a response. Hopefully we will be successful and making that contact can help resolve this. Since this site is dedicated to Bill specifically and in no way connected to IBLP,, there is a limit on how far we can take this.
MY suggestions?
Quit searching for and emphasizing “testimony” of people that claim to not know about this abuse. It doesn’t negate B’s account that it happened to him.
Acknowledge that B was physically and mentally abused.
Consider that he wasn’t the only one, and that this isn’t all about just sexual allegations.
Open your eyes to the possibility that abuses occurred under the micro-management of BG. This would be a huge step, and I’ve probably crossed the line. But you asked.
Our team includes some who have seen the best and perhaps the worst of the LIT program at ITC. The program the questioner participated in was called, “Life Focus”, we believe. Regardless, you may get an ear full at some point with respect to not knowing these situations. That is simply not true. We know that there were some misfires, personally experienced, things brought to Bill’s attention but never really acted on. Still nothing resembling what is being suggested here. Forgive the skepticism, but it is based on knowledge, not opinion. That having been said, we are actively seeking to get all individuals involved who can answer to this directly. Stay tuned.
I’m curious if you have successfully located the director accused of the abuse yet by B? Does not seem that this should be too hard to accomplish. How many people named Brandon MCDonald could there have been who worked at ITC as directors? There are many instances in which you end the conversation indicating that you will follow up and get back, but then we usually don’t hear anything. Please let us know of any update if this man denies the allegations or has acknowledged the abuse and would like to seek forgiveness from B.
We will keep looking – we have been asking – but please remember that our focus is primarily on Bill. We had someone telling Bill with some of us present several nights ago about misuses of authority at ITC. Bill appeared genuinely shocked. The individual indicated that it appeared obvious to them that Bill was not behind that, aware of it.
“We will keep looking – we have been asking – but please remember that our focus is primarily on Bill.”
But this has a great deal to do with Bill. Bill was the leader of the organization and these alleged abuses happened under his watch. There is responsibility for the person in charge, regardless of whether they knew or not. For one thing, if you are going to have an institution where minors are living under the care and supervision of others, it is the responsibility of the leadership to set up and maintain an environment which would mitigate the possibility of abuse.Leaders resign all the time for abuses that happen under their leadership, which they know nothing about. The point is that there should never have been the possibility set up that a rogue director could starve a young boy like this. Why was there no one there who was in charge of looking out for the well being of the children? If there was, why did this happen?
Perhaps Bill had no knowledge of this. That seems unlikely, given the way he micromanaged. But, it is certainly possible that he did not know about B’s specific abuse. Bill might not known. Or he might have known. Or these things might have even been done at Bill’s direction. At this point we don’t have enough information. But he was responsible as the leader of the organization for the well being of those youth entrusted to him. Getting Brandon McDonald’s side of the story could shed some light on this.
With the big following that you have here, surely someone reading this must know his whereabouts and can contact you to put the two of you in touch.
Thanks for pointing all of that out, Kirk. Let’s be clear that IBLP staff members regularly “fast”, in some cases for several days, a discipline that is well known both in the ecclesiastical world and in the world of natural medicine. It is medically not “starving” in any sense of the word. It would be unreasonable, however, to require this, particularly as a discipline. We have several individuals who were in the program and that testify to us that this was not done to LITs; we have one that does, attributing it to a specific staffer. This is at this point likely beyond our ability to resolve. We will continue to collect accounts and contacts and keep Bill apprised.
We are aware that the State of Indiana conducted a three month investigation of the ITC back in 2004 and, after 3 months, concluded that the allegations of abuse brought at that time were “unsubstantiated”. So at least one formal inquiry was made.
These kids can be lying. I’m sure some of them are.
For a young women to say that Bill has to renounce his 7 principles, everything he stands for, and disappear for life before she will ever talk to Bill again, is of the devil. It’s Bill’s message that pierces through the darkness. It’s not his homeschool program and it’s not the people who came to talk to the kids at his homeschool program. It’s his message. When I attended a Bill Gothard seminar he pointed us to meditating on God’s Word. Yes, he had some insight into wisdom, but he always came back to telling us to meditate on God’s Word. I clearly remembering Bill telling us in his seminar to meditate on Romans 6, 7, and 8 when we got home. Bill never told us to meditate on his 7 principles. He directed us back to God’s Word and told us to meditate on it. The first thing I did when I got home was get my bible out and started meditating on Romans 6, 7, and 8. I had a hard time doing it because I soon came to learn that you need the Holy Spirit to understand the Book of Romans and I didn’t have the Holy Spirit at that time.
My husband and I followed Bill’s advice to get debt free. We’ve been debt free for almost 30 years now. It’s the only reason why I’m able to afford things today.
I wish that Bill would get back to having the seminars in coliseums, like he did before. What he did worked, so why quit? What year did the seminar stop?
Kim: the seminars never quit, although few are scheduled officially. Unofficially anyone can host the seminar for as many or few as they choose. Access to the video catalog of IBLP is $9 a month, I believe, including the seminars: https://embassyinstitute.org
Meditation does not necessarily lead to a correct view of scripture. Bill’s method of meditation is highly subjective even bordering on mysticism. I have seen his video on financial freedom, You only have his word that his testimony is true. Given that much of his theology is supported by anecdotal testimony and cannot be corroborated or proved does not make it biblical or spiritual or true. My point here is that that just because Bill said it does not mean it is true or even factual. Bill made has made some astounding claims over the years, none of them can be substantiated or verified. to be blunt I am calling out Bill as a liar and a fraud who is the master of humbug!
Scripture states that all kinds of good things happen in response to “meditating” on God’s Word, including being smarter than your teachers. I hope we can agree it is recommended let alone commanded in the Bible let alone not done by a majority of Christians. Mystics meditating on nonsense should not discourage us from doing what God tells us to.
Testimonies are important. When a rich guy tells us the secrets to his wealth, as is the case with the “Financial Freedom Seminar”, especially when it involves Scriptural concepts, worth a listen, we think.
If Bill is teaching unscriptural nonsense it is absolutely your responsibility to point it out.
I’ll chime in here. I attended a Life Focus program and also struggled with scripture memorization. Brandon McDonald (ironically now openly gay) was an abusive leader. I remember being accused of disobedience because scripture memorization was a struggle for me. I remember first they punished me by not allowing me to practice piano, that escalated to not being awarded a Life Focus shirt (quite the status symbol), then I was no longer allowed to wake up early and stay up late to study (claimed I was doing that to show off i.e. pride lol) Finally, in the end I was confined to a prayer room and was excluded for the last few days of fun they had. To their credit, I was delivered three meals a day during that time, although I will add I was not allowed to have any bed sheets/blanket/pillow/towels or soap. Brandon did his best to make certain I had no contact with Mr. Gothard during that time although I did interact with him in passing. To this day, I believe Brandon McDonald to be a sociopath. I have learned enough over the years to know that his methods were not approved or condoned by Mr. Gothard. They were by the leadership at ITC at the time (post-McWha)
Thank you for your testimony. We will try to get to the bottom of this.
Please let us know what you have discovered. Has he admitted to the abuse?
if Bill is so concerned, why are you required to do all the leg work? should he not be here answering the questions he wants you to bring him? anything you take to bill and comeback saying “bill said” is nothing more than hearsay. please ask Bill for me why he won’t answer questions directly like a real man? I don’t see how it is fair to you that bill uses you when it is given you have a job and are a family man.
So, let’s clear something up. Bill never asked us to do any of this. He has expressed his appreciation in recent months as he has noted a positive effect, but he has also several times wondered if we – our team – should be doing this type of thing. I started pursuing answers for the sake of myself, my family, those that looked to me over a decade ago. My conviction has grown that Bill was missing a big piece of the puzzle by not engaging in social media and seeing to it that these things were directly addressed, nipped in the bud if you will. So call it a “labor of love”, a niche that we feel we can fill to try to ensure that Jesus will is done here on earth the way it is done in heaven.
According to the testimony of Joanna, she is claiming to be healed from a locked jaw by Bill praying for her. My question is there any Dr’s. confirmation that she had this problem and then that she was healed? There are many “healing” claims out there on the internet but for your credibility’s sake, all healing stories should be backed up with a Dr’s verification.
Joanna experienced it as stated, wrote about it in her journal (I have a copy of it), and told many of us about it at the time. We followed up, and everything she said is correct. No doctor was involved, so we accept that that discredits the story in your eyes. But, the beautiful thing about a testimony is that it is yours, and nobody can take it away. If you believe Joanna, the person, whom we know well, it is enough. We were actually not going to promote this question, but it “slipped through” 🙂 That being the case, this is all that will be stated on the matter.
To quote your own words, ” But, the beautiful thing about a testimony is that it is yours, and nobody can take it away. ” I only wish you would allow everyone this same courtesy and acknowledgement, But it seems only to apply to those who have Good things to say about Bill and not those who would have, what you would classify as negative words, to say as well. I will hold to your admonition and say it applies to all those who have any kind of testimony about their life and happenings within ATI. You and no one else can take away my testimony no matter what it is, good or bad about any experience. I do hope this will get posted.
“But, the beautiful thing about a testimony is that it is yours, and nobody can take it away.”
Wow. I had not read this exchange before , but just wow.
Well, Jesus said that there would be those who performed miracles in His name to whom He would say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” So, an unrefuted miracle doesn’t really count for much, imo.
True. But:
“8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9– To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10– To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” (1 Cor. 12)
How do you tell the difference?
You claim that you have theologians on staff here, who are these theologians and what is their background?
Where did we state that? We do have one with a Doctorate in that discipline, for what its worth.
In your opening “About Us”. You clearly state that “we are theologians, housewives …” so again my question is what theologians are helping you run this blog? If you have a Dr. of theology as part of the moderating group then who is this person and where did he get his credials from?
I stand corrected. Yes, we have a member who has a ThD degree. But we are not focusing on our degrees any more than we are focusing on our identities at the moment. That may change, although some will likely still prefer to remain anonymous. It is not important at the moment.
That’s one of the things I’ve really appreciated about the Recovering Grace team as well. I happen to know a few of them and there are multiple seminary graduates, practicing lawyers, etc. Yet it’s not something they parade around on their site either. They just attempt to gently ask tough questions in a Christ-like manner.
We will take that as a compliment . . . And thank you.
If you respect the wishes of your own people to remain anonymous, I hope you will respect the wishes of parties on the other side to remain anonymous, especially those who wish to remain anonymous “for good cause shown.”
Since you wouldn’t post my other comment maybe you will post this one. Your starting already to completely control any comments made here. This is not a free and open place to comment and have dialog, it is one where only comments that you can address or counter are allowed to be posted. You still seem only to care about saving face.
I want to know other than your one stated thD degree who has the training and qualifications to be writing theology based articles that you already have posted here?
In case you needed some basis for my question here is webster’s Full Definition of THEOLOGY
1
: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world
2
a : a theological theory or system
b : a distinctive body of theological opinion
Are you advocating for anyone to be able to give instruction to believers on theology based teachings like Grace and the trinity? I want to know what outside study and influences you have to base any theology on that is not touched by the hand of Bill and IBLP? To be fully immersed and accepting of all things written and taught by Bill and yet want those people who would argue that there are many errors in the theology of the basic seminar as well as the ATI curriculum and yet not be able to show any foundation outside of said organization for these “truths” is not proving anything. I am fairly Certain The one person named as a degree holder Is one who would fall on his sword if needed to for Bill and his teachings. I cannot in good faith believe one word from someone who just blindly follows and longs for more teachings from Bill. Show me authenticated statements from outside sources showing that Bill’s teaching are not taken out of context or twisted or just not correct. As stated in many places there are plenty of people that have tried to confront Bill and he has never really address those concerns. I would think that if any other pastor would come to you and say that he has had a special word from the Lord and he had a verse for every point that you would stop and questions things right? You don’t just believe something because someone has a verse that they say can back up whatever point they have to make right?
We wield the authority of God’s word, which stands on its own. If the Scriptures cited do not convince you, we may not be interested in convincing you. Your approach would be the “ad hominem” argument, that a logical argument is invalid simply because you dislike the man making it. I happen to have a BS in Mathematics. Decide now if I can possibly have anything to say to you. If not, then this interchange will be unhappy for us both.
I carefully reviewed this site looking for the names of those running it. To my knowledge you do not use proper nouns, other than the name of the man you are promoting. Why?
Because a lot of us are tired of being yelled at because we support Bill. Some of us are preparing to “come out of the closet” . . . But it is almost better this way, since for a few moments at least discussion points can remain relatively unsullied by any number of “ad hominem” attacks. Thanks for understanding.
I have posted two comments in other sections of the blog posts but have not gotten a reply from the moderator. I just saw this section this evening so I thought I’d ask my question here. Basically I am curious if Bill ever admitted that the “hand holding”, “foot nudging”, and “lingering hugs” were faults of his and he was wrong for doing so, or does he declare innocence… either in never having done that, or that he did not feel he was in error by doing so? I read his confessional awhile back, but it didn’t seem to directly respond to the accusations that have been made by the women on RG. I am sure some of those testimonies were stretching the truth… but does Bill give validity to any of them? I know he said his biggest fault was not meditating, and he never touched anybody with “sexual intent” but I don’t remember him ever addressing the “hand holding”, “foot nudging”, and “lingering hugs and touches”.
We are still learning the software. Bear with us.
Bill has acknowledged that some of his protocols over the last 50 years have been inappropriate for his position, leaving him and the ministry open to accusations. It was his stance that certain practices fell within the role of “father” that he assumed, this expressing his attitude. Some of our team had him tap their feet and shoulders and considered it completely innocent, both then and now. It was just “him”. Bill emphatically denies some of the more salacious published twists on that, such as running his feet up the calf.
And again, even on RG various women describe long hand holding with Bill gazing into their eyes and speaking to their heart . . . As they stood awkwardly in front of large groups of people, or an open window with people passing by. Not appropriate because it made some uncomfortable, but far from evil. It was just “Bill”. As he had pure motives, he figured it would be an encouragement.
To our knowledge such accounts were simply not deemed important enough to bring up in years of ferocious anti-Gothard forum activity by former staffers unhappy with Bill on the Crossings and Met Yahoo forum. As much as this is highlighted currently, we get the sense that it wasn’t hard to accept it as innocent . . . Up until a need arose to make “sexual harassment” stick to destroy Bill.
“As he had pure motives, …”
Could you/would you ever admit that you don’t truly know another person’s motives? The whole premise of this site is that you “know” and are willing to defend someone else’s motives. It’s an awfully risky stand to take … what if his motives WEREN’T pure? What do you really have to go on? Only his statement that they were. Which really needs to be evaluated in the light of testimony and evidence of his actions (and not just behind closed doors, by the way).
Let’s say that BG has pure motives and is innocent of lying and grooming and various abuses. BG claims, “I am falsely accused. My motives are pure.” But what do you think he would say if his motives are impure and he IS guilty of lying and grooming and various abuses?? IF he’s a liar, he will lie again. He would say, “I am falsely accused. My motives are pure.” My point is that he will claim pure motives EITHER WAY, yet you seem convinced for some reason that if he says he didn’t do something, he obviously didn’t do it, end of story. His repeated claims of innocence only carry weight because he is a charismatic and convincing man.
Bottom line, IF BG is a liar, then he is still lying to you. And if you’re not convinced that he is in the meantime, you could be a little more convincing and credible if you at least drop the presupposition of BG’s motives and focus on actions.
And because of what you say, our reputations – and most of us are well known Bill supporters – are on the line here. So you can be sure we have spent considerable time pondering whether we can continue to do that. So we went to him, we have grilled him, every item that comes up that is confusing or troubling we go through with him in detail. We have spoken to everyone that will speak to us, hearing them out, challenging them and being challenged.
Some of us came away from an intense consideration of the stories posted on RG with the feeling that most of the young ladies were telling accurate stories, and we proceeded from that premise. Since that time, in speaking to other young ladies who were there, observed the comings and goings, spending enormous amounts of time with him over multiple years, we have begun concluding that there may be more “English” – spin – in those accounts than we imagined. As recently as a week or so ago we listened to “the worst” that several long term – decade long – staff women could tell us from a decidedly prejudicial position against Bill. The first thing that we noted was the complete lack of any knowledge of foot tapping or other such behavior. We fully expected otherwise. We are beginning to come to the conclusion that there is precious little of even “inappropriate” boundary behavior that occurred. Such perspectives based on real facts provide us with a tremendous amount of courage and energy, all of which we need to post this type of website against the opposition of so many.
Yeah, and Bill Cosby was a perfect gentleman to MANY. You can interview all of them that you’d like and find no proof that he molested some others. A smart con will leave some alone to vouch for him later.
I can’t get “The Emperor’s New Clothes” out of my mind. I don’t say that to be mean-spirited; I just feel really badly for people that have fallen for BG’s act.
I have another question – why is the only focus here whether BG touched anybody inappropriately? If you have taken a stand on that one issue that cannot be replicated and proven or disproven except by copious testimonies you don’t believe, you really are staking your reputation on shaky ground. It just seems to me like a lot more should matter – the culture of abuse, lies, gross mistreatment of individuals, etc.
But, see, Bill Cosby DID molest, apparently, and not just a few. That is the difference. The truth has an amazing way of coming out. If he (Cosby) hadn’t, and a group of women were bound and determined to “take him down” because he was a conservative doing damage to liberal causes, let’s say, and published a “Kill Bill” website with lots of possibilities and near misses . . . and lies . . . how would that go down? Bill Cosby denies, vehemently . . . and ultimately would sue them, for defamation. You tell me what Bill Gothard should do if that were true for him. Get the truth out, at the very least. We are trying to assume that role.
As to your “other question”, we have not just taken a stand on one issue. See, we addressed “Grace” and his treatment of Scripture as well as opening positions. And will continue, through “Questions” if nothing else, to deal with whatever comes up.
Does anyone else see the complete irony of the above comment?
Bill Cosby DOES vehemently deny the allegations of all of these women, yet you believe the women. Why is that? Why believe the women in Bill Cosby’s case but not in the case of a certain other Bill? The allegations are certainly more sever in Cosby’s case, but the whole concept of women coming forward many years after the fact…and many others joining when they realize they are not alone…is essentially the same!
We believe the women because Bill Cosby stated under oath that at least some of the accusations are true. The other difference is that Bill Cosby has been almost universally loved and respected up until the accusations were brought. That would discourage most women from being “the first”. Gothard, on the other hand, has had dedicated opposition for decades, including multiple forums pleading for and passing on “dirt”.
So, the only reason you believe the women in Cosby’s case is because he was forced to testify under oath and admitted to a couple of the peripheral accusations?
Bill Gothard, without being under oath, has already admitted to most of the behaviors that the women alledge (which DO fit every textbook definition of sexual harassment), although he denies the intent was sexual. His motives will never be able to be definitely proven, but what is provable (and what the IBLP board has likely taken into consideration in their course of action) is that his behavior was well outside the bounds of that which is appropriate for any man, much less a minister of the gospel.
David, he has not admitted to anything resembling “sexual harassment”. When the dust clears it will be shown to be far less than even intimated in the stories. Remember, he overtly denies the more salacious aspects of the accounts given by the 7, and virtually every aspect of what Gretchen (“Charlotte”) has to say. According to Bill, two of the “7” have written long letters with demands for forgiveness, including “deny your teachings” and “cancel ATI”. Those are the only contacts with them he has been given, even though he wants to contact them all. And some are suing the Board for $50K each because they were so badly treated. From the perspective of some genuinely abused young ladies entering IBLP programs from the court system who were denied the blessings that each of these ATI accusers have experienced, there is a welling sense of anger at complaints over matters that would not even make it on the radar in the course of the lives they have had to live.
“My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong.” – Bill Gothard, April 17, 2014.
If any of those behaviors were done to/with an employee, subordinate, underage female, or any woman who did not desire that touch, it was sexual harassment. Open and shut. I have been through MANY annual sexual harassment trainings (coincidentally, in a place where I work with teenage boys and girls), and I would be fired immediately if I did the things that Bill confessed to above. It doesn’t matter one iota whether Bill had pure motives or not. The behavior was immoral, unethical, and illegal.
“The first thing that we noted was the complete lack of any knowledge of foot tapping or other such behavior.”
But didn’t Mr. Gothard already admit to the foot touching in his confession/apology letter?
Here is what he said in his April 2014 letter, which he posted on his own website:
“My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. “
“If any of those behaviors were done to/with an employee, subordinate, underage female, or any woman who did not desire that touch, it was sexual harassment. Open and shut.”
It is amazing at how we all get to be experts in such matters. Not to be outdone, work sexual harassment emphasizes first of all the “unwelcome” part, evidenced by verbalizing unhappiness to the perpetrator or a supervisor, and filing a report within a specified period of time, like 6 months. That eliminates misunderstandings, for example.
And there most definitely needs to be proof of a “hostile work environment” created by these actions. Events from 20 years ago just don’t cut it because it is too difficult to establish the facts. That is why there is a “statute of limitations”, because otherwise the “court of public opinion” with hearsay, driven by a need to retaliate or a need for cash create a horrible situation for any employer. Just not allowed.
So no, not even close. If someone had experienced things they did not like, politely or impolitely requested it to stop and were ignored or threatened or demoted in response, THAT would be the beginnings of a sexual harassment claim.
Yes, but this scenario is much more complex in that many of these victims were underaged, uneducated as to the “ways of men” due to a sheltered upbringing, and in awe of the attention of their revered leader. This changes the dynamic.
Also, I believe that IBLP and Bill were negligent because they did not provide sexual harassment training for their employees and volunteers. If they had, the likely these women (young girls at the time) would have perhaps been able to respond accordingly.
That being said, if you guys are having to scream “statute of limitations” to defend Bill, it’s a lost cause. Why aren’t the adults who worked closest with him during that time running to his defense?
Do statutes of limitations exist to deprive victims of their rights? Emphatically not. They exist to keep the accused from inaccurate, frivolous , disingenuous claims. There is a way a genuinely offended person acts in the short term, especially in an employment situation . . . And there is a period of time after which the recollection of unreported offenses becomes notoriously unreliable. Explain the major shift in the account told by Gary, a story that singlehandedly damaged Bill’s reputation more than other.
Just out of curiosity, in rereading “Charlotte’s” account, would you consider her “uneducated in the ways of men”? Those abused tend to be very sensitive to the “ways of men”. And her testimony of worshipping Bill – innocent ATI girl – seems so disconnected from her willingness to engage in behaviors that were overtly anti-ATI and seen as rebellious by her parents prior to showing up at HQ. Her house leader, testimony on RG, said “she had been giving her parents trouble at home.” Which means that she was likely there not because of her ministry smile, but because her parents were at their wits end.
You are right that memory can become unreliable. Memories fade and even distort over time. Which is why we have statute of limitations laws, and that is why Bill will likely never face legal repercussions for his behavior. But simply because he will not face criminal charges does not mean that he is fit for ministry.
Yes, I would consider Charlotte (and all of the women) to be “uneducated in the ways of men.” Just because a teenage girl knows what part goes where doesn’t mean they are emotionally equipped to handle the emotional aspects of a relationship with a male authority figure. That’s why we have statutory rape laws. Even if a teenage girl completely and voluntarily acquiesces to the “requests” of a male figure, the adult will still go to jail.
Her reasons for being there are irrelevant.
“Her reasons for being there are irrelevant.”
No, I don’t think so. Here is her version of how she got there (http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/charlottes-stori/):
“We went to a conference in Knoxville in July of 1992. That’s where I first met Bill Gothard. I remember he wouldn’t let go of my hand, and he kept telling my parents how sweet, beautiful, and pure I was. I was in awe as I listened to the man whom I had been told was responsible for me being alive tell my parents that he wanted me to come to Headquarters. Me? The youngest of seven children, a preacher’s daughter?”
Here is what her house leader said (http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/two-witnesses-for-charlotte/):
“She was also what we called an “encouragement case.” In other words, she did not fit the mold. She dressed differently; she seemed much too friendly with boys, and we were told she had been giving her parents trouble at home.”
It matters because it appears to be another example of inventing the tale to meet the need. Also calls in question her stated reason for not telling anyone of what Bill allegedly did to her:
“If I told anyone, he said he would kick my family out of ATI.”
The more accurate picture appears to be someone most unhappy with the ATI rules let alone her parents, enough to have given her parents so much grief that they desperately turned to Bill for help. Enough where an exit out of ATI, even as punishment of her parents, would have been welcome.
“The more accurate picture appears to be someone most unhappy with the ATI rules let alone her parents, enough to have given her parents so much grief that they desperately turned to Bill for help. Enough where an exit out of ATI, even as punishment of her parents, would have been welcome.”
This is disgusting. There are no discrepancies in what the two sources said. An “encouragement case” was simply someone who was there for no stated purposes other than “Bill said so.”
Charlotte was a broken 16-year-old girl from a dysfunctional home. Bill allegedly took advantage of that situation to control her and abuse her. Even now, Bill is using her background and issues (such as they are) to discredit her, and he’s using you all as his megaphone. You should be ashamed.
These are outside witnesses, those that have observed him up close and personal for a decade. Always nice to corroborate. As to what Bill said, we have spoken to him about these matters quite a bit. Girl’s feet or hair or shoulders should not be touched . . . unless you are in a deep relationship, like a father or grandfather. He saw himself in the role, has said it over and over. These were his “children”. He never got that the young ladies or others might not feel the same way. That was the gist of his confession, acknowledging that it was not something that he should have imagined making work.
In recent months we have spoken to some that were the recipients of some of the behaviors in question, who were adamant and even angry that it was entirely non-sexual. Some that had the misfortune of not having a protected childhood, as well as no family or personal loyalty to bring into the situation, not of the innocent ATI girls, in other words. That testimony speaks volumes to us.
When you accept that the behaviors happened, you have spoken to some with whom it happened, and you defend the behaviors as appropriate within deep relationships (even though Bill admitted the inappropriateness of the behaviors) WHY ON EARTH do you ever bother claiming that many do not confirm the behaviors? Do you see how utterly irrelevant such ignorance is to the case? This as much as anything keeps me wondering whether you have any acumen for logic. I am not attacking. I am truly befuddled that you think the ignorance of some is evidence at all.
No problem, I’m sure its a lot to keep up with this website, I appreciate your time and responses!
I have heard the argument of the father role, and even grandfather role, and to some degree that is completely understandable. However, Bill did not have the same type of physical contact with the men he worked with so it doesn’t seem like a consistent role for Bill. It could be said that guys are different, and it would be weird for him to hold a guys hand in the same way he would a girls hand. However, I have personally had my grandfather do the very same thing and it does not feel weird when the motivation is out of true love. So by virtue of the fact that he interacted with guys differently (I personally experienced it) it begs the question of why? Bill may be innocent in his actions from his perspective, but he is right… his “protocols were inappropriate” and if they were genuine, they certainly were not consistent.
The sad thing in all of this that Bill did not listen to counsel. Numerous people warned him about his interactions with young women all through the 90’s. I remember a transition in the late 80’s where an accusation had been made and it came from a young lady that was very believable and trustworthy (yes i believe some of the testimonies are coming from girls who are not trustworthy and their testimonies are not valid, but this young lady was full of integrity) The girl immediately went home of her own choosing. Those in leadership at the time were so concerned, that a new rule was made, and Bill was not allowed to have a female assistant. Two different male students stepped in and began working directly with Bill. It was also told that Bill was not allowed to be alone with a female, at all, under any circumstance. Slowly over time Bill got away from those restraints and as a result, he is correct… he “left the door open for accusations”. Breaks my heart that he just wouldn’t heed counsel. I love Bill and forgive Him, but the damage he has brought to the cause of Christ and those who trusted him is deep. Bill may be innocent from the sexual charges, but he is not innocent from, not practicing what he preached. He is the one who told us to not even hold a girls hand at all, for any reason… because the word of God says “It is a shame for a man to even touch a woman” (his words and interpretation of scripture, btw). Yet he excused himself because of his age, throwing all caution to the wind and running directly past Godly counsel. Bill taught us to avoid all appearances of evil, to make a gap between us and anything questionable, yet in the area of interactions with women, Bill danced the line and is suffering greatly for that dance. It’s not just him that is suffering either.
It seems that a lot of the “heat” he is experiencing is from a lack of humility, or un-willingness to publicly admit what he did, without trying to deflect his evil deeds in blaming the lack of a spiritual discipline. It is great that he realizes that a lack of Biblical meditation wasn’t good, but let’s be honest… he spent time alone with women and held their hands, and “bumped their feet” because he wanted to. I can guarantee you that the Holy Spirit was not prompting Bill to continue in these type of interactions, when all his counsel and advise he was getting was screaming at him to avoid all appearances of evil in regard to the young ladies, yet for Bill to continue to do so had to be out of his fleshly desires, and it would be nice just to hear Bill admit that. It’s almost as if he thought he was above the law, above his own seminar, above the counsel of others… and it is for that reason that so many of us loyal followers from years past have distanced ourselves from him, because we feel that he simply doesn’t listen and won’t heed cautions that he disagrees with, even when they are plentiful.
Sorry, I’m not looking for an answer here, I am venting more than anything… It is just frustrating when you read Bills confessional, yet the conversation quickly jumps to all the new things that are happening and the exciting things that “God is doing as a result of his sin”. Yet sometimes we don’t won’t to hear that… sometimes we just want to hear a humble reception, a heart of repentance and a kind word of thankfulness to the offended for holding up a mirror. I am afraid that if this current situation isn’t a big enough spanking to Bill, that God will bring something else… almost like his illustration of the hammer refining the rock into a diamond.
This current season is too coincidental for Bill’s “resignation” to be voluntary. With the entire board shutting him down, and literally hundreds of people upset with him and exploding all over the web. God must be trying to get Bills attention. The common feeling among all that have talked to him is that he is not repentant, and just does not see it. He can say the words, and he can act the part… but it does not feel genuine. And that is the reason why people don’t want to talk to him anymore, his track record is set… people feel he wants to manipulate, and too often will ask people to get back involved after he asks their forgiveness. Everything has a hook it appears. Reality is this… Hundreds of people have loved and served under him, but now hardly any of them want to have anything to do with him or his ministry. Many men and women of prominent position have graced his ministry, from employees, speakers, supporters, past board members… and we are talking some stellar folks, business men, politicians, pastors, leaders… where are they all now? Where are all the men that worked directly by his side through all of this? Where are all those people??? I could start naming names but I’m not… but where are all those people who were key players during the era when the accusations were made about?? Where are they? I tell you were they aren’t… they aren’t running to Bills side. That is severe, that is huge, and it begs the question of why? I believe they are all burying their heads praying nobody comes knocking so they don’t have to “spread a bad report” or, tell the truth about what they know. Ask IBLP for that $50,000 legal report they received… therein lies the answer. That is why they cut Bill off so quickly, and stopped ALL financial support, i guarantee it. Otherwise why would a board of previously loyal followers do so?
Going to bed… praying for Bill and the silent crowd of past employees, and friends hurt and frustrated by him.
Sam, you are are spot on. Thank you.
Thank you Sam. That was one of the most well thought out responses we have seen. We sent it to Bill for comment, he took it very seriously, we had a long talk. If you would like to speak with him directly, I know he will arrange that.
He spoke of the “Board rules” requiring male assistants, along with other requirements. He indicated these had been followed, including not traveling with young ladies from whatever point on that was requested. He was specifically not banned from counseling young ladies, and there was no requirement placed on him to not do so alone. He noted that he never intended to counsel alone except for some very isolated instances where the presence of others materially harmed the ability to deal with a crisis. Instead, as those that know him will attest, he was in a constant whirlwind of activity from 4AM until late at night, counseling thousands of young people, sometimes in relatively spontaneous, ad hoc ways. Again, anyone who worked with him knows this to be true.
As to humility, we can personally attest to the seriousness with which he has taken rebukes and counsel over the months. We have had meetings with him where we pointed out some of the things you spoke of, material violations of precepts taught publically, have had him hang his head in shame and acknowledge the same. He has sought to deal with every issue we have brought up, contacting folks, asking forgiveness. As several of us are of the “prophet” type we are used to stubbornness, resistance to correction – Bill has never failed to respond to rebuke that we offered, in a very respectful way and with action. Jesus said that having someone say, “I repent”, in response to a rebuke is a significant step “per se”:
“And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.” (Luke 17:4)
Saying, “I was wrong” is in itself difficult to do for the average, let alone the guilty person, and apparently it is enough for forgiveness. Evil people will do evil things, they can’t help it – so someone faking repentance will be cornered by inescapable facts eventually. An example in Scripture is seen in the case of Shimei, David and Solomon exercising this principle (1 Kings 2:8-9, 36-46) We – a group of around 10 – have to a “man” come away from those many meetings convinced that there is nothing else we can require of him to prove genuine repentance.
One other comment: “Guys are different” – True [and one of us did see him tap the feet of a fellow once, for the record]. I know I am different with my young ladies than will my fellows. They will come and plop themselves on my lap, give me a kiss, share their heart, things the fellows would be mortified to do. Whatever he is, Bill is massively idealistic and once he has a perspective on the nature of a thing, he lives it. That is why he can look anyone in the eye and declare his innocence in things that set off any number of warning bells in others. He really, truly from his heart believes it. After running at these things with him from 1,000 different directions that is the conclusion we have come to. Which brings the matter back to “listening to others”, an issue you correctly highlighted. He is listening to everyone right now. And he did state in response to me on this that he will talk to those that need to confront him with things that have deeply offended them. Send an email to contact@discoveringgrace.com and we will work to set it up. You in particular, Sam. Thank you for your focused attention and practical love.
Isn’t there a blatant double standard in Mr. Gothard teaching against counseling women in the Men’s Counseling Seminars and what he has done over the years?
None of us have ever been to the “Men’s Counseling Seminars”. If you want, lift out some of the statements that you are thinking about. We will get him to engage on that.
And, BTW, the door is open to you as well, John, if you want in on the conversation. Let us know.
Seeing as all ATI students were basically required to go to the counseling seminars, it can logically be deduced that there are no former ATI students running this site. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Thanks for a thorough response and the kind words.
You said – He was specifically not banned from counseling young ladies, and there was no requirement placed on him to not do so alone. – I would be shocked if this was the case. I can’t imagine a fellow staff member, counselor or Godly friend ever suggesting, TO counsel young women alone. You would be hard pressed to find anybody that Bill was accountable too or that had any authority within the higher ranks of his ministry that would have suggested he counsel young ladies alone. I’m not aiming to call Bill a liar on this, but I do believe that there is another side to that story that has yet to be heard. From the conversations I heard among the leadership, I know that he was highly encouraged to never be alone with a young lady in order to avoid the appearance of evil. For him to say that there was no “requirement” on him to not counsel young women alone is simply side-stepping his responsibility to listen to the “spirit of the law and not the letter” and indicates great pride, that he knew better than anybody else what he should do. I hope I am not sounding combative here, but It would be very interesting to hear the other side of the story from those who offered him accountability back then.
Bills effort towards humility and repentance is what all his past followers are looking for. However the action that all want to see isn’t that he speaks the words “will you forgive me” but rather a life of repentance that is punctuated with a quickness to admit past wrongs. You said – “Saying, “I was wrong” is in itself difficult to do for the average, let alone the guilty person, and apparently it is enough for forgiveness.” I disagree to a point on this (not disagreeing with the scripture). A truly humble man is very quick to say I am sorry when he is guilty. To admit wrong is not difficult for a repentant heart, rather it should be a natural response from a spirit led life. Bill admitting he is wrong in the past is not what he is necessarily known for. Ask anybody that was the head of a department under Bill and they will tell you this. I’m not saying this to bring up another stone to throw at Bill… seriously i am not, I’ve worked under harsher bosses and it’s to be expected when working in a large corporation. But the reason I bring it up is that in order for true repentance to happen it CANNOT just be the words “I am sorry” there has to be a life and heart change happen within Bill that makes him into a man of humility that is quick to admit wrong, sees himself as the servant, does not elevate himself in his mind over those who offend him, and listens to cautions and counsel. How does he prove this Biblical model of manhood has happened finally? His life will tell the story. I don’t think he has to worry about that… God will make the world aware if that is what God wants to happen, and give Bill that platform when the time is right and he knows Bill has truly changed.
You said “That is why he can look anyone in the eye and declare his innocence in things that set off any number of warning bells in others. He really, truly from his heart believes it.” – Can you see the error in this? This is why Bill is in the predicament he is in. We would all agree that If scriptures says something is wrong, then it doesn’t matter how you “feel”… it is still wrong. If counseling a young lady alone in the wee hours of the morning is questionable, then it doesn’t matter how Bill felt about it, it was still wrong. Even though he guarded his heart and didn’t allow his mind to go astray when holding a young ladies hand and looking deep into her eyes, that does not make him innocent and he is in error if he thinks it does.
I am literally pounding the keyboard as I type this, because this is the crux of Bill’s sin… he believed he was above the law. It’s as if he thought he could make the rules but didn’t have to keep them. If he thought he was innocent in doing something that would have set off a “number of bells in others” then he was, no matter what others told him!! This is so wrong. If i were to walk into my pastors office, and he was counseling a single or married lady alone while holding her hands he would be brought before the elder board and severely talked to and it would never happen again, and if it did he would be fired!! It is not in our churches bylaws that he “cannot counsel women alone” but it is something that has been talked about and he has been cautioned against and has stated that he WANTS accountability for that. Any God fearing pastor would have this same standard. Yet it was ok for Bill to do this repeadelty, all because he “thought” he was never forbidden to do so. Maybe it’s true but I still highly doubt it. Even if it was true, then shame on him for doing so in the face of numerous cautions from his underlings to not do so. This I can personally attest to.
You said “he will talk to those that need to confront him with things that have deeply offended them”. I really wasn’t offended directly by Bill, though I suffered in the wake of many that were. I had a lowly position at IBLP but was privileged to have great relationships with many that were in prominent positions, including some of Bills right hand men. I was brought into many conversation during and after that time and have prayed and cried with some that lived through and suffered because of wrong decisions that Bill made, counsel that was not listened to, and people who were just simply fired or sent home for reasons only Bill could understand. Previously Bill would say I listened to a “bad report” and so I am to be discounted. For that reason I took my hurts for others to the Lord and trusted Him with them, and “TRIED” to not take up an offense :-). I don’t feel offended by Bill, but feel sorry for him when I read things he is writing now and have the feeling that “he just doesn’t get it”.
His last Facebook post about him speaking in Wisconsin at a church and then to 60 prominent leaders made my stomach flip. Not because I don’t want to see Bill succeed, because I do… but merely because the whole article was written to bring glory to Bill, to shroud the “new revealed truth”(we all know there is no new truth) in mystery and to draw attention and excitement to his new seminar. None of it speaks of a man marked by humilty and living as Jesus did, completely for others in a servant mindset of lifting others up above himself and living a life that points to Christ. It feels like another infomercial with a hook to draw you in. – Sorry that was a rant, but I am being super honest here… and I can tell you that a number of old followers read that same report and without posting, felt sick inside, because it’s not eternal truths he is promoting, it’s a flash in pan.
I don’t have a desire to speak to Bill because there is not a need from my perspective. I have completely forgiven him for any frustration i experienced because of him. Anything that I could tell him, he has been told a dozen times. And nothing I can say would ever change his heart, only the Holy spirit will do. I love him and pray for him… yet I’m curious, as others are what he is up to and follow his Facebook page, and website silently (up until now, lol)… and when some statements are made, a sense of justice rises up in me and I want to set records straight. I only hope this season leads to a lifestyle of repentance and Bill can see himself as loved by God and others for who he is, not what he does… not what he can produce… not what new truth he can come up with… The “seminars” have become his identity… my prayer is that his identity will be found in silence and solitude before the father, and he will change into the humble servant of God that we all know him to be… pointing to Christ, and not to a seminar, book, or program. The word is enough, and it will stand long after the last red notebook has faded. I really feel like Bill needs a church, a pastor, he needs the biblical model of discipling, and being a disciple prominent in his life, Bill needs to sit UNDER somebody for a while. His last Facebook post reveals Bill needs humility. It screams out for accolade. I write this trembling because I need all of these too, desperately. I am a worse sinner than Bill could ever think of being… yet forgiven, aware of my capacity to sin, and live in accountability and repentance because of the word. I love Bill, and if he reads this I hope he hears love through my words… though it may be tough love.
“Seeing as all ATI students were basically required to go to the counseling seminars, it can logically be deduced that there are no former ATI students running this site. ”
I was mistaken in that apparently one of our number did attend a counseling seminar. His response was that he did not recall that topic being specifically discussed. So, it would be good if we can get some documentation of what was heard.
Sam: Thanks again. We will be forwarding this Bill as well.
“You would be hard pressed to find anybody that Bill was accountable too or that had any authority within the higher ranks of his ministry that would have suggested he counsel young ladies alone. ”
Again, it was never his intent to counsel alone, just fit things in as he had the time. According to him, the Board apparently did not prohibit him from counseling alone, even if they discouraged it. Regardless, Bill said it was not normal. Until we have information to the contrary, we will have to leave that there. This is speaking specifically to the question, “Did Bill follow the direction given him by the Board?”
“Bill admitting he is wrong in the past is not what he is necessarily known for. ”
That may be true. But he would not be the first effective leader that has that as a characteristic. I recall watching a documentary on Walt Disney – my wife will testify me jumping up several times shouting, “That is Bill! That is Bill!” Mistreatment even to the point of abuse at times of employees, expecting the impossible, fussing about every detail. Martin Luther apparently had a close friend say, “Oh, that he had a man to rebuke him.” Donald Trump recently took this to an extreme when he said, “I don’t apologize”. Whatever you think of him, he has a point. Public figures are attacked from every side, with enormous expectations from everyone, friend and foe. Just as they have a harder time suing people for defamation, they also tend to expect those same people will understand if they don’t apologize for every misstep, far less than the average person would.
“We would all agree that If scriptures says something is wrong, then it doesn’t matter how you “feel”… it is still wrong”
That is true. But touching a young lady’s hair with the intent to be encouraging or counseling the same alone is not spoken of in the Scriptures. The Savior had women that followed Him everywhere, among other things serving in practical areas like food. If that included some called “minors” in the modern day, would that be wrong, do you think? Bill has been castigated for asking young women to make him egg salad sandwiches and bring them to his office. In any case, that leaves us to other principles besides “Thus saith the Lord”.
“It’s as if he thought he could make the rules but didn’t have to keep them. ”
That is an important point, and we agree with you. And he has suffered a great deal because of this which crushed the confidence of those following him.
“Even if it was true, then shame on him for doing so in the face of numerous cautions from his underlings to not do so. This I can personally attest to.”
Did you go to him while you were there? I know of very few who did, but I know of some. If so, you have risen to hero status. If a fraction of those now loudly condemning Bill had gone to him with their concerns when they first began to have them, I think it is quite likely Bill would have woken up much earlier to avoid so much grief.
“I had a lowly position at IBLP ”
I myself have never had any position at IBLP. If you will join me in going to Bill, we will be on equal footing.
“the whole article was written to bring glory to Bill”
Perhaps. Having lived that event up close and personal I can attest that it was amazing. Amazing in part that an 80 year old man with no staff (OK, he did have part time help from time to time, sporadic at best), working out of his kitchen, who to this day cannot type enough to answer an email, wrote and published 5 books, launched a new ministry and pulled together a conference including world leaders and other dignitaries at a high end hotel. See, we have been trying with all our might to help negotiate the reconciliation waters for a year and a half now. The situation that Bill has been working in and toward has been discouraging at best to say the least. Precious few have come forward in response to requests to work things out. Of the 8 women testifying publically against him on RG, two wrote him long letters which were one way attacks with the bottom line being “go away and never come back, then I will forgive you”. They were the only ones to even make contact. In one case he flew thousands of miles to meet with a young lady to ask forgiveness, which was granted in the presence of witnesses. The same recently announced publically to others contemplating a meeting with Bill that it was not worth it, didn’t work – all without honoring Bill for his efforts by even contacting him first privately with her renewed concerns. Nothing specific has been placed upon him by the Board by way of requirements, just “get reconciled”. He does, for the record, have a list of over 50 individuals that he has asked and secured forgiveness from – the “accountability partner” he had said he examined a 10 page list on that topic and found it satisfactory.
Bill is simply not the man who will enter a retirement home and rock away his last days. That would kill him, which we are not in favor of. In the end we could find no Scriptural or moral reason to discourage him from getting busy with something his heart is in. So . . . I hope you are not too hard on him.
“when some statements are made, a sense of justice rises up in me and I want to set records straight”
We stand with you. Help us do that. Your comments are exactly the reason this website exists.
I have a question about the “new seminar” and “power teams.” What entity is actually on the business end? Is it Bill Gothard personally/self-employed? Or has he incorporated? Under what name?
“Life Purpose Power Teams” is incorporated at some level, speaking to the finances.
A little research shows that Bill Gothard registered “Life Purpose Power Teams” as a non-profit in the state of Illinois. Interestingly, he originally filed it as “Life Purpose PRAYER Teams” before changing to current name. That word change speaks volume about Bill’s marketing prowess.
it may be non-profit but it costs $49 just to sign up
There is mention above of various accountability partners who tried to work with Bill. My question is, how many different people have tried to be an accountability partner to Bill? How many of those are able to report that it was a success, with Bill cooperating with the plans laid out, and how many would not be able to report a success?
There has only been one “accountability partner”, the currently unidentified appointee of the church that ordained Bill.
Our committee has been involved in an ongoing process to search out the truth, confront Bill with the facts, and assist him in correcting problems. We believe he has done all that can be expected of him, at least up to this point. We continue to actively look for other matters that still need to be addressed.
The “Denver Committee” was mostly focused on events from the late ’70’s and early ’80’s. They recently issued their conclusions that they had failed in their efforts to bring Bill to repentance. The salient point there was the requirement that Bill confess publically that he sent women to the Northwoods knowing that his brother, living there, was immoral. Bill has always insisted that he believed his brother to be cured of whatever problems he had had, disbelieving the worst of what had been reported to him. Thus he will never confess to that charge, and thus a failure was declared.
The conclusions of Dr. Murphy have not been shown to us. It is presumed that because Bill would not publish the confession that was crafted for him during that process that effort was also terminated.
Confessions are a tricky thing in this litigious world – meaning well and being humble without being precise leads to lawsuits, so we do not blame him for being very careful with his published words.
“There has only been one “accountability partner”, the currently unidentified appointee of the church that ordained Bill.”
La Grange Bible Church had said, fairly recently, that Bill Gothard was not under their authority, in response to a gentleman who emailed, which he later posted online. Has he returned to their authority since then? Your comment would suggest this, if they have appointed him an accountability partner. Has he received approval from La Grange for his new ministry? Do they now believe that he is above reproach, the standard that most hold church and ministry leaders to, (1Tim 3:2)? Do you believe that he is above reproach?
Wasn’t he under the authority of the IBLP Board previously? And, as you have said, they have told him to go and be reconciled. They also have said that he is unrepentant. Do they approve of his new ministry even though they believe him to be unrepentant?
It seems that most of the trouble that Bill has gotten himself into in the past was related to him refusing to be held accountable. It is very good that he has an accountability partner. That being said, many other questions remain about the accountability he has established for his new ministry, most especially in light of his problems in this area in the past.
We cannot speak to anything else than we know. LaGrange Bible Church are the ones that ordained him, lifelong association of the entire family, so this is not terribly unusual. He is currently a member of a different church, the pastor of which apparently stands ready to engage in any role required.
Do we believe he is “above reproach”? We believe that he has vigorously and fully addressed all of the accusations against him. His pastoral team, both churches, apparently, declares him ready for ministry. Others do not, but have not presented any requirements beyond the publishing of confessions he feels he cannot, and exhibiting “more brokenness”. While that is Scriptural, we are not sure at what point that can become a requirement for reconciliation.
We clarified tonight that the “Accountability Partner” was given at Bill’s request, not initiated by LaGrange Bible church. They did approve him functioning in that capacity.
Wait, so Bill selected his own “appointed” accountability partner? I’m assuming this was an old family friend/acquaintance/supporter?
First you say that La Grange appointed the accountability partner and now you say:
“We clarified tonight that the “Accountability Partner” was given at Bill’s request, not initiated by LaGrange Bible church. They did approve him functioning in that capacity.”
So, Bill hand picked his own accountability partner? How much credibility is that supposed to have? What about his previous accountability parters? It sounds as if the people to whom he was accountable did not feel that he had repented and he hand picked a new accountability partner. The concerning thing here is that he could easily pick someone whom he could control.
In their statement the Board of Directors of IBLP siad the following:
“The Board is asking that Mr. Gothard submit to and cooperate with a team of Christian leaders who will direct his reconciliation process. ”
What happened to that request? Was a team of Christian leaders established?
I don’t feel you really answered my question. La Grange commissioned him. Has he put himself under their authority?
You said he following:
‘He is currently a member of a different church, the pastor of which apparently stands ready to engage in any role required.”
So, is he under their authority and accountable to them? Other than his accountability partner, to whom is Bill accountable? What is the accountability structure of his new ministry? Does he have a board of directors?
I am guessing he asked for someone he knew, the church reviewed and granted his request as appropriate? I guess we will have to wait for more information.
Kirk: “Was a team of Christian leaders established?”
There were in fact several teams established. Concurrently. As has been described. None of these were assembled at the request of the Board, we believe, although we could be wrong. That could be because Bill resigned to handle this himself. The “Denver Committee” had longstanding history with Bill and officially called itself “volunteer”. We are not sure who requested Dr. Murphy to get involved.
“I don’t feel you really answered my question. La Grange commissioned him. Has he put himself under their authority?”
We do not know the exact relationship, but will ask.
“‘He is currently a member of a different church, the pastor of which apparently stands ready to engage in any role required.’”
So, is he under their authority and accountable to them? Other than his accountability partner, to whom is Bill accountable? What is the accountability structure of his new ministry? Does he have a board of directors?”
At present he is a member of a church, with a pastor working with him and on his behalf. We are not aware of a Board being set up for the new ministry at present. He consults with trusted friends and advisors, to be sure. Still fairly early on in the process. Without any staff at all it is kind of hard to know how that would or should work.
I appreciate that you don’t have all the answers. If the leaders of this site have the close relationship with Bill Gothard that has been represented,. it does seem that there should be more knowledge about his accountability structure.
“At present he is a member of a church, with a pastor working with him and on his behalf.”
This again seems intentionally vague and still does not answer the question of whether Bill has actually submitted to the authority of his new pastor. Is he holding him accountable?
“We are not aware of a Board being set up for the new ministry at present. He consults with trusted friends and advisors, to be sure.Still fairly early on in the process. Without any staff at all it is kind of hard to know how that would or should work.”
I believe that however small, every ministry should have an accountability structure. I think especially with Mr. Gothard, and the questions of the past as to whom he was accountable to, if anyone. The Board? When the Board made decisions against his liking, it appears he just wrote his own rules.
With respect to the questions of accountability, both current and future plan for his ministry, perhaps you will ask and he will tell you.
Thank you.
“I believe that however small, every ministry should have an accountability structure.”
That is quite obvious from your comments. You apparently see this as a requirement, presumably from Scripture. Perhaps you could document your perspective from God’s Word, that “every minister and ministry of God must be under a clear authority structure”.
We are, for example, aware of numerous examples from history where this was not the case. Gladys Aylward, for example, was rejected by established mission boards, so set out entirely on her own to China. While she reported to the elderly missionary that she went to, she was under no further structure that we are aware of the remainder of her life once Mrs. Lawson passed away. Was she out of God’s will, do you think? We know of a great number of others who, being so called, went out without any oversight.
George Muller helped found in Bristol one of the early Plymouth Brethren meetings and continued his work there. Plymouth Brethren meetings to this day have no accountability above the elders of each local gathering, which he functioned as. Hence he had no ecclesiastical oversight. His orphanages were run without a Board of Directors. Was he wrong, do you think?
We like order, we like structure . . . and we like to have authorities that we can force to corral people we don’t trust. Again, please prove that this is in fact God’s mandate.
Wait, certainly you are not saying that Bill doesn’t see the need to be under authority? This statement concerns me greatly, as the principle of authority is one of the seven basic principles upon which Mr. Gothard’s ministry is built. Are you sure that you all speak the truth of Mr. Gothard’s stance, because I don’t think he’d ever suggest that one be out from under authority.
Of course Bill is strongly in favor of being under the authorities that God has placed us . . . under. He is not necessarily in favor of responding to those that consider themselves authorities over us in areas that are not their jurisdiction. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are Gods” is a dual edged sword. We may NOT render to Caesar the things that belong to God. The “image and superscription” on the faces of our children is not Caesar but God’s, same for our bodies . . . so also for our churches, as examples.
We know Bill has, for better or worse, typically had limited enthusiasm for the role of “The Board” in the control of the ministry of the Gospel. It is a legal requirement, state of Illinois, and Caesar has his image and superscription on the legal documents setting up the “corporation”. That authority is NOT ecclesiastical in origin, as a result. The Board of a Christian organization is, of course, designed by a second intent to help men and women of God be wise, transparent, responsible, especially with financial matters. That is a good and proper purpose. The questions come in whether such a Board has an absolute final “say so” in spiritual matters as they would if established by God directly, or whether they function more as a group of counselors. All of that is not completely clear to us.
And, as mentioned, such luminaries as George Muller properly executed the ministry given them without a Board, even when he had a large venture serving 1,000’s of orphans. He was also not under a higher church authority than his local church, and there, as one of the elders in the Bristol gathering, on equal footing with Henry Craik and the other overseers.
My question was if he MUST be under some other spiritual authority structure, by God’s decree. We are so used to such things that we forget whether we received that from the Lord or from other places. When a leader does something we do not like, we want someone to complain to. Practical things are another matter, and, as you say, do carry quite a bit of weight.
Okay, so just to clarify, Bill doesn’t believe that the board is a God-ordained authority structure, but rather just a legal requirement for operating as a non-profit?
We are not going to speak for Bill here, as we have not discussed this in the detail you are proposing. We do note that one of the complaints against Bill repeatedly is that he is “not under authority”. That is a charge that we question the merit of in that we are trying to determine a Scriptural basis for suggesting that God requires all of His servants to operate under the auspices of other believers. So far we can’t find any precept or precedent that demands “a board” to manage a spiritual ministry. We invite others to help us clarify this vital point.
We note that whenever we have asked, Bill has expressed that he has complied with Board directives to him, suggesting that he accepts the need to work with and under those men. He has also, however, expressed his concern at the Board assuming a role of spiritual protection and guidance for him which he feels is a requirement vested elsewhere, say with a pastor. This would focus their responsibilities more directly on the role that the government expects of, as you say, a non-profit corporation in the State of Illinois. With respect to their determination to handle the complaints put forward by Recovering Grace, he believes that this – his qualifications as a minister of Jesus Christ – should not have been their responsibility unless it involved something material to the responsibilities that the State has empowered them with, i.e. financial mismanagement, the breaking of state or federal laws. Since they cleared him of these objective concerns, there should have been no further barriers to his resuming his responsibilities in the ministry he founded, responsibilities he felt pressured to relinquish because the Board would not work with him to allow him to fix, responsibilities he insists he was only temporarily stepping away from until the “dust cleared”.
If this doesn’t make the cut either, it’ll be at least my third blocked comment. So much for “fair” exchange of dialog and opinions. But here goes, AGAIN.
Did you really just say,
“…we are trying to determine a Scriptural basis for suggesting that God requires all of His servants to operate under the auspices of other believers.” ???
So – his flagship authority teaching is up in smoke? We didn’t realize that you realized that.
Just because the board cleared him (themselves) of financial mismanagement and the breaking of state laws doesn’t mean he didn’t. Not that they’re prosecutable at this point, but there is a boat load of testimony about labor laws, mistreatment of minors, and a lot more. Whether something is prosecutable or not shouldn’t figure in at the least about his qualifications as a minister of the gospel. It speaks to his character and the way he does business, which maybe they took into consideration.
Bill Gothard supposedly was placed on leave/fired/resigned/whatever to tend to the business of reconciliation with those who had been hurt by him. Your statement that he stepped away just until the dust cleared relegates victims to the value of dust in my humble opinion. It’s appalling to the degree that is should be retracted, except that you’re speaking for someone else, in which case it’s just left there to speak volumes. Wow.
Truth be told, we have a fairly low tolerance for the “reviling” of Bill, Sandy. We apologize, we can’t help it. That comes in part from being aware of a number of other venues that actually encourage it. So we will be a bit different here. Post your concerns in a factual and controlled way and there should be no problem.
“Flagship authority teaching on authority”? How would you characterize or summarize what Bill taught on that, Sandy?
We are not aware of any violations of labor laws. I spoke at length with the man whose job it was to police that. Bill worked 20 hour days without extra compensation and expected staff at times to be similarly motivated in the work of the Lord, using donor money. The finance guy, however, furiously demanded that every hour invested by hourly employees be recorded as required by law. That is what Bill hired him to do, and he did his job well. Remember, the lawsuit of the early 1980’s hung on this very point, and never made it out of the first round.
Victims are not dust, but misunderstandings and frivolous claims would be. In either case there is dust spun up during the time taken to stop and figure out which it is. The board wanted to do that process without Bill involved. Bill left voluntarily but understood his time away to be temporary, discussions to resume after the salient legal issues had been addressed and he had made progress with his goal of personal reconciliation.
To be clear, the dismissal of the lawsuit in the 1980’s was not dismissed for lack of merit, but on a technicality concerning the chief plaintiff for the class action suit. And only after Bill spent millions of dollars on lawyers.
The “technicality” was that it lacked foundation, as evidenced by the inability to find even one person to stand as a representative of the class of the abused. The “millions” came out of the insurance money that the Board had paid into for that purpose as standard practice. You have seen the debate that preceded that as we have. The folks putting forward this claim did it not out of concern for the defrauding of people of money owed them, but for the sole reason to “kill Bill” with the help of the federal government, much like going after Al Capone on a “technicality” of tax evasion, which you know was cited. Much like the way “the girls” are being used to try to “kill Bill” now. If it is as we think it is, the Lord knows, He weighs every spirit. You can be sure Bill must answer for every deed done in the flesh, every motive, but so will his accusers.
This narrative you guys have come up with is ridiculous. No one is being “used” to do anything, much less “kill” someone.
“That is quite obvious from your comments. You apparently see this as a requirement, presumably from Scripture. Perhaps you could document your perspective from God’s Word, that “every minister and ministry of God must be under a clear authority structure”.”
Surely you are aware of Bill’s own teaching on authority and the Umbrella of Protection. Are you now admitting that this teaching is not found in Scripture? Or, in your mind, is Bill so high up that he has no umbrella over him, with respect to authority in his organization or the church?
You said: “Perhaps you could document your perspective from God’s Word”
I would direct you to:
1 Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV)
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1 Timothy 3:7 (KJV)
Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Given the accusations against Bill, over 60 women alleging sexual molestation or harassment, countless reports of abuse of labor laws, accusations of mishandling of ministry resources, harsh and unkind treatment of others, there is certainly the appearance of evil here. I understand that your position is that they are all just lying and/or exaggerating, but it is unimaginable that, given the allegations over the past 40+years, you would not see how critical it is for Bill to be totally accountable and transparent going forward, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of evil. Does he not want to avoid all appearances of evil, or is his current position that unless someone can point him to a specific verse that specifically says that he can’t do something a certain way, he is just going to move forward and do however he pleases?
Do you think it would be a good idea for Bill to resume counseling young girls in private once again, in the absence of a specific verse which prohibits this? Or are you able to acknowledge that some things are a terrible idea, given the past, to engage in without total accountability and transparency?
In their June 17, 2014 statement, in announcing that Bill would no longer have any involvement with IBLP, this is what the Board said:
“As a Christian leader, he is to avoid the appearance of evil (I Thessalonians 5:22), and he must have a good reputation, even with those outside the Church (I Timothy 3:7).”
These men have known and loved Bill for decades. They have access to a lot more information that we do, having seen the report completed by Gibbs Jr. They clearly felt that there was the appearance of evil and furthermore, they do not feel that he has properly repented. He was supposed to be accountable to them. I see no evidence that Bill actually ever really submitted to the Board’s authority. Yet, in a ministry with a Board of Directors, that is the structure- the leader is accountable to the Board. Even by law, under Caesar, as you might say, he was accountable to them.
You stated:
“Bill felt he was best prepared to resolve the problems by personally contacting each offended individual. There was a strong disagreement and, rather than limit his response, Bill resigned, as he understood it, temporarily.”
So, rather than submit to the Board, once again, Bill does it his own way- resigns (temporarily) so he will not be under the authority of the Board, so that he can handle the situation as he sees fit.
There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy here. Bill teaches that we are to obey our authority, yet he does not obey his authority. Once again, we see Bill not holding himself to the same standards that he said that others must follow. It is very disturbing that Bill would be proceeding in his new ministry without setting in place a structure that would hold him accountable and that you can see no basis that he should do so.
Your verses, Kirk, are good but do not mandate an authority structure for a minister, like a board. You are right that the Board operates under the authority of Caesar . . . It has a specific role mandated by the state. A secular judge is also such an authority . . . Who would have nothing to say on whether a person is fit to serve as a minister, for example. Limited role.
As to the many accusations, “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.” ( Exodus 23:2). Are you aware that not a single one of that multitude of accusers has come to Bill, with or without witnesses? (Correction, two from the published accounts wrote him letters with demands to renounce his teachings before they would talk – that’s it). Does that strike you as strange? One would think that someone’s grieved, angry ATI father or mother would at least come forward and confront Bill, right? I know I would be in his office in a heartbeat. The silence from the supposed 60 is deafening. What we do have is a civil lawsuit from a half dozen women not interested in talking to Bill, but appear interested in a quick cash settlement from IBLP. Even there, with all that supposed abuse, why so few? Any ideas?
Hi, Alfred! I always recognize your writing by your liberal use of ellipses and your refusal to answer questions.
Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain . . . I am Moderator, great and powerful.
What can I answer more clearly for you, Helga?
I’m still waiting for your answers to my questions in my November 11 post. Your reply did not answer most of them. This section is titled “Your Questions” ,but you seem to treat it like a buffet meal, selectively picking the ones that you want and ignoring the more difficult questions.
You didn’t answer Kirk’s questions:
“Surely you are aware of Bill’s own teaching on authority and the Umbrella of Protection. Are you now admitting that this teaching is not found in Scripture? Or, in your mind, is Bill so high up that he has no umbrella over him, with respect to authority in his organization or the church?”
“Surely you are aware of Bill’s own teaching on authority and the Umbrella of Protection. Are you now admitting that this teaching is not found in Scripture? Or, in your mind, is Bill so high up that he has no umbrella over him, with respect to authority in his organization or the church?”
Umbrella of Protection is the principle of authority. It is found throughout Scripture. We are to respect the authorities God has placed us under. That respect causes us to appeal to our authorities when we cannot in good conscience follow the direction we have been given and to suffer under them, if necessary, if we must disobey in order to obey the Lord. There is no absolute premium on obedience . . . as Bill has often said, “You can obey and be despised for it; you can disobey and be honored for it”.
So . . . since the words “Umbrella of Protection” are not found in the Bible, please elaborate on what part of things Bill has taught you object to.
Regardless, there is nothing in what Bill taught that demands we invent authorities if we find ourselves outside of those structures. Sometimes that IS appropriate, as was the case for the Pilgrims and the “Mayflower Compact” to define an authority so they could work together harmoniously. No so in the case of a George Muller or Gladys Aylward, for example.
In the case of a non-profit corporation in the State of Illinois, a Board of Directors is required. They watch the finances and ensure the organization complies with the other requirements of the State. That makes them Bill’s authority in a limited sense, much as the local policeman or building inspector is Bill’s authority.
With his new ministry what precept of “Umbrella of Protection” would demand that he put a controlling Board in place any more than what is required by law?
Leaving bill under gods authority literally means he an do whatever he wants and say it was gods will. That’s like leaving a rapist in charge of a women’s prison.
Can you think of anyone MORE qualified to see everything that a person does . . . And hold him or her accountable . . . And reward or discipline appropriately? Put another way, if there is no REAL God that judges and rewards, what else even matters? Time to live what we preach . . . Or drop it.
I’m curious as to Bill’s current church situation. Is he currently attending a local church, and is he serving there? Who does he consider his current pastor/spiritual authority?
On a related note, are the operators of this site active members in a local church? And are they operating under the authority and protection of their pastor/spiritual authority?
Bill regularly attends and is a member of a local church, and his pastor is engaged at some level in the reconciliation process. Everyone you are interacting with here is also a member of a local church in good standing.
By regularly attends, do you mean weekly, monthly, or other?
Also, could you clarify what you mean by “engaged at some level?” That seemed a little vague.
Thanks.
“Furiously”, whenever the doors are open 🙂
And, yes, it was deliberately vague. He is formally involved, we will leave it at that for now.
I really don’t understand the deliberate vagueness. These are important questions that deserve an answer. We are trying to understand if Bill has submitted to his new church leadership. To whom is he accountable?
And we can tell you that, yes, he is a member of a church which he has been attending for some time, multiple times a week. The pastor is engaged in “pastoral duties” relating to inquiries about Bill, as well he should. And without permission we will not disclose the church or pastor. It will be declared at whatever point Bill and pastor and church and Board want to do that. I suspect you can understand that.
Yes, of course I can understand the desire not to disclose the church and pastor. But, in fact, I never asked that question and if feels like you keep deflecting. There is no need to name church or pastor. The question is, is he under the authority and accountable to the pastor or the church of which he is currently a member.
You keep making vague statements, like your most recent answer:
“The pastor is engaged in “pastoral duties” relating to inquiries about Bill, as well he should. ”
I’m not really sure what that means. That can mean different things to different people, I suppose. Is he accountable to La Grange, the church that commissioned him, which is public knowledge? Is he accountable and under the authority of his new pastor? No need to name names. It is a simple question.
“He is accountable and under the authority of his new pastor” 🙂 That is our understanding, based on what Bill has told us. We understand that he pastor is playing an official role as such in the processes that are underway. That new church is not LaGrange Bible Church, but there is some interaction with that church still going on. We really are not comfortable stating any more than we have at this time.
I really want to believe that Bill is doing the right thing, but this lack of transparency is really starting to make me uncomfortable. Bill’s life and work is at stake here, and you all are jeopardizing it by blowing off the most important questions he needs to be answering right now.
There are meetings that go on behind closed doors in which some people do not wish to be identified at present. Not a problem for the long run. WHO he reports to is not “the most important thing”. If so, find a Scriptural footing for it.
Ouch, that was a rather harsh response. I’m not trying to argue from Scripture, I’m just saying strategically it would be wise for Bill to be transparent. He has violated the trust of a lot of us (either through his behavior if RG is right, or by not being above reproach if you guys are right), and right now his life’s work is on the rocks. The only way for him to regain public trust would be to be completely forthright with what he is doing to make things right. When you guys treat everything as top-secret, the public at large is going to be very suspicious. That’s just the way it is. Surely you and he can see that.
OK, from a practical standpoint I see your point. Most folk coming in on this track do so on a “spiritual responsibility” basis, you know, pleading “Umbrella of Protection”? On that front, I have found that Bill has a limited concern with the opinions of “the masses”. Which is why he ignored social media. Perhaps we have been able to enlighten him on that front. The misdirection and outright lies published on blogs and media outlets should have been addressed years ago.
I am reminded of David ignoring the activities of Absalom, up until the point where suddenly he was, in a day, expelled from his kingdom, his wives were raped by his own son, and his own people were scouring the countryside to find and kill him. It mirrors the experience he had.
Do not think for a moment that Bill is “more guilty” than David was, quite the opposite. There were complaints about his more recent handling of issues, things that Absalom capitalized on, and there remained a group of unhappy big people from the “old days” that never could get over how he had betrayed them and the kingdom with the “matter of Uriah and Bathsheba”. They could not believe he had been reinstated to power, didn’t believe his reports of repentance, despised his writings that came in the wake of it. All of which exploded into a day when his own kingdom turned on him, cast him out. It was only because God loved David, in spite of his failures, that he prevailed.
Since Alfred attenda a Plymouth Brehtren Gospel Hall maybe he consideres himself a “pastor”/elder. Wonder if that’s where Bill is attneding the “services” during this time. Who better to be accountable to than Alfred – one who reveres the man BG and thinks he is speaking truth.
Bill Gothard taught in the Advanced Seminar that a woman’s menstrual period should remind her husband of the blood of Christ. Now that’s BLASPHEMY!!! The Scripture says that “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (I’ve read that means menstrual cloths) and that Christ’s blood is prescious. How can a man who has never been married (and seen such menstrual blood) and who should know the Scripture say such a thing. That made me want to vomit the first time I saw that I had actually written that statement in my advanced notebook and there it was in my own handwriting. I never believed that but in the hurry of writing down what he said, I did it without thinking. I didn’t even believe at first that he had said such a thing until I looked on that page and there it was.
Bill does not attend Alfred’s church. We are unable to find the reference in the Advanced Seminar syllabus to the menstrual cycle reminding the husband of the shed blood of Christ. So far none of us recall him making that link. If this is in your notes we would be interested in understanding the context. It is on our list to ask Bill in the future.
Since I threw all my ibyc/iblp books away I don’t have the advaned seminar book in front of me but if I remember correctly you will find that (about a woman’s menstrul period reminding her husband of the blood of Christ) somewhere in the 200’s pages – maybe even the 230’s. In my book I found it written in my own handwriting on that page that someone mentioned to me. I didn’t believe it until I saw it there written down in the hurry and flurry of the seminar. Don’t sit here and claim it isn’t there. That;s what you do with all the testimonies of the women who were abused by this pedophile/woman abuser. If you don’t see it then it doesn’t exist. I did that advanced seminar around 1985. Maybe he took it out of later books. But if you look in one from the 1980s I’m sure you will find that statement. I saw in it my book and I wrote it down. I would never have ever thought of such a thing on my own. Because first of all it’s not in Scripture. So don’t sit there and call me a liar. BG said it, I wrote it and read it later on a few years ago. Sorry now that I threw them all away because now I don’t have any proof but I’ll bet there are others out there who wrote the same things down. I was rather horrified to find that I had written that in there because it would never have been something I would have thought of. JUst because you don’t remember it (I didn’t either till I saw it in my book) and can’t find it doesn’t mean he didn’t say it. You guys just think that BG can do no wrong. Well, for your information, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
And you think that if BG says he never said that, then that is the truth? Well, if that happens then I know that there is no one here including BG who is telling the truth. And to think that you all defend him as “not doing it”. That IS what you said in answer to “Did he do it?” isn’t it?
If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it, Eva. We are doing what few others are prepared to do, cross check these accusations with Bill and others who lived it. We have found that the “vetting” process on these accounts on RG is shabby at best. And if our counter assessment is wrong, we will correct it.
“He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” (Proverbs 18:17).
We have found the specific citation, seen in the Advanced Seminar session 12, and noted in the onscreen notes, although not making it into the syllabus, at least as far as we can find. The note displayed on the Powerpoint is:
“The presence of blood pictures Christ’s redemption – Heb. 9:22”
We listened to his comments and it definitely was passed over quickly. So we are left with the question whether God designed blood to be “shed” each month between pregnancies – or as part of childbirth – in part to remind the couple of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. I am guessing millions have been through the seminar – the first complaints I saw were on Recovering Grace. It was non-eventful enough that neither my wife or I took note of it when we attended. Which seems to suggest that the “shock factor” is present only in a few. Even Eva suggest that she wrote it down without emotion, only seeking it out and finding it years later after others made note of it. Like . . . you have to taught to be shocked?
Comments: If somehow we believe that Jesus shed blood was a lovely thing, pure and clean, we would possibly not be understanding what went on there. It was brutal agony, messy . . . really bloody. “The Passion of the Christ” tried to depict this – few have viewed their attempt and came away feeling happy. Blood is unclean. To shed it, pour it out, is a grief – the pouring out of the life, a weakening, a loss. Somehow a woman or her husband allowing her weakness to remind them of Jesus weakness seems like not so bad of an idea. If you feel differently, by all means don’t. It seems no less offensive or bold or even blasphemous than this statement by Paul, comparing his own sufferings with those of Christ, even suggesting that his sufferings are completing His sufferings somehow:
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1:24)
Will allow a few comments but feel that this topic will likely never resolve, being one of those “self evident” things for some that defies analysis or reason.
Sorry I didn’t see this comment before I posted my last one earlier this morning. However, what I said is still true. I never said that the act of the shedding of His blood was “lovely, pure, or clean” What I did say is that the Scripture says His “blood is precious”. And BG never said the menstrual blood was to show a “weakness. And why would I want to base what I said on a movie? You surely don’t consider a movie to be equal with the Word of God? And for your information I did not see this subject even mentioned on RG. I saw it quite a few years ago (probably at least 10 and maybe more) when my son pointed out many of the faults of the Seminar. So I had to do some research and when that menstrual thing was mentioned by someone I looked it up and to my surprise and chagrin I found it exactly as they said. I would think that by now BG has changed what you saw so that it doesn’t appear like he said it when I went in the 1980s’ I’m not sure of the year but I was between the ages of 45-47. so that makes it mid 1980’s.
As we stated, we were pointed to the comments, which were made on the overheads with a passing acknowledgement verbally. There is a good reason you forgot he said it. Bill is much into reassigning meaning to negative circumstances so they become “energy givers” instead of energy drains. You may recall his example form the Basic Seminar with a husband constantly irritated by those that left metal hangers hooked to the shower curtain bar in the bathroom so the opening door banged against them, jangling wildly. Bill encouraged him to see them with a new meaning, a reminder from 1 Cor. 13 of what he sounded like when he spoke to his family without love, i.e. The “clanging cymbals”, so focusing him on his love for his family. It completely changed his perspectives, so much so that those forgotten hangers clanging began to give him a burst of joy when he heard them. That is EXACTLY his intent here. Instead of getting down about the symptoms of the cycle, use it as a stimulus to focus on something that brings joy and peace. It really works, husbands and wives have appreciated the encouragement. Don’t try to turn this into a doctrinal point it is not, no more than jangling hangers are what Paul was referring to specifically in 1 Cor. 13.
On the “About Us” page, you assert that Bill Gothard ” continues to emphatically deny any criminal or moral failures.” You also assert that: “We have seen him assume full responsibility for issues that we knew had substance and troubled us.” Logic dictates that he has not assumed responsibility for any moral failure. Since you do not specify further, it would enhance understanding for you to share at least the categories of “issues” that he has assumed full responsibility for. For instance, are these issues of judgment, Scriptural interpretation, doctrine, imagination, personnel management, communication, or what? An occasional example would further enhance understanding of your readers. In what way has he “taken full responsibility”? Mere words? Actual acts of restoration or reimbursement? Has anyone been compensated for work not previously compensated? Has any previously broken relationship been restored? Has any teaching, doctrine or interpretation been corrected? Since there is no admitted moral failing, I assume all these would be categories of mistake (non-negligent) and am very curious what the correction of the mistake might look like.
Finally, have you seen him fail or refuse to take responsibility for any issue that you knew had substance and troubled you? I would think it quite improbable that he has fully satisfied all your concerns, even though your good faith toward him is above and beyond. Because you did not say he assumed full responsibility for “all” such issues, your silence about unresolved matters speaks loudly. I ask to help you clear up any unintended gaps in your explanation.
(P. S. I love that your site uses a spell check option. You might want to plug the spelling of “Gothard” into it so it recognizes this name.)
Bill has specifically acknowledged his insensitivity toward staff members, particularly in showing favoritism towards some and losing interest in others. He has – just last night again, in fact, with someone that scheduled a meeting with him – asked forgiveness for not being the example he should have been for a number of the standards he promoted, specifically in “fraternizing” with young ladies as opposed to keeping a deliberate and noted distance, things young men were being sent home for. He had stated that it was wrong to enter the private physical space of some of the girls – in a way that would be appropriate for a trusted relative – without permission, including trying to affirm them by touching their hands, shoulders, hair, feet . . . helping them in or out of vans with a hand to the back, over which some reacted strongly, considering it “creepy”. He told us that because of several tragedies he observed he had felt called since high school days to find ways to strengthen young women for their unique role in the church and family, something that is generally ignored by ministers. This caused him to focus on the counseling of young ladies in a specific way. To us he stated that trying to do this was a mistake, and, consistent with moves he made toward the end of his time as president, he should have restricted his active ministry to young men.
He has acknowledged as inappropriate the unusual adoration ascribed him from some, approaching perceived infallibility. He is happy to have others review his teachings and materials as some senior staff members have recommended.
He arranged for at least one large sum of money to be transferred to resolve an outstanding concern involving property issues. In one case he travelled to another country to ask for and secure forgiveness for a matter. He has a list of over 50 individuals of whom he has asked forgiveness and who have verbally given him that.
And there are no issues that the group of us have put forward to him, be that from ourselves or based on things directed to us on social media, that he has not addressed as fully as we would expect. He are determined to see these things through and regularly remind him of matters that are still pending until they are resolved.
We will look into the spell checker. I have been told we can likely get “Gothard” in there. Thank you.
Addressing, and accepting full responsibility are very different things. I take your answer to imply that there may be some things that concerned you for which he has not taken full responsibility. Just to be clear, Bill Clinton used to attack his critics and then say that he had “responded” (or addressed) the criticism. But he never answered the substance of the critique, merely responded to the fact of criticism (‘that is a terrible thing to say about [the President] {the First Lady] or personality (Right Wing Conspirator) involved.
BTW, reading the entire commentary above grieves me all these many months later. Most grievous is this: “It’s Bill’s message that pierces through the darkness.” The Word of God says: “In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” And also: “…the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling.” The light came many hundreds of years ago in a manger in Bethlehem, exploding into the world’s consciousness in an empty tomb outside Jerusalem. That you see Bill’s message as the light, and his critics as people worthy of contempt, says all that needs to be said. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Bill says he has no sin (“no moral fault”). He deceives himself. Please do not deceive yourself any longer.
Reconciliation is much more than “sorry”, “I forgive you”. Ask any divorced person. Reconciliation is full restoration of relationship. When Bill and Larne, and Bill and Tony are fully restored, you can claim Bill’s full repentance. I assume nothing about where fault lies, but only point out that reconciliation is far away.
“I take your answer to imply that there may be some things that concerned you for which he has not taken full responsibility”
We did not intend to imply that. Or is this in relation to another poster comment, such as the “piercing the darkness quote” you found offensive?
Reconciliation and forgiveness are indeed two different things. Which standard does the Lord use as He welcomes us back? And to what standard must we attain before He does so?
Bill has specifically acknowledged his insensitivity toward staff members, particularly in showing favoritism towards some and losing interest in others. He has – just last night again, in fact, with someone that scheduled a meeting with him – asked forgiveness for not being the example he should have been for a number of the standards he promoted, specifically in “fraternizing” with young ladies as opposed to keeping a deliberate and noted distance, things young men were being sent home for. He had stated that it was wrong to enter the private physical space of some of the girls – in a way that would be appropriate for a trusted relative – without permission, including trying to affirm them by touching their hands, shoulders, hair, feet . . . helping them in our out of vans with a hand to the back, over which some reacted strongly, considering it “creepy”.
He told us that because of several tragedies he observed he had felt called since high school days to find ways to strengthen young women for their unique role in the church and family, something that is generally ignored by ministers. This caused him to focus on the counseling of young ladies in a specific way. To us he stated that trying to do this was a mistake, and, consistent with moves he made toward the end of his time as president, he should have restricted his active ministry to young men.
He has acknowledged as inappropriate the unusual adoration ascribed him from some, approaching perceived infallibility. He is happy to have others review his teachings and materials as some senior staff members have recommended.
He arranged for at least one large sum of money to be transferred to resolve an outstanding concern involving property issues. In one case he travelled to another country to ask for and secure forgiveness for a matter. He has a list of over 50 individuals of whom he has asked forgiveness and who have verbally given him that.
And there are no issues that the group of us have put forward to him, be that from ourselves or based on things directed to us on social media, that he has not addressed as fully as we would expect. He are determined to see these things through and regularly remind him of matters that are still pending until they are resolved.
We will look into the spell checker. I have been told we can likely get “Gothard” in there. Thank you.
To admit that the only reason that Bill Gothard had a “board” was due to legal requirements by the government due to the status of being a non-profit organization and that Bill feels that this is wrong because he feels that he is being controled by Cesaer is an incredible admission on your part. So Bill’s leaving/firing/kick out is really due to government interference and not anything due to Bill’s own bad behaviors and teaching. Oversite that is being brought up here isn’t just about behavior, it should also include Bill’s cradle to grave teaching. Likewise, to use as an example George Miller and his orphanage and that Bill feels that this would jusitfy no oversite or board is a bunch of bunk. What about 2000 years of Christian history and oversite. Bill’s teaching superceded local Church teaching and authority. That is the problem with para-church ministries like his and that is why they often are the ones that run into trouble and have scandals. Anyone can claim that they “hear from God, read the Bible and state God showed them” and there is no accountability over anything. Whether George Miller had any “board” or not, I would be very nervous about having any child spend time in any orphanage that didn’t have some kind of oversite and accountability. It is a receipe for trouble.
Many feel differently, Rob. Many testify to the blessing Bill had been to themselves or their families. And I asked for Scripture to back up this assertion, so far have gotten nothing. 2,000 years of Christianity has been cited to counter it, since you made reference to it, and thus George Muller would appear to be most relevant to you. Prejudices do not substitute for objectivity.
Bill was not fired – let’s get this straight. He resigned to focus on fixing this, reconciliation because he felt the Board was impeding his ability to do so. Again, they were completely within the bounds of their role to investigate the allegations of sexual harassment as this is a legal matter. This could have been done as it was, by an independent outside entity, without insisting Bill be in the background.
Maybe he wasn’t fired, but he definitely wasn’t re-hired, even after making multiple “appeals” to the board.
I can’t quite figure out how to put this in the part of the discussion where you tlaked about Bill’s 20 hour work day. Rising at 4 am and working till midnight, etc. That isn’e even reasonable to say that. NO ONE can put up with a schedule like that day after day and maintain their health and mental accuity. Here is what God has to say about it. “Psalms 127:2
It is vain for you to rise up early,
To sit up late,
To eat the bread of sorrows;
For so He gives His beloved sleep.”
We need sleep and The Lord has promised this to us. I’m not the least bit impressed by those hours because I’m not even sure it’s true. If it is then shame on Bill Gothard.
Not a problem. We can move it . . . or may make this its own topic. We need to reorganize this area, “Questions”, as it is getting unmanageable.
Sorry to disappoint you, but anybody who has ever worked with him will attest to it. Give it a go! See what others who worked with him have to say. That is really his schedule.
Sleep is good and precious . . . and can also be dangerous, according to Scripture. Check out the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31:
“15 She riseth also while it is yet night . . . 18 her candle goeth not out by night.”
vs. the lazy fellow:
“10 Yet a little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to sleep:
11 So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth,
and thy want as an armed man.” (Prov. 6)
Addendum: Do have to add this in. Check out this list of famous people who got little sleep, some as little as 2 hours a night: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2015/02/18/famous-people-sleeping-habits/ Donald Trump is at 4, so is Martha Stewart. 🙂
I don’t know much about Donald Trump but I do know that Martha Stewart spent time in prison. Is that the kind of person I want to emulate? And really I was only talking about Bill Gothard. I don’t care how many famous or infamous people kept such hours. And how many people actually observed BG for 24 hours to be sure he acutally did keep those hours? He said a lot of things to impress us but frankly, I’m not impressed by those hours even if they are true. It’s just not healthy (he was big on health) and it sure doesn’t show a lot of common sense.
I respect you Eva, so letting this run . . . but this is kind of a senseless thread. I can’t do any more than assure you that those are his hours as testified by many whose job it was to work with him during those times, generally known as “MGAs”, or “Mr. Gothard’s Assistants”. And if you don’t like Martha or Donald, find somebody in the list you do like. Point being, it is far from bizarre or weird. I, for the record, have a highly-actualized family member who is making his mark in a technical field who never slept more than 4 hours a night since he was a wee fellow. Everybody is different – 5 is a good nights sleep for me. Vive la difference.
In one of the comments above regarding women serving BG and bringing him sandwiches, the moderator mentioned that the Lord Jesus allowed women to serve him, too, as if that justified BG’s actions. As I understand it, BG would have young ladies bring him a meal and allow them to stay in his room for awhile. I wonder if the moderator truly thinks that BG and Jesus Christ are interchangeable. Nowhere in scripture did the Lord allow himself to be served by a woman alone, in private. Not that there was any danger of impropriety but because the Lord never disobeyed scripture, in this case, the scripture that instructs to avoid even the appearance of evil.
Does BG think that he has risen to the point that he doesn’t need accountability? If he has, then that is pure pride which the Bible warns about multiple times like where it says that pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. If he acknowledges that he is fallible, then one has to wonder why he didn’t position himself with an accountability partner that he was willing to be corrected by. And more to the point, why did he not heed the advice of not counselling women one on one? He could have avoided this whole mess involving all these young women if he hadn’t exalted himself to the point of being unapproachable by anyone who would seek to correct him. Billy Graham had the wisdom to see this and to this day he has no accusations of sexual impropriety with any woman.
Bill had young men bringing him food as well as young ladies. The accusation about young ladies is sourced in the account of “Pastor Jones” in the Don Veinot book, “A Matter of Basic Principles”. On page 223 speaking of Pastor Jones, who was working as the cook at the Flint Character Inn:
“As Pastor Jones was considering these things and praying about the state of affairs at the Character Inn, another event caused him to have even graver concerns. A sixteen-year-old girl came into the kitchen one day to cook something for Bill Gothard. Pastor Jones asked her why he had not been asked to do this, since he was in charge of the kitchen. He also asked her when Bill had given her this direction. She responded that Bill had asked her to do this when he called her. This took Johnny a little aback. He pushed a little further, asking her how often Bill called her. She said that Bill was her best friend and that he called her all the time. Johnny became instantly concerned for the young girl’s welfare, and was also shocked by this revelation. It appeared to Johnny that Gothard’s actions seemed to align perfectly with his peculiar definition of dating.”
We are investigating this further, but we believe Pastor Jones misinterpreted the situation. Bill responded for us to this last night. First of all, after the book was published Bill and several others, including Don Veinot, met in Sacramento to work things out with Pastor Jones. Johnny accepted Bill’s apology and forgave him, and Bill gave him a substantial check to cover the financial concerns that he had (the list of issues he had are given in the book). With respect to the 16 year old girl, Bill cannot recall this situation or the young lady and was adamant that he did not allow young women to bring him food and linger alone in his room. We are seeking corroboration from others who were there at that time and will report back.
With respect to Billy Graham, Billy did not have an active counseling ministry, not like Bill. He and Bill got together at one point and Billy told Bill as much. Counseling for Bill has always been intense, an intense focus for a period of time with the young person away from home – “intervention”. With the young people usually living on site for a period of time to facilitate that, with them participating in a host of events, traveling the world with him while under his care, things are bound to operate differently than they would for Billy Graham. With a completely packed schedule Bill “redeemed the time” constantly, counseling during trips, even routine things like picking someone up at the airport, counseling as part of larger events, like seminars, counseling during meals (with others present), counseling very early in the morning or late at night. Anyone who came to HQ will testify that this is exactly how it was.
Again, we will seek to clarify the details surrounding this allegation.
So it was in a book, Bill met with the author and accuser after publication and did not resolve it? You only recently asked him about that many years public account? Have you asked Tim Levundusky about the time Bill lingered in the new girl’s room in OKC? You really need a scorecard so you can keep all this stuff straight and not go back and forth one issue at a time. It seems very inefficient.
There was a formal meeting with a number of principals, including Bill and Don and Pastor Jones to go through all of his concerns, and to my knowledge all were resolved. I was not there – actually, I was, I watched them enter the room but was not part of the proceedings – so can only pass on what I do know.
Tim Levendusky was far away when any events you refer to occurred. You appear to be referring to “Lizzie’s Story”. See, there is a real reason why Jesus said to go to the person you have a problem with privately first. That is to address things when everyone’s recollections are clear, when witnesses can be identified. Coming at these things years, decades later is almost reprehensible. We have hunted any of these accounts down that we were able to, and the results always seem to vary from the first take. As mentioned, we were presented with a recent account, in the last few years, of Bill demanding to be alone with a girl late at night. Those accusing him now never went to him then. He recalled the specific event with some clarity to us, of an unusual counseling situation – suicidal young woman – that had defied other normal approaches and, frankly, required an intervention. What he said to us made sense, and we have not been given countering information from those observing the event after relaying this back. So many times . . . it just isn’t what it seems. To accuse an “elder” like that in a haphazard way is simply wrong.
“9 Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself;
and discover not a secret to another:
10 Lest he that heareth it put thee to shame,
and thine infamy turn not away.” (Proverbs 25)
We spoke with one of the former administrators at Flint. He told us that he never once saw Bill alone with a girl, not for food, not anything. Whenever Bill was there it was a non-stop hubbub of activity from early morning to, well, early morning. Various adults and young people brought him food, and no girl ever was alone with him. The individual shared other things that concerned him about the way Bill did business and it was clear to us that he was motivated to give the good with the bad. But he was adamant that nothing untoward, not even by appearance, transpired during his tenure with young women.
You said: “… one of the former administrators at Flint … never once saw Bill alone with a girl …” then “… no girl ever was alone with him.”
The second statement can’t be based on the first one, sir.
And – HE was adamant that nothing untoward transpired. That’s the point, Alfred. He is adamant about many things. Adamance (a new word, LOL) does not truth make.
Sandy: making a specific point that I am still crafting a fuller response to you on elsewhere, it is our honor, our responsibility to search out a matter . . . Or not repeat it. The point has been raised by Pastor Jones that Bill flirted with girls by having them prepare his special meals and dine with him privately. I have found no evidence of that. I just grilled a former admin, former IBLP employee from Flint for 2 hours trying to find any suggestion of this. He was “adamant” that this never happened. Everybody that was handy brought food to Bill as his visits were short and stressfully busy. Admin’s own wife and daughters . . . And available young and older men. There was no pattern – it didn’t happen. And, again, this is someone who spent virtually every minute of Bill’s visits at Flint with him . . . did express unhappiness at other things that Bill did.
Sandy: I believe your sincerity. You freely admit to not even knowing the man. If you will be a force for the Lord to influence others for or away from someone that many feel is a “man of God”, to keep a clear conscience you have no choice but to get involved in this matter at a deeper level for the name and sake of Jesus . . . Or do not repeat the accusations of others.
I haven’t repeated accusations, sir. *I* didn’t say he was alone with girls that brought him food. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say anything did or didn’t happen. But you grilled somebody from Flint who says they never saw girls taking food to or dining privately with Bill. You conclude that girls taking food or dining privately didn’t occur. I’m just pointing out that just because you grilled somebody that would likely have seen something doesn’t mean that something couldn’t have happened outside the range of his observation – either under the radar, during a different time period, somewhere besides Flint, or whatever. To follow with the statement “and no girl ever was alone with him” is neither fair nor logical; it just matches what you want to believe … which happens to be the same as Bill has told you to believe – I believe.
You said that Pastor Jones raised a point, but that you have found no evidence. Why is evidence credible only if YOU find it?? You grilled an administrator and because he didn’t see anything, you conclude nothing happened. So Pastor Jones apparently lied. You pick and choose who you find credible, which isn’t credible at all. Who was the administrator? What kind of hours did he keep? Where was he at all times? Did he ever sleep or have a day off? Where is he now? Why doesn’t he post his own testimony for all to see? If he was unhappy about some other things, what were those? Maybe he can corroborate some other stories. Can you bring him front and center for cross-examination?? Bring Pastor Jones, too, so we can hear the accounts for ourselves and decide for ourselves what conflicts and what corroborates, instead of you striking the gavel with the conclusion that what he said happened never happened.
I don’t have a case to make against Bill. I don’t have accusations to bring. I don’t even think I “revile” him as you’ve accused me of doing several times. My biggest concern is the lengths you will go to, the camels you will swallow, to make copious accounts from every direction (different people, different time periods, different situations, different settings, different grievances) align with your solitary at-all-costs life thesis that Bill Gothard is a good man.
What I said about being adamant – I mistook “he was adamant” as being about Bill. I see now that you were talking about the dude from Flint – sorry, although I’m sure Bill is even more adamant about even more things, which again, doesn’t make them true.
We all have our spheres of influence. Mine is minute regarding influencing others about Bill Gothard. Remember – contrary to your environment, the world doesn’t revolve around that man, and extremely few people I know have ever heard of him – like maybe barely double digits. Regardless of how many people feel he is a “man of God,” I am NOT obligated to get involved at any deeper level than my own calling. There are countless others that are considered “men of God” by any number of people; do I have an obligation of involvement to them, too? Seems you’re making up flamboyant talk as you go along “… no choice … for the sake of Jesus …” – really?? No.
If you feel that I must qualify myself in speaking about Bill Gothard by conducting my own interviews or meeting Bill personally, you are mistaken. Who has given you that impression? Oh, wait, you don’t have to answer that, I think I know. I need to be discredited on some basis, and that’s convenient.
But I’ll say again – I do not have a case to make for or against Bill Gothard. I am not interested in “proving” him “guilty” of scripture twisting, sexual intentions, or any of those things. I am a nobody; he has nothing to prove or disprove to me, nor I to him. And by the way, my conscience IS clear. My repeated intention has been to interject reason where I think there’s been a serious void. You have enough problems with insensitivity on your own, but for some strange reason I feel a kindredness to you, Alfred, as one who has been epically lied to and manipulated. There’s nothing new under the sun, and I just try to offer you alternative conclusions than the ones that have been dictated for you. Others can see what you are refusing to see, and you would do well to listen, although if you’re gonna start listening to anybody, don’t start with me, but with the scores of people whose lives and families have been damaged – PLEASE listen to THEM.
I too am a nobody, have been one all of my life. But I have felt the burden that God has placed on us to NOT just walk by the apparent sin of a brother in Christ, especially one who is prominent and affects the Name and Body of the Savior dramatically. With all of the Scriptural mandates against gossip – just repeating or discussing evil reports – it would seem that would preclude uninvolved critique.
“Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.” (James 4:11) THAT is judging, and that is bad.
In any case, I think we have beat this thread into the ground. Let’s move on.
Of COURSE Pastor Jones misinterpreted the situation … what other explanation could there possibly be?
When will you see a pattern? EVERY account of Bill’s misconduct is simply misunderstood. EVERY account. And Bill can set everyone straight on what they saw, heard, thought, and felt, if given a chance. And if he’s not given a chance to change their minds, he’ll just convince YOU so you’ll shout from the rooftops that what people saw, heard, thought, and felt wasn’t correct, because at all costs, Bill must be.
Used, Alfred – the word is USED.
I do wish your software for this site used a like button! Is this something you could add in the future?
And again, Sandy, you have set yourself up as more righteous than Bill, and thus able to judge – and condemn – his motives. I have sat across from him and gone over each of these things with him. Sometimes he has hung his head . . . Sometimes he has given us an explanation. If you are in the Chicago area, I invite you to go there with us, we will escort you . . . And you can say anything to Bill you need to say. Then you will have even greater authority on which to condemn him publicly.
Trying to follow your logic, Alfred. You already said in another thread (Did He Do It – History & Scandal),
“‘…if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?’ (1 Cor. 6:2) It is our responsibility to judge intentions…”
Although I think you over-interpreted when you said we should judge intentions. That verse says we are to judge matters/cases, nothing about intentions. (And there’s nothing about having to be “more righteous” than another person to start with, so I’m not sure where your accusation about being “more righteous than Bill” came from.) To draw reasonable conclusions of motive by judging behavior is different than actually judging one’s motives, I’m saying.
***** So you originally said that it is our responsibility to judge intentions, not that I agree. But THEN you accused me of judging his motives. *****
***** YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY AND WONDER WHY? *****
This sounds like a play from Bill’s playbook … something is wrong, then it’s right – depending on who was doing it or the point he wanted to make.
Let me interject something about righteousness. My righteousness is from Jesus alone, it is not my own. Righteousness isn’t a contest, but mine is absolutely perfect and second to none – to His credit, not mine. So no, I haven’t set myself up as anything, and I have no need to compare myself to Bill anyway. Or to judge his motives/intentions/heart – that’s the Lord’s job. I do draw conclusions (judge) from consideration of his PATTERN of behavior.
Let me emphasize again – PATTERN of behavior. You are very quick to dismiss concerns by saying that everybody “stumbles,” – even suggesting on the other thread that you’d like to see how *I* would deal with accusations should *I* stumble. (REALLY you said that?)
If Bill ran a stop sign, it might actually mean nothing more than a momentary lapse of concentration while driving; I’ve done it a couple of times over a few decades, as most people probably have. But if Bill only stops at stop signs when he sees a cop or a camera, and claims “oops” about all the ones he ran when he didn’t see the cop or the camera, then Bill has a stop sign-running problem.
You say you have gone over many things with him. How many times has he used an “oops” excuse, or blamed someone else for misunderstanding? It’s a PATTERN, and you need to be a better judge of his behavior. You’ve closed out other witnesses because HE claims they’re not credible, then you take on those accusations yourself. Makes me think of his convenient-but-false teaching about “not taking up offenses.” It was convenient when he didn’t want people spreading unflattering information or comparing stories amongst themselves, but neither he nor you seem to mind the set up of this whole website or you “taking up offenses” for HIM, even to the point that you’re probably doing it at a significant cost to your job and/or family. “Not listening to evil reports” and/or “only giving a good report” were convenient-but-false, too. He propped them up with cherry-picked scripture, but he only pulled them out when they were to HIS benefit. Really – can you think of any other times?
Sometimes he has hung his head … have you ever thought he might not be contrite, but may be pausing to invent a new excuse you’ll buy, or to look up at you with that “look”? Hanging his head means something different to you and to me based on our past experiences; I’ve heard the excuses and I’m way too familiar with the “look.” I’m not there, and no, I don’t KNOW Bill, but I’m just offering alternate conclusions you can draw that may be more reasonable than the ones he’s fed you.
And if I’m ever again in the Chicago area (probably unlikely), I will accept your invitation to contact you. Not that I need to or care to talk to Bill, but not that I wouldn’t if it would mean that much to you. I’d be more interested in a conversation with you, actually. You let ME know if you’re ever in the Carolinas (you know “nothing could be finer”) and I’d really enjoy meeting you and your family.
And with an intense and coordinated propaganda campaign there is the attempt to get folks to the point where they shut their investigative and fairness concerns off . . . and, by shear volume and repetition, just get swept along with the conclusions offered by others. Curious what you would have if you took “Recovering Grace” out of the picture? The answer is: Not much.
Thanks for your interest in me and general willingness to meet me and my wife, Sandy. I shall look forward to the Lord working that out.
It’s been awhile since I checked back to this site but with regards to the above topic I would like to state the obvious. Billy Graham did not escape scandal because he wasn’t involved in counseling, as implied by your comment. He escaped sexual scandal because he applied God’s wisdom to his own behavior. One cannot assume that if Billy had been involved with counseling troubled youth that he, also, would have opened himself up to scandal. In keeping with his demonstrated character, he would have seen to it that he did not counsel anyone one on one, to avoid even the appearance of evil. This is simple wisdom that Bill Gothard should have applied and there is no excuse for him not taking this precaution. The cause of Christ is important enough that no matter how hectic Bill Gothard’s schedule was, an accountability partner should have been involved. There simply is no occasion where Bill counseling with a young woman alone should ever have happened. God would have seen to it that provision for keeping a spotless reputation would have been met.
To summarize, Bill Gothard’s foolishness and resulting scandal cannot be defended by claiming that his demanding schedule made it unavoidable.
And that was overwhelmingly Bill’s procedure, again with deliberately wide open windows and constant coming and going, parked in a car in busy areas. And he has acknowledged to us that even though he knew his motives and procedures pure, for the sake of appearance and accountability it was not wise to allow any exceptions to that rule. Such an unbending “Billy” policy would have hampered his schedule flexibility and productivity but would have squashed the current controversy immediately.
But . . . he didn’t do anything amiss. May the Lord hasten the day when that is plain to all.
I agree with L that whether Bill or Dr Graham counseled or not was not the issue. And yes, Bill COULD have made a Dr Graham-type policy, and where you think that would’ve “hampered his schedule flexibility and productivity,” I am certain that God would’ve honored not the policy, but the KEEPING OF IT to the benefit of the ministry, not its detriment. (He’s not gonna honor anything that’s just for show.)
So you can counsel or not counsel, and have policies or no policies, NONE of which are the deciding factors in whether Bill was blameless or not. It’s a behavior issue that reflects a heart condition, sir, and goes beyond a scope of practice or policy manual.
” It’s a behavior issue that reflects a heart condition, sir, and goes beyond a scope of practice or policy manual.”
We agree. And we are absolutely confident that Bill does not have a fundamental “heart condition” as you put it, but has been violently, repeatedly slandered. And . . . it is time to bring that to a close.
I’m just saying that I’ve tired of hearing things like: Bill would’ve been better off if he’d followed Dr Graham’s example and had a policy in place. You’ve said it as well as others. Yes, a policy would’ve been nice and prudent and beneficial. But let’s not blame Bill’s problems on a lack of policy. Bill would’ve been better off if he’d followed Dr Graham’s example and kept his hands and feet in place.
Hands and feet are irrelevant to Billy Graham’s policies here, Sandy. The accusers claim almost all of that was in public places, right? And outside the counseling venue. Dr. Graham’s example was to have people present during all counseling. Those accusing him spoke of foot contact under the table at meals . . . or on a plane . . . holding her hands in front of an uncovered window (Lizzie) or in front of a large group (Wendy).
Amiss is defined and:not quite right, inappropriate or out of place. Bill routinely engaged in behavior that, if others would engage in, would get them summarily dismissed. Having double standards is inappropriate. Did Bill think himself above reproach and not subject to the principles he taught? It would have been better if he demonstrated his high moral character with behavior and not just words. That would have quashed the current controversy immediately.
1) He has acknowledged engaging in activities that he had spoken against, and I have heard him ask others forgiveness for the example that was not. For example, dating a woman without speaking to her parents first . . . and spending extra time enjoying the company of young ladies which just looked bad.
2) Some behaviors are simply inappropriate for young men interested in young ladies, but perfectly fine for relatives or others in that type of familiar, fatherly, counseling role . . . like the “Shepherd of the Hills” example highlighted elsewhere.
Why do bills homeschooling books teach girls that it’s their fault if they are sexually abused?
Comments directed toward helping a woman find healing from sexual abuse are found in counseling materials that Bill produced. The steps and points made there have been dramatically successful in their aim with many finding deep and lasting healing. The reason is that Bill steps up to try to help answer the question: WHY did a loving God allow this to happen? Part of the answer is an analysis of the law of Moses as it relates to sexual activity between unmarried individuals. The legal turning point for OT Jews separating rape from consensual activity was whether or not the woman screamed (Deut. 22:23-29) – with the caveat that if no one was around to hear a scream, she would be assumed to have screamed.
Separating consensual sex from abuse, rape, is a fundamental legal matter. God gave His statement on this in the law of Moses, thus it is worth taking seriously. Bill has documented numerous cases where a cry, a scream has resulted in a dramatic reversal of events, often from the pangs of conscience in the attacker, precisely the way the Lord intended. The criminal laws in our country are different and should, however, be followed. The purpose of the advice is to provide clarity into how God thinks. It also is designed to overcome fear and uncertainty during an attack: If a girl knows that God commands her to scream, that will give her courage, taking precedence over the wiles and threats of her attacker. “4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” (Luke 12)
It should be noted that child molestation by family members – “uncovering nakedness” – falls into a completely different category in the law of Moses, being an “abomination” and punishable by death “per se”, scream or no scream. (Lev. 18:6-18)
So . . . as far as “fault” is concerned, God always holds the stronger, the abuser responsible, as do our laws. The larger question remains whether a woman has the power to make the abuse not happen. Bill alleges that God has given the attacked a powerful weapon to exercise which is sometimes not used because of fear. While we all understand fear and sympathize with it, fear can be deadly. This may be a key case where this is so.
Screaming will rarely ever stop a rapist. No woman asks to be raped. Ever. Maybe more time need to spent teaching boys that rape and sexual harassment is wrong. Whether a victim screams or not does NOT determine whether or not it is rape.
Here . . . National Institute of Justice appears to disagree. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/pages/decrease-risk.aspx. In fact, I seem to recall a consistent pattern of advice that would be exactly opposite to your assertion.
You “feel the burden not to walk by” someone’s sin. Then you are saying Bill has sinned here? You are also stating (about Bill) that he is so prominent. Not to bust your bubble but the “prominence” of Bill Gothard has ended a long time ago. The 1980’s scandal definitely had a back lash and Bill is only “prominent” with the die hard followers like yourself. IBLP and ATI is a small isolated community, even in fundamentalism. The rest of evangelical Christianity has moved on. Again, calling other that are discussing the bad effects of his teaching and his behavior is gossip is only trying to cover up truth and hide sin. Yet, you question others especially those on RG based on gossip, especially gossip coming from Bill. Stating you have talked to “other” and that they are not truthful is engaging in gossip because you offer no proof.
I wish you had been at the recent conference, suspect you would have been stunned at the respect and love shown. A great many were “movers and shakers” sort. I think you are wrong. But it is irrelevant. Priest and Levite walk by . . . The godly “nobody” just can’t. I hear so many excuses as to why that just doesn’t apply . . . You know, messy, even bloody? Bill is deeply wounded. If he is worthless it’s OK, I suppose? Pitch a few more rocks and . . . Move on.
Which conference? Respect and love for whom and by whom?
http://www.discoveringgrace.com/news/
I’ve read this news article earlier but tonight I just noticed the small size of the room where this is pictured. It looks like a room in a hotel. Small meeting room ro be exact. That screen would most likely be in the middle of the room so it was not a large room. Maybe held 50-100. Or a lot less maybe. So how many were in that “overflow” crowd? I have my serious doubts about the truth of that. Plus I see only maybe 5-6 MEN in the room. Not counting Bill. So where were all the church members? Maybe this was a meeting room at IBLP headquarters with only a few of the staff present. After all that I’ve experienced from IBYC/IBLP I am not able to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of Bill Gothard. There is not one thing you can say that will change my opiinion of the man.
It was at a hotel, around 50 in attendance. The nature of the group was as stated, leaders, movers and shakers . . . And some of us ordinary mortals. It was a trial run, pulled together in fairly short order. Even so, folks flew in from all over the globe. Again, *I* was deeply impressed, given the challenges in place and, again, the character of the gathering.
As to the other gathering mentioned in the same article, in August, that was precisely as stated, response, numbers, etc.
Oh, and there were no IBLP staff in attendance. At either event.
So feel sorry for Bill because he is “deeply wounded”?
You know, there is a new movie out, “Spotlight”. You probably do not believe in attending movies but this movie is about the Boston Globe and their investigation into priest sex abuse and how it was covered up by the Cardinals and bishops and how priests that were moved around between parishes only to abuse more children. The whole scandal is horrible but it is horrible because innocent children were hurt and it was covered up and brushed under the rug. That is where our loyalty belongs, with the hurt and broken. I do not feel sorry for Bill. I consider him a heretical teacher first of all. Now I realize you do not but comparing him with the rest of Christianity, he is. Likewise, he taught very specific things that he did not practice himself. Lastly, is his behavior. While fellow Catholics complained at the time about the Boston Globe “picking on” the Catholic Church, they actually did the Catholic Church a huge favor. They exposed sin and in the exposure, a number of key reforms were put into place to ensure that this sort of things will not happen again. If Bill is so “deeply” hurt, he has only himself to blame and no one else. If any Christian groups covers up sin and corruption and doesn’t deal with it, then someone else is going to come along like the Boston Globe or RG and do it instead. If Bill didn’t learn to change after the first sex scandal in 1980, then he has no one but himself to point to, he didn’t change. Even in the Jim Bakker scandal, when he was finally in jail, he actually read the Bible and wrote a book about it “I was wrong” and stated how what he taught previously was not “biblical” and found in scripture. You put all your eggs in Bill’s basket and unfortunately for you, the basket is defective and the eggs spilled and broke. All the kings horses and all the kings mens are not able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Remember this conversation if you ever have the misfortune of enduring having yourself or someone you care about railroaded by committed enemies into oblivion. What sex scandal? The one with Bill’s brother? In what way has IBLP not learned crucial lessons because of that? If you are referring to Bill, there is no sex scandal. Sort of the point, here. We the assembled would not support Bill as we are if he were guilty of a “sex scandal”. For the most part we supported Josh Duggar through the first mess which we believed to be blown way out of proportion, the proverbial witch hunt by those that hate Christians in general and conservatives in particular. And it was. When his deep personal sin was revealed we could in no way support him in that way. We still love him, he being a personal friend to some of us, and we will support all of his efforts to get right and stay right and bless his family that he has deeply damaged, but we will not be complaining about his detractors, even if there are excesses.
And Jim Bakker did it. So, apparently, did Doug Phillips. Along with some Catholic priests. Bill Gothard didn’t. It would be wise to stop making implications and accusations that to this day have still not been proven.
Just curious…do you feel that Bill’s recent wounds are deeper and more devastating than those he caused throughout the years? Not even thinking about the alleged harassment, but rather all of the people that were unceremoniously dismissed and whatnot.
We are not sure how to gauge that correctly, DJ. We note that unintentional, even intentional abuse of associates seems to be a hallmark of a great many very uniquely successful people in the world. Read up on Walt Disney, you will be stunned at the similarities to be found to Bill in that department. Martin Luther comes to mind. None of this justifies mistreatment . . . but when some bear great fruit, results that benefit thousands, millions, sometimes short term misfires seem less significant in that context. The Lord is the Judge and can answer that question.
“We note that unintentional, even intentional abuse of associates seems to be a hallmark of a great many very uniquely successful people in the world.” Yes, this is very true. Steve Jobs is a recent example.
Does God’s Word say anything about success, leaders, and abuse? Yes, it does. What does it say?
In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Oppression is abuse. Abusive leadership is oppressive leadership. (see Isaiah 58:6 and following)
God says to put that style of leadership away, to repent from it, and to seek him instead. The world says you should do what it takes to get results, and that the end will justify the means.
To defend Bill, one must say “but that’s what successful leaders do” when God’s Word says not to be an abusive leader. Completely apart from any sexual accusation whatsoever, this point and this point alone would be enough to disqualify Bill from being a leader in God’s kingdom. Bill is a successful leader just like other worldly leaders; those leaders abuse people underneath them in order to get results.
Well, if somehow Martin Luther may be forgiven, can Bill be? Oh, forgot about George Muller, another stern, hard as nails fellow at times. Now, in no case was that the only or predominate trait . . . How can George and Martin be given a free pass, and Bill not? Paul too, somehow offended half of the early church? Yet we revere him? How does that work?
State your references concerning Martin Luther. What actual facts can you actually quote that would state Martin Luther was abusive so that is the reason that Bill Gothard was abusive to his staff? This is so far out there, off base and inaccurate, I don’t even know where to begin. You are talking in circles here. On one hand, Bill is a victim of a major lie campaign, then on the other, Bill is this big successful guy and he actied like other big successful guys in being abusive because that’s what big successful guy do and the people you use without any references is Disney and Luther. I am sure the Lutherans would like to have a word with you. Next, you throw in George Muller again because now you state he was a hard *** to those around him. Do you think Bill is really going to be happy with your defense here on his behalf?
I see we are spinning in circles. So maybe we can land this here. Martin Luther: John Wesley is often quoted from his journal, July 19,1749: “I finished the translation of Martin Luther’s Life. Doubtless he was a man highly favoured of God, and a blessed instrument in his hand. But O! what pity that he had no faithful friend! None that would, at all hazards, rebuke him plainly and sharply, for his rough, untractable spirit, and bitter zeal for opinions, so greatly obstructive of the work of God!” That matches accounts I have read, of him turning on former friends on points of doctrine. Funny, John Wesley himself was embroiled in his own set of spats with former associates. Sort of comes with the territory?
In any case, Bill is not alone in being a man of God sometimes hard to get along with. Maybe caring less for the opinions of people than the job he felt God had given him. Makes sense to us, maybe less to you. Let’s move on.
“Well, if somehow Martin Luther may be forgiven, can Bill be? Oh, forgot about George Muller, another stern, hard as nails fellow at times. Now, in no case was that the only or predominate trait . . . How can George and Martin be given a free pass, and Bill not? Paul too, somehow offended half of the early church? Yet we revere him? How does that work?”
Who said anything about free passes? Of course Bill can be forgiven. Scripture is clear that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive. At this point however, Bill has never acknowledged that he has hurt so many people, destroying lives and families even. At this point there has only been justifications, excuses, and an “end justifies the means” argument.
No, no! He has acknowledged it publically on his website several times, privately many times. Apparently it was not good enough?
“He has acknowledged it publically on his website several times, privately many times.”
Hmm…maybe I missed that. Can you share a link where Bill acknowledges that he has damaged people and destroyed lives through his abusive management style?
And if Bill has acknowledged that it was sinful, why do you folks here keep justifying it by comparing it to other leaders? There’s never a justifiable excuse for sin, is there?
Read through http://billgothard.com/a-new-statement/ . . . you can find several acknowledgements of his failures towards those he worked with.
Sin is never right. Which is why you and I should stop doing it. Have you stopped sinning? Can a person be an effective leader who still sins from time to time? Seems like none of us will be free of stumbling in this lifetime. So . . . what exactly is the standard of perfection you are requiring before you can give Bill at least as much of a pass as you might give yourself or your family members?
Are those that are behind this web site involved with Bill’s new ministry and on one of his new teams?
Several of us are members of “Power Teams”, correct.
I have a question about the “Power Teams.” Is it just for men, or anybody that pays $49?
At this point the “Power Teams” appear to be for men only. Wives were welcomed to the inaugural conference, so I am sure that will continue.
Is the moderator of this website also the moderator of Bill Gothard’s Facebook page?
It is pretty much the same team that created and at this point moderates both. Different individuals assume different responsibilities and the lines of authority are different, with Bill approving postings on his page, but not for this website.
Do any of the people working on this website or on Bill Gothard’s Facebook page get paid to do so?
No one is getting paid, all volunteer.
Why can’t bill do anything for himself? He has girls prepare and bring his supper, he can’t run his his own Facebook page. What exactly can he do?
Come on now . . . How many 81 year old public figures do you know that do their own Facebook? Or do their own cooking?
There’s a group of former ATI students who now identify as atheist or agnostic.
The bible says that we should know a tree “by its fruit”
Since SO MANY people brought up in ATI now no longer identify as Christian at all, would this be evidence that Bill Gothard’s minisry has not been blessed by god? Fewer than 1% of ATI alumni decide to raise their own children in ATI’s ministry
If popularity and numbers were the test, Jesus and His disciples would be failures. Modern Christianity, sad tale.
“Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.” (Romans 9:27-28)
Jesus said only a few would get it:
“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, — Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:66-68)
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)
How about Paul? Unmitigated failure, from the last letter he wrote:
“This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. . . . Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” (2 Timothy 1:15, 4:9-11)
Remember, it is not the quantity of the fruit but the TYPE of fruit that is the measure. You look for plants that produce figs instead of thistles. And if you are unaware of the substantial fruit that remains to this day from ATI let alone the Basic Seminar, John, look harder. I run into them all of the time, the ones that routinely get savaged for opening their mouths to express gratefulness to Bill in a public forum and, well, generally don’t. The final tally is known to the Lord.
John’s comment had nothing to do with popularity. John’s comment was about the high rate of ATI students that have dropped out of Christianity altogether. While DG mimics Recovering Grace, at least those behind RG blog have remained Evangelical Christians but there are many more out on the internet that are atheists and point to their upbringing in ATI as the reason. Sorry but Bill sold his ideas about family life and how to raise children as a guarented way that children raised in ATI will be Christian successes. The reality is that this isn’t true. It’s kinda obvious that the moderators behind this site were not raised in ATI but are devoted Bill followers from the 1970s. There seems to be no real successes for those raised in ATI unless you want to count those that ended up working for Bill’s ministries which is what ATI fed into.
The “high rate of dropping out” seems consistent with the verses I cited, right? Most of Jesus disciples abandoned Him, because they finally figured out that what He was “selling them” involved a “hard” life, “hard” things (read the context in John 6). As well with Paul’s experience. As much as he had poured into the lives of these believers, more or less everyone had abandoned him. Here is another comment from him, just before he was put to death:
“At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me:I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” (2 Tim. 4:16)
I see a pattern here, don’t you?
See . . . it is not the start of the race that matters, and it surely is not the middle of the race . . . but the end. The final chapter has not yet been written.
So in this comment you say that popularity and numbers are NOT the test, yet in other comments pointing to Walt Disney and Martin Luther, you say that popularity and numbers DO are the test because they are justification for the tactics used to achieve them.
I’m sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.
Disney and Luther were given as examples of very successful people who were known for at times abusing their associates and employees. Different context, right?
So according to you, Walt Disney and Martin Luther were “successful” people and they were “known” for abusing their associates and employees and because they were “successful” that was ok? So Bill being “successful” abused his employees as well because (using your logic here) this is what “successful” people do. Either you just threw Disney and Luther under the bus with false accusation or you are admitting that Bill was abusive and that is ok because he was “successful” and that is what successful people do just like Disney and Luther. You do not site any facts for accusing Disney or Luther of this and Luther was not a CEO of a corporation like Disney, he was a monk that started the reformation. So i’m not sure what “employees he might have had that he could abuse. I am not a “fan” of Martin Luther, but in his defense, I highly doubt you could accuse Luther of abuse of employees. This is also true of Disney. If you are going to accuse past people of behaviors in order to justify Bill’s, I would suggest backing up your statements with historical facts and references.
Not really. I’m talking about your criteria for determining what “successful” means. And your criteria keeps changing.
Success is people getting saved . . . And then becoming effective soldiers in Jesus army, becoming like Jesus. And more specifically, knowing the Lord and His Word well enough to help others to become saved and find God’s solutions to their problems.
That is genuine fruit, and that fruit is present. A % hit rate is not the way God measures success. Bad plants bear no genuine fruit, and if there is fruit, those showing it attribute it to other factors and people.
“Success is people getting saved . . . And then becoming effective soldiers in Jesus army, becoming like Jesus. And more specifically, knowing the Lord and His Word well enough to help others to become saved and find God’s solutions to their problems.”
A few thoughts…
1. Where in Scripture to you see success defined in that way?
2. Where, for that matter, do you see any reference in Scripture to Jesus’ army?
3. By your standard, we need to drop all further discussion of Walt Disney. He was not successful according to your criteria.
4. Would a missionary who labored for 50 years on the mission field with only one or two converts be “unsuccessful?”
5. If success is people getting saved, then why was so little of Mr. Gothard’s teaching ministry focused to that end? Even in the basic seminar, the salvation message only received a few minutes on the last day. Shouldn’t it have been the primary message each and every night?
“1. Where in Scripture to you see success defined in that way?” That is SORT OF self evident, DJ. To help you:
“To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak:I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Cor. 9:22)
“That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (1 Tim. 3:17)
“Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:” (Col 1:28)
“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” (2 Tim. 2:2-4)
“2. Where, for that matter, do you see any reference in Scripture to Jesus’ army?” See above.
“3. By your standard, we need to drop all further discussion of Walt Disney. He was not successful according to your criteria.” Not in the church. But an example of someone with a bit of a “narcissistic personality disorder” that however accomplished great things and blessed many people. Keep the analogy in the banks created for it. THAT was given to answer the question: “HOW can Bill offend so many people and still be considered a great man?”
“4. Would a missionary who labored for 50 years on the mission field with only one or two converts be “unsuccessful?”” Depends. Sometimes that is the tip of an iceberg that later smashes through. The individual will generally know if they are in the center of their calling from the Lord. But . . . come on . . . we are supposed to be fishermen. If you fish for 50 years and catch 2 fish, are you a success? Maybe it was time to move to better fishing grounds?
“5. If success is people getting saved, then why was so little of Mr. Gothard’s teaching ministry focused to that end? Even in the basic seminar, the salvation message only received a few minutes on the last day. Shouldn’t it have been the primary message each and every night?”
Let’s see . . . each and every night without a foundation does not necessarily yield fruit. That is why, for example, Ray Comfort preached so much about the law, learning the law, which then teaches us WHY we should be saved and motivates us to do so. And did you miss the conferences where he made an altar call right there, “every eye open, every head unbowed?” There were others that did that as well. In the Basic Seminar he brought in so very many seeking people who wanted answers to their life problems, not a few unsaved . . . and every one of them heard a clear presentation of the Gospel and were given a chance to respond. AND, the entire point of ATI was to bring children to the Savior while they were very young.
And if you missed the open letter he wrote a few years ago to former ATI students, you will see him expressing that he felt that all of that was not enough, that he should have focused on personal salvation much more. So . . . he was well aware that this was top on the list.
1. Actually it’s not self-evident, as none of those scripture defined success as people getting saved. Sure, leading people to Christ is an important calling for all believers, the great commission even. But nowhere in scripture does God say “you are successful when you lead people to Christ, and unsuccessful when you don’t.”
2. Again, none of those passages referenced “Jesus’ army.” The 2 Timothy passage utilizes several occupational analogies (soldier, athlete, farmer) as descriptors of the Christian life, but that doesn’t mean Jesus has an army any more than He has a sports team or a farming cooperative.
3. You keep moving the target on Disney. But I don’t really care about that…I like Walt. I’m interested that you admit that Bill has narcissistic personality disorder. I’ve often suspected that of him. Do you think that that “disorder” is okay for a believer to have?
4. Yes, if God has called one to a place of service and they serve faithfully, then they are a “success” so long as they are obedient to the Lord. Again, nowhere in Scripture is success defined by the number of converts one has.
5. So, let me get this right. You say that Mr. Gothard did not offer an altar call until the last day of the seminar because he had to set a “foundation” first? So, the seven basic principles are the foundation of the gospel? Surely that’s not what you mean.
Most of the “heads bowed and eyes closed” moments had NOTHING to do with the gospel, rather making vows and commitments to follow whatever new teaching he was focused on at the moment. I still remember the time he asked us to vow to smile at every person we walked by. Pure silliness…and nothing to do with salvation.
However, I am glad to hear that he has realized that His ministry needed to focus more on the gospel message. Which one of his four new books is directed to that end?
Actually I believe the first one did . . . “by all means save some”? All means . . . . means it is the most important thing.
And I guess you never sang “Onward Christian Soldiers” . . . or “I’m in the Lord’s Army”? We think that is what it means. Apparently we are not alone.
I don’t know. You tell me. Since that “disorder” isn’t really a “thing” as much as a way of looking at the motivations of a man. I saw an involved documentary on Disney that seemed OK with pointing out some of his faults along with the many positive things. Sometimes a “disorder” is simply the negative side of a very positive “order” in the opposite direction. One spawns the other. Paul, for example, was prone to pride, even while being very humble, which necessitated the “thorn in the flesh”. Moses was the meekest man that ever lived, but also given to horrible episodes of anger. Extremes all around. Seems to go with the territory.
“I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth MUCH FRUIT . . . Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear MUCH FRUIT; so shall ye be my disciples . . . ” (John 15:5,8) I would say that Jesus is not content with “a little fruit”, would you agree? He paid too much for us to settle for mediocrity.
That is EXACTLY what I mean. Preaching the Gospel outside of the Biblical structure it is created in is unscriptural. Paul reasoned with Festus “of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.” (Acts 24:15)
“But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.” (Acts 19:9) Disputing? About what? Again . . . righteousness, self-control (moral issues), and judgement to come.
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24) The “schoolmaster” in the Greek was a trusted guide, tutor . . . so . . . HOW are people to be lead to Jesus? By the law. ALL of God’s laws that affect all of our lives.
“But if all prophesy (preach), and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.” (1 Cor. 14:24-25) See, when we explain the wisdom and power of God to people, revealing, unraveling, solving the secrets of their heart, THAT convicts them, and leads them to repent and trust Jesus.
How would you present the Gospel? And . . . if we are only seeing a handful saved, perhaps it is because we are not following the Scriptural pattern?
1. “All means . . . . means it is the most important thing.” No it doesn’t. It just means that Paul was willing to use any means to reach people with the gospel. It doesn’t define success as one’s convert count.
2. “And I guess you never sang “Onward Christian Soldiers” . . . or “I’m in the Lord’s Army”?” Actually I did. But neither children’s song is based on truth, rather a militant understanding of the Christian faith that I believe is unfounded. But it’s really a minor point in light of some of your more heretical comments that followed.
3. Are you saying that Paul and Moses were narcissists? Little bit of a stretch, don’t you think. It doesn’t really matter what I think about NPD. I’m not the one that built a website to defend the character of a man I just admitted was a narcissist. Just wondering how you were going to spin that one.
4. Sure, but where does that passage say fruit = converts. And where does it say that the number of converts = success. The verses you are using to not back up your argument.
5. “That is EXACTLY what I mean. Preaching the Gospel outside of the Biblical structure it is created in is unscriptural.” So, do you think the “Biblical structure it is created in” is the seven basic principles? If so, then how did anyone get saved before the Basic seminar?
P.S. You didn’t answer my question about which of the four new books was about the gospel message.
1. Here is another: “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (1 Timothy 2:10) Another “all things”. I think this was the top priority. The headcount is secondary.
2. We think it does, you don’t. So now everyone knows where we stand.
3. I usually get in trouble when I cite outside sources, but here goes. This is in the “Harvard Business Review”: https://hbr.org/2010/05/narcissism-partnership-and-str, “Narcissism, Partnership and Strategy”. In it they speak of all kinds of famous names you know . . . and use the term “The Productive Narcissist”. How the tests for “Narcissism” seem to be showing ever higher scores on those entering the business world as leaders.
See, the point is that these ARE the people shaping the world and doing very good things in it. It is a “syndrome” where strong leaders step on others at times as they pursue the things they are so good at. If Steve Jobs had been less so, why, Apple electronics would well be a relic of the museums, like Osborne and Radio Shack and Texas Instruments and Commodore. Are they all “sick”? What would we have without this “sickness”?
When people accuse Bill of being a “Narcissist”, feels like the same slur hurled at any number of genius level leaders.
4. OK, fine. You still have to admit that Jesus put a high value on excellence, you know, the parable of the talents? Those that produced the most with what they were given got the highest rewards. Just the way it is.
5. The “Seven Basic Principles” – or however many there are – are essential to all salvation, and were so prior to Bill or any other Bible teacher because they are, in fact, engraved on each of our hearts:
“14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” (Romans 2)
P.S.: Virtually if not every book Bill writes contains a clear presentation of the Gospel. He has some that are just focused on that, one called, “The Greatest Question” or something like that.
In light of the fact that I believe I have seen on here that Bill did not want to resign, how do you feel is the proper way for the church at large to approach this situation, both those members of the body of Christ involved in ATI and those who are not? Should Christians be somewhat less trusting of what’s going on in IBLP or not?
That is an excellent question. With all of the serious warnings about speaking evil one of another, and against “talebearing”, and commands to go to brethren where we see a problem, I have been amazed at how few have gotten personally involved. Some of our grief is expressed in “Did He Do it?”, examples where 5 minutes of effort on our part to actually check into this accusation or that have yielded results that completely counter what is alleged, in some cases stories that have been passed around for decades. Christians have a duty to get personally involved in matters that affect them . . . and to refuse to pass on accusations if they cannot. The excuses to not do so mirror those provided by folks that walk by a person bleeding on the sidewalk. So many – RG claims 60 – women have stepped up to tell their story to RG and the world. We are aware of three that have actually approached Bill, and with two was with one way letters demanding him to recant publically before anything else would be done. And this – those two – after spreading their tales out to the world. This has absolutely no resemblance to anything we see commanded or demonstrated in Scripture.
“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” (1 Tim. 5:19) These are not “National Enquirer” witnesses, you know, two people said it, so they print it. These are witnesses standing as in a court of law, folks and accounts we have examined. There are not a few that have never met Bill, never been to a seminar, never examined the credentials of a “witness”, yet are prepared to join their voices to the chorus condemning Bill. They are neither part of – affected by – the problem, nor are they part of God’s solution.
So, if you are serious – and you have been part of a handful to demonstrate that – we will work with you, up to and including walking into Bill’s front door so you can ask him questions, give challenges, examine him. We will answer any question we can, going to Bill and others for help as necessary.
The “church at large” doesn’t really exist. It is individual believers, since we all report directly to Jesus. Christians should be “Bereans”, searching the Scriptures – and the facts – daily to see if these things are so. Do so with the same vigor they would expect others to do if they were being seriously accused, especially if they had few defending them. And not speak evil of the thing until they can state before God and Bill and everyone else they have searched the matter out. If that were done there would be a continual stream of people to Bill’s front door, his phone ringing off the hook . . . and RG would be fairly silent. Instead . . . I can count on one hand, MAYBE two, the number of folks that have actually had enough love and reverence for the name of Jesus to take their concerns to Bill directly. Does that not stun you? It does us. The accusers . . . the accusers parents and pastors . . . where are they?
Thank you, DG, for your point of view here. It’s an interesting one that I’m going to have to reflect on more. As a teenage highschooler, the odds of my getting up to Chicago to talk to Gothard are not high. 🙂 But I appreciate the offer immensely and your openness to discuss these things.
Oh, and to answer your question honestly, yes, it does stun me. As someone who has never met Gothard, never been to a seminar that I can remember though I know I went years ago as a very small child, and never had anything that I could blame Gothard for in my life except maybe some of his principles taken to a questionable length, it seems logical that I don’t have much to talk to him about. He doesn’t know me, I don’t know him, etc. But it would seem that his accusers actually could (and should) have more communication with him.
Why does Bill’s new web site at http://www.lifepurposepowerteams.com make me think that Bill is trying to hide that he is the person behind the site and the author of the books presented there? All the books except one do not show who the author is.
The site is run by a third party, not us, BTW. They have their own funding, site admin, etc. Do not know what arrangement they made with Bill, but they preceded us by something like a year.
Do you still have any children still directly working for IBLP in any capacity?
I that speaketh to thee do. I have a son on staff . . . also two daughters serving in Taiwan.
Is it a conflict of interest for your son in that he is working for IBLP and you as his father is running this blog which has criticized the board in not brining Bill back?
We are seeking to help the situation, and that has included a number of meetings with principals at IBLP. They have direct access to us. As to a “conflict”, the Board is far from unanimous on all matters that they are dealing with. Which speaks to the needs and issues that we are trying to address here. They have a difficult task before them, no easy answers in any direction. We all need to continually cry out to the Lord for them. Our young people do not involve themselves in the debates, seeking to honor those they are serving.
But from your view point, the remedy for the “situation” would be to bring Bill back correct?
We believe the Board should work toward full “reconciliation” between themselves and Bill, and between Bill and his accusers. What that means for Bill practically long term depends. Whether Bill even would want to assume the day to day operations and counseling is not clear. There is much else to be resolved before that type of discussion can be held.
Then what do you mean by “full” reconciliation? What is that really going to look like except that Bill is brought back into the ministry? Even though you are claiming that you and other with you have met or are meeting with board members, doesn’t that still put you son working at headquarters a fast track to information of what is going on there? It would seem like his position could be in suspect.
Again, that is simply premature when discussing 81 year old Bill Gothard. And he said as much to us. There are many other roles that he could assume other than “President”.
My son is, like virtually all staffers, unaware of this process other than when we speak, which is not often and, to his credit, he prefers to stay out of it. It simply is not discussed among them. Staff meetings to communicate information are held when they are materially affected, such as planning for the purposed move. I spoke with several ALERT men recently as they provided support for a camp my sons and I attended. They knew NOTHING about what is currently going on with Bill, the Board. Staffers as a rule just do not read RG or DG, leaving things on a “need to know” basis.
So what you are saying that the staff like your son simply have no clue about Bill and why he is gone and they never go to web sites that discuss this and never talk among themselves and are totally unawares of anything at all. Your son still lives with you?
I am not sure where you are going here. My son lives at HQ, does not live with us. They obviously know that Bill is gone and why, but much of what goes on just happens, and they find out when it directly affects them. I do not know about others, I do know that my son does not go on either RG or this site, and prefers to stay out of anything that does not directly involve him.
So you referenced the “uninformed rabble” not understanding the umbrella of authority concepts on a different post. Could you consider writing a long post(s) explaining the concepts there for us uninformed rabble? It would be immensely helpful in measuring the arguments of those who say that Gothard’s ideas on authority warped other’s abilities to call him on different things, cause people to not feel right calling him out, etc. A lot of the arguments come back to “the witnesses stayed quiet because of the umbrella of authority”. Possibly consider explaining what the umbrella of authority is?
The “rabble” term I shall long regret, a foolish attempt at humor. The “uniformed” are those who, unlike Dan, have never been to a Gothard Basic Seminar nor studied his teachings. Dan, having been MC at video versions of the seminar all over the country will have listened to the presentations many times and known that what Bill teaches on authority is anything but “blindly do what your authority tells you for they speak for God.” I hear that nonsense from the “uninformed” constantly.
One of the primary sections in that teaching is an examination of Daniel who was commanded to eat the idol meat by his boss in Babylon. He
1) Purposed from the get-go that he would never eat it, no matter what.
2) Figured out why the boss had commanded it, not an evil reason, but because he wanted Daniel healthy so his superiors would be pleased.
3) Figured out a creative alternative that met the same objective.
4) Presented an appeal in a respectful way.
A quote I have heard from Bill often: “You can disobey and be honored for it; You can obey and be despised for it.”
“Umbrella of Protection” is a creative picture to highlight the real, positive reasons for authority, to protect those under authority from harm, including direct attacks from the devil. The latter is based on several key Scriptures:
“20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. 21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils” (Luke 11) <-- Satan protects his kingdom of demons and subjects by being strong. Because Jesus was stronger he defeated Satan and plundered his "spoils", his "house". "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." (1 Chron. 21:1) <-- Satan had to defeat David before he could mess with the people "that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." (Exodus 34:7) <-- Satan breaking down, deceiving, tripping up the father has long term consequences on his house, those under his authority. And others . . . Parents in ATI have certainly been encouraged by the support . . . we weak parents will sometimes take these teachings as a club to demand more from our children than God allows. For the record Bill has opposed the "patriarchy" movement excesses, breaking with Doug Phillips over some of these things long before the latter got into trouble.
Just thought I would let you know, I’m not angry with the ‘rabble” comment. I knew it was an attempt at humor (albeit did fall kinda flat :), so no offense taken. I was just saying that let’s get some information about it out there so that we can not worry so much about the informed/uninformed problem.
Did my reply help, Tyler? I can elaborate further.
It did help, but I still don’t fully understand what is meant by the idea. How far does that authority go? For example, in the “Agent of Satan” letter, Gothard makes the statement about Tony that one of his traits was that he was “relentlessness
in doing what he thinks is God’s will, even though his spiritual authorities assure him it is not God’s will.” Since that is just Fact 3 of a long list of mostly negative facts, I’m assuming Gothard meant this as a negative, that Tony should have not been relentless in doing what he thought was God’s will, despite his authorities. Am I correct? Is that a part of the “umbrella of authority” teaching?
Basically, my question is how far does this authority go and what are the teachings when 1.) your authorities contradict your personal conscience or what you feel to be the Holy Spirit’s leading in your own life or when your authorities contradict Scripture?
I’m trying to understand where all this comes in, in part because a friend of mine was just labeled a rebel and an “independent woman” (I think we both know how frowned upon that is!) by her pastor for leaving her ATI church over doctrinal issues when she felt the Holy Spirit leading her that way. Is this consistent with the “umbrella of authority”? I guess it all comes back to, how far does the authority go and does it trump God’s personal leading?
Thanks!
SCRIPTURE, not Bill, says “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17). This has nothing to do with Bill, right?
This is more Scripture, much quoted in this context: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”. (1 Samuel 15:23)
So . . . Disobedience is not good, and rebllion is very bad. WHEN this applies is not always clear, since we must obey God rather than man. You understand it to not apply to your friend – some of those assigned to watch for her souls seemed to disagree. Who is right? How do you know? Not always easy to figure out.
I get that Scripture says that. Scripture also record the apostles standing before their government leaders proclaiming, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” So yes, you’re absolutely right, there’s a balance there. At some point, those two commands mesh together, but that’s not really what I’m concerned about. I’m not concerned about what the Bible said about it at this point, I’m much more interested in what Bill said. If they overlap, awesome, teach away. But as for example from the “Agent of Satan” letter, is Bill advocating ignoring what you see as the Holy Spirit’s leading if your authorities disagree? How far did he teach authority to go? And if you believed they were wrong, what were your options?
Tyler: What he teaches is really quite “orthodox”. The difference is that he took authority much more seriously than most, highlighting the truth that God does not like rebellion and treats disrespect of authorities harshly. The “fear of God” comes back into the equation. A couple of verses that would highlight this:
“There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. . . . The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.” (Prov. 30:11,17)
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord:for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” (Ephesians 5:1-3) — This brings an Old Testament curse into the New Testament. THAT sort of “fear” is very offensive to many in this day and age.
In general, I don’t know how to answer you more than I have. I would really encourage you to take the Basic Seminar . . . you can view the first session for free (link at bottom) The subscription service is $9/month, and you can do the whole 30 hours in a month, easy. I believe you are objective enough to call things that are Biblical what they are, and I would happily entertain any issues you have. “Chain of Command”, which is the topic at hand, is covered in the first half of the seminar, I am sorry I don’t remember when at the moment.
Of course I will also happily try to answer your questions, but you ask wide questions that would take a long time to answer. I think.
He does . . . but the key is in the context of a deep respect for authority. Back to Daniel, classic example. THAT, what Daniel did, both in attitude and in deciding to obey God over earthly authorities, THAT is what Bill is promoting.
—————
Basic Seminar Session 01 – How to Trace Problems to Root Causes
Again, forgot to answer your questions. “Disobedience is not good”… yet the apostles disobeyed their authorities by continuing to obey the commands of Christ. Apparently, there are times when disobedience is not bad and in fact, obedience would have evil! So… yeah.
In the case of my friend, it’s not entirely my story to tell. Yes, those assigned to watch for her soul seemed to think a young woman going to another church by herself because of doctrinal differences was indeed rebel making. In speaking with my friend though, I look at both alternatives. 1.) Leave the church you disagree with and she described as “dead”, or 2.) stay on, continue listening to doctrine you believe to be unBiblical, ignore what you believe to be God’s leading, because a pastor who may or may not know God’s will for you said so.
At first glance, that seems like a pretty clear case of “we ought to obey God rather than men.” You would advocate what?
As you say, not knowing the young lady or any of her circumstances, I simply cannot respond. I would ask what her parents are comfortable with, since God often influences parents to react positively or negatively based on things He lets them see and no one else. But . . . Generally speaking a “dead” church is more a function of deal listeners, not dead preachers. I recall being in a similar situation, just not getting anything out of the preaching. One day I was prompted to pray FOR those dead speakers, asking God to speak through them to me. Suddenly I was listening with other ears . . . listening for Jesus, and now hearing things I never heard before. It revolutionized my church experience, and that revolution has never ended.
Tyler: Just a comment . . . if you want to try to understand the “controversy” surrounding Bill’s handling of authority, ponder the most recent offering on Recovering Grace . . . http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2015/12/an-ati-education-chapter-5-we-the-people-under-authority I would be curious if you, like I, have a hard time figuring out what the problem is that is being complained about. Those that have a hard time with God ordained and enforced authority will definitely have a problem with Bill. But . . . there it is, in the Bible.
“1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” (Romans 13)
Hello,
Can you please comment about what this fellow has to say about Bill?
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/Bill-Gothard-Fraud.php
Thank you.
Ron
Sounds like a challenge. I think we will accept. Look for a new article, hopefully soon.
I would like to request that you write an article explaining Bill Gothard’s reasoning for teaching that modern Christians are still required to live by certain Levitical laws such as not eating pork and observing varying periods of abstinence after the birth of a male or female child. I would also like to hear an explanation of Bill Gothard’s reasoning for some of his unique mandates such as women needing to wear dresses instead of pants or why it is wrong for Christians to listen to jazz music.
Check out http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2015/10/09/grace-no-law/, see if that helps.
“Required” is not a word to attach to any suggestion regarding to application of OT precepts. Rather it is based on the deep respect for the Old Testament as an expression of how God thinks, how He designed things. The Creator of the Universe gave His best laws to His earthly people, so we are idiots if we ignore that.
Dresses . . . They are more modest than pants, designed to mute the part of a woman’s anatomy a man’s eyes are naturally drawn to. Nothing out of the Bible per se. Jazz music originated in the occult world flavored by voodoo – it is a gutter term for orgasm. Also not mentioned in the Bible.
Hello,
So, was Bill suggesting or teaching that Christians should not eat pork? I never heard that before.
Regarding your “Required…” paragraph, I would say that Acts 15:1-31 releases us from having to follow the no-pork dietary restriction and the post-birth abstinence restriction.
The overarching correct answer, based on other Scriptures as well, is that we are not under any compunction to keep dietary OT laws.
Now, would you, based on Acts 15, then agree that it is wrong for Christians to eat meat offered to idols, and blood? Just curious where you land.
And Pork is not mentioned in the NT . . . anywhere, right? It does mention that God has cleansed all food – Jesus speaks of it being purged in our digestive system, Paul mentions it being “sanctified” by prayer:
“For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Timothy 4)
That being the case, I gather that, for example, polar bear liver is “nothing to be refused”, being cleansed. And Pufferfish . . . and Poison Dart Frogs . . . based on God’s word, would you eat those items if offered to you? Why not? I mean, we even have a promise that poison will not hurt us:
“17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mark 16)
My point . . . we have equal authority to eat poison dart frogs as pork, and added promises that no poison will hurt us. See, I don’t think we are really consistent. IF we are eating pork because God cleansed it, faith, we have equal faith to eat polar bear liver (which will normally kill you). If we are forgoing the things WE think are poisonous and eating things that God called unclean (and presumably dangerous), maybe we are not living by faith, but we are living by whatever is convenient and culturally acceptable. Just a spiritual gut check.
See, Bill believes – and we agree – that the OT laws are the purest expression of how God designed the Universe, best practices. Science will eventually catch up and note the dangers in some of the things condemned but that we don’t see as troublesome. Put another way, God is never arbitrary. If he said that a woman is unclean for so many days after birth, then there is a good reason for it, one that we, like those that consume polar bear liver, are taking a risk in ignoring. If God fixed the problem, cleansed the pork from danger . . . why not polar bear liver as well? See the problem? We are . . . a tad . . . hypocritical
[And I enjoyed bacon in the last couple of days, pork sausage today, just for the record]
That’s a start but not exactly what I was looking for. I would like to understand why Bill Gothard believes that it is better for Christians to follow these rules (especially the ones not found in the Bible) and what it means for Christians if they don’t follow these rules. Is it a sin for women to wear pants? If dresses are more modest, then shouldn’t men wear them too? If modesty is the goal, then shouldn’t women cover themselves from head to toe since some men are turned on by feet? Why is it better for Christians to not eat pork? Should we follow all parts of Levitical law such as stoning adulterers? What about jazz music is bad? Is it the form of the music, the lyrics, the beat, or just its origins? If the problem with jazz is its name, then would it become ok if we just renamed it to rhythm and blues? If the problem with jazz is its voodoo origins, then what is the problem with rock and roll? If someone plays Amazing Grace in a jazzy version, does it become bad? What happens to me as a Christian when I listen to jazz and rock?
No one in the IBLP movement seems to want to answer my very sincere questions on these matters. The only answers I ever get are assurances that following these rules is not legalism and that somehow Christians will be better off if they follow these rules.
I probably can’t help you either. None of those things matter in any absolute sense, but fit into the larger pattern. If you do not accept the larger principles, the details won’t make any sense either.
You won’t answer my questions either?! It seems that the one thing that all members of the IBLP movement have in common is that they don’t want to answer specific questions.
“If you do not accept the larger principles, the details won’t make any sense either.”
So, since I do not understand the need for these rules I assume you are saying that I “do not accept the larger principles.” To which principles are you referring? Is it Mr. Gothard’s seven basic life principles?
I would say, “God’s Universal Basic Life Principles” . . . but, yes. Starting, of course, with the foundation of Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God, God incarnate . . . and the Bible as living, God-breathed, infallible, tremble before Word of God.
Instead of shotgunning, how about starting with one point that you really don’t understand – vs. things where your mind is made up and further discussion will only irritate you and frustrate me.
I can’t help but feel like you have assumed that I am not a Christian with your last two comments. Was that your intent or am I just misinterpreting what you said?
Let’s talk about the music restrictions because they confuse me the most and because no IBLP member has ever given me a clear answer on what music is or isn’t acceptable and why it is the case. From my previous comment: What about jazz music is bad? Is it the form of the music, the lyrics, the beat, or just its origins? If someone plays Amazing Grace in a jazzy version, does it become bad? What happens to me as a Christian when I listen to jazz and rock?
Not knowing you I was making a policy statement. Not everyone that claims Jesus even knows Him. Since Paul said for all of us to be ready to declare the foundation of our hope when challenged, I figured that would not be out of line. A stunning number of Bill adversaries have left Jesus in the dust as well as all things IBLP.
Different moderators would answer that differently, so I am afraid I may not be able to provide “the answer”. I can give you the foundation for what Bill believes and teaches with my own spin. As I have been attempting to do so it is taking and becoming too long, so I think this should become its own post. Will let you know when done.
I look forward to reading your post since I have been confused about this matter of music for a long time.
“A stunning number of Bill adversaries have left Jesus in the dust as well as all things IBLP.”
Most of Bill’s adversaries are those that have been part of the IBLP movement in the past. In Matthew, we are told that we will know false prophets by their fruits. Much of the fruit that is seen coming from IBLP is a “stunning number” of former IBLP members leaving Christianity. What do you make of this fact?
Helga: A post opening the topic of music from Bill’s perspective is posted. http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2015/12/25/bill-and-music/
“Much of the fruit that is seen coming from IBLP is a “stunning number” of former IBLP members leaving Christianity. What do you make of this fact?”
I see the same experience in Scripture . . .
Jesus: Had many disciples leave once they figured out what He was actually all about. (John 6:66) Suggested in Luke 13 that few would ever be saved.
Moses: The entire nation turned against him, causing God to bar them from the promised land.
Paul: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15) He had much more to say about the majority that even, at the end, were excited that he was in prison and out of the way.
So . . . I think this “fruit” is completely consistent with preaching what God says must be preached.
I have been thinking about Bill Gothard’s whole teaching on dress codes for women and eye traps. I have read a fair amount of material on that and also counseling on sexual abuse of girl children.
Have you noticed that inevitably the blame falls back on the victim and not the abuser?
Here is something to contemplate. If a man intends to take advantage of a women are the eye traps the trigger? I would say no! My reason being that you can wrap a women is sack cloth from head to toe and make her wear a large box so that a man cannot see her body or even her face, If a man intends to take advantage of her then it doesn’t matter what she is wearing does it?
The issue has much more to do with sin not the women.
I like you, Chris, you know I do. But . . . you are naïve? Try to tell me that a woman in a box will attract as much or the same kind of attention as a gorgeous woman in a bikini. I commend you for defending the weak . . . but at some point we do have to start telling the truth.
I was being facetious mostly not naive. My point is that the intention to sin is based on the hearts motivation. I am saying regardless of what a women is wearing if a man intends to rape a women or take advantage of her do you really think the eye trap argument stands up? What does this say about an adult who takes advantage of a child. Do children invite sexual advances from adults by what they wear or not ear? If the women or child does not cry out is it her or the child’s fault?
There is an entire science to “advertising”. Honestly, Chris, are you telling me that clothing manufacturers and women who buy clothes are not aware that they are getting extra attention, changing the way people act because they are injecting a bit of sex appeal into the equation? Baloney. You have to admit there are fairly clear reasons for plunging necklines and other skin displays unique to women. How many Oscar nominated actors wear next to nothing to the shows and parties? Plenty of the women do. Dresses – if they may be called that – to excite every imagination.
Japanese cooks learned that foods were much more delicious if they added an extract of a certain seaweed. Finally a scientist extracted, identified glutamate as the substance, one they called Umami, or “deliciousness”. That taste has now been officially recognized and added to the four tongue senses of sweet, sour, salty, and bitter. It is in soy and parmesan cheese and other common flavoring agents. You can’t see it, really taste it, but if you add it to food people will find it more delicious, buy more, eat more.
Sex is like that. Whatever you add it to, people begin to like more, are attracted to, buy, eat. You are no idiot, Chris, you know what I am saying. Bill – and others – are simply identifying the prolific use of “sexlutamate” to spice up clothing. Sexual stimulation of males works, causes them to hang around, like, spend money. Maybe it isn’t healthy in the long run. Some people work hard to identify glutamate in foods so they can avoid it, because they are allergic. Don’t be too hard on some who find sexlutamate even more harmful and are trying to rid their worlds of it as much as possible.
“Jazz music originated in the occult world flavored by voodoo – it is a gutter term for orgasm.”
I was wondering as to your source for this information. I have done years of graduate music study (including research on 20th century music) and have never once heard this.
That being the case you know that there is anything but unanimity on the origin of the word. There is a wiki, just for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_(word) . . . they generally end up seeing it as a baseball term coined in 1912. Based on the law of “first mention” that seems to be a winner. However, the person “coining” it already had a meaning in mind, and I bet he heard it somewhere else. The best account I have heard is recounted in http://howarderichler.blogspot.com/2011/06/where-jazz-came-from.html (I read a fuller account elsewhere, can’t find it) . . . where it is traced to the “Razzy Dazzy Jazzy Band” documented in 1900, way earlier than the baseball pitcher. “Jazzy” was a twist on “Spasm” to separate that band from an earlier one with the same name, with “Spasm”. “Spasm” was slang for “Orgasm”.
“Jelly Roll Morton” pompously proclaimed himself the inventor of the style, certainly one of the earliest – no one discounts the possibility. His assumed name is slang for female genitalia . . . and he perfected his style in the brothels of New Orleans. His family was associated with voodoo, some accounts claiming a dedication to that when he was a boy by his godmother. You can find all of that on the Internet. Ick.
Alright, thanks, moderators. I understand my questions were broad questions that are not easy to specifically answer. I still would appreciate an article or something sometime summarizing the content of what Gothard’s chain of authority means in application, but I guess I’ll settle for this until I someday listen to the seminar. I am partway through the first session of the seminar, so I’m working on it! 🙂
You are braver than many. Several of the most vociferous opponents on Recovering Grace have never attended. God bless you. That seminar shook my world as I first attended as a 15 year old 40 years ago. I have never recovered.
“Chain of Command” is the topic you are interested in. If you can take the entire seminar, I, of course, recommend it.
Alfred,
Really? that is not true. Recovery Grace was started by ATI students in an effort to put their faith, education and lives back together. The most “vociferous” stories as you call it come from former ATI students, then the second group are the regretful former ATI parents, then the third group which would include me are people that have attended the basic and even the advanced seminar but did get involved with ATI.
You don’t know your friends over there, Rob, apparently. Some of them and I go WAY back..
Like who?
Moderator with respect you reply only deals with appearance. You keep referring to outward appearance as the cause that instigates a mans lust. That is such a superficial argument. You keep avoiding the issue of the heart. I know the science on appearance I am a social scientist! However as a Christian I am not looking at purely natural explanations. You would know and you have to agree that the act of sexual assault on a woman or child is not purely reactive based on appearance. And you didn’t respond to my comment regarding the assault of a child. Is assault the responsibility of the perpetrator or the victim? Please be concise in your answer.
Humor me . . . To help me answer your question:
1). When is sexual activity consensual, and not “assault”?
2). Is a smart older woman luring a naive young boy into sex acts a victim or a perpetrator committing “assault”?
I don’t want to embarrass anyone :-). Why don’t you ask a general question over there, like, “Who here has never been to a Basic Seminar, nor been part of ATI?”
Do we have to have gone to ATI or basic Seminar to question them or you or is this only for those who are part of the initiated secret boys club?
I really do like you, Chris. Your opinions are important, but not nearly as important as those that have tried it and lived it. Makes sense, right? The club is not secret, it is wide open – and already contains millions the world over. Would you humor me and at least watch the first session of the Basic Seminar? Then tell me what you think.
https://embassymedia.com/media/session-01-how-trace-problems-root-causes
I lived with an IBLP/ATI family for a time who introduced me to quite a lot of of the basic principles and Gothard’s theology but okay I will humor you and watch it.
Okay watched it. I am going to be brutally honest with you. Bill Gothard could have made millions doing infomercials. There was nothing outstanding in his presentation that gives me any allure to his teaching. I have to question his anecdotes that he claims supports his 7 non optional principles as there is nothing by which they can be substantiated. The testimony from the psychiatrist and the story of the boy whose bones wouldn’t heal because his meals contained milk and meat together have no medical evidence to support them. This was an abuse of scripture in the first order which had nothing to do with the result of eating it the point of not boiling the kid’s meat in its mothers milk was a reference to the pagan ritual behind it. If meat inhibits the metabolizing of calcium then eating many greens should also be prohibited as the also contain calcium. The point here is that Gothard’s attempts to use scripture to support much of what he claims just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either biblically or otherwise. I took the time to stop the video and compare the bible verses Bill quotes and place them within their context. Bill uses an acontextual ( Eisegesis) approach which on the surface seems fairly innocuous at first glance but can lead to wrong conclusions. The sales pitch is that if we use these principles we will have success and God will bless us. From the families I know personally who have followed Bill’s teaching I am yet to meet one which has had anything but hardship and heart break. Is it that because they didn’t follow the 7 non optional principles? No! It’s because this type of one size fits all, promise of success and prosperity has no more substance to it than the word of faith movement from which it springs. It lacks the razzle dazzle that the word of faith movement often has with it, but it gives the same hollow promise. It is nothing more than a Christianize’d version of all the self help and life coaching schemes that are out there. Let me know if you want more of my opinion. I am happy to oblige
What basis do you have for saying that? The psychiatrist is well known, not all embrace his perspectives, but some do. And there is allegedly solid evidence on the problems with dairy saturated meat.
Go ahead – give an example or two.
Bill doesn’t name the psychiatrist.
Correct. Why did you dismiss it?
I dismissed it in the same way I would i would mark down an essay for not verifying the source. Simply making the claim that a psychiatrist said mental illness is due to wrong thinking or making bad choices without naming the psychiatrist is dubious. It’s ironic that Bill Gothard challenges conventional wisdom, questions modern medicine, then conveniently uses an anonymous source from the very worldly expertise and wisdom he rejects to support his own arguments. That is called cognitive dissonance.
You have an academic back ground Alfred. How can you be so noncritical of Gothard’s approach… How could Bill who also has a post graduate back ground make claims like this knowing that if he did this at college that his professors would fail him for making such an unverified claim? It is what we call academic suicide.
How do we track the expert down who said this originally? How do we check the experts credentials and research method’s? Was this an off the cuff remark by this so called expert or is this his expert opinion based on research? Has he been peer reviewed in journals and what was their conclusions of his findings?
Do you see my problem? I can’t I can’t go back to original sources. Bill Gothard is notorious for using this method of unverifiable anecdotal support for his own assertions. There is almost a plethora of very bad bible teachers who make claims of miracle headings and other phenomena. Many of them when asked to supply evidence for their claims can’t! Bill makes some very bold claims about the success of his own methods, the fruit that we van verify about Bill’s claims is that the evidence doesn’t support his claims.
I posted here once before about Bill’s teaching and you deleted the comment. What did I say? I said by you posting Bill’s views here will be his own undoing because you are putting it in the public domain where anyone on the internet can view it. I am posting this response on my own website chrissymonds65.wordpress.com so that in fairness others can see my response. No one can say I chickened out of the challenge
I just want to clarify that I am not attacking you Alfred I am sorry if I come across as too adversarial I am trying to address the issue. I guess when you have been affected by this it can be hard to remain objective. I think my comments on Bill are fair so far as scrutiny goes. What is not fair is crossing that line and attacking you. I respect your right to defend Bill you know him personally I don’t. He is a friend of yours not mine. What he says in public is fair game for criticism and inquiry. If he says something in public and claims it is true he should be prepared to defend those claims or shut up! My angst is not to him alone it is to many in leadership to be fair and honest to have integrity. Admitting fault is human, admitting God’s grace is divine.
Thanks, Chris, much appreciated.
The Jewish psychologist we believe to be Thomas Szasz (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz). He is controversial, but real. He saw diagnosis of mental illness as largely an attempt to cover both professional biases against the supernatural and allow for irresponsible behavior. We would be inclined to agree with that.
He is Hungarian not Jewish (Sorry that is my Asperger Syndrome kicking in) Please accept my OCD in the spirit intended
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
I never understood why Bill didn’t name his reference. Likewise, I am not sure why his Jewishness is brought up at all. By using a renegade like him to support the idea that mental illness is not real, Bill ends up using as a reference a complete maverick and someone that is out of step with the rest of psychology and psychiatry but uing someone like this is proof that Bill is quite out of step. The article you linked refers to other libertarian ideas that I would think Bill would not believe in. To tell people that mental illness is all in their heads is very dangerous and already there are some pretty tragic cases that are linked to Bill’s teaching on this.
Here is a quote from another maverick Jew:
We like much of Szasz perspectives. The “Jew” focus may come from the fact that his world view, at least in this area, much more closely aligns with the Bible than anything else psychiatry has produced. Remember, psychology is the “study of the soul” (Greek “psyche” = “soul”). Trying to do that without God’s perspectives is a futile and vain exercise.
In defense of Szasz. Szasz gained some notoriety because he challenged the status quo. He challenged his own profession’s seemingly all knowing all powerful “god like” determination of what mental illness was and how and by what criteria is was diagnosed. He only came into prominence when he was contacted by a family who were attempting to have their son released after being institutionalized for longer than the jail term he would have received for possessing a dangerous weapon and causing alarm by firing two shots into the air. He was found to be semi delusional and was placed in an asylum. Szasz and another psychiatrist were enlisted to interview the patient whom they found to be paranoid and uncooperative but not delusional. Anyway the point is Szasz challenged the power of the psychiatry profession to institutionalize patients and the right of the state to do so at its pleasure. Szasz also challenged what determined mental illness. What he failed to do was differentiate between a bad mood and morbidity. What we need to recognize is that this was over 50 years ago. How we defined mental illness then and how we define it now without the stigma is very different. Where Sasz still has merit is that unlike many of his colleagues he didn’t put the idea of God or spirit in the realm of illness. I still reject his argument that wrong behavior causes confused thinking (mental illness) on the basis that many who suffer from mental illness either led fairly normal lives beforehand and to prove his thesis he would have to have provided hundreds of thousands of hours of historical backgrounds of patients to prove his thesis. He simply couldn’t do that. What he did challenge was the non falsification presuppositions strata that were used to diagnose illness at the time.
Thanks, Chris. I have opened a new topic post here: http://www.discoveringgrace.com/2015/12/27/challenge-watch-session-1-of-the-basic-seminar/ Am going to try to transfer the comments there.
What’s the deal with the picture of the Pigeon under the ancient picture of Bill, (In the new article about him on the homepage)? Is that meant to symbolize something? Am I missing a hidden meaning?????
You got my attention. WHERE are you seeing this? Which homepage? Facebook, billgothard.com, or here, DiscoveringGrace.com? If here, what page? We use a white dove. We did have a logo with a “rock dove”, which I created, looks like a pigeon to some . . . but the team batted it down with determination. I kind of liked it.
My mistake its under “About Us” and “Who is Bill Gothard”, the White Pigeon photo is below Bill’s picture.
You see Alfred a photo says a thousand words and when I see a picture of a White Dove I think of the baptism of our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ and what happened immediately afterwards: Matthew 3:16-17 “And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, WITH WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED.”
In an earlier post tonight we argued over the photo of a seated Bill surrounded by seven women, your stated regarding the photo “Again, “defamation per se”, if creating a perception that was in fact false . . . of a cult leader with his “girls”. It would be for a court to decide if false and posted “with malice”.
I could say the same about this photo that it creates a false perception and was posted in malice, no cross out malice and replace with BLASPHEME ! To me what you have done is taken a picture of a dove and placed it in close proximity to a picture of Bill. That associates Bill with the Divine and Holy moment after Jesus’ baptism where the HOLY ETERNAL GOD who created the universe opened the Heavens and His Spirt descended like dove and God from heaven proclaimed, “THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, WITH WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED.” That Spirit of God like a White Dove represented the HOLY GOD. None of us are worthy of being associated with a White Dove in this moment of Devine Revelation. That is the perception your picture of the dove implies to me, “This is my Beloved son (Bill), with whom I am well pleased.” Is that what you are trying to imply because if it is, you are blaspheming the name of our Lord and Savior, His Spirtit and His Holy Father. Something much worse then the picture of Bill and the seven girls. I called it a White Pigion to give you the benefit of the doubt and not have to accuse you of blaspheming the Holy Righteous and Might God, His Holy Spirt and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. So is it a Dove or a White Pigeon? Was it your intent to associate Bill with that Divine Moment? Did you create a perception that was in fact false…. an unrepentant sinner with the Holy God. It would be for God to decide if false or posted with Blaspheme.
Your word, pictures and actions matter and will be judged not my me but by a Holly God
It is a dove, and it represents the Holy Spirit coming down and giving God’s grace. You are right, both of us are judged by a Holy God. My point is that some pictures, by their implication, are also judged by human courts.
Your write:
“My point is that some pictures, by their implication, are also judged by human courts.”
As I have said this is a Spiritual Battle which needs a Spiritual Solution because we are fight for the soul of a man, it should involve confession, repentance, forgiveness, asking forgiveness and making things right. Bill should be more worried about God’s judgment then human courts. If he would have dealt this problem 40 years ago we would not be having this discussion and Billy would be the biggest thing since sliced bread in the Christian world. His name would still be associated with the greats men of the Christian faith or at least our era like Dr. Bill Graham. Bill Gothard would have a ministry of repentance, confession, forgiveness and making things right, a message the whole world needs more then ever today. Instead we are fighting over words, intentions, motives, understanding and pictures. Why? Because of sin. Unrepentant sin. Bill could have fix this in the flash of the eye, he still can except he has so much more to deal with now.
As long as you continue to associate the picture of the bird with Bill’s picture I will continue to call it a “White Pigeon”. It is a false representation of a very Holy moment in eternal history. In a brief description of a White Pigeon it says” White Pigeons are, in fact, very beautiful and are quite often mistaken for doves by the public.” In second 2 Corinthians 11:14 (ESV) talks of another description of a false impression, “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.”
“The White Pigeon is often known as the release dove for events such as weddings or sporting events. While it looks very much like a dove, the White Pigeon is a specialty breed of homing pigeon. Whereas releasing a large number of doves into the air during events is likely to strand hundreds of doves in the wild unable to care for themselves, White Pigeons can be released and are likely to find their way home…White Pigeons are, in fact, very beautiful and are quite often mistaken for doves by the public. (http://www.pigeonweb.net/white-pigeon)”
Agreed. Now, does that apply to everyone, or just Bill?
It is a fallacy to assume that the fact that Bill has problems with adversaries that he is unrepentant. Proof is that the Savior’s adversaries – and those of Paul – got more and more urgent and violent until they were able to finally, FINALLY carry out their evil deeds. All of those adversaries were, BTW, absolutely convinced they were right . . . even that putting each of them to death was “doing God service”.
Alfred writes:
Agreed. Now, does that apply to everyone, or just Bill?
ABSOLUTELY, each one of us!!!!!!
Alfred writes:
“Because of sin. Unrepentant sin. Bill could have fix this in the flash of the eye, he still can except he has so much more to deal with now.”
It is a fallacy to assume that the fact that Bill has problems with adversaries that he is unrepentant. Proof is that the Savior’s adversaries – and those of Paul – got more and more urgent and violent until they were able to finally, FINALLY carry out their evil deeds. All of those adversaries were, BTW, absolutely convinced they were right . . . even that putting each of them to death was “doing God service”.”
Does that example apply to Bill as well? Because we look at this from a different perspective then you and feel no less righteous then you.
Of course. But Bill is not the one driving to obtain a verdict, a judgment, a “kill”.
Alfred writes:
“Of course. But Bill is not the one driving to obtain a verdict, a judgment, a “kill”.”
You are the only one talking about a “kill” an intentional exaggeration to make a point. How has this whole process unfolded?
1980, the staff sought the truth, which Bill covered up and shifted blame. Many sought Bill’s repentance and he resisted. Bill continued on but with the failing popularity of the Basic he refocused to the homeschool community and ATI was born. The same abuse of the scandal era continued into the ATI era and Bill continued to cover sin by discrediting those who spoke up. Finally RG was born which became a voice to be reckoned with. Again in 2013 after he called me he was given every opportunity to solve the problem instead He gave false reports and resisted. The rest is history. In Denver we warned him things would only get worse if he did not repent publicly. (we had no knowledge of any planned or discussed lawsuit other then what was read on various unofficial posts) Over 18 months went by after his resignation till legal action was filed why so long? The victims were like us praying for a true repentance from Bill which never came. He was just stringing us along, something he was good at and had done many time before including Ruth and my reconnection with him from 87-early 91.
This all rests on Bill’s shoulders, he has made his bed and now must sleep in it. I still pray for something different but there is no change, all that matter is moving ahead and the millions behind. The cannon fodder is irreverent! Its the cost of doing “CHRISTAN BUSINESS”. But Christ cared about every little one! Matthew 18:1-14. Is this about “Christian Business” or “Christ’s business” and the example of love, care and compassion through His unmatchless Grace!
“True repentance” is code for “Admit that everything we claim you did, you did, and accept as your punishment – from us – going away and never coming back. And letting other people carve up the ministry you founded and shepherded for 50 years and distribute it to those they deem worthy. Including themselves as victims.”. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. Sometimes that comes across as sort of self-righteous and, well arrogant. There is one righteous Judge, He judges us all by the same standard.
I supposed you all have seen this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/06/new-charges-allege-religious-leader-who-has-ties-to-the-duggars-sexually-abused-women/
Yes, we knew it was coming. Not all the facts were known. May the Lord have mercy on us all. Lawsuits are never a good thing. But if anything, may the Lord use this to finally bring the hidden things out into the open. And . . . the things that that lawyer apparently alleged to Bill to get some help from him early on. If true, there is much to answer for before the Lord. Which the Lord is very capable of addressing.
Alfred this is what we have been saying for 35 years. Its what Tony has been saying to you personally for a long time and me for two and a half years. Based on your earlier statements that I suggested you check the facts, Was it Dropped? and Do you care? I’m not rubbing it in but all along you have made brash statements that have been incorrect and authoritative ones where you claim superior knowledge on all things scriptural and about Billy and you disbelieve anyone that does not agree with you. I say that in love!
This is real serious and it could have been avoided. The sin of pride is an awful thing and can be debilitation to one’s walk with Christ and resistance to other sin. Something we all need to control. Regardless of this case’s outcome, the bigger question that Bill needs to address is how God look at this? That the judgment we all need to be concerned with.
The prior lawsuit was dropped, and I didn’t care because it was dropped without prejudice. We will see what transpires. This is clearly the “kitchen sink” being thrown at Bill and IBLP in an attempt to make something stick so they can move forward. The good part is that the shadows are gone. Why do you think that all of this was not included in the first offering? It was known, the women were known. They are now reaching back 20 years to counsellors actions that the plaintiffs have complained about publicly for much of that time, yet never prosecuted. Why not charge Steve in the same lawsuit, while we are at it, charging negligence?
On this we are in full agreement.
There you go again Alfred, the all know seer, with Wisdom of all things. You nor I don’t have a clue to the inner working of the legal process here, we might only have an opinion and you know what they say about opinions. Have you read the fillings, all of the or do you get your information and facts from Billy and Tim. You might find the document to be very “enlightening”. You are desperatly grasping at straws to save your hero. I don’t have a clue how this will turn out, the legal process is full of twists and turns. OJ was declared innocent in criminal court and guilty in civil. In the end his unchecked sin sent him to jail for other reasons. Be sure your sins will find you out.
I have not received this most recent one, but have the others. We personally have spent considerable time with the HPD pursuing various actual and alleged reports that were filed so that information is directly from them via the Freedom of Information Act.
Let me state first off that I am a lawyer. I graduated from a well-regarded law school and am a full-time practicing attorney.
I’ve seen a lot of very inaccurate statements about the law on this website and in the comment sections on other websites about ATI. I typically ignore them because it’s not worth my time correcting every ignorant amateur on the internet who thinks that using a big word makes them a legal expert.
But I do want to say something about the lawsuit being “dismissed.” IBLP falsely implied the lawsuit was dismissed in a headline on their website that read “Judge Dismisses David Gibbs III Lawsuit”. The lawsuit was never dismissed. You said the “prior lawsuit was dropped” but that you don’t care because “it was dropped without prejudice.” The lawsuit has never been “dropped.” Because it has never been dropped, the issue of prejudice does not even arise. You will note the file number to the lawsuit remains the same before and after the amended complaint was filed. The file number is the same because the amended complaint is still within the same legal file (the “lawsuit”) as the original complaint.
The clerk’s website describes the Order withdrawing the original complaint as “COMPLAINT STRICKEN OR DISMISSED.” The very next entry says “LEAVE TO FILE – GRANTED.”
In this case, the lawsuit was stricken, not dismissed. There is a huge difference.
When a lawsuit is “dismissed” the lawsuit is over at the district court level. A party has to appeal if a ruling on the merits has been issued. If no ruling on the merits was issued, the lawsuit if over the case was dismissed “with prejudice.” If the lawsuit is dismissed “without prejudice,” the plaintiff has to file a new case, pay filing fees again, and the clerk will issue a new file number.
When a complaint is “stricken,” as it was here, the lawsuit is temporarily suspended until the plaintiff files an amended complaint. (If the complaint not timely amended, the case will be dismissed automatically.)
The original complaint in this lawsuit was withdrawn because the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave (permission) to amend to asking the judge permission to withdraw their original complaint and to file an amended complaint. The judge then granted their request for leave to amend and the plaintiffs have now filed an amended petition. Plaintiffs file amended complaints in civil actions ALL. THE. TIME. This is a routine request in early litigation and the judges almost always grant permission to make the changes.
Contrary to what you imply, there is nothing extraordinary about what Gibbs III did here and it says nothing about the truth or lack of truth regarding the factual allegations that form the basis of this lawsuit lawsuit. Plaintiffs attorneys often amend the petition to correct inadvertent errors, because they need to add more plaintiffs or as they learn more facts, they conclude a different legal approach better fits the facts.
In this case, Gibbs III added additional plaintiffs and made subtle but significant changes to the type of torts alleged.
This is all very elementary legal procedure to lawyers, but can be confusing to uninformed laypersons, making it easy to put “spin” on what is actually going on.
When the average layperson hears a lawsuit is “dismissed” or “dropped” people typically think a ruling on the merits has been made or a final order was issued. That has never occurred in this case, and for IBLP to imply otherwise is incredibly misleading.
I can’t speculate as to why IBLP chose to use the word “dismiss[ed]” in their headline. IBLP is either incredibly ignorant (which seems unlikely given that Barth is an attorney and IBLP is represented by counsel and one would expect an attorney to review this type of press release before it is issued) or they are intentionally trying to confuse their supporters about what is actually going on.
***********
I’d also like to respond to this statement too: “They are now reaching back 20 years to counsellors actions that the plaintiffs have complained about publicly for much of that time, yet never prosecuted. Why not charge Steve in the same lawsuit, while we are at it, charging negligence?”
My first response is less technical – reaching back 20 years? That argument didn’t exactly fly for the Catholic Church. . .
But actually, the plaintiffs are not reaching back 20 years.
First, several of the new plaintiffs allege abuse occurring just a couple years ago. To say the plaintiffs are “reaching back 20 years” is just not accurate when some of the alleged misconduct took place as recently as 2012 or later.
Second, the plaintiffs actually are not “reaching back 20 years.” The primary legal allegations are actually for negligent and intentional emotional distress arising from IBLP and Gothard’s public statements issued in 2014 denying that any illegal/criminal or sexual conduct took place. Most laypersons and the press are focusing on all the juicy details, some of which took place a long time ago, but the primary legal arguments being made to the court regards conduct that undisputably took place in 2014, not 20 years ago.
Thank you for your analysis.
I have not read the actual amended lawsuit, but if they are reaching back to tap Ken Copley they are reaching back 20 years. My statement is accurate. Also accurate is that the 2012 complaint was given as a report to the HPD and they obtained an opinion from the ASA that the complaint was “misdemeanor battery”, statute of limitations 2 years.
Alfred just say thank you for the legal explanation! Don’t make excuses for your lack of legal knowledge. I don’t know squat but at least I read the court documents and encouraged you to do the same.
I learned a lot and really appreciate someone with actual legal technical knowledge informing us of the true facts. THANK YOU!!! You have completely missed CJ comments on the 20 years. You implied twenty years and maybe technically correct based on one small fact it appears to “me” as an intentionally misrepresented blanket statement with a sliver of truth in it to discredit the whole issue of the lawsuit. This is what Bill does he changes the narrative. Example, he claims I said based on his knowledge of his brother’s immorality ” he sent the girls up north TO BE ABUSED” when I said “he sent the girls up north WHERE they were abused”. The former statement implies he conspired to a criminal act to do harm, which is an easy charge to reject. The latter statement implies poor spiritual judgment and lack of concern of his employees with disqualifies him based on Titus 1 and 1Timothy 3. I HAVE BEEN HARPING ON YOU CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH OR TYPE ON THE KEYBOARD. You are becoming like Bill.
Again Thank you CJ!
Well, courts are not easily deceived with my misrepresentation so not to worry. My opinion I may venture as I have. We will see where this goes.
You’ve mentioned the court system before, Alfred, giving the impression that you feel sexual harassment will be ruled out by definition, the truth will be determined, and of course, Bill vindicated. What if his behavior is determined in a court of law that it meets the criteria of sexual harassment? What if he’s not vindicated? Would that mean to you that he IS a fraud, a liar? Or will you say that the court has it all wrong? We agree that human courts are flawed and don’t have a bearing on God’s righteous eternal judgement, so I’m not suggesting that every court verdict is just. But I’m just wondering what stock you put in the Illinois court system – do you consider it definitive? You’ve given that impression, but I can’t help but wonder if you would cry foul in case things didn’t turn out like you’re confident they will. I’m not looking to criticize whatever your answer would be, but honestly wondering if (okay, frankly, doubting that) a court of law would sway your allegiance.
One of these women has already given her story to the Hinsdale PD who got an opinion from the State of Illinois that it was not sexual harassment, sexual abuse. Obviously she might bring more details to the table in the lawsuit. But what she did allege pretty much everything that has been in the accounts on RG, besides Gretchen. From the officer who took the report: “On 03-18-14 I presented this case to DuPage ASA _______ . I was told the case was a misdemeanor battery, and was outside the statue of limitations.” Misdemeanor battery means, “You touched me against my will.” That is not a conviction of “misdemeanor battery” even if within the statutes of limitations, just the appropriate charge for the tale that was told.
Depends on what was alleged and why. It might.
You just spent a lot of time reporting one police department’s evaluation of one complaint (I think). That was not at all my question. I’ve really been wondering for some time about this, and it really has nothing specific to do with the refiled suit or those particular plaintiffs or current allegations.
My question was in light of several statements that you’ve made from time to time that essentially say that you’d love to see a court of law sort truth from fiction and the truth be known. I take your implication to be that you trust the court system to get it right, damning details about the plaintiffs will be revealed, and that Bill will certainly be vindicated, since that is truth as you know it. Though at the same time, I know you (as most people) prefer that courts not be involved.
So back to the question, although you basically answered indirectly and I’m just asking for a direct answer: WITHOUT REGARD to specific plaintiffs, current complaints, civil vs criminal, any other defendant or any other factor – so *generically* speaking – considering your assumed regard for the Illinois court system, IF Bill Gothard’s actions were determined in a court (civil or criminal) to meet the definition of (minimally) sexual harassment or sexual abuse of any kind, would you (a) turn and run as you’ve said repeatedly you’d do if you ever discovered Bill to be a liar, or (b) stand by Bill and pick apart the prejudices of the court, or (c) there’s probably another scenario you can come up with – right?
Courts have made some goofy judgements . . . so I will never give you a blanket guarantee that I would be happy with any conclusion. See, judgements are made on facts . . . and the facts that we are aware of do NOT support a finding of sexual anything. Clearly we believe some people are lying. If we discover some truth that says otherwise, that is what would change the equation.
Oh, just misdemeanor battery. Who cares? :/
You tell me: “Battery . . . misdemeanor, which involves delivering a knowing or intentional but improper touch — for example, purposely poking a victim in the eye.”
This sounds like a playground infraction, I am sorry. Remember, this would be the charge if proven.
So – and as I said, I’m not criticizing your position, but evaluating what you’ve said – that’s not quite an (a), but not necessarily a (b), so I guess it’s a (c). I figured there should be more than the 2 choices. 🙂 But I do find it interesting that you referred to “the facts that we are aware of,” I guess acknowledging that there are plenty others you’re not aware of, which would be the same as for most everybody else.
Wouldn’t it be wise for Bill since he is now named in this law suite, that he stop using you as an intermediary to others on the internet for info or for getting “his” side of the story out? It appears that he is using you for this end and taking advantage of your devotion to him. People that put themselves in the middle like you have usually end up getting badly burned. From the article, a couple of the plaintiffs are not just talking about unwanted “touching” but rape and assault, which is pretty serious, sick and sinful. Bill has always made a big deal about his “not having kissed a woman ever” and his so called vow of saving his first kiss if he ever got married. The Duggars have made a big deal out of the no kissing as if that is the new test for virginity. This has absolutely no basis anywhere in scripture at all. So Bill can assault girls with his hands and feet but he is ok because he kept his no kissing vow?
We do not nor have we ever reported to Bill on this. He has made a number of suggestions that we have respectfully declined to implement. If we get sensitive information directly from him we gain permission to publish . . . other than that we are no different from any reporting arm that is “friendly” to a particular perspective.
Yes, it is. Not having read the actual amended complaint, is any of this alleged “rape and assault” directed at Bill? Where some like Copley come up, that is third parties and their alleged actions . . . like Steve.
One thing we know for sure . . . one person’s “assault” is another person’s “touches of affirmation”, completely acceptable. He did nothing at all more complicated than that.
“Not having read the actual amended complaint, is any of this alleged “rape and assault” directed at Bill? ”
From the suit (now readily available online from several sources):
131. Shorly after the incident, where JANE DOE II’s father was put on the speakerphone, Bill Gothard asked JANE DOE II to come to his office alone at night after curfew. After she came to his office, Bill Gothard took JANE DOE II to his private suite. In his private suite, Bill Gothard had sex with JANE DOE II in the bed that she had made earlier in the day, while working for Judy Gergeni in housekeeping.
132. When Bill Gothard took JANE DOE II to his private suite, he had her undress by his window, touched her breasts, and then had sexual intercourse with her.
133. This sexual intercourse was without JANE DOE II’s consent. In fact, JANE DOE II would not have been capable of consent, given her mental state at the time.
There you go. Fair enough. I do find it interesting that this has not been presented until now. I mean, this is the sort of thing that would result in criminal charges a long time ago. Stranger yet that she is not allowing herself to be identified. With Bill’s sort of “weakened state” these days, what fear could there be? That IBLP henchmen will pursue her? That her family will find out? RG has been sitting on stories for several years. Not even a “Jane Doe” account published. Again, just strange.
Bill worked with a lot of “troubled” young women over the years. Some who blatantly tried to harm him and the ministry as part of where they were mentally and spiritually. So . . . we shall see how this goes down. We have had several folks call down God’s wrath – hell was mentioned, burning specifically – on Bill in comments we just didn’t feel like approving. God is just, He sees everything, He weighs our spirits. IF any are deliberately lying – accuser and accused alike – may the Lord make it plain and rebuke them publicly.
Alfred writes:
“Yes, it is. Not having read the actual amended complaint, is any of this alleged “rape and assault” directed at Bill? Where some like Copley come up, that is third parties and their alleged actions . . . like Steve.”
I’m a little confused what you are saying about Copley and Steve could you explain?
Ken Copley and his alleged misdeeds are mentioned in the lawsuit. Events that would be 20 years old. If they want to go there, why not go back 35 years and bring Steve into this too?
“Not having read the actual amended complaint”
I’d highly recommend reading the complaint yourself. You can the 114 page complaint here: http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/01/06/amended-lawsuit-against-bill-gothard-text/
“If they want to go there, why not go back 35 years and bring Steve into this too?”
Alfred, perhaps one of these women will join this case, perhaps they will not. Because I am not in the business of providing you, Bill Gothard, or anyone else with legal advice about strategy about specific facts like that on an internet forum, I’m not going to answer the question or speculate as to why these former IBLP/IBYC participants may or may not be good candidates for this suit.
But more to the point, why does this even matter? If A, B, and C each have individual and separate causes of action, the fact that C does not join does not reflect one way or another on the merits of A and B who decide to file.
Also, keep in mind that there is not just one case by one plaintiff – there are ten. It’s possible even more will be added later. Although all facts are plead on one complaint, there are actually ten separate lawsuits here – one from each woman. Each woman has her own case, and each case has its own facts. The merits of each woman’s case is not dependent on the outcome of any of the other plaintiffs. Similarly, their cases is not dependent on what happened to any pre-ATI era staff.
Furthermore, the fact that some of these women have not wanted to share their story make or share their full story until now is relevant to the truth or untruth of these claims how?
From 35 years ago, CJ? Help me . . . what kind of case would that be?
This is a coordinated attack on IBLP in general and Bill in particular. Fed by all the craft that RG can supply. Anyway, we shall see. It is my earnest desire that the truth will clearly and unmistakably be seen and prevail. It is more important than the loyalty we have toward Bill.
Alfred said
“There you go. Fair enough. I do find it interesting that this has not been presented until now. I mean, this is the sort of thing that would result in criminal charges a long time ago.”
Why is it interesting? I know you don’t like knowledge, but a long delay is common in this kind of case. Are you saying the length of time proves it’s not true?
“Stranger yet that she is not allowing herself to be identified. With Bill’s sort of “weakened state” these days, what fear could there be? That IBLP henchmen will pursue her? That her family will find out?”
I would be afraid, too. Yes, it is possible she fears her family finding out, depending on her family members. Yes, she probably fears harassment. With the Internet, this is a golden age of harassment. There are Internet trolls who specialize in harassing the grieving parents of dead children. I can imagine many ways a woman like this could be tormented.
“RG has been sitting on stories for several years. Not even a “Jane Doe” account published. Again, just strange.”
I can think of many reasons for sitting on stories.
“Bill worked with a lot of “troubled” young women over the years. Some who blatantly tried to harm him and the ministry as part of where they were mentally and spiritually.”
I strongly object to this adjective, “troubled.” You are casting aspersions.
A fair number of appointees from the courts, other young people that were out of control and needed an intervention. I know of worse terms than “troubled” to use.
“From 35 years ago, CJ? Help me . . . what kind of case would that be?”
I’m not taking the bait. Like I said before, I’m not going to engage in this type of discussion here in this forum. You were the one who raised the issue – it’s an interesting theoretical question but again has nothing to do with the truth or untruth of the claims of the plaintiffs in the present lawsuit.
*****
“This is a coordinated attack on IBLP in general and Bill in particular. Fed by all the craft that RG can supply.”
I’m not sure I agree with your premise, but that’s fine. So even assuming, arguendo, that there is in fact a “coordinated attack,” so what? What does this prove or disprove? How would a “coordinated attack” prove or disprove the facts alleged in the lawsuit? It doesn’t. I think that we can all agree that if even a fraction of allegations are true, Gothard is and has been beyond disqualified from any type of formal Christian ministry. What is your point?
It would explain the numbers, the timing, a bunch of things that, well, we notice.
So assault is acceptable? What does your wife say about all of this?
Nobody said anything about assault. Misdemeanor Battery is “you touched me without permission”
“Lindsey77”
“I would be afraid, too. Yes, it is possible she fears her family finding out, depending on her family members. Yes, she probably fears harassment. With the Internet, this is a golden age of harassment. There are Internet trolls who specialize in harassing the grieving parents of dead children. I can imagine many ways a woman like this could be tormented.”
After writing a 1981 letter to Bill and copies to many others regarding Bill’s offences he sicked his attack dog John McLario on us attempting to keep us quiet. We stood our ground and they backed off but it was not fun. Their intent was to scare us with their millions, (donated money as Alfred likes to call it), we didn’t even threaten to sue them just told the truth, but for them it was OK to use a veiled threat of a lawsuit and to disregard 1 Corinthians 6. There are lots of reason why the victims had/have fears, in fact a $100 million of them. Neither you or I can read their mind. It appears Billy has sought legal advice to regain control of IBLP to get his ministry back, but the one thing he fails to remember everything belongs to GOD and its NOT his ministry it GOD’s! OK for Bill but not for others. That has been Bill motto his whole ministry.
Alfred unlike you I don’t know how this will end, but with these charges against Bill, even if they are dismissed for a technicality like the 1982 lawsuit, the greatest judgment will be when Billy stands before the Holy and Righteous God and He deliverers His final judgment which only He knows and already knows the ruling now! That’s the day I would dread if I were him.
You have no fear of reviling Him. “Billy” and all. Oh, Larne. That is a fearful thing for us all, not just Bill. The archangel, nearer to God and more powerful that you or I would not even revile the devil, call him names, curse him . . . just said, “The Lord rebuke thee”. (Jude 1:9)
“It would explain the numbers, the timing, a bunch of things that, well, we notice.”
Huh? This makes no sense. Numbers and timing of what? How is that relevant? I’m sorry, I don’t follow your argument and I can’t see where it is going or how it addresses my original question of how a “coordinated attack” proves or disproves the truth or untruth of the facts alleged.
Let’s move on from here for now. I am not a total idiot, some of this stinks, and not because it is true.
“Nobody said anything about assault. Misdemeanor Battery is “you touched me without permission””
Once again you are trying to play dress-up lawyer and you’re just wrong about the law. “You touched me without permission” is absolutely not the definition of battery.
If this was the definition of battery, then anyone who accidentally bumps into another person in a crowded place committed a battery because they touched another person without permission.
Your argument (if I follow it correctly – I find it difficult to clearly follow many of your arguments) that misdemeanor battery is somehow of little consequence is bewildering to me. Sure, it’s not as severe as other crimes, but IT IS STILL A CRIME!!! (It is also a civil tort – which as I mentioned before, is not one of the torts alleged in this lawsuit.)
In the law there is something called “mens rea”, which means “guilty mind.” In the law, this refers to intent and/or knowledge of the acts being committed that constitutes a crime. To be convicted of any crime, the defendant has to have sufficient “means rea,” or actual knowledge/intent to commit the criminal act. The defendant does not have to know the act is illegal, but they do have to know/intend to commit the specific act. Prosecutors generally do not charge cases (and should not charge cases) if they do not believe there was sufficient mens rea.
This is is the definition of battery in Illinois, which is defined in 720 Illinois State Code section 5/12-3:
(a) A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.
(b) Sentence. Battery is a Class A misdemeanor.
In Illinois, a Class A misdemeanor is the most serious type of misdemeanor and can be punished by up to one year in prison. (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55)
Let’s break this down – these are the elements of battery:
1) Knowingly
2.) No legal justification.
3.) Causes physical harm OR
4) Provoking or insulting physical contact.
I’m sure there is case law in Illinois that provides a more clear definition of “provoking” and “insulting.” I don’t have the time to look up those cases right now, but the main point I want to make is that if an ASA thought Gothard’s conduct was battery, the ASA clearly believed that his touching was more than just a friendly pat on the back or some other innocent touch.
So now explain not “misdemeanor” but specifically “misdemeanor battery”, as it relates to Melody’s accusations. You can read her story – translate that into that charge. It really comes down to “you touched me without permission”. And, of course, none of this is proven.
If such a horrible crime, how does it carry such a short statute of limitations, two years?
Alfred writes:
“just said, “The Lord rebuke thee”. (Jude 1:9)”
One of the continual complaints of Gothardism Theology is Billy”s (his mother called him that) use of Holy Scripture out of context. That said, lets put your Jude 1:9 comments in context of the whole chapter. Let everyone else decide! In your example of the Satan in vs. 9, your association and words seems to confuse me, are you saying that I was rebuking the devil? Because if so are you saying Bill is the devil? Your wording is strange and I’m wondering if there is a hidden meaning. Thank you for using this reference, I’d say this whole short Book is a WOW moment of understanding.
Jude, a servant[a] of Jesus Christ and brother of James,
To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for[b] Jesus Christ:
2 May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.
Judgment on False Teachers
3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion. 12 These are hidden reefs[e] at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
A Call to Persevere
17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They[f] said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment[g] stained by the flesh.
Doxology
24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
Apparently understanding the way God works keeps an archangel from talking bad about the devil. And conversely, being evil causes others to bad mouth anyone, including the devil. Sounds like reviling even people we are sure are evil (like the devil) is actually wrong. I am sure I am not completely guiltless.
Considering all of the mighty ways God has used, worked through Bill, it seems there should be a lot more “The Lord rebuke you” and less reviling, calling evil, names. I think it would be more noble and healthy for you.
Alfred I have made no bones about me being a dirtbag sinner, so “I am not throwing stones in my glass house”. But if you rebuke me for telling the truth and exposing sin I am willing to stand in the gap on that one. My father a Godly simple man who didn’t finish high school taught me that lesson and many more. We are commanded by God to do just that. Its all simple confess, repent, ask forgiveness and make restitution. But for that to be embraced, one must humble themselves and change their thinking and behavior. We are still waiting because we continue to see the same patterns of sinful behavior Bill has used for forty years.
And we dirtbag sinners tend to have a lot of empathy for other dirtbag sinners. We lose that when we forget our own dirt, right? That is what we rise up in righteousness to condemn another bag.
It is so funny, I was just getting ready to encourage our team with that very thought, of “standing in the gap” for something of God that He cares about. Apparently we got noticed in the most recent CT article. Clearly one or both of us is missing something, but we both stand before God for the purpose of seeing His Kingdom come, His will done. That makes us brethren . . . fellow former dirtbags redeemed by precious blood and made princes, sons of God in Jesus.
“So now explain not “misdemeanor” but specifically “misdemeanor battery”, as it relates to Melody’s accusations. You can read her story – translate that into that charge. It really comes down to “you touched me without permission”. And, of course, none of this is proven.
If such a horrible crime, how does it carry such a short statute of limitations, two years?”
*******
I can’t believe I’m having to explain what should be obvious. . . BATTERY UNDER 720 ILCS 5/12-3 IS “MISDEMEANOR BATTERY”!!!! THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!!!
When the police report says “misdemeanor battery,” that is shop talk for battery charged under 720 ILCS 5/12-3. There also is “aggravated battery”, which is defined in another code section and is a felony. Aggravated battery is battery with some aggravating factor, such a battery committed while using a weapon or a gun. The statute identifies many aggravating factors. Aggravated battery may fall under one of several classes of felonies, depending on the aggravating factor. For example, a battery committed with a table knife may be a weapon, but not necessarily a “deadly weapon,” like a 6-inch dagger. The battery committed with the table knife would be a lower class felony, while the battery with the dagger would be a higher class felony. (Caveat: my examples are not based on the specific illinois statute, I’m just using them as an illustration.)
I’ve been following your absurd arguments about battery and this police report on here for quite some time now, and it’s clear to me that you don’t seem to understand the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. Based on what you have been posting, it seems to me that you think that “misdemeanor” simply means a “crime that is not a big deal” or something more along the lines of an “infraction,” like it’s something just slightly worse than a parking ticket. That’s just not the case.
A misdemeanor simply means the maximum sentence for the crime is less than one year. A felony is a crime that has a maximum sentence over one year. That’s the difference.
******
“It really comes down to “you touched me without permission”.
NO IT DOESN’T!!! It absolutely doesn’t come down to “you touched me without permission.” How many different ways to I need to explain this??! That is absurd. If you put that answer on the bar exam, you would fail. A defendant can still commit battery even if the other person gives “permission.” (IE: the permission was given by trick or made under duress, or any other number of situations.)
If “you touched me without permission” was the legal standard, then nearly every football player would commit a crime on every single play, because obviously a running back is not giving “permission” to the defensive tackle to bring him down as he runs toward the end zone.
With a crime like battery, CONTEXT of the situation is as important as the actual physical act itself. The standards of conduct will vary significantly by the situation, and this law is fleshed out in case law. For example, a “bro” (younger man) who “surprises” his buddy by crashing into his buddy’s back to say “hello”, while the same act committed on a frail elderly person would be a battery, because the elderly person is significantly more vulnerable for risk of injury.
You seem to think that if the touch was “grandfatherly” (a subjective term that has no meaning under the law), then it cannot be battery. You are entitled to your opinion, but the law is different.
Whether like it or not, or whether you agree with the policy objectives, the standards of whether a touch by an adult counselor alone in a private office counseling a minor abuse victim have “legal justification” and are “provoking” or “insulting” are going to be much more conservative than touch in other situations. The standards are going to be much much higher, because the risk of causing significant psychological injury to the minor are significantly greater than the same touch in other contexts. (Although rubbing another’s interior thigh is certainly not “grandfatherly” and almost never appropriate except in the most intimate relationships or in a health-care context.)
THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.
That is why some people, such as yourself, get paid to be lawyers, and some of the rest of us scratch our shaking heads. Generally speaking the length of a sentence is SOME indication of the severity of the crime, correct? The difference between a “crime that is not a big deal” and “crime that is a way bigger deal”. Since the ASA went out of her way to put “misdemeanor” in front of “battery”, I would assume that would mean something. Looking at the charges, she claims that she was touched in ways that made her uncomfortable. That she asked Bill to stop. I have, BTW, NEVER known Bill to not back down from anything that involved a behavior when challenged. Almost in silly ways. So, that just doesn’t sound like Bill. Regardless, “he touched me and made me uncomfortable” is the charge. Big deal, or little deal in the world of “battery”, assuming it can be proven?
“If such a horrible crime, how does it carry such a short statute of limitations, two years?”
Ask the Illinois Legislature, but two years certainly isn’t an insignificant statute of limitations. Two years is a long time, and it’s much longer than other statutes of limitations for misdemeanors with lower classifications.
It’s really unbelievable that we’re even having this conversation. . .
Not unbelievable at all. Here we have a woman being presented as a “victim”, the rectification for those wrongs being in excess of $50K. For “misdemeanor battery”, being touched in ways that were not sexual but made her uncomfortable. A crime that the state says can’t be prosecuted after 2 years, and it is now 3-4 years. Explain this lawsuit in the world of justice and righteousness.
“Not unbelievable at all. Here we have a woman being presented as a “victim”, the rectification for those wrongs being in excess of $50K. For “misdemeanor battery”, being touched in ways that were not sexual but made her uncomfortable. A crime that the state says can’t be prosecuted after 2 years, and it is now 3-4 years. Explain this lawsuit in the world of justice and righteousness.”
Not sexual? Seriously? Rubbing someone’s legs isn’t sexual? Any touch can be sexual in the right context. But for the purposes of battery, it doesn’t matter whether it was “sexual” or not, so long as it the person touching had no “lawful purpose” to perform the touch and the touch was “provoking” or “insulting.”
Righteousness? In God’s eyes there is no statute of limitations. . . What is unbelievable to me is the length you are going to try to minimize the seriousness of the allegations. An allegation of course is not proof that it occurred, but for a long time you seem to be trying to minimize how serious the allegations actually are.
But in terms of the law, I have two points, and a third miscellaneous point.
1. Civil statute of limitations are not necessarily the same as criminal statutes of limitations (SOL). They can be longer. I don’t know what the civil SOL for battery is in Illinois, but it doesn’t matter right now because (so far) these plaintiffs are not suing IBLP or Gothard for battery, rape, abuse, etc.
2. As I said before, and will repeat again, no plaintiff (as of right now) is suing Gothard or IBLP for battery. Two of four counts are for infliction of emotional distress, which the plaintiffs allege occurred in 2014 when IBLP/Gothard undisputably released statements saying that no criminal activity had ever occurred, etc. (The other counts are for conspiracy to commit an illegal act, and “wilful and wanton,” which is a legal allegation that the conduct was severe enough to justify awarding the plaintiffs punitive damages.) That is the actual legal charge in this case, not battery. It therefore does not matter how long ago these incidents took place, because the defendant’s alleged tortious conduct/bad acts (the statement causing emotional distress) occurred in 2014.
3. If the plaintiff is a minor, told Gothard she was being abused while Gothard was counseling her, if Gothard is a mandatory reporter and he failed to report the conduct to DCS, this failure to report would also be a criminal act. (Calling a girl’s dad and asking if it is true is not sufficient to get him off the hook for failing to report the alleged abuse to DCS – it’s not his job to investigate the merits of the allegation.)
So, not we are no longer lawyers, and we get to be preachers of the Gospel. I am not minimizing anything. I do read that Christians should be prepared to be “defrauded” rather than sue for money (1 Cor. 6). Am I right? I see a criminal case going to the civil authorities . . . but suing for money? The crime cannot be called criminal, hence we are going to execute our own punishment by taking money from someone.
“So, not we are no longer lawyers, and we get to be preachers of the Gospel. I am not minimizing anything. I do read that Christians should be prepared to be “defrauded” rather than sue for money (1 Cor. 6). Am I right? I see a criminal case going to the civil authorities . . . but suing for money? The crime cannot be called criminal, hence we are going to execute our own punishment by taking money from someone.”
You’re saying Christians should never sue? That doesn’t make sense.
Do you not see a point in having civil courts? That also doesn’t make sense. Everything you say reinforces the perception that Christian organizations are a haven for abuse. They even groom their adherents to accept egregiously bad behavior without challenging it. Don’t sue, don’t complain.
A lot of what God says makese no sense. Back to the discussion of human reason vs. God’s wisdom.
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)
He says, “Dare you?!” Defrauding means cheating. The point, of course, is not that things remain unprosecuted, but that the Church is to decide matters . . . between Christians. I will be the first to say that how and when to apply this gets interesting, especially when you are sure that the other side is being really evil. Lawsuits for money between Christians are at least in view here, vs. criminal matters.
“A fair number of appointees from the courts, other young people that were out of control and needed an intervention. I know of worse terms than “troubled” to use.”
I object because people are always tempted to assassinate the character of people who speak up about abuse. It doesn’t mean their allegations didn’t happen, and it doesn’t mean they deserve to be mistreated.
I don’t care if a woman is an actual prostitute, we all know Jesus would have washed her feet and showed her compassion. You don’t get to abuse such people, and they don’t deserve to be abused even if some people would consider them “troubled.”
I keep thinking lately how amazing it is that anyone has the courage to speak up, even long after abuse happens.
Not until the prospect of $50-$150K came into the mix?
“So, not we are no longer lawyers, and we get to be preachers of the Gospel. I am not minimizing anything. I do read that Christians should be prepared to be “defrauded” rather than sue for money (1 Cor. 6). Am I right? I see a criminal case going to the civil authorities . . . but suing for money? The crime cannot be called criminal, hence we are going to execute our own punishment by taking money from someone.”
Let’s say we all suddenly agree that Christians cannot sue other Christians for money. That does not prove the allegations are not true.
It speaks to a matter of righteousness that is important to many Christians. If something is wrong, you don’t right it with another wrong.
“It speaks to a matter of righteousness that is important to many Christians. If something is wrong, you don’t right it with another wrong.”
That’s sure a change of tune. You’ve admitted on this very site that you’ve encouraged Mr. Gothard to take legal action against the folks at RG. Hypocrisy, no?
Let’s see:
1) I have never encouraged Bill on this. That is his business to figure out. Others have made that recommendation.
2) The directions of 1 Cor. 6 appear to be specifically focused on getting remedies to defrauding . . . maybe financial, in context (chapter 5 and the end of chapter 6) maybe even marriage, i.e. divorce.
3) Paul appealed to secular laws and remedies to protect him from harm. Bill might appeal to the same to stop the defamation, lies that are damaging the name of the Lord.
4) It would be hard to call “Recovering Grace” a Christian organization, given their willingness to embrace anyone, without regard to their relationship to Jesus. Just as long as they dislike Bill, they are in.
Alfred:
“It would be hard to call ‘Recovering Grace’ a Christian organization, given their willingness to embrace anyone, without regard to their relationship to Jesus.”
Questions for you, sir:
What kind of example did Jesus set for us? Should we NOT embrace anyone, without regard to their relationship for Jesus?
What does “embrace” mean? With all this talk about Matt. 18, there HAS to be some meaning to treating a brother like the unsaved, like a “heathen man and publican”. Unsaved people do not belong in the fellowship of a local church, not until they are saved. An organization cannot be called “Christian” if membership is unrelated to a saving and personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
What does this mean? —
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” 2Co 6:14-18
So its OK for Billy to seek legal advise to seek legal action to get a ministry, owned by God, back under his control. Maybe that speaks to what Billy really thinks of God or his true relationship with the Father is. God owns everything! Billy should trust that God will take care of His property. But if Billy really things its “his ministry” then could his salvation be an issue to question because all good Christians know everything belongs to God. If that is the case 1 Corinthians 6 does not apply but then again we dispute the prohibition in those verses anyway. Maybe now he will come around to my point of view with a cool $100 million at stake.
My opinion is the women have a right scripturally to take action with Bill’s failure to repent, his actions speak louder then his words and CJ is right there is no SOL with God. He and IBLP/IBYC could have fixed this a long time ago, Now they are reaping the consequences of their sin!
I disagree. I respect you too much to restrict you in the expression of it. Again, the Lord is just in all things.
Actually I want to correct one paragraph above because after reading it again I realize I misstated something.
When a lawsuit is “dismissed” the lawsuit on the merits, it is dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiff must accept defeat or appeal. If no ruling on the merits was issued, the lawsuit is dismissed “without prejudice.” The lawsuit is then over and the plaintiff may file again, but must again pay filing fees again, and the clerk will issue a new file number.
I’m wondering how you would explain this…from an acquaintance’s social media page:
“Bob Jones University’s president Steve Pettit is scheduled to be the guest speaker at Independent Baptist Church’s, Bolingbrook, IL Teen Purity Banquet on Saturday, February 13, 2016.
Independent Baptist Church of Bolingbrook, IL is Bill Gothard’s church.
In exhibit A and B of the suit against Gothard specifically mentions that it is his church, that Gothard is under his church’s authority and that Pastor David Shoaf thinks Gothard is ready to once again take over the IBLP.
I emailed Pettit and he responded.
“Dear —–:
Thank you for writing and expressing your concerns about my speaking at Independent Baptist Church.
According to my sources with Independent Baptist Church, Mr. Gothard is not an official member of the church and Pastor Shoaf did not recommend that Mr. Gothard retake the reigns of IBLP.
Since purity is a Biblical command and Independent Baptist Church is committed to teaching and encouraging Christian teens to be pure then I will keep my commitment to speak at their upcoming banquet.
God bless!
Steve Pettit
~~~”
Fair enough, we will ask. Bill told us the same thing.
I don’t see it in Exhibit B, but item #11 of Exhibit A (an affidavit signed by Bill Gothard) of the suit filed this week states, “… my … local church, … Bolingbrook Baptist Church.” Yet a church staff member confirms that he is not now nor ever has been a member there.
Did Bill lie, Alfred? Or is that something you have to ask him about before you can answer?
That is his church, he attends there 2-3 times a week, we know this for a fact. In speaking to him today, he clarified that his membership was before the board for approval, but Bill and the pastor jointly agreed, perhaps to limit liability, to delay the formal step until the lawsuit is settled. Regardless, the pastor is acting as his pastor, has been involved in making and taking contacts on his behalf. And contrary to what was alleged, the pastor has disagreed with the current situation and worked toward a resolution. This is undoubtedly a stress filled situation for any local church to work through, given the kind of vitriol being expressed.
BTW, Bill asked that that information – affidavit – be stricken from the lawsuit as his statement was given in response to what appears now to be deliberate deception on David Gibbs part. He came to Bill – to his house – and told him how he was going to help straighten everything out with IBLP, get him reinstated as President, all he needed to do was get their attention, then – as Bill told me multiple times – the lawsuit would be dropped. I guess Bill had few enough friends lobbying for him, and with no interaction with the Board, he believed him and welcomed the help. That request was ignored – instead Gibbs turned around and sued Bill. May the Lord judge righteously, and have mercy on him, IBLP, and all of us.
Alfred writes:
“That is his church, he attends there 2-3 times a week, we know this for a fact. In speaking to him today, he clarified that his membership was before the board for approval, but Bill and the pastor jointly agreed, perhaps to limit liability, to delay the formal step until the lawsuit is settled.”
In conference calls with Bill starting in the summer of 2014 (18 months ago) Bill discussed the Bolingbrook Baptist Church where he was active and being under the spiritual authority of Pastor Shoaf who was also one of his mentors. That reminds me of a similar discussion about selecting ones spiritual authority. The implication Bill gave was that he was very active and a member. One last question on this topic why would the church delay his membership if they thought him innocent a re they waiting to see if the court rules against him for their reputation, spiritual purity or doubts? Why would they want to limit their liability after all they are not being sued?
Alfred writes:
“on David Gibbs”
With our wordsmithing disputes, which David Gibbs is engaged in “deliberate deception”? Bill’s pal Dave Gibbs Jr. or the son David Gibbs III?
Not sure. But it is “complicated” at best. Relax. He is responsive to his spiritual authority there, and the pastor is happy to support and direct and encourage him in this way.
There is no interaction with David Gibbs, Jr. That I have heard about. This is all the same one that has filed these lawsuits. Lord, deliver us.
“He came to Bill – to his house – and told him how he was going to help straighten everything out with IBLP, get him reinstated as President, all he needed to do was get their attention, then – as Bill told me multiple times – the lawsuit would be dropped.”
Assuming that Gothard’s description of what actually occurred is in fact true, (and for a number of reasons I have a hard time believing Gothard’s description is in fact true), Gothard actually believed what G3 was telling him? Gothard is not unintelligent. He built a multi-million dollar international corporate organization, which he managed just a few months ago. Gothard is still apparently sharp enough even at his age to author several books in just a few months.
So a lawyer representing a group of plaintiffs who has sued Gothard’s organization comes the the man (Gothard) who allegedly perpetrated the conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit. . . Gothard actually believes that lawyer is there to help HIM? Hard to believe. . .
David Gibbs III was at one point a friend. He was the lawyer – according to Bill – of a trusted friend, who commended him to Bill. The attestations he made were not out of line with a friendship that appears to have existed at one point. It would be inappropriate to speculate too much – but accepting his offered help was not as far out of reason as it appears.
“BTW, Bill asked that that information – affidavit – be stricken from the lawsuit as his statement was given in response to what appears now to be deliberate deception on David Gibbs part.”
I think the bigger question, regardless of how the affidavit was obtained, is is it true? There is a notarized statement by Bill Gothard stating some very damning things about his relationship with David Gibbs Jr., and his view of the board. Are these statements true?
Also, for Mr. Gibbs III to do what you are alleging, he would be putting his law license in jeopardy. It seems unlikely that a lawyer of national renown such as he would do such something that would put his career in danger. If I were you, I would question Mr. Gothard’s accounting of things before that of Mr. Gibbs.
Before I answer, what do you fnd damning? That the girls should be heard? He has from day one sought to talk to each of the girls that claim a problem with him, straighten it out. He disagreed with the Board boxing him out of that process.
But, yes, it is his affidavit. Given as part of an effort, as he was told, to compel the Board to start talking to him to get things worked out, from the bottom to the top. Some of us shook our heads at what he relayed to us, all excited, as he met with Gibbs, his friend. But not knowing the other players well we just kept praying.
I have. He told me he has written proof. Again, I can only tell you what he told me over and over as things were moving along. I hesitantly offered that I doubted that women committing themselves to this kind of exposure would then quickly drop this action if the objectives Bill was allegedly promised materialized. This is what I heard.
“I have. He told me he has written proof.”
If Bill has written proof that Mr. Gibbs was pretending to be representing him, then that would be a big problem. But it seems unlikely that an attorney of his caliber (with a national reputation as a defender of Christian liberties) would jeopardize his license in that way. I guess we shall see on that one.
You know that Mr. Gothard has always done his “exhorter” thing where he tells people that things are going to happen that aren’t actually going to happen. Like his plans for the Drake Hotel for example. Do you think that there is any chance that Mr. Gothard had something in his mind that Mr. Gibbs never actually said or promised?
Think about it, DJ. Whatever in the world would compell Bill to provide the affidavit he did . . . to a hostile attorney? That is proof enough.
“Whatever in the world would compell Bill to provide the affidavit he did . . . to a hostile attorney? That is proof enough.”
Oh, I have no doubt that Mr. Gothard thought Mr. Gibbs was on his side. The question remains whether (a) Mr. Gibbs lied to Mr. Gothard, (b) Mr. Gothard lied to you, or (c) Mr. Gothard had a narrative going in his mind that wasn’t true and Mr. Gibbs accepted an affidavit that was in the best interest of his clients.
Stay tuned
DJ: this World Magazine article, which I guess I had not read, officially presents Gibbs as Bill’s attorney. https://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=34415
I doubt he ever intended to be too helpful to Bill. He gained his trust because he wanted his help in preserving funds to sue for. That trust was enabled because Gibbs III was previously the lawyer for one of the Board members that favored Bill. Now that Bill is no longer useful, he turned on him in this – to me – reprehensible way.
If Bill is attending this Church, then why is the Pastor Shoaf denying it. Who can confirm his attendance at this Church?
I am going to guess that Bill’s detailed information to us is more accurate. If we find out otherwise, we will report it.
“this World Magazine article, which I guess I had not read, officially presents Gibbs as Bill’s attorney.”
Where does it say that? I read it and didn’t see it. Are you confusing son with father?
Nope.
It says donors to the ministry engaged Mr. Gibbs III, not Mr. Gothard.
I will get clarifying information.
Nowhere in that article does it say that Gibbs III represented Bill Gothard. It says “donors to the ministry have engaged attorney David Gibbs III.” The donors are not Gothard.
Just because two parties may at some point have a common goal does not mean an attorney representing one is also representing the other or working on behalf of the other. For example, just because Gibbs III was trying to stop IBLP from relocating to HQ before the lawsuit was resolved does not mean he was working for or with Gothard, even if Gothard also wanted to prevent the IBLP board from selling HQ.
Got it. I will get a clarification.
Or you could just admit that the article doesn’t say what you said it did. Wouldn’t be so hard, would it? If you’re going to libel a respected attorney, it would probably be best to have “clarification” BEFORE you publish an accusation.
Haha! I am well aware that I am dealing with a “respected attorney”. I also am very aware of the many conversations I had with Bill. I know for a fact that Gibbs came to see him, made him many promises in exchange for his cooperation. I am frankly not sure who the donors are that interacted with Gibbs prior to this action. They are not named in the suit, are they? Methinks this was Gibbs, looking for place to make a splash, who came to pull this together. Do you think Gibbs was interested in the donors or Bill for any purpose other than to sue on behalf of the women? I don’t think so. But Bill told a far different tale of what he was doing, including the oft repeated comment that Gibbs promised him the suit would be dropped should the Board back off, reinstate Bill. I personally expressed my concern that that did not seem right, but Bill was confident. He told me he could be trusted because he was the attorney of his dear friend. Again, family Gibbs and Gothard and IBLP go back a long way.
So we shall see. Bill has documents that I am to examine. I intend to get a full statement from him. But I stick with my version of the story.
Alfred me too! Would that constitute a lie?
No. That represented his understanding at the time. Later when I asked he told me he learned what I just indicated, that the Board had in fact not acted when he expected. Be kind of stupid to deliberately lie in a deposition, wouldn’t it? Bill is not that stupid.
Alfred writes:
“No. That represented his understanding at the time. Later when I asked he told me he learned what I just indicated, that the Board had in fact not acted when he expected. Be kind of stupid to deliberately lie in a deposition, wouldn’t it? Bill is not that stupid.”
Alfred does that sound familiar? Not his understanding, they were not clear, I thought…, there were other factors, when in fact just more excuses. When you fill out a legal document you need to be completely factual. If you don’t know, you find out, this is what I have been telling you about your comment too. In my church its a big deal to join the church, classes, statement of faith, questionnaire and interview and you were presented with a membership paper when it was done. If you were not sure just say you attend. Its not a big deal, people change churches all the time and hang out a while to see if it fits. What concerns me is a pattern I see of giving false impression or statements because of pride.
Or, you could give the benefit of the doubt that he really, truly believed it had happened. Like I said, Bill would have no reason to state something he believed to be false. In a legal docuent.
Alfred writes:
“Or, you could give the benefit of the doubt that he really, truly believed …”
In my experience with Bill he not proven himself trust worthy with his lies, covering sin, changing stories and shifting blame. For me to believe him it will require a change in his behavior and in his thinking along with confession, repentance, asking for forgiveness and making restitution (I don’t want his money)
Have you read the published charges Alfred? You made a big deal about others reading the Tony letter. Sorry but now that I have read both, the Agent of Satan letter is a joke, and this isn’t. Why does Bill even have a bed in his office? You need to ask Bill if he is still a virgin, not if he hasn’t kissed anyone. He promised the later but he didn’t promise the first. And finally, what does your wife think about all of this and has she read the charges? You have not answered my question from above.
Are you saying he does? I have never heard of such a thing. I think some folks are lying.
My wife is always guarded in judgement, but, no, for the record, she doesn’t believe it either.
Alfred writes:
“Are you saying he does? I have never heard of such a thing. I think some folks are lying”.
Well you responded to David above who posted counts 131-133 from the amended lawsuit page 30. You must have read it.
131. Shortly after the incident, where JANE DOE II’s father was put on the speakerphone, Bill Gothard asked JANE DOE II to come to his office alone at night after curfew. After she came to his office, Bill Gothard took JANE DOE II to his private suite. In his private suite, Bill Gothard had sex with JANE DOE II in the bed that she had made earlier in the day, while working for Judy Gergeni in housekeeping.
132. When Bill Gothard took JANE DOE II to his private suite, he had her undress by his window, touched her breasts, and then had sexual intercourse with her.
133. This sexual intercourse was without JANE DOE II’s consent. In fact, JANE DOE II would not have been capable of consent, given her mental state at the time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(My January 8, 2016 comment on RG.)
In count 131 it says he asked Jane Doe II to come to his office alone at night after curfew. After she came to his office he took her into his private suite where there was a bed????? A BED?????
WHY IS THERE A BED IN HIS OFFICE SUITE??? We all know a 20 year old “surfer dude” who drives a van with a bed in the back has it for one reason and its not sleeping at least sleeping by himself and we tell our daughter to stay away from guys like that. A bed in Bill Gothard’s office, unbelievable!!!! I don’t care if he was old and liked to nap or sleep in his office his poor judgment is uncomprehendable. His management team must have been a bunch of eunuchs to not say something to warn Bill how that would look. So we have Billy Graham on one hand who won’t be in a room alone with a woman and even would step out off a public elevator if one enters the space, and Bill has a bed in his office!!!!
Has anyone witnessed this bed and when and where was it installed?
Now I know why Bill kept asking us if we believed “Charlotte’s story”. My answer was I had seen too much in my years to doubt her story and nothing surprised me. He was oblivious uncomfortable with my answer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
In a response to my post, someone answered my question and thought it was referencing Indianapolis, He state there was a set of stair what would avoid the alarm system to his sleeping quarters. Which make the issue even worse! See my follow up post on RG. Either way Indi or HQ, not a good thing! If they are lying its lying to the court and a crime. I would think this would have been thoroughly examined, with apocopate warnings before filing it .
Lastly have your heard back from your “witness” yet regarding when she became a permanent resident at the Northwoods and to Bill regarding if he ever had a seminar in his brother’s church in Florida where he introduced him to the participants and the seminar was arranged or Bill’s attendance coordinated by his brother.
Wow, all kinds of possibilities. Do you, honestly, believe Bill capable of what is alleged? We know some if not all of the women here. Knew them when all of this was allegely happening. Know what demeanor they had, interacted with them on a regular basis, friends. Some of us are aghast at what is being alleged by whom. Some of us who lived in as close a proximity to Bill as anyone, both at HQ and Indy. Remanded by the courts. We think some people are lying. Yes, entering a lie into a legal document is a most serious matter.
Not yet. I have her phone number as of today and will make that call at some point. ots going on.
I have more information. The seminar was arranged by a mutual friend, fellow member of the church that David was in. Bill is, BTW, adamant that when folks came to him asking whether to pursue a David Gothard investment, he recommended against that entanglement.
Also more information on Bill’s father and the women sent to the Northwoods.
o Mr. Gothard was very protective of and focused on Steve. He was most focused on seeing him recovered and, perhaps, extra believing. Mr. Gothard was directly involved in at least one of the women being sent up. Bill was clear that his father hoped that she would marry Steve.
o He told me that Ruth went home in the middle of the earlier mess. Bill called her and told her she should not come back, stay at home. Bill felt she was too emotionally involved, specifically with Steve. Ruth was in such anguish over this that she left the phone call to go to the bathroom and throw up – her mother was on the call. Bill was adamant – and he has told me this multiple times – that Ruth pleaded that, if she should not return to HQ, that she would be allowed to work at the Northwoods. Bill was not thrilled at this, but allowed it.
And that Mr G story makes sense to you, Alfred? He was focused on seeing Steve recovered? So he sent women up there to help his recovery? What is “extra believing”? Then you say Mr G was “directly involved in at least one of the women being sent up,” although you said before that Bill said it wasn’t him (Bill) that sent the girls up there, but his father. But now he says Dad was involved with “at least one.” How does your own head not spin?
And I’m looking for Larne to put you in your place for reporting a story about Ruth that sounds nothing like what we heard from him. You probably won’t even post this note, but I’m sure you wouldn’t if I said what you really need to hear right now.
You remind me of a gossip columnist, Sandy. Lots of exclamations and emotion, very little to add to the substance of the discussion. So . . . if you don’t know, don’t comment.
William Gothard Sr. was not a bit player in the ministry. Neither, BTW, was Steve, in part because of his father’s special loyalty. What Bill told me today made a lot of sense. Mr. Gothard Sr. apparently believed that if he were married, that would help with his battles with his hormones . . . a position that actually has solid Scripture behind it. (1 Cor. 7) You recall that as far as he was concerned, Steve had hugged and kissed 4 women, still a manageable situation. Bill mentioned one woman that Mr. Gothard Sr. favored as a candidate for marriage for Steve and arranged for her to be up at the Northwoods where Steve was.
Larne will most definitely respond – I want to hear his understanding of the event. This is not the first or second time that Bill provided this description of how Ruth ended up in the Northwoods.
“We know some if not all of the women here. Knew them when all of this was allegely happening. Know what demeanor they had, interacted with them on a regular basis, friends.”
Yet, your first response is anger towards them for joining what you believe to be some sort of conspiracy. There is not even a moment of consideration that maybe you should believe them. Let’s just say that if that is your definition of “friends,” then I am glad that you are not mine.
You are talking to someone who has made a bit of a career working on allegations against Bill. I have spoken to everyone and anyone that would talk, starting with Don Veinot, Tony Guhr . . . Spent years on the old “Metochoi” Gothard list, asking for the worst anyone knew or had heard. I took up with Recovering Grace in the same manner, as many will testify. I have never failed to attempt the follow up on any and all accusations, with Bill, with the Board, with Gary Smalley and Larne and countless others, from victims to principals. I have children that work for Bill, some very closely, I have the privilege of working closely with women who were in exactly the same situations that the women in this lawsuit claim Bill took advantage of.
I have never EVER heard anyone ever allege or even hear alleged that Bill had intercourse with anyoe, displayed an erection to anyone, some of the salacious things in these new batch of accusations. Again, nobody on the flaming Metochoi forum, nobody on Recovering Grace. Nobody of his enemies that hated him but agreed to talk to me. I am sorry, when you have a Richter 10 earthquake somewhere, there are multitudes of 8s and 6s and 5s that precede or follow. There is NO way for Bill to be the person that these women are alleging and none of us to even hear a rumor of it, somehow.
So, no, I do not believe them. I see some things that, putting the facts that I do know together, that point to some very, very bad possibilities. That is why I can – with fear and trembling but with boldness – call on the Lord to make the truth known, clearly, now.
All of this is disturbing. It is not OK for men to play matchmaker with women.
It is no better or worse for a father to matchmake than a mother. Is it?
“I see some things that, putting the facts that I do know together, that point to some very, very bad possibilities.”
What sorts of possibilities?
I think the possibilities we are pondering are obvious given that we emphatically do not believe the testimonies of Bill and sex. But that is as far as we can go without more information.
Alfred writes:
“Wow, all kinds of possibilities. Do you, honestly, believe Bill capable of what is alleged? We know some if not all of the women here. Knew them when all of this was allegely happening. Know what demeanor they had, interacted with them on a regular basis, friends. Some of us are aghast at what is being alleged by whom.”
Yes Alfred, I have no problem believing that Bill is capable of what is alleged. I’m too “old” and have seen too much to not be surprised by anything! As I have in previous posts referenced other cases like Rev. Jim Baker, Rev. Ted Haggard, Rev. Jimmy Swaggard, Rev. Tullian Tchividjian, should I go on? Our old sin nature is the problem and no one is exempt not even Bill. I stopped “believing in heroes” a long time ago. Pride is an awful thing, pretty soon you start believing your own lie that you’re different and more special then everyone else and the rules don’t apply to you. Then to make claims that it was not my intent, I was only trying to help, they misunderstood my motives…..pretty soon you Do believe your own lie!
In the last couple of posts you have replied to a fictional story about Ruth and being sent up north. We have discussed this before. You see Alfred, Bill has to change the story because the truth is a condemnation of his judgment and his qualifications based on Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. Just like his recent change to the story and now claims his father sent the girls up north. This could be the case of the first woman who was sent up north after Bill was informed of his brother’s immorality but not Ruth. He is desperately grasping at straws to save his own butt! I think I will not bite on his current claims or discuss it here, I’ll just wait to read the book version. Bill’s version of the events reads like Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” or EL James’ “50 Shades of Grey” novel. For now, I’ll just sit back and see how the new story keeps changing as it will make interesting reading.
One last thought, I just got off the phone with Ruth’s mom and as she recounted the story of the phone call during Ruth’s emoutional crisis, she was very clear that she was NOT on that call with Bill and Ruth.
So, you mentioned speaking to Ruth’s Mom. If possible, what is her recollection of how Ruth was sent to the Northwoods? I would be very interested in hearing that. Was she in the house at the time he called, remembers the event? Or, even, what did she, Ruth, say about that? If you relayed her story previously, I appologize. Thanks.
“It is no better or worse for a father to matchmake than a mother. Is it?”
You are correct in that I do not appreciate anyone talking about others as if they are pawns or goods to be traded. Humans should be respected as autonomous people with free agency. If women were plotting out the lives of others, I would equally object.
I do not like the notion of offering up a woman to Steve as a way to “sop up” his excess hormones. It does not sound as if Steve was acting like a kind or thoughtful man. Why sacrifice a woman to “domesticate or tame” him. It is all very barbaric. You and I would probably not want a loved one, a daughter or a sister thrown to Steve.
There are many instances where patriarchs feel they know best and are entitled to arrange the fates of women around them. It is disgusting. I am disappointed that Billl Gothard, Jr. did not stand up for these women more. After all, he was the group’s leader.
If it is true that Ruth begged to go to Northwoods, I am disappointed Bill did not say no.
If it is true that Ruth left the phone to throw up, in my mind, that speaks to the kind of control Bill had over her. Her mental anguish fits in with what Larne has been saying all along.
Again, I am not sure why you stayed through any part of this. I would leave based solely on how Ruth was treated. Even if Bill never treated women badly himself, I would leave based on his failure to protect women from others.
I know very little, but it sounds like Steve got right with the Lord, his trajectory turned around and has proceeded up every since. Part of that was marriage to a good woman. Which has made a lot of difference in many men’s lives. So I cannot find fault with Mr. Gothard for trying to help make that happen.
If Bill expected that he was going to return to IBLP after a short period, then why has he put his energies into started the power teams? If he started this new adventure, then why is he considering sueing the board to be put back? It doesn’t make any sense. You have also made a big deal about writing six new books, but really are they totally “new” materials or are they remakes and rehashes of old stuff? Are long books or are they in the style of Kenneth Hagin Sr. booklets?
Bill has his own perspectives on things. He is particularly grieved that HQ is to be sold, does not feel that is wise, would like to see other options implemented. This is, again, his baby, 50 years of effort.
I suppose you would have to judge for yourself. No Bill Gothard book is ever huge, if you have any of those that he has written over the years. But they are much larger than, say, pamphlets. I have no idea what Hagin produces. The one I am holding in my hand is 128 pages and seems to be of the same rough size as the others I have seen. Lots of pictures and illustrations and charts.
You asked Larne for Ruth’s mom’s “recollection” of Ruth going to the Northwoods – really? Larne has already given you Ruth’s account, but you’re trying to give credence to Bill somehow in a story that does not at all match Ruth’s by calling on another witness, his own mother-in-law? But since you’ve said Bill has stated it more than a couple of times, his version must be true. Have I mentioned before the crazy lengths you’ll go to believe your Bill? Larne is a patient man.
Larne has actually not given me the details of that, or else my mind is foggy. Which is possible. I think I recall him indicating that Bill told her that was the only way she could stay on at IBLP. I want him to clarify. Bill for his part has given me a detailed account of the conversation he says lead to Ruth going up there. Citing her mother as a potential corroborator. So, that is why I asked.
I’m just pointing out how you keep running to Bill to explain everything under the sun. It really doesn’t matter what Ruth’s mom says. It doesn’t matter what Ruth or Larne said. As long as the North on your compass points to Bill, you will be forced to make their stories mesh with his, even when they don’t. So whether Ruth’s mom says Ruth went to the Northwoods because she begged to or because she felt she had no other choice, what difference will it really make to you? Won’t you just hold to Bill’s version and insist that Ruth’s mom and Larne didn’t *really know* how she felt deep down, but Bill did?
I swear I’m saying this to you in kindness, Alfred, although you make it hard to leave the disgust and snark out. I’ve been trying to open your mind to the possibility that Bill lies to you. I know that’s offensive to you, but as one who has also been serially lied to in life-altering proportions, the sooner you learn to ask the right questions and deduce for yourself what’s untruth vs “the truth as he understood it,” the better off you can be.
In a couple of posts you found most offensive and haven’t printed to date, I suggested questions you need to reconcile. Bill will try to reconcile them for you, and you’ve let him for a long time. His favorite lines seem to be “that wasn’t my intention,” (which nobody CAN argue with, but isn’t the point), and “I don’t remember it that way,” (effectively excusing himself and sending you around your elbow to get to your thumb and getting lost on the way).
Again, I’m not trying to prove anything to you. But my sneaking suspicion that Ruth’s mom’s or anybody else’s story won’t make any difference to what you truly believe leaves me wondering why you ask.
Well, your need to jump in with a preemptive strike in case the information comes back differently that you perceive might indicate that you too need to open your mind. To the possibility that Bill is not lying? It is offensive that you find the facts so irrelevant, have no trouble commenting on “hearsay” with the clear possibility that you might not be hearing the whole story. That would be gossip, passing on the delicious stories without any personal commitment or genuine interest in the truth. Take your own medicine, Sandy.
See, this is the reason we exist. Nobody was telling the other side of the story.
“He that is first in his own cause seemeth just;
but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” (Pro 18:17)
You’ve compared me to a gossip “columnist” and accused me of not dealing with “facts” and different “sides.” Yet I’ve told you at least a dozen times … I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m not even discussing the accusations, so I’m not sure where you get that I’m a gossip, and I’m rather offended, if it matters.
What I’ve repeatedly brought to your attention, Alfred, are inconsistencies in what other people and Bill have said, and even inconsistencies in what Bill has said and what Bill has said. I’ve also tried to point out that Bill has a knack for coming up with excuses, whether they make sense or not. He also has a knack for dodging issues, which he has taught you well. I’ve also mentioned some tools that he appears to use – redefining words, claiming memory or intentionality factors, and such. His greatest knack might be that he gets you to believe him every time. My point of reference is that I’ve dealt with someone very similar for over 25 years, and tried for most of that time to make sense of it all. And as far as commenting on “hearsay,” I’m pretty sure that most of my comments are about things that you have said yourself, as well as some from Larne and maybe Dan – people that are speaking from verifiable personal experience. Not that I discount other stories as on RG (which is what you usually refer to as unreliable), but those are their stories to tell; if I have referred to anything from RG here on DG, please bring it to my attention.
For example, YOU described Bill’s response to why he “counseled” far more girls than boys. I commented on the liklihood of that being true – considering that of all the things known about Bill’s early days (on which I’m no expert), I don’t recall anything to corroborate the reason he told you – that early in his ministry he felt a burden for women in the church not being treated well, if I remember correctly.
You see, Alfred, I’ve never tried to prove anything about Bill’s actions to you. I’ve only noticed inconsistencies and diametric oppositions and stuff that just appears bogus in terms of his endless excuses. Today I questioned how yet another testimony would matter to you since your history of dealing with testimony that doesn’t match your Bill’s is to either discredit it on the basis of lack of knowledge or memory, or on the basis of being downright hostile lies.
If Bill has never lied, I’ll eat my words and publically apologize for bothering you. But I’m not invested in him and don’t even have any money riding on anything, so whatever he’s done or not done is no biggie. In case Bill HAS lied, I pray discernment for you.
Good advice for us all. If he has lied, I will report it here. I am not afraid of the truth, am not afraid of challenges. As far as dodging and weaving, tell me a single public figure that is not expert at that. You have to, to survive. Why I will never make a good “public figure”.
Hi Alfred,
Have you had a chance to look into this?
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/Bill-Gothard-Fraud.php
Ron
Thanks for the reminder. We attempted to make contact with Mr. Horst, received no response. We have started a response, not yet complete. It is a tad lower priority than some of the active stuff going on. Basically we consider it gossip . . . since he added next to nothing to the allegations provided by others and apparently made no effort to corroborate anything independently. And yet used his influence and platform to condemn Bill. We have addressed most if not all of the points on the website, say in the Tony Guhr paper that forms the largest portion of his “research”. But we will complete our response.
You write to Sandy
You remind me of a gossip columnist, Sandy. Lots of exclamations and emotion, very little to add to the substance of the discussion. So . . . if you don’t know, don’t comment.
I don’t think I need to remind you that in your “rules” you mention respect. I believe your intention is that comments and the dialog that follows them should be respectful. Calling people gossip columnists, fuss budgets, and several other names that I have reminded you about is neither respectful nor consistent with your own rules for this blog. Also, the words of Solomon may be in order: “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes…” (Which is generally understood to mean proud and arrogant.) Resorting to name calling in this context only serves to further the understanding of Bill found in the RG website.
Nothing we do here will change the opinions of a fair number of RG participants. Sandy has a bad habit of picking up a bunch of points others have raised – and we have answered – and restating them in long posts, presumably to make us answer them again, louder. There are not enough of us to do that. For her sake – because I hate dropping posts – I was hoping to get her to change her modus operandus to something we can work with. And I don’t recall anyone getting called a fussbudget.
Honor and respect are essential. Moving on and not twirling too long is also essential.
You write:
Nothing we do here will change the opinions of a fair number of RG participants.
As much as I am sure it is frustrating, resorting to disrespectful name calling only reinforces the opinions that Bill is arrogant, dishonest, and narcissistic.
Will certainly keep that in mind, Dan. Thank you.
Wow, & thanks so much, Dan. It means a lot that you’d come to my defense. I’ve been insistent here that even though my posts aren’t snark-free, I’m trying to be on Alfred’s side, in spite of him making it hard sometimes.
I won’t repeat too much of how I summarized my DG posts on 1/11, but the gist is that I have primarily pointed out inconsistencies when I’ve seen them, as well as things that don’t make sense that Alfred reports from Bill. I’m a listener, PLUS I’ve been manipulated and lied to for many years, so I notice some things.
I specifically have not dealt in gossip or hearsay, and have no idea where Alfred gets that from. I mentioned recently that the source of what I’d brought up was primarily Alfred himself, as well as personal accounts from Larne and Dan that he had not argued factually. I even mentioned that being called a “gossip” particularly offended me, but apparently it doesn’t matter, so I’ll just move on.
Alfred accused me a while back of “parroting” stuff from RG. I have asked him to point out any post in which I referenced “RG” stories, but haven’t heard back on that. I really don’t think I’ve brought over anything from RG (which wouldn’t even be wrong in itself if I did), and certainly not “parroted.” In his 1/17 note, he said he can’t change the opinions of “RG participants.” I’m seriously not sure why he would even refer to me that way, except to lump me into a conglomerate that he can write off categorically. Again, unfair and unkind, and I’d appreciate him commenting on why he did it, but I’ll probably just move on from that, too.
Alfred states he hates dropping posts, but I’ve lost count of how many of mine haven’t made it through. It’s his forum, and he can pick and choose what he wants; I’m not really surprised or very offended. I’ve been tough on Alfred, but what kind of a friend holds back on what they, from their own experience, think their friend needs to hear when they’re being used by somebody? The only part I really take offense at is that I sense there’s a misogynistic filter to go through, and some of my posts, though not as harsh as some others’ posts, just don’t make it through that.
As far as my “bad habit” of picking up a bunch of points and restating them, I’ve asked Alfred many times to consider things that have been stated, either as they stand alone, or in light of other things. Like, if Bill says that he counseled with girls because he felt from his early days a burden for how they were treated in the church – then why is there no mention of said burden in any historical descriptions of his ministry, and why does his ministry focus so much on men’s roles in families? Or if Bill says he spent more time with pretty people because Satan does, too (really? scriptural??), and if Bill spent more time with them, his effectiveness could be enhanced via them – why didn’t he put that into his counselor training materials so his trainees could be more effective, too? Or if Bill said for years that he didn’t know he was sending girls into harm’s way when he sent them to the Northwoods where Steve was, then why did he just recently tell Alfred that he didn’t actually send them, but his father, which would invalidate the whole premise of the decades-old claim?
Things like these just DON’T make sense, yet Alfred has no trouble believing them and doesn’t question them, and apparently feels that his intelligence is being insulted when I (a female) bring them up. I’ve insisted that insulting him is neither my intent or desire. I feel like all of his readers’ collective intelligence is being insulted when he reports back about things Bill explains to him that he buys hook, line, and sinker, and expects us to, too.
In trying to be a friend, I bring things up for Alfred to consider. So no, I don’t always “deal with facts” – on purpose – in spite of that being the MO Alfred prefers to deal with. My bad.
Bill’s definition of “gossip” revolves around passing out information about a problem from those who are “neither part of the problem nor part of the solution.” I actually called you “like a gossip columnist”, that is, repeating the juicy details of things with which you are not personally involved. A good columnist does consult sources and research, but in the end the point is to present things that get other people excited . . . without any concern for the ultimate results, which do not affect them. Dan and Larne are personally involved . . . as am I. You, I think, are not. I have encouraged you to assume that responsibility, but you appear uninterested.
So when you hit us with long posts pondering the various details which you hear from others but are in no position to evaluate . . . at some point it just becomes not worth our while to respond to. You draw conclusions that I disagree with, things I have personally verified or know people who have verified. At some point I am just not going there. I disagree with Larne and Dan, but they have a reality to work from which I can appeal to. I don’t know what to appeal to with you. Your general analysis of the data fails you, you are lead to the wrong conclusions based on bad assumptions, and frankly I will never convince you otherwise. Again, I could tolerate it more if you put out small snippets, but long posts demand a response. I do not want to consume a disproportionate portion of the bandwidth here – my time – to speculation from those who are “neither part of the problem nor part of the solution.”
So what do you base your conclusions on? This website would discourage you from finding any fault with Bill morally. If you are convinced otherwise, what convinced you? I bet, I BET it was RG. If you say “news stories”, where did they get their information from? If you say, “the lawsuits”, where did Gibbs get his information from? The answer in each case is . . . “Recovering Grace”.
That comment was in response to someone – Dave? – worrying that I might offend RG participants. That was the reason for that choice of words. Did you feel I was pointing at you?
Nah. I have dropped hardly any of Rob(in) War(____), and that was, I think, because of cross posting. She is as prolific as anyone. There is a disproportionately larger number of males here at the moment. For some reason, Rob(in) is engaged . . . and appears to be working through this, seeking a solution, even if her conclusions are not in favor of mine. I deeply appreciate how seriously she takes the things we post, checking them out . . . asking questions to clarify. I have a sense that if all the aspects lines up – which would be the case if Bill were innocent – she would accept it, and say so. Whether I can convince her I do not know, but it is worth my while to keep trying.
You come across really demeaning to me, Sandy. I just don’t have the time or energy, here in our forum, to put up with that. “Use your brain” 🙂 I graduated Summa Cum Laude with multiple degrees, one in Math, so . . . I know how to use it. Stop implying that I can’t think or see. See, an objective person would immediately consider whether they too need to work harder in understanding if they are dealing with a worthy opponent. I am a “thing to be humored”. So, there, I said it. Start being able to question yourself with the objectivity you demand of me. So far, I haven’t sensed it.
Oh, I will try. If you, as I, have attended his conferences and seminars you will understand that. Comments like, “God always creates the most important thing last”, often said, referring to the woman. Historical? I don’t know . . . maybe because people that dislike him would pounce on it and tear him to pieces.
Because God does. Because our culture is pounding the men into the ground, lest they fulfill those roles, given that the devil has so much harder time of it. And your question implies that the Bible does not focus especially on men’s unique roles? I know what the Bible says.
Let’s see, in referencing that I spoke in part about Moses, Satan’s attempt to kill him, the parents gain faith, knowing his special role because he was “comely” (handsome). Did you not see that? If you did, why cast this same thing back at me without dealing with what I said?
Bill ran the entire organization, so all the suggestions of his father were approved by him. But he deeply respected his father, and if his father had a reasonable burden, he would not be turned down. Dad wanted Steve to get married to help close the door on this dangerous, hormonally driven flirtation (which is all he believed he had done). So both are true. If it weren’t for his father, less girls would have gone up, I am gathering.
Thank you for your friendliness. I do appreciate it. So let’s see what you do with the things I have given you to consider. Try picking one point to explore and see if you can demonstrate that you get what I am saying before responding. Don’t assume that because you don’t get it, I am an idiot. Whatever you do, try really hard to not just go back to the same thing you said . . . and say it again later, louder. If you run out of new ways to look at it, then drop it and move on.
Alfred, I do not give permission to use my name
We apologize, thought it was openly provided elsewhere.
Alfred writes:
“You come across really demeaning to me, Sandy. I just don’t have the time or energy, here in our forum, to put up with that. “Use your brain” 🙂 I graduated Summa Cum Laude with multiple degrees, one in Math, so . . . I know how to use it. Stop implying that I can’t think or see. See, an objective person would immediately consider whether they too need to work harder in understanding if they are dealing with a worthy opponent. I am a “thing to be humored”. So, there, I said it. Start being able to question yourself with the objectivity you demand of me. So far, I haven’t sensed it.”
Alfred one of the saddest things I see on this website is your demeaning comment to others and your attempt to puff yourself up! This effort fit well into the Gothard mentality of umbrella of protection and the patriarchal movement. One that says I have more authority then you so you must listen to me, I know more then you, I have the real understanding, I am smarter then you and only God gave me and Bill the true understanding of scripture. Bill uses that and so do you.
Let’s look at your comment above, “I graduated Summa Cum Laude with multiple degrees, one in Math, so . . . I know how to use it.” Who cares! In reality why does it matter? It doesn’t. Am I impressed? No. Go to Biblegate.com and search PUFF, several great verses come up including 1 Timothy 6:3-5(ESV)3 “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound[a] words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”
This applies to you and Bill. Proverbs talks of Knowledge and Wisdom, you might be able to work a slide rule and figure a difficult equation but that does not mean you have wisdom. Neither of my parents finished high school but they had true wisdom. Some of the “smartest” people I’ve have met were the dumbest. The world is full of “little people” that are full of themselves and know how to demean others to build (puff) themselves up. God should get all the credit for your knowledge, not you. God should get all the credit for you hard work, not you. Everything we have is a result of the gifts of God and his love for us. The patriarchal movement, chain of command (for adults) takes away for God and puffs up men.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:5-7 (ESV) makes this point very clear specificly 6 & 7)” Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God. 6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers,[a] that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. 7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”
One of the other sad things I see in various innuendoes your make to covey a negative meaning. Below this thread you talk of Jane Doe II being a “Foreign National”. You imply she might not have the same legal protections as an “American”. Maybe it just me but I sense undertones in your comments to indicate her heritage might be an influence to her story. Do you know where she is from? You indicated you know all their real stories. Who is your source? Bill? The same with your negative comment regarding Jane Doe III and others. Alfred just remember Matthew 18:1-14 will apply to you also when you stand before our Just and Holy God.
We are all in agreement! Bottom line, we insist on being taken seriously on this forum if others want us to take them seriously. And why we hit the delete button when some hold forth on the assumption we are idiots. Maybe we are, but make the point somewhere else.
I do know where she is from but I honestly don’t know if it matters. Some thought it was important to being able to sue in this manner. I am not a lawyer, we will soon find out. That was the sum and substance of that comment.
Alfred writes:
“We are all in agreement! Bottom line, we insist on being taken seriously on this forum if others want us to take them seriously. And why we hit the delete button when some hold forth on the assumption we are idiots. Maybe we are, but make the point somewhere else.”
Alfred if you want to be taken seriously then you need to start acting seriously. Research the facts, besides asking Bill. We have found that Bill is deceitful and a liar and I know you disagree and make excuses for him but we have had 40 years of personal experience with him. If your second set of facts is from IBLP they are being sued and there is a large sum of money along with their employment involved. Remember when Convictions Clash with Cash, Cash always Wins. (A quote from a pastor friend) I go back to the discussion of the first set of lawsuits and the current one. You made statements that were not based in fact that could have been easily checked yet you refused and stated everyone else was wrong. If you have an opinion state it as such, not as a fact. My involvement on DG stated started with you saying that “Larne would agree” (something like that) which I did not. You have insinuated things and demeaned people for the reasons I stated in my previous post. If you want respect you have to earn it by being respectful of others. You might have spent a lot of time and effort researching 1980 but you DID NOT LIVE IT. It would be like me writing a story of the Viet Nam war. After all I was in the Army at the same time, I trained for it, I served in Korea, I had friends who were there but I wasn’t. All I could do would be to tell their story. That the same for you except that your have been told the story but don’t believe it. So what does that make you?
You called Jane Doe II a Foreign National, which implies a lessor status or lessor value as a person. I asked my wife (who is not involved in this at all, but spent a lot of time overseas) to considering the factor JDII was trafficked, what was her impression of your statement. My wife’s reply was several countries that had a history of trafficking. None of them were on the same continent where JDII was from. Alfred too often we categorize people that are not like us as being inferior to us, culturally, financially and mentally. (Like your statement of having several degrees and being a math major) In Jane Doe II’s case where she is from is a very reverent fact to her case based on our similar culture. Alfred respect is earned, not automatically given because of position of authority or in this case be moderator of this website.
How many time have I pointed this out to you on this website? Remember, respect is earned, by your actions and words. You can not demand it! Yes, on this website your can “take your ball and go home” when you don’t like what others are saying, even when its the truth. But remember you are the one who thinks Bill walks on water and is only accountable to God so when other disagree don’t be surprised.
So, this website exists in part because nobody was asking Bill much of anything elsewhere. Seems like his perspective figures fairly importantly in the process of correctly judging these matters. Jesus said go to the accused FIRST, then branch out. So, near as we figure it, we are doing at least one thing right. Whatever he tells us we check with other sources, back and forth.
Don’t mean to play dumb, but . . . what are you referring to?
The entire basis of our legal system is decisions being made by those overtly who DID NOT LIVE IT 🙂 The ones that lived it do not get to help decide. That is because objectivity is not enhanced by strong emotions. So . . . I am going to respectfully disagree.
I have NO information suggesting that JDII is adopted. That did not come from the lawsuit or my sources. She was at the time she came to the ITC a citizen of a country besides the US. The only reason it was mentioned was because of it potentially affecting her legal status to sue. All of that will be decided in court. Had NOTHING to do with being inferior. The mental journeys we embark on . . .
I appreciate the posturing, but I suspect that on other reflection you would know how different our reality is from this. Bill is a man with faults, some substantial. Just, he was NOT immoral . . . he really didn’t do that.
Alfred writes:
“So, this website exists in part because nobody was asking Bill much of anything elsewhere. Seems like his perspective figures fairly importantly in the process of correctly judging these matters. Jesus said go to the accused FIRST, then branch out. So, near as we figure it, we are doing at least one thing right. Whatever he tells us we check with other sources, back and forth.”
Not so, we asked him the same questions not only in Denver but on the phone. Its that your answers are different then ours and to you he made excuses for his answers to us. Why? He had 5 witnesses in Denver there were always two witnesses on the phone with him. Bill had to find a way to make excuses for his confessions of guilt. It’s his pattern that has remained unchanged for 40 years. We did go to Bill first. Gary, Ken and Ed went in 1976, again most of the staff in 1980, multiple attempts from 1980-2013, for me personally 1983, 1984, 1987-91, 2006 then a continued attempt since he called me in Aug 2013 to today, and that’s just my story.
Alfred writes:
“Don’t mean to play dumb, but . . . what are you referring to?”
Without going through the previous 2059 comments on DG. The 1981/82 lawsuits and the reasons the suits were dismissed or negotiated away. The 2015 lawsuit and your statement it was dismissed and “I don’t care.” Even when you were given the court contact info you failed to check not just by me but someone before me. Comments about the LaGrange Bible Church and Dr. Lynch partitioning the elders, Statements about the 1980 scandal, why Ruth was sent up north, Bill’s knowledge of his Brother’s immorality. Your only source is Bill and Linda who wasn’t at the Northwood most of the time in question, Tony and his document and me. Your did check with Gary on the cabin story but if I recall it still left Ruth in his lap alone at night. But we’ve been debating that for a while. I could go on but my fingers are tired.
Alfred Writes:
“The entire basis of our legal system is decisions being made by those overtly who DID NOT LIVE IT The ones that lived it do not get to help decide. That is because objectivity is not enhanced by strong emotions. So . . . I am going to respectfully disagree.”
Who said anything about the legal system, my concern is truth and unrepentant sin. But as long as you want to talk about it, the plaintiffs could lose the case over a technicality in the law but that does not clear Bill of sin. The same could be said for the reverse. When we all stand before a Holy God the earthly legal system will not matter. God will proclaim Holy Judgment because he knows the true intent of the heart (and not Billy’s inner brain,).
In the current lawsuit “none of us will deicide” it will be up to the judge and or jury (I don’t know what is being requested). But I can assure you that those that participate as witnesses will have very strong emotions and emotions which will influence the judge/jury.
Alfred writes:
“I have NO information suggesting that JDII is adopted. That did not come from the lawsuit or my sources. She was at the time she came to the ITC a citizen of a country besides the US. The only reason it was mentioned was because of it potentially affecting her legal status to sue. All of that will be decided in court. Had NOTHING to do with being inferior. The mental journeys we embark on . . . ”
I never referred to her being adopted. I only was addressing your reference to her being a foreign national and those negative implications. Again going back to checking other sources, a simple Google search or reading the news will tell you that immigrants have legal rights. Foreign nationals sue frequently airlines for discrimination or injury, the DOJ website talks of immigrant’s rights to file complaints or bring suit. Base on other inferences and demeaning language you have used on DG I believe the words you choose were deliberate. There is no mental journey here, only TRUTH.
Alfred writes;
“I appreciate the posturing, but I suspect that on other reflection you would know how different our reality is from this. Bill is a man with faults, some substantial. Just, he was NOT immoral . . . he really didn’t do that.”
I am not posturing anything, just telling it like I see it! Personally from my perspective you appear blind to the truth. You look at the millions and not the one lost lamb(s). Yes Bill has his faults just like the rest of us, it’s the unrepentant sin we are concerned about. Lastly, how do you know he was NOT immoral? Have you watched him his whole life every second? Were you there with him in his cabin in the Northwood in 1979/80 when he had visitors? Or did you watch him during his late night counseling sessions in his office or during his road trips? How can you say that he was not immoral? Remember all the people that believed Bill Clinton didn’t have sex with “’that woman”? How did that work out for them? Or Richard Nixon didn’t know about Watergate. Whoops, that didn’t work out either. These men were Presidents, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services with the ability to send our sons and daughters to their grave. Remember Vietnam and Somalia? That didn’t work out to well for the families of that service personal who gave it all. Men we trusted with our sons and daughters lives were liars. Alfred you don’t know for sure he was not immoral but have the right to believe anything, but knowing and believing are two different things. You need to state the truth in your facts. Is it a fact you could prove before God or is it your belief.
In all fairness, WHAT do you expect to happen when you have Bill over a barrel and after all these years are bound and determined to extract that confession out of him that you have been gunning for all these years. There are certain things that Bill can NEVER agree, confess to, not with a clear conscience. So if those are the things that you will not leave until you extract, and you will not accept what is, in fact, the truth, creative Bill will find a way to move past those impasses so there will be peace.
I got almost no information on that from Bill – in fact, he seemed to know little of the details.
The statement that the judge had “dismissed” the suit is reiterated in the newest IBLP statement. Given that they have real lawyers working this, it would seem strange for them to publish something that they were told is not true. I didn’t care because I already knew they were refiling.
On the contrary, I read the online information as it was provided to me.
The only difference we have is that you conclude that LaGrange never acted to censure Bill is because they were too busy building a church building? That is speculation on your part. I have never mentioned Dr. Lynch because I don’t know who he is.
And you know that I have pursued the fullest answer I can find from any source that has knowledge. Your conclusion remains fundamentally that Bill deliberately sent her up there to see her get hurt. There is no other conclusion possible.
Again, if what you say is true, Bill was worse than negligent – He acted with malice.
You know, not all the long ago you postulated that without confidence . . . now it is proven?
And give me credit for being the ONLY one to do so. Yes, she still was there, but fully clothed and as a woman that he told both Gary and the Board he was “dating”.
I too listen to the witnesses having lots of emotion, then make a determination, all without having been there. That is my job – Paul says I will judge angels! (1 Cor. 6:2) So I am qualified and God-ordained to do so.
You are the one with negative implications – they were not mine.
Of course not. Based on your standard nobody can conclude anything about anything 🙂 The standard is not God’s knowledge, but what a reasonable person would conclude when considering all of the available facts. I have been studying Bill and the facts for a long time. I have knocked on every door that threatened to hold the bogyman, countless hours of interviews, friend and foe alike. I spoke with three new significant witnesses this week, maybe 4 hours of interviewing. I ask them all what they know, what they saw. You have seen me on this website, pleading with people to speak what they know. THAT is why I know, and why I am not afraid anymore. Bring it on.
Alfred, you said on 1/23 about Jane Doe II being a “foreign national” – “Some thought it was important to being able to sue in this manner. … That was the sum and substance of that comment.” But when you’d mentioned her being “the citizen of a foreign country” on 1/19, it was in response to a question NOT about whether she had a right to sue, but about whether Bill was obligated to report possible abuse under mandatory reporting laws. You said her citizenship “… matters little, except perhaps WITH RESPECT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF ‘MANDTORY REPORTING LAWS.'”
Referencing your question to Larne – a statment you made about the recent lawsuit when you stated everyone else was wrong was about it being tossed for good when it was simply in a legal process of being refiled.
You also said to Larne, “I have NO information suggesting that JDII is adopted.” Adoption was mentioned by someone a while back, likely mistakenly, but *Larne* didn’t even mention it anywhere in the post you were replying to. The mental journey WE embark on is in keeping up with your trains of thought.
You say there is no gender bias here. Larne has raked you over the coals far more severely than I have in my couple-days-old comment that’s still awaiting moderation while many others have gone through. Can you explain?
Mandatory reporting laws are a big factor in this lawsuit to establish negligence. Which goes back to having a legal basis for her claims. The fact that she allegedly told lots of people about being abused coupled with a presumed lack of reporting on the Institute’s side equals a conviction. So I cited three different levels at which the information she did supply was correctly handled . . . buttressed with the question of whether she even could sue, even if the other facts were not correct.
Not sure I am wrong 🙂 I am granting a lot more weight to the legal environment that IBLP is working under that represented it as a “dismissal” than you are.
Raking does not concern me. Larne, for one, has earned the right to pretty much say what he wants. We have a long track record and whether you believe me or not, I respect him deeply. He is definitely part of the problem, in the sense of having suffered, and emphatically part of the solution, having expended serious time and money over more than half his life to try to make things right. I just get tired of what appears to me to be an academic exercise on your part . . . which I could tolerate except that your mind is made up and I see no basis upon which I can get you to consider the alternative. And, truth be told, you scorn us. I just see nothing positive coming out of this.
One of the primary factual allegations in the Gibbs III lawsuit is that some of the plaintiffs told Gothard about physical and/or sexual abuse occurring in their homes and that Gothard never reported the allegations of abuse to government authorities. Some of the plaintiffs were allegedly minors when they told Bill about the alleged abuse. In some cases, Gothard allegedly called the parents to ask if the reports of abuse (which the parents alleged to have committed) were true.
In your view, what do you think was Bill’s appropriate moral, Biblical, and legal response and what should he have done after hearing such reports from young people he was counseling? What is the appropriate thing for someone like Gothard to do after someone says they have been abused by a parent?
Remember that this is a material point attempting to be proven. So, of course they will seek to highlight that. I can tell you that every time I have brought that up to Bill or IBLP leadership, they point to steps they took to fulfill their legal responsibilities. They were not ignorant of them and they had a legal staff that would press on such things. It was similarly alleged that staff were told to not record overtime, work off the clock. On multimillion dollar lawsuit was filed to that end, but dismissed by the court. And I know, again, how staffers told me of the extreme care they took to ensure that IBLP would not be liable in those areas.
My question is not whether Gothard or IBLP did or did not do. My question is, hypothetically, what is or would be the appropriate thing for Gothard to do when a minor he is counseling alleges she is being abused at home?
I think I answered that in my second response.
No, I don’t think you did answer the question because you never said what specificly should occur. “Follow the law” is not a specific response.
Hypothetically, what specific steps or actions, if any, should someone like Mr. Gothard take after someone reports to Mr. Gothard they have experienced abuse from a parent during a counseling session?
I do not know the specific requirements set forth by federal or state law as I would if I were a counselor. That becomes the de facto starting right point to proceed on. How that is affected for a court remanded child, I also do not know. Ages of the young people becomes important on that note too. But having seen too many instances of abusers who could never shake it until thumped by the secular laws, I see the wisdom in these laws. I am not going beyond that in specifics.
If the law is silent, say the child is above the reporting age? Every situation is different. Contrary to public opinion, IBLP never employed the notion that children should be returned to abusive situations if legally possible. Bill had not a few young people involved in his ministries, sometimes for years, to move them out of bad settings.
I’m still not clear on what your answer is when the person in counseling IS A MINOR.
Is it accurate to say that your position is that if the law requires the potential abuse to be reported to the Department of Human Services (or other appropriate agency), the abuse should be reported to such agency?
So what if the the law does NOT required to be reported, and the person reporting the abuse is a minor, then what should happen? Should that potential abuse still be reported?
Do you self report every infraction you commit to the police, be they traffic violations or even, God forbid, events such as “assault and battery”? “Assault” is verbally threatening bodily harm, “battery” is actually hitting them or, as we are being told, “touching them without permission”. What say you? Do you self report every time you endangered a child in a car by driving too fast or in some other irresponsible way?
Alfred, laws are pretty clear and all Dr, social workers, teachers, hospitals, therapists, ministers, pastors, priests, psychologists, psychiatrists etc etc are required by law to report to authorities (police, child protective services) any time they become aware of any type of child abuse and neglect. If Bill was “counseling” of which he had no qualifications to do so, he and anyone else at IBLP that were notified or became aware of abuse as told to them by these girls, then he and ILBP are liable under any State law in the USA. This has nothing to do with traffic violations. If Bill didn’t think he had to obey this, then he shouldn’t have been counseling anyone for anything, girl or boy. You may want to mock this and laugh at it but my husband in social work training had this emphasized over and over again. Likewise, my husband is also required by law to report to authorities any suspected abuse, potential homicide, threats etc on adults as well. You don’t know what you are talking about and there are serious consequences for all of this, if not reported to proper authorities.
WHAT am I not knowing here, Rob? Isn’t that exactly what I was saying?
BTW, just for the record, Bill told me that:
So . . . I am guessing that was responsive, as far as the law is concerned.
Moderator’s Comment:
“Do you self report every infraction you commit to the police, be they traffic violations or even, God forbid, events such as “assault and battery”? “Assault” is verbally threatening bodily harm, “battery” is actually hitting them or, as we are being told, “touching them without permission”. What say you? Do you self report every time you endangered a child in a car by driving too fast or in some other irresponsible way?”
*******
I thought this was the page where we could get questions answered. Nothing in my question has anything to do with self-reporting infractions. I really am trying to just understand your position – I’m not trying to argue. I don’t understand why it is so difficult to answer what is a reasonably straight-forward question, so let me try again:
Hypothetically, if a minor reported to Mr. Gothard in a counselling session with him that she was potentially being physically or sexually abused by a parent or someone else in her house, is it accurate to say that your position is that if the law required Gothard to report the alleged abuse to the Department of Human Services (or other appropriate agency), then Mr. Gothard should reported the alleged abuse should be reported to such agency?
The answer to this is yes or now, with an explanation.
Again, if I see you spank your child “too hard” according to my standards, should my next step be to report it to the police? Is that what you would urge me to do? Your answer will help me understand exactly what you are getting at.
That was confusing, but if the law requires it, Bill should – and did – report it.
“A foreign national”? is that how you are describing someone that was adopted international is that they are “foreign nationals”. Really? So that justifies it then, she is a “foreign national” and doesn’t qualify for anything and that is what makes her a liar.. Sorry but abuse like hers needs to go to the police and if some board member was aware because she went to them, they had the responsibility to report it themselves, not “try to contact the victim”. You are really grasping here at straws. If Bill raped that girl, then he ought to be in prison.
We ALL agree!! Bill agrees. Thank GOD he didn’t.
And every accusation she produced of the nature of being abused was vigorously followed up on, reports to the appropriate authorities. Including a board member who sought her out. Where did you get the “adopted” idea? That sounds like Jane Doe, not Jane Doe II – Jane Doe has no accusations of abuse, other than claiming that Bill made her parents kick her out. And urged adoptive parents to see their adopted children as slaves. Right now anyone can say anything they want.
No, Jane Doe II was the citizen of a foreign country at the time she was at ITC. That matters little, except perhaps with respect to legal requirements of “mandatory reporting laws”. Which were actually followed, regardless.
You just said Jane Doe II was a “foreign national,” then you said Jane Doe III was the citizen of a foreign country. Which one do you mean, assuming one has been mistaken for the other.
My bad, thank you, Sandy – it is Jane Doe II. I should correct that. Consider this an acknowledgement of the typo, so if this disappears, understand why.
Jane Doe III – a whole ‘nuther story.
I’m not really trying to get anywhere. I’m trying to to get answers to my questions.
But yes, if someone personally witnessed abuse – (ie: something causing injury or bruises), they should call the police, who will be in a better position to determine what is going on. But this really doesn’t have anything to do with my original question. Of course not everyone is a mandatory reporter. For what it’s worth, the legal standards in Illinois for what constitutes suspected abuse is defined in the mandatory reporting statutes. Also, the statute does not require mandatory reporters to have personal knowledge of the abuse or to confirm that there is actually abuse occurring before they are required to report the abuse: the law requires mandatory reporters who have a “reasonable cause to believe” a child MAY be abused or neglected to contact the authorities.
So here’s my next hypothetical question: what if the law did not require Gothard to make a report because he was not a mandatory reporter but he still had a reasonable cause to believe that a minor teen was being abused because the teen told him about the alleged abuse in her home. Do you think Gothard still has a moral duty to report the suspected abuse to the authorities?
Again, this is a “yes” or “no” question.
“Depends”. Anyone in real danger, yes. Otherwise I have seen a definite checkered career of law enforcement in correctly handling some less obvious situations. They have a hammer, and if it isn’t a nail, they sometimes hit it anyway. Which is why Christian agencies like IBLP are entrusted by the courts to figure kids out and bring real solutions.
Alfred writes:
“….a whole ‘nuther story”
If I call Bill a dirtbag, I get “tossed” which is fine with me, yet you call someone derogatory names with spelling insinuations and that OK. No wonder why Christians are called hypocrites and pious christian (little c) ruin the name of Christ. I will repeat a previous post She is a real person, with a real story and a real disease! Bill started pursuing her at 13 that SICK, as is each of the other stories. Bill’s pattern of behavior goes back at least 47 years, the stories are the same, unrepentant sin, lies and coverups all to protect his empire, his name and his money! Christ has become his marketing tool. I will remind you of Matthew 18:1-14, read it again. Yes I am angry, Ephesians 4:26 “Be ye angry, and sin not:” I’m sure this post won’t see the light of day!
She is a real person, real disease that Bill spent a nontrivial amount of time, effort and money to help. There is a lot more to this story which I presume you do not know. So let’s let it rest until that information becomes public.
Correct me if I am wrong, so if I understand what you are saying correctly, if there is no legal requirement for Gothard to report potential suspected abuse to civil authorities, it should be reported if someone is in “real danger.”
So my next question is who does Bill Gothard believes has jurisdictional authority to determine whether someone who tells him in a counseling session she is being abused is actually in “real danger?”