By now most Americans are aware of the “Shiny, Happy People” documentary posted on Amazon Prime for the last several months, attacking the Duggars, IBLP, and Bill specifically. The 4 part series is the most watched Prime documentary ever and has generated an unimaginable deluge of hatred toward all of the entities cited.
We are, as best and as objectively as we can be, furiously committed to the truth as it relates to Bill Gothard and his ministries. It is, however, crystal clear that the producers – Chick Entertainment, lead by Olivia Crist – came into this with an agenda to destroy or at least damage conservative Christians. They are particularly focused on those that homeschool, seeking to protect their children from the godless soul crushing woke mindset that has worked its way into all corners of our society. To that end this is an open propaganda piece, stretching, twisting the truth mixed with an astonishing number of lies.
The purpose of this OP is in part to open a platform for this consideration for those that actually care about the truth. We will, as always, provide the facts as we know them or can discover them. It has, however, been amazing that, given the fury of animosity seen on Bill’s social media sites in response to the documentary, there has been an corresponding lack of interest in getting a second perspective. We expected this blog to be buzzing, but it has most definitely been not. Elsewhere the fury came, the fury went.
But serious, slanderous accusations have been made. Accusations of Bill’s unimaginable wealth to overt racism to rape and serial molestation of young women and children, even to secret plans to overthrow the government. We have been heartened to see an independent group – independent to us, to Bill, IBLP or Duggars – that discerned a larger agenda in this attack and is organizing to counter it. Holly McLean put out a video called “Was I in a Cult?” expressing her initial concerns. We found it extremely balanced. Shortly thereafter a larger group formed spinning around Sacred Honor Media, intent o
n deploying a professional produced documentary in response. The working title is “Shiny Slander” and research and production efforts are already underway. We will assist them with facts and access as they ask, but have been told repeatedly that they are committed to complete independence.
Fundraising has commenced as well. For those that would like to encourage and support them, the link is https://www.givesendgo.com/shinyslander. We wholeheartedly endorse this effort and hope that likeminded individuals will support them. The truth is the truth and we will support it wherever it leads. But cancel culture and godless hatred of Jesus and His Word and servants are what they are as well and this boldfaced attempt to destroy us all must be answered, one way or another. May the Lord bless Holly and the others at “Shiny Slander” and allow them to succeed.
Holly McLean is a trip. I tortured myself just listening to her. She is wrong and false on many accounts. Jinger did not appear in Shiny Happy People until the very last episode here Jinger appeared in a video clip of her from one of her numerous book interviews. Jill is the one that was interviewed in the series, not Jinger. Holly also states that “most Christians would agree with Bill Gothard”. Where does she get her sweeping statement from because this is not true. She brushes aside all the firsthand testimonies from people raised in the stuff about how it damaged them. What an arrogant snob of a woman. This is the best you got? No one has heard of Sacred Honor. They obviously are looking for money. Amazon series is made of up firsthand testimony from Jim Bob’s family and friends as well as firsthand testimonies from those that were raised in ATI. There is nothing slanderous about firsthand testimonies.
Back to Holly, I went to the seminars too. I was fortunate to marry someone that didn’t believe in this junk, so I didn’t go down that road. So just attending IBYC which is what it was when I went didn’t qualify for “being in a cult” but going down the path of ATI and all the rest and I do plan to never watch another torturous video by you again. Maybe you ought to study what humility is because you certainly lack it. You don’t have all the answers Holly and your short hair is just too much.
I’m sorry you did not find the videos I provide helpful and you were “tortured”. Not sure I’ve heard that one before, but ok. I hope you have a full recovery. LOL
If you read the description of the video, the mistake about Jinger vs Jill was already addressed.
If you look at the basic principles of
Design
Authority
Responsibility
Suffering
Ownership
Freedom
Success
Most Christians agree that God designed the world in a certain way and He has a purpose in that design.
Most Christians do agree that God has placed authorities in our world for a reason. Just read Roman chapter 13 to start with. Maybe all Christians do not agree with the application Gothard teaches, true. But that’s not what I said.
We could go through each one of these principles and say the same sort of thing.
The character qualities taught in the IBLP materials… generally Christian agree with being prudent, modest, kind, generous, organized, honest… etc, etc, etc. Again, the application is the question and that will be explored.
The first hand testimonies you are referring to vary in many ways. Some were accounts of people who had family problems, personal problems, and problems with the way their parents treated them. That’s sad. I agree.
Certainly anyone who was in a family that was abusive is a problem. The question is, was that abuse due to the IBLP teachings or the failures of the parents? We will explore this further. But if you listen to their testimonies, there are lots of clues about the answer even with the heavy editing in SHP. My heart goes out to those who feel they were hurt in those ways.
Others gave testimony about the Duggars and about Bill that will be addressed in the docuseries to come. Basically, there was a lot that was not true and a lot of misrepresentation in the piece.
Keep in mind there is a lot more information in the court documents that SHP producers purposefully did not reveal. Once that is put on the table, it is possible you might change your mind about some of it. Of course, that is if you have an open mind to take in more information. If you do not, no amount of factual information that was hidden will matter to you once it is revealed.
And, if my hair is offensive to you, I guess you believe women should have long hair? Not sure what your point is about that, but my goal isn’t to please the audience with my looks. It’s to be a normal looking as I can muster. I doubt I could pull off being super pleasant looking anyway – so we have to do with what we’ve got! LOL
Thank you for your reply. I do realize that I was rather tough but again, JInger was not featured, Jill was. Jinger did state publicly that she turned down being interviewed by them. I don’t know how you can determine what is factual or not by the people that were featured on Shiny. Their testimonies match the countless of other testimonies that have been featured in places like Recovering Grace and now many many others in blogs, videos, Tic Toc etc. You simple cannot brush all of this off as just misunderstandings, bad families and mental illness. Whatever good you think there is in Bill’s teachings. I finally did listen to your whole video. The kook family you described as knowing should have been a red flag that their is something really off about the teachings of Bill Gothard and should not be passed off as these people were kooks. I honestly don’t care how one wears their hair but you started your video was being rather smug about wearing long hair because you felt feminine or that it made you more feminine and that Bill Gothard didn’t tell you to do this. Well, a lot of people did not only wear long hair because of Bill, but curled it as well because of Bill. Just look at the early pictures of the Duggar girls. In the beginning of their shows, all of them were curing their hair. That is directly from Bill himself.
Honestly, I don’t care about how women choose to wear their hair or why. I was just making clear that my choices didn’t have anything to do with IBLP. If you don’t like my hair style… ok then, that doesn’t matter to me and seems a bit silly to talk about imv. LOL
I already stated that the mistake with Jill/Jinger was addressed in the video description. I actually didn’t expect this video to go anywhere, so who said what wasn’t the point anyway. I didn’t think taking the time to correct it before release was necessary. In the end, the point of the video is still intact, so these details are actually irrelevant to that.
I think Jill Duggar was used by SHP producers and in her emotional state, I think she made a mistake to agree to it. But, it could be because she is looking for opportunities to promote her book coming out next month. That would be understandable because anytime a book is being released, stirring up the pot of interest is necessary to sell it. Did she realize her interview would take the direction it did? Idk.
The “kook” family you are referring to has other issues that are completely unrelated to their involvement in IBLP teachings which caused some of their beliefs to go as they did. But, at the same time, I acknowledged in the video how I believe an overactive conscience is created when Gothard’s teachings are taken in without balance. That is what I said in the video. From my research after that, I think Bill himself has an overactive conscience which has caused some of the problems he is facing now.
But, because some teachings are not the same as mine or yours, does that mean ALL the things taught are evil? Does that mean the concepts are all wrong and nothing good is in them? Or, could it be that we should examine any teachings from any source with a critical eye and determine what in them can be of benefit and what should be disregarded?
The fact that so many people don’t have any discernment about SHP is an indication of how people don’t seem to be able to do this… with anything! They swallow the whole without thinking about the details.
It doesn’t seem to matter all the contradictions or things that just don’t make sense or don’t ring true. For example, in one part of the series, Bill Gothard is described as a cult leader with no checks and balances, basically a dictatorial leader who answers to nobody. Yet, in another part of the series, the board of directors tells him NO and he has to comply. And does so. And then again later he is removed from the ministry. No checks and balances??
I’ve since learned of other incidents where BGothard was corrected by the board or told he shouldn’t do this or that. And he complied. Does that sound like a cult leader with no one to check him? Does it sound like he had complete reign over his “cult” as those kinds of leaders do? It doesn’t to me.
Another example, it is stated that IBLP families do not educate their children except with wisdom booklets that don’t teach math. And that families who homeschooled have raised children that are struggling because they are uneducated and have no way to earn a decent living.
Yet, in another part of the series, it talks about how these same students are infiltrating the highest places in government and law enforcement. The FBI, CIA, Congress, etc. Yet they are uneducated with no skills? Does that make sense?
There are SO many examples like that throughout the SHP series. Things that don’t add up and don’t make sense. But, people seem to just completely miss them. They seem to blindly accept whatever is presented.
If you haven’t seen the video about Balloon Boy, I suggest you do. There are MANY examples in history of this same kind of thing happening where a narrative is created, promoted without balance, and then there is no stopping it. https://youtu.be/QWhUvm8SunY
I do know there are people who find a person they admire and then seem to hang on their every word. And I also believe there are many people who did that with BGothard. The question is, was that what Mr. Gothard expected and reveled in? Was IBLP actually a cult or were there people who treated it like one in their own families?
This will be explored. And so will the testimonies of those who accused IBLP and Gothard of being the culprit for all their woes as adults. Just a note: you might want to research repressed memories. They play a huge role in the lawsuit and SHP didn’t say a word about that because it didn’t fit their narrative.
The claims about Christians and homeschoolers will be set straight as well.
And, the narrative that the Duggars are evil or unfit parents is absolutely ridiculous. Did they make some mistakes? Sure. But unfit parents? Abusive or neglectful? Obviously this was a narrative completely out of context and slanderous without any balance or context applied.
And for those who swallow this whole SHP thing without any critical thinking applied to it, I say, wait for the docuseries to come and try to add a little balance to your thought processes.
He did revel in it I believe. The ten minute standing ovations. The flurry of activity to get the the reception area of wherever he was arriving perfectly ready for him. He enjoyed it I’m sure. It’s heady stuff after all, and difficult to resist.
Above, that’s a funny point about balloon boy. The old proverb still applies. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt!” How often are we rendered foolish when we speak too soon?
Do Gothard’s enemies appear on social media? What does that betoken? For decades, Bill Gothard made friends and enemies. Like Roosevelt’s man in the arena, Gothard spent himself in a worthy cause, “so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
What about the red herring of hair? Does curly hair show approval of Bill Gothard? Does Bill Gothard have many fans among negroes? If curly hair affirms Bill Gothard, whom does baldness affirm? Or gray hair?
What about “cold and timid souls” like us? Is keyboard gossip our best way to follow Christ?
Above, brother Nathan said that Bill Gothard probably reveled in the praise and attention he received. What does this signify? C.S. Lewis addressed this when he wrote about pride:
“Pleasure in being praised is not pride. The child who is patted on the back for doing a lesson well, the woman whose beauty is praised by her lover, the saved soul to whom Christ says, ‘Well done,’ are pleased and ought to be. For here the pleasure lies not in what you are but in the fact that you have pleased someone you wanted (and rightly wanted) to please.” Is it virtue or vice to appreciate appreciation? It all depends.
Is there nothing slanderous about firsthand testimonies? That’s what we read on 8/6 above. But slander is a false and malicious statement. Why not disguise it as firsthand testimony? What restrained Gothard’s enemies from slander? their charitable hearts? But where is the evidence of charitable hearts?
Slander is not very risky if we limit ourselves to internet gossip. But the risks compound if we bring slander into a courtroom. Did Gothard’s enemies back out of their lawsuit because the penalties for perjury were too dangerous? Perjury prosecution is neither shiny nor happy.
I watched the series with an open mind. I was disappointed in the lack of credible people involved in the series. There were many other people they could have picked to be a voice that would have been truthful and believable. When they started the series out by saying the ultimate goal of Gothard and IBLP was world domination, instantly my eyes rolled! I was there for 12 years, world domination is laughable. But to be honest the most shocking to me was the lack of substance in several of the stories. For instance the one girl, Emily gave this detailed story about eating dinner with Bill… he tells her he loves her say’s to her, “let’s’ go up to my office”. She leads you to believe that something very bad was about to happen! She is a good storyteller, I was on the edge of my seat!! But then she says he walked into his office and there was a male worker…. and that was pretty much the end of the story, so nothing happened?! She said he began grooming her, but failed to tell us what he was grooming her for? I can only imagine her “grooming” was her training to become a secretary? She never actually came out and blamed Bill for anything, other than holding her hand and telling her he loved her. I was shocked they left her story in the documentary. The sad part to me, is that the girl acts as if she was sexually abused by Bill, but of course she never accused him of such.
It makes me think these people are looking for an identity and have found one in telling their story, really sad. I honestly felt sorry for all the people on the documentary because their past has become what has defined them. So many people hurt by IBLP and Bill are not able to move on. If it hadn’t been IBLP or Bill, it would have been somebody else. Unless you can heal from your past, it will always dictate your future, and you are, and will continue to be a victim. Such a prison to live in.
I am not excusing Bill’s wrong doings… I have written before on here where I feel like he was wrong, and moderators here disagree with me. However I feel I have an honest and balanced perspective because of personal experience, yet even I would say that shiny happy people failed to give anywhere close to a true story of actual events.
We know Emily Jaeger Anderson well. She was Doe 3 in the lawsuit where she asked $500K for these events. She could not get her stories past depositions before she dropped out without a settlement. Could have sued again within a year but declined to do so. The Lord is judge between her and Bill.
She is telling similar stories as a speaker coast to coast accusing her own father of “sexual abuse”. We have her unguarded testimony in discovery documents about exactly what her father did to her. From her own words it is clear that this is another example of therapy and “repressed memories” inventing a “truth” that is simply false. Jesus said, “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4)
I suggest anyone who doubts this to see the 5 part series on Shiny Slander YouTube channel detailing Emily’s lies. It’s very revealing.
We read a good point on 8/23 above. When people fling accusations of grooming, they keep their words vague and mysterious.
To what end was the grooming supposedly happening? We are not told. We are left to assume it is dark and scary. Are vague accusations easy to make, but difficult to prove? In slang, we call that a cheap shot.
Are we being groomed to impute dark motives without just cause? But what about the famous words in 1 Corinthians 13? Charity “thinketh no evil,” while vague accusers impute nothing but evil!
Did a short-haired woman criticize the Gothard critics? Above, we are told that her criticism is like torture. Why, the critic even brushed aside unproven gossip. Worse still, the critic has short hair. Supposedly, people who criticize Gothard-critics are only “looking for money,” but the Gothard-critics themselves are never looking for money.
“You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it Bulverism.”
—C.S. Lewis, Bulverism
As Rob helpfully notes, slander can be useful when looking for money. Does this explain some recent anti-Gothard productions?
I would like to go on record to predict that the rebuttal documentary never sees the light of day. 17 donors so far? Out of the alleged millions who went through his program? That should tell you something.
You can’t muzzle the avalanche of people who have come forward and continue to do so. I do not find your efforts to discredit them all convincing.
Sure, let’s take that challenge 🙂 Having gotten to know the folks driving it forward I am impressed with their zeal. Even more important, if the Lord is in it, He will take it by the hand and bring it through.
As to the “avalanche of people” coming forward – where are they, brother? The documentary took every accusation – most of which already clearly and thoroughly debunked – and gave them a shiny new coat of paint. The exceptions are a few “me too” folks, anxious to cash in and with even less beef than the others.
Others have predicted the avalanche. Coming from the repressed silent masses that have borne their shame and hurt in silence for decades. Lawsuits galore.
It . . . Hasn’t happened! We are aware of one (1) lawsuit that was filed that alleges that Bill is personally responsible for a father and sons molesting daughters/sisters as young as 2 years old. They cite SHP as proof. We shall see, but I have a feeling that some folks will be paying to return legal fees in short order.
The full court press back in the 2015 time frame was to be that avalanche. Out of the thousands of women Bill personally counseled they were only able to find 19 who stood up for that. 1 dropped out before the final submission, 1 was a man (still not sure what that was all about as he did not claim Bill hurt him), and 2 were suing people other than Bill. They were all in a group, heavily collaborating over social media night and day for 2 years, hoping that a mass of accusations – 180 counts – would spook IBLP into settling. In the end there was NO BEEF. Nothing that could carry though a trial. The personal injury firm employed basically dropped them all and ate what had to have been a quarter of a million $ in costs. NO, it wasn’t the “statutes of limitations”, because Judge Popejoy ruled that if what they claimed in their pleas were true, they did not apply. It wasn’t publicity as 7 were “Jane Does”, and the others didn’t care. They left a $500K per person payday. THAT was the avalanche, my friend, and it turned out to be a trickle that quickly petered out.
We have good legal counsel that defamation suits would prevail in the current situation. Question remains how much damage this has actually done and what Bill is up for. So, let’s see. I suspect you have no idea of how things really are.
Brother James, shall we increase the avalanche of people mentioned above? Would you please supply some evidence of harm which Bill Gothard did to you personally? Otherwise, are we referring only to an avalanche of gossip? Indeed, gossip is one of the sins which most grieved Jesus and his apostles. Whom will the avalanche sweep into Hell? Let’s not find out the hard way!
As for seventeen donors out of millions, what indeed should that tell us? We give up. What is the most probable answer?
You very well may be correct. We do not know what God has in store. But we do know that when Christians answer His call, things happen for good.
Don’t be deceived by the donor count. It only counts those who give through givesendgo. Not those who give privately separate from that. But, it is true we are still looking for more funding. The trailer was made with a separate set of donations that were not recorded in the givesendgo amount.
But, I will also say, do you believe that the amount given determines truth? So, Amazon has unlimited money. Does that mean what they produce must be true?
And further, do you believe the more people say a thing, the more truth is in it? Or, do you believe truth is based on the facts?
I think logic is missing from your conclusions.
“Sure, let’s take that challenge 🙂 Having gotten to know the folks driving it forward I am impressed with their zeal.”
Interesting. Ok, game on! We should probably define some terms. To me, success in a documentary would mean it gets picked up by a major platform, such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc. If that happens, you win, hands down. Smaller Christian platforms would count too, as long as they are truly a significant platform with at least 10,000 or so subscribers. A guy walking around with his iPhone video taping, then uploading to YouTube, well, anyone can do that, so would have to say that would not count. Unless, iPhone guy uploads the documentary and gets 100,000+ views on YouTube. I’ll go ahead and say that counts as success.
Lunch at Chick-fil-A?
🙂 I am going to start with “never sees the light of day”. Those were your words and I am going to work with that. The production house putting this together knows how to work with the major platforms. No, this is not a guy with an iPhone, we have seen them at work.
Regardless, Chick-Fil-A sounds delightful.
I have been looking forward to your take on this for some time. Yes, I wish I could have written a piece about it. But it is extremely hard to review something I haven’t seen. I dropped my Prime membership two years ago and don’t have reason to renew. So I’m just gonna coast on this one.
I do want to state this. This is a simple observation about the nature of documentaries, especially investigative documentaries.
We need to understand what we are watching when we do view these things. That should probably go for everything, but these kinds of media, we should be particularly guarded. These claim to represent and promote truth. But it is never without question.
Documentarians are trying to argue an angle. Every time. It does not matter whether we agree with that angle. We should care about the truth. The truth is so beautiful and so powerful that twisting it, even in the slightest degree, must be reprehensible.
I say this as one who has watched many of the current documentaries on Netflix and Prime. Not a single one of them is truly neutral, and that is a problem. I am suggesting here that we are indeed being subtly mislead, and at times with the best of intentions. Both Seaspiracy and All In are good examples.
These are investigative documentaries that appear very factual and make a compelling argument. But when you start looking at the facts (I did in these cases), the arguments don’t match or make sense.
So I would, just at the surface, always advise caution in viewing any documentary on any platform today. Just as a basic position. That doesn’t mean they are all untruthful. It’s just that the truth has a funny way of being at best hidden in these forms of media and at worst outright distorted.
Agreed. (And apologies on the delay) That being said, another investigation of the investigation. Value your reaction: Shiny Happy People Mis-Leading Man – Duggar, IBLP & Gothard Slander
Well, my preliminary take from first viewing:
She’s absolutely right about narrative. In fact, that is precisely what makes this form of media so dangerous. People don’t en masse understand that they are watching someone tell a story. They think they are hearing a balanced tale of truth.
It is a clear example of why we should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. My contention for years is that many of us get the formula backwards.
I haven’t seen those documentaries or read the books about repressed memories. It sounds as if it would be invaluable. My expertise is in legal theory – not psychological. Thus, I’m not sure I would have been exposed to this line of thinking otherwise. It is particularly disturbing since there are legal elements to this – to the point where repressed memory begins to be remembered being the bases of a statute of limitations. That is disturbing indeed. If even just a fraction of repressed memories are untrue, it opens a massive can of worms to a number of legal theories.
She is wise to examine the character and nature of Pease. The storyteller can tell us a lot about this kind of narrative. I read the Fundamentalist Trap and found it confusing. Particularly, I didn’t see any Fundamentalism or any trap specifically, just a lot of ideology and anecdote.
She’s also right to question whether a fundamentalist family would indeed create such an environment where abuse is rampant. The question is good – is this the only place? The answer is obvious, and it is more telling that in order for Josh Duggar to commit his crimes, he was actually going AGAINST his upbringing.
She would make the case that JD is the exception that proves the rule, not the other way around. It’s not only plausible, it’s logical.
My contention would be that it is fair to address the problem. It is fair and fitting to make sure we’re not creating the very problems we want to solve. But I don’t think that position is controversial. Surely, we all agree on that. In so protecting our families, let’s not do anything that introduces harm, even if unintentional. That’s the real challenge.
We agree with your assessment. Much more is queued up, I understand.
As JM says above, no documentary is strictly neutral. He even understates his case. History itself is “a set of facts about the past, filtered by somebody’s opinion about importance.” That’s an old definition, and a good one.
I enjoyed the history resources in my ATI Wisdom Booklets, because I agreed with their opinion about importance. Missionary biographies were important, because Christ’s Great Commission was important.
So JM kissed Prime goodbye. When we cancel Amazon Prime, do we manifest good judgment about what’s important? Probably!
Yes. This.
I’ve been watching these a lot now.
I gotta say, Holly has absolutely nailed this skepticism thing.
She does probably the best job ever with the material. Here’s the claim. Here’s the fact. That’s how it’s supposed to be done.
While I can’t comment on much of the subject matter since so much of it never affected me, these videos are absolutely necessary in this discussion. Truth is precious, and we must insure it does not get distorted. It seems pretty clear the producers of Shiny Happy People did more than distort.
In the end, SHP falls into the trash bin alongside All In and Seaspiracy.
We agree.
Gothard’s enemies are creating case studies which affirm what he taught. He warned how destructive our bitterness can be.
Gothard’s accusers on SHP looked miserable. Were they so tormented by sin that they projected their guilt upon Bill Gothard? Or were they reciting scripts composed for them by others? or both?
Holly proves that Gothard’s enemies are lying about Gothard, yet she takes it for granted that they are truthful in the rest of their testimony. Is Holly being charitable? or naive? or both?
Were Gothard’s enemies always innocent victims vexed by evil? Or rather, were they projecting evil upon innocence?
I watched the Shiny, Happy People documentary and I’ve watched all but four of the Shiny Slander videos on YouTube. Those videos are at least as biased as the documentary they’re criticizing. Holly blatantly misrepresents the people in the interviews, as if we haven’t just heard them ourselves, and she ignores anything that doesn’t fit her narrative, even as she accuses the documentary of doing the same thing. Yes, the makers of SHP had an agenda. That’s not a secret. That’s how documentaries work. But for Holly to make it sound like she’s motivated by a pure desire for truth when she herself ignores any uncomfortable truths is simply hypocrisy.
This is a great place to examine that. Holly does respond to criticism as she is openly committed to truthfulness and accuracy. So . . . Let’s start with her misrepresenting the people in the interviews. Can you point out 1 or 2 instances that stand out?
One, when she criticizes Amy King for not seeming to be convinced by Jim Bob’s explanation of why he has a TV show while not allowing his own family to watch TV. Holly talked like Amy was just being needlessly cynical. That’s not really fair. If Amy genuinely doubted that Jim Bob was being sincere in his reasons, why criticize her for expressing that?
Two, when she talked about Brooke Arnold seeing similarities between the Duggar’s show and the way she grew up, which included husbands being allowed to spank their wives. Whether the group Brooke Arnold grew up is the same or not, she was giving her honest impression. And Holly–unlike when she was talking about Jill and Jinger Duggar–didn’t say that she thinks Brooke was merely mistaken.
Holly’s opinion on Amy is her own. She would not be the first to critique her. As to Brooke – Let’s be crystal clear that no ATI husband – not one – ever even considered “spanking” his wife. That is so bizarre and abhorrent to almost be hilarious. We can say that with absolute certainty. We can because we have been interviewing friend and foe alike for a decade now, and this has literally never come up. In any context. Most of us are ATI families, some plugged in from very early. So . . . THAT is a complete fabrication.
“Slander” is a strong word. It’s fine for Holly to disagree with Amy’s skepticism. But the fact that Holly disagrees with it doesn’t mean that either Amy or the makers of the documentary were slandering anyone. To call it slander like that is a blatant misrepresentation.
Likewise, it’s fine to point out that there’s no evidence that husbands in the IBLP spank their wives. But it doesn’t then follow that it’s slanderous for the show to feature a woman who grew up in a group that’s different but similar–similar enough that when she watched the Duggar show, what she saw was familiar to her. It reminded her of her own experiences, and her own experiences included wives being spanked. And so she shared that. How is that slander?
I think that would be obvious. It would be, if you found yourself the target of this documentary. Suffice it to say that millions of people have come to absolutely hate Bill and IBLP and the Duggars. One reason is this spurious connection, allegation . . . Much like you just made. You have no other source than SHP to believe that we ATI husbands spank our wives. A hateful suggestion. YES, it is slander, defamation, legally so. Implications of moral guilt is defamation “per se” if false, meaning you don’t have to prove damages to prevail.
The only people who believe the spanking slander are guilty souls who must believe the worst about their neighbors. It is irrational, but that is how we ruin ourselves by sin.
“Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”
We have been asking around to find out if anyone in the IBLP world has even HEARD of such practices. I never cease to be amazed at the hardness and depravity of our human hearts . . . But so far no one has been able to point us to anything.
FYI Brooke Arnold never says anything in SHP about spousal spanking. You are confusing her with Tia Levings.
Thank you. Hard to keep up
Thank you for your comments and questions.
My commentary on Amy King was not about whether she was slandering. Not all the things pointed out will be slander exactly. Some will be that, some will be straight up lies which is slander. Some will be misrepresentations, and some will point out the narrative and attitude with which the documentary is set. The narrative that Christian homeschoolers are basically bad, abusive and neglectful to their children.
The comments about Amy King are about her cynical attitude looking for fault and assigning the idea that Jim Bob was lying about his reason for agreeing to cooperate with the TV show. I point out that it makes sense he would answer that way and there is no reason to have a cynical attitude about it at all. But of course, SHP loved it.
Regarding Brooke Arnold, she lies. I have documented several of the lies and misrepresentations she has stated in SHP and even in other online interviews. She lied about Gothard’s income, his family, visiting him at his home, the ALERT program and many more things.
I don’t think Brooke is mistaken. There are SOME on SHP that are mistaken, and some are deceived. Then there are some who are liars. Brooke is in the latter category. So is Emily Anderson, Lara Smith and Joshua Pease. But others, like the Oathouts, Lindsey Smith, Heather Heath and even Chad Harris aren’t necessarily lying in SHP. I think they actually believe what they are saying. I can’t speak for other interviews right now, but as far as SHP goes, they were being honest about their beliefs and feelings thought they are coming from a place of anger and resentment.
They are misguided and some are blinded by anger in their relationships with their parents.
I try to be honest about what I have found in investigations. And I try to make clear who I believe is flat out lying. Some are.
Can you give an example of my “blatantly misrepresenting” the people in their interviews? What person and how were they misrepresented?
I think the people here can go to the Shiny SLANDER YouTube channel and easily discover whether or not they agree with your assessment of my work.
The Shiny Slander YouTube channel seems well-named. Of course, it borrows its title from the Amazon series. The Amazon series was named ironically, with contempt for shine and happiness.
Slander is unappealing unless it wears pretty raiment. So the Amazon series had to array itself as a noble stand against dark forces.
Yet shine and happiness are real, if only the Amazon producers had eyes to see. Have they incarcerated themselves in a grim dungeon of resentment which locks only from the inside? Have they dark eyes which see nothing but darkness? Where is their joy?
On 3/13 above, we are told that agenda-promotion is “how documentaries work.” Of course not.
Here is the dictionary definition of a documentary: “a movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report.” The only agenda in a documentary should be factual accuracy. Editorial bias has no place in a documentary.
Uncomfortable claims are not necessarily truth. What if they are only uncomfortable smears? Shouldn’t truth be confirmed by conclusive evidence? by proof beyond reasonable doubt?
A documentary isn’t just a list of all facts about a topic in alphabetical order. It tells a story, a story that the makers want to tell. If they didn’t want to tell a story, why would they bother making a documentary? So yes, the makers of a documentary are going to make editorial decisions. Two people could report the same facts and tell two completely different stories without either of them lying.
As for uncomfortable truths, I”m not talking about details from the documentary that Holly picked at random. I’m talking about over-arching truths that she ignored.
The fact that the Duggar parents started making money by presenting themselves as a model Christian family right on the heels of the finding out that their oldest son was a child molester isn’t an unsubstantiated smear. That’s been confirmed by Jill Duggar. How is that at all justifiable?
The fact that many people who grew up with the IBLP found it so bad that they were willing to leave everyone and everything they knew in order to start a new life isn’t an unsubstantiated smear. That’s very well-established. It strains credulity to the breaking point to suggest that all those people would cut themselves off from everything familiar just for money, or because of some minor misunderstanding, or for some petty and immature reason. These aren’t whiny teenagers. These are adults.
Duggars were making money from day 1 – nothing about that changed when the network asked to continue the show, albeit without the focus on the core family. Josh, for the record, self-reported satisfying his childish curiosity at the expense of his sisters, something of which they were never aware. I would be curious if you are aware of other foolish children doing similar things and if, in those cases, you would agree with branding them “molesters” for life.
A few folk, a very few, left “Everyone and Everything” behind. Again, we have interviewed and know dozens, maybe hundreds of ATI families directly. We have found that a lot left God completely as well. Many of the accusers in the show are self-professed atheists.
See, there is nothing wrong with Jesus for sure. Whatever compelled them to abandon Him is fake and wrong and something for which they, if they do not repent, will pay for for a horrible eternity. Any complaints, then, against Bill or ATI or IBLP would simply be backwash from that. ” . . . as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.” (Romans 15:3)
I’m not saying Josh should have been labelled a molester for life because of what he did with his sisters when he was young. I’m saying the parents shouldn’t have made money portraying their family as being all good and pure and wholesome after that happened. That should cause humility and self-reflection, not parading your children on TV.
Enough people left and started saying bad things that people like you and Holly think it’s worth starting a campaign to defend Gothard and IBLP against what they have to say. It might not be a big number by percentages, but when even a comparatively small number of people leave a group that insular, it’s significant. The more different and insular a group is, the harder it is to leave it, because the more foreign everything else is.
You said that whatever compelled so many of these people to leave Jesus is fake and wrong. But they themselves are saying very clearly that they left because of Gothard and the IBLP. That’s what turned them away from God.
Why would they lie about that? Or how could they be mistaken? Why do you think there’s some other mysterious reason, and that Gothard and the IBLP are mere scapegoats?
If it were your child – is that what you would do? Would you even disclose the indiscretions of a minor child to the world? Those records were correctly and legally sealed.
What Holly does and what we do are two different things. She has her own motivations and functions completely independently. Frankly she is giving voice to a lot of frustrated IBLP families that find themselves horribly slandered. Bill has gotten death threats. A lot of good that Bill and IBLP have seen accomplished is being attacked by the devil . . . Through some willing accomplices. So, up to this point, we are vigorously cheering her on.
Nobody who has met the living Jesus for real, gotten a new heart, a new nature, is going to abandon Him. Not if every other professing Christian turns out to be a hypocrite. That is a function of God carrying us, as opposed to us carrying Him. It separates the wheat from the chaff. None of us are worthy or perfect – But Jesus, our Jesus, will see us through.
So . . . No, neither Bill nor IBLP turned them into atheists. They became atheists and in rejecting Him rejected everything associated with Him. Some of these folks know good and well the judgement of God against themselves, and the hard fact that they have a literal few days, if not minutes, left before it is all over, for EVER. Bill and IBLP are the absolute least of their worries. In my communications with Holly I have been amazed at the efforts she has gone through to reach out, to be fair, to tell both sides of the story. It has also been amazing how soundly she has been rejected. THAT is not her fault.
On 3/24 above, we raise a question about Duggars making money honorably. It is a fair question which deserves an answer. After one Duggar was exposed for sin, could the entire Duggar family earn money honorably on reality TV? Probably, they could. Why not?
An objection is raised about how the Duggars presented themselves. Hopefully they did not present themselves at all. Instead, they submitted to cameramen documenting their life routines. Although the Duggar “reality” footage must have been edited, who did the editing? Apparently the editor justified his for-profit portrayal of the Duggars. Should we censure the editor?
But where is the shiny slander really targeted? at the Duggars? partly, but not mainly. Instead, the real target seems to be conservative Protestant Christianity, and ultimately Christ himself. These must be discredited, and the Duggars are merely the icon du jour.
If the Duggars truly just thought of the show as a way of making money by showing the life and logistics of a large family, then I might agree with you. But that’s not the case. Amy King said that Jim Bob defended being on TV (even though his own family didn’t watch TV) by saying that it was a ministry. In Jill Duggar’s book, she talks about her dad using the phrase “window of opportunity”. He would say that since God gave them a window of opportunity, they should make use of it. So however the editor edited it, Jim Bob Duggar at least viewed it evangelistically. He viewed the show as his family showing a good example to the world. A man can have many, many ministries even if he has family issues. But the one ministry you can’t have–and maintain your integrity–is one which consists of making your family a positive example and glossing over major issues.
If the goal of the documentary was to make conservative Protestant Christianity in general look bad, then they did a terrible job of it. I”ll grant they had no interest in distinguishing between the group they were talking about and Christians in general. But the only people I see who are at all confused by the difference are IBLP people themselves. For mainstream conservative Christians, Gothard and his group and his teachings are so far removed from historical, Orthodox Christianity that exposing them has no bearing on Christianity in general.
We will just have to disagree. Barring exposing his son’s confession to the world – Which a lot of us would consider reprehensible – there is nothing else the Duggars could and should have done. No one would imagine that they are perfect, but sometimes you just want a picture of someone trying really hard to do it good and right. A lot of people – a LOT – liked the show and found it encouraging. As to being “far removed” from Orthodox Christianity, maybe so. Very few evangelical Christians are into orthodoxy.
This is my reply to the moderator’s comment on 3/28.
If that was my child, I wouldn’t have them on TV like that in the first place. I didn’t say the Duggar parents should have told the world what Josh did that first time when they sent him away. I’m saying that they shouldn’t have had the TV show. The parents could have had any other ministry—or multiple ministries—that didn’t involve using their children as some sort of witness to the world, and there would have been no issue with them doing it after learning what happened with Josh. Instead, they chose the one thing that’s incredibly inappropriate in light of that.
If the group is truly good and innocent and they’re not hiding anything, why were they not already very visible? People were so fascinated by the Duggars show because it was one of the few glimpses they got of that world, and it looked “shiny and happy” to a lot of people (if also a bit odd). And then it turns out they were hiding all this stuff. What exactly did Gothard accomplish? A bunch of families so isolated from the mainstream that nobody hears about them until something bad comes out—a lot of it from the very people who grew up in it? Is it really fair to blame the general public for their reaction?
Honestly, I’m disturbed by the lack of humility I’m seeing in the people attacking the critics. If the group is truly good, and all the bad is just a horrible misunderstanding, even that points to problems in the group. Even if the group itself is basically good, they’ve not been a good testimony. If people in the group have such disparate views of what it is, what it does, and what it’s about, then that means they’re not even teaching their own properly. And yet instead of seeing any humble self-reflection, all I see is a defense/attack posture.
As far as the people who became atheists, I agree with you that they weren’t Christians. But that has nothing to do with my point. You see to be assuming the very thing I’m questioning—that leaving the IBLP is the same thing as leaving Jesus. It’s true that most people who left the IBLP also rejected Jesus. But that doesn’t mean that the IBLP is truly Christian. Again, what I’m seeing is a group that’s hurt people so badly that they go so far the other way that they reject Jesus Himself. How does that make the IBLP look good or Christian or Christ-like?
And what’s so “amazing” about people not responding to Holly? Why should they? Why would you assume that it can’t possibly be Holly’s fault that she was “soundly rejected”? Was she professional and respectful? Or was she just hounding people—people who had already been deeply hurt—with intrusive questions?
A lot of folks disagree with you on whether a TV show is a good thing. We watched the Duggars from the get-go and really like what they did. I know them personally. They are exactly in private as they are in public.
Yes, she [Holly] was professional and respectful. That was kind of the point. People who have real injustices to address respond completely differently from those who are using the alleged faults of others as a cover for their own messed up world. The first love the truth and support any effort that will reveal it . . . The second don’t want any more light shone on their story because they know it will quickly disintegrate.
If you want to discuss all of the deep dark secrets in “the group”, this is the right place to be. My family is (was) in ATI as is the case for the rest of us. Pick your greatest concern and let’s talk it out. You say the group “hurt people badly”. Start with that. What has been done? Try to not do the fire hose routine. Start with one or two of your main concerns and let’s see if we can find some clarity. We talk to Bill regularly and he helps in that process. He has also met with the aggrieved and apologized for failures that he became aware of. We have facilitated several of those connections.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that anybody who’s faced injustice will talk about it with anyone. People who have been hurt—whether because of injustice or anything else—are vulnerable. Many don’t want to talk to anyone, and many more don’t want to talk about it publicly. Those who do are already in the minority. It’s rather callous—and just plain false—to say that anyone with a real injustice is willing to be interrogated about it by people who don’t even believe them.
And that segues nicely into your next question. I don’t have enough specific details about any given situation in which people have been hurt for any one of them to be my main concern. You don’t want me to “firehose” it, but the fact is, there is a “firehose” of stories and that’s just the people willing to talk about it publicly (see above). You probably know more about those details than I do, and you seem to think they’re all lying or mistaken. That in itself is concerning to me.
My main concern is about something we haven’t even started talking about here, and that’s IBLP/Gothard’s theology and purpose. What /is/ it theologically? I discovered a generic statement of faith tucked away on the IBLP website, but it tells me almost nothing of their distinctives. So what are they and why are they so secret? Also, what exactly is their goal, and how is the same or different from that of a local church? And again, why is it so hard to tell even looking at their own website?
So it is quite evident that you are following the herd. In this day and age you surely can think of other “herd” “cancel culture” movements that have been in the end based on nothing of substance. You can only imagine how frustrating that is to people who actually have a stake in this.
We will have to strongly disagree on the notion that genuine wrongs drive people into silence. We have seen quite the opposite. What we have also seen is that there are those that have compromised in things where they knew better, have suffered as a result . . . And then spend the rest of their lives trying to blame others. I have – personally – reviewed all of the details of each of the plaintiffs that joined the $8.5 million lawsuit against Bill and IBLP. First and foremost, are you aware that EVERY ONE of the 17 plaintiffs claimed that their damage was unknown to them until they got together on the Recovering Grace website? Horrific allegations of sexual abuse – of which they were blissfully unaware for decades after leaving IBLP, getting married, having families? The “recovered memories” thing was a pop psychology thing back in the 1980s. Problem is that none of their stories – NOT ONE – had in the end anything to corroborate. A large, well heeled, politically powerful personal injury firm in Chicago (Meiers and Flowers) sunk what must have been at least $250K in legal fees into this, that based on the legal fees expended on the other side. What they discovered was that there was nothing there. One by one they dropped plaintiffs from action until Bill’s team was informed that of the 11 or so that had not quit by then they were only looking at one to try to get to trial. And somehow that must have not worked out as the remaining plaintiffs quietly walked away with no settlement a few months later. If you know anything about that legal world you know the skill these lawyers have in recovering damages – for a secular firm with no connection to Bill to walk away from that kind of investment with literally NOTHING to show for 3 years of effort ought to give you some pause. AND the Illinois State Rule 137 action against them for filing a frivolous lawsuit almost prevailed – the Appellate Court signaled that had the plaintiffs been excluded from the action, it would likely have succeeded.
The general statement of faith is really it, as banal as it is. Bill is distinctive in that he really takes the Bible to be literally true, the fountainhead of all knowledge and wisdom. Which is why the center piece of his efforts spin around getting people to meditate in Scripture they have memorized, day and night, constantly. Not meditating on his words – straight Scripture in your favorite translation. Cults will never do that lest people start to think for themselves.
If you are serious, why not take the Basic Seminar (BasicSeminar.com). It is free – it is 30 hours in the privacy of your home, nobody knows, but then you can make up your own mind on whether it is good or bad. You seem committed enough to want to figure this out. That is the place to start. All of the deep and dark secrets as they are imagined are in there. Nothing to hide. See if you can find wife spanking or child abuse or whatever else is being batted about in there. As those who in some cases have been associated with everything IBLP has put forward for 50 years, that is our testimony. It is all in there.
I wasn’t talking about the sexual abuse allegations and the big lawsuit. That’s its own thing. A court of law can only deal with whether it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime.
These days, people are usually “cancelled” because someone got mad about one random thing they said and everyone goes nuts. Gothard is getting heat because he started an entire insular sub-culture, and people are now leaving that culture and sharing their experiences.
And there’s a “firehose” of stories about things that aren’t crimes but are still harmful. For example, the group is well-known for forbidding women to wear pants or have short hair. It’s not a crime to tell someone that they’re sinning against the God of the universe if they wear jeans, but it can be very harmful.
All fundamentalists and even some evangelicals say they take the Bible “literally”, and yet they all interpret and apply it differently. So simply taking the Bible literally isn’t a distinctive. Anyone who teaches anything from the Bible is interpreting it unless they just open a Bible, read from it, and sit down again.
What the group is known for, whether they want that to be their actual distinctive or not, is a certain lifestyle—a very particular belief and practice about things like appearance, education, family, and entertainment. Surely they know that. Since that’s what they’re known for, I would expect to see a robust Scriptural defense of those things easily accessible on their website. But there’s not. Why is that?
I started watching the Basic Seminar videos, and I plan to watch more, but I haven’t got far yet. But even there, Bill Gothard doesn’t seem to explain his interpretations. He just throws verses out shotgun-style and usually doesn’t give people time to look them up, all while repeatedly saying it’s “clear” from God’s Word.
If it’s really so clear, why aren’t more Christians saying the same thing? Why haven’t people already heard that in their churches? The result is a very mixed message.
This was a civil suit, so “preponderance of evidence”, a much lower standard. These are the same allegations presented in SHP. Surely you find some significance to the failure of not one but 3 legal firms to make even one of the 180 counts stick.
My wife and girls wear pants. Short hair and pants were discouraged the same way that beards were – it was part of the “uniform”. Kind of like what IBM used to demand of their sales people. “Dress for Success”, which is scientifically based, if you are familiar with the book and author (Molloy). Bill read and liked the book.
The reason you do not see a “robust defense” is because those things are not all that important. It is part of the caricature of reality that has sprung up, fueled by all of those prejudices that people have against conservative folks.
I must say with all sincerity – kudos for taking the challenge and viewing for yourself. You have just stepped out of the masses into a special class of individual. With no implications of how you will be affected. We have always been interested in people who are genuine, truthful, without an angle. Please, ask any questions here, we will be happy to clarify as best we are able.
As to why other Christians are not saying the same things . . . There are a couple of answers. One is – they are. One Christian leader who was no sycophant – and Bill never disclosed to us who it was – asked him, “Do you want to know why I think you have been so successful?” (Something like that) When Bill responded affirmatively, he said, “It is your ability to creatively explain the sovereignty of God.” The notion of “Why did God let it happen?”. Bill is distinct not in what he teaches, but his ability for it to make sense. All wives know the edicts in Scripture of “submission” and godly women accept it and teach it. Bill has a way of making it . . . Exciting, powerful, life changing. Bad accidents happen to very good people and all good Christians accept disabilities like that from the hand of God. With Bill, he makes it into an advantage. Indeed, Joni Erickson Tada, well known quadriplegic Christian author, artist, singer, speaker, said in a conference that I attended that it was Bill’s seminar, and a follow up question she asked him directly as someone pushed her up to the podium between sessions, that changed her perspective and set her on the course to hope, peace, freedom, and the ministry God has given her. She was set to be the keynote speaker at Bill’s “50 Years in Ministry” celebration that was derailed by the baseless allegations which ultimately forced him from IBLP.
The other answer is that this is consistent with so many other great men and women of God to whom God gave special insight and ministry. Heavily criticized by the very ones that should have been cheering them on. Bill is no Paul, but is it noteworthy that Paul noted just days before his execution that “all they of Asia” had turned on him, and the ones that stood with him in the end were just a couple of folks. It is part of the ways of God.
Again, draw your own conclusions. Regardless, you represent a breath of fresh air.
On 3/29 above we raise the question of how and why Duggars came to be featured on reality TV. This has been explained elsewhere, but of one thing we can be nearly certain.
Is it probable that Jim Bob Duggar created a TV show on his personal initiative? Is it realistic for an ordinary family man to do this? Is it realistic for you and me to do this? If not, then the question of money vs. ministry is moot. If a commercial producer offered any Christian both ministry and money in one package, wouldn’t most Christians at least consider it?
Above, we raised a question about Christian orthodoxy. Orthodox Christianity deserves a defense. When we use the term with a small “o,” we mean the broad Christian consensus which C.S. Lewis called “mere” Christianity. Did Bill Gothard teach material which was outside the boundaries of that consensus? Of course not!
Gothard’s Basic Seminar material came from his master’s thesis at Wheaton College, which was the epicenter of evangelical orthodoxy in the mid-20th Century. If orthodoxy lies elsewhere in 2024, who moved?
Decades ago, Gothard occupied the center of evangelical orthodoxy. Back then, men wore business suits to church, where they sang eighteenth-century hymns by Isaac Watts, and nineteenth-century hymns by Fanny Crosby. Funky music was reserved only for the world and beach clothes were reserved only for the beach. Is that commonplace in 2024? or rare? If Bill Gothard’s teaching is now unorthodox, is that because of our progress? or regress?
All right, Joanna. This one is for you.
Documentaries historically have been just that – historic. As in, yes, they are just a serious of facts about a thing. Think about the ones that made the genre – Ken Burns’s Civil War and Baseball.
What you are describing, ones that take a bent and try to convince us of a side, is a relatively new invention called Investigative Documentaries. And they have been controversial from day one. They have to be.
By their nature, investigative documentaries might portray a person or company in a certain light, which can result in criminal action undergoing. Because this is a form of JOUNRALISM, the laws concerning defamation absolutely positively apply.
Yes, this can be both slander AND libel. I know of action taken against some documentarians. Be careful assuming this particular form of documentary is the normal or dominant form. It is historically not the case.
I issue a challenge to you. You have been asked by Holy herself to address some of the claims of her series. If you are sincere and genuine, do so please. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke. Let’s not do that. Let’s keep this honest and professional please.
Okay, I found the comment you were talking about on the other blog. The reason I didn’t answer it was because I had already mentioned two specific things earlier on this page. One is that the SHS videos accused Amy of slandering Jim-Bob because she (Amy) was skeptical of Jim-Bob’s reason/motivation. People are allowed to be skeptical. And to say “well, I don’t think that skepticism is justified” isn’t proof that it’s slanderous.
The second thing is that she accused Brooke of saying that the ATI teaches that men can spank their wives. She never said that. Brooke said that /her/ group did that, and when she watched the Duggar show, it looked the same as her group. So to say that Brooke stated as a fact that the ATI teaches wife-spanking is blatant misrepresentation. When I said as much above, all I got was “but the ATI doesn’t teach that”, which has nothing to do with whether or not Brooke was lying when she said that /her/ group did, and that what she saw on the Duggars show was like what she grew up with.
Yeah, I meant orthodoxy with a small “o”. I capitalized it by mistake. I’m glad you caught that.
I would be interested to read Gothard’s master’s thesis. Is there anywhere I can access it?
When I think of orthodoxy, I’m thinking of a little farther back than the mid-20th century. Compared to the history of Christian thought and teaching, that’s still quite recent.
Either way, if Bill Gothard was just saying what everyone was saying at the time, what was the point of his seminars? They would have been redundant. Was he charging money to teach people the same thing they’d hear in churches for free?
And if he was teaching something different, he couldn’t claim that he was just doing what any Bible teacher of the time did. He’d have to carefully explain why he believes and teaches things beyond the mainstream teaching. But from what I’ve seen so far, those are the very things he tends to rush past and gloss over. And I haven’t once heard him teach anything by carefully exegeting a passage of Scripture.
We have no idea on the Masters Thesis.
Bill is a counselor, an “exhorter”. He is into problem solving, and he applies Scripture to that end. He has spent thousands of hours in 1-1 counseling. His seminars are practical tools – based on Scripture – that bring relief to “Basic Youth Conflicts”, as the seminar was originally called. Someone with the spiritual gift of teaching would be focused on doctrine and exposition. Those with the gift of preaching – “prophecy” – spend their time bringing conviction to those that have abandoned the truth – “the foolishness of preaching” as opposed, again, to exposition. There are those that focus on devotion, comfort, often creating spiritual poems or songs or hymns. Many different ways that God’s Word is applied to the hearer.
So you are correct. He is not doing what an ordinary “Bible teacher” does.
The master’s thesis roots of the Basic Seminar came from the former “our history” page of the IBLP website. The current IBLP history page briefly acknowledges the Wheaton roots of the Basic Seminar. Gothard is not completely purged from official IBLP history, but he is minimized. He is almost consigned to the Orwellian memory hole.
Now that we have defended orthodoxy, let us also defend redundancy, because they are the same thing. Every exasperated parent knows he must say the same thing over and over. How often did Mammy complain to Scarlett, “I done tole you and tole you!” Gothard’s youth seminar succeeded BECAUSE it was redundant. Everyone knew that Gothard’s seven principles were universal. So Gothard used those coy quotation marks in his seminar motto. His approach was “new,” yet also old.
Heresy is novelty, but the same gospel is preached a thousand different ways. Our New Testament is new, yet it is “according to the scriptures.” Jesus said the law and the prophets are redundant. They explain and illustrate the great commandment.
Are there limits to careful exegesis? Our Lord’s enemies could prove by exegesis that healing was forbidden on the sabbath. Like them, do we strain exegetical gnats and swallow uncharitable camels?
Um. No. Redundancy is exactly WHY certain things succeed and are needed.
The Gospel hasn’t changed in 2000 years, and is preached in many corners of the world. Yet. . .there is still great need preach it.
There are still many, many, many thousands who haven’t heard. And that is always true for ALL segments of truth.
This isn’t just a thing. It’s actually THE thing. It’s how it’s done.
Well said, JM. Preachers sometimes insist that we need reminding more than we need instruction. Reminding takes repetition!
I’d have to watch more of his videos to see where he’s going with what he says. As I mentioned in another comment, I started watching them but I haven’t got far yet. So far, the way he frames what he’s doing and why seems confusing and even contradictory, but if it makes more sense when I’ve heard more, then fair enough.
Bill Gothard began his ministry with church kids, who had plenty of institutional instruction, but underdeveloped character. That’s why he emphasized basic virtues and good conduct.
Our problem is rarely with clarity. Our problem is usually with character. The ten commandments are clear, yet we continue to lie, lust, steal, covet and blaspheme. Do we sin because God is unclear? God forbid!
The accusations hurled at Gothard are absurd enough to almost defy explanation. Are the accusers blinded by planks while scouring for motes?
Today I watched several YouTube videos from Holly McLean titled “Shiny, Happy Slander.” I am very impressed with her seeing and noticing all the discrepancies in the HSP documentary. There are many many liars in the world. If you don’t have Truth Himself (The Holy Spirit) within you, you lie a lot. I am a Christian, but not evangelical Christian, so this isn’t a biased statement. I feel for you with the statement that since so many people watched the HSP documentary, that you thought people would be interested in the other side of the story. Most people do not seek truth or value truth, but want to listen to what their itching ears want to hear. The blood lust and wanting to destroy another human being including reputation by any means necessary including lying, is disgusting with these people.
Some people even turning on their family. Their own family! Its easy to hate people, meaning being hostile towards people. Anyone can do it. The truth is people deserving of condemnation, whoever it is, they can be redeemed. I really hate it when people judge this sin or that sin as unredeemable or not. Holly, I thought you were very gracious in these videos. You did nothing wrong with correcting lies.
We read a good point above about the treachery in the Amazon SHP series. It was planted thick with inter-family backstabbing, either explicit or implicit. Et tu?
Sons and daughters either accused their parents, or they accused Bill Gothard for their parents’ decisions.
Some day we will be judged by the law of God. Either we shall be found guilty of violating the Ten Commandments (especially the 5th!), or else we will be acquitted because of our repentance and faith in Christ, who kept all the law, and offered himself for us. We have been warned. Let us heed!
Thank you for the kind words about Shiny Slander. I believe it is a time now when Christians need to call out the lies and misrepresentations that are used to attack. The lack of push back and an absence of the presentation of truth has emboldened those who want to slander and basically end Christianity and homeschooling as we know it generally.
Yet, today, Christians are just used to it. A hit piece like this is now just accepted. Even expected. The general population looks at it with gaped mouth and deer-in-the-headlights eyes and then pounds their fists on the table in misplaced indignation against Christians who take their faith seriously.
And what do the Christians do about it? Nothing. So, another season of Shiny Happy People is being filmed right now. And why not? They made a ton of money on it and there was no accountability for their slander. SHP has the backing of Amazon, one of the biggest corporations in the world. What do we have?
We have God. Of course. But He can only move when we are willing to heed His call.
The most recent Shiny Slander YouTube showed that the SHP agenda was political. The producers warned that Christians threaten democracy. Indeed we do! SHP even understates the case. Jesus even instructed his followers to pray for monarchy instead of democracy! “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.” When God’s kingdom comes in fullness, expect a glorious monarchy, not a republic. The capital city will be the New Jerusalem. Christ is King of Kings, not president of a temporal republic.
This explains leftist outrage against Gothard and Duggars. Leftists covet power. When they are shrewd, they can exploit democracy. They can obtain enough power to oppress their enemies. We even invent new terms to describe this. We now discuss “weaponized courts” and “lawfare.”
Christ populates his kingdom with new men, not sinners in political rivalry. Even so come quickly, Lord Jesus.