May 2, 2008, marked a major milestone in my life. It was the end of my first year of college, and I had long planned a 50-mile bike ride to celebrate. That morning, however, tornado sirens started wailing and I was obliged to seek shelter. I didn’t think much of those tornado sirens until weeks later, when my family received the May 2008 Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) newsletter in the mail. That newsletter would end my family’s involvement in the Advanced Training Institute (ATI).
A Shift in Perspective
My family had been involved with Bill Gothard’s ATI home school program since I was in middle school. When I graduated from high school, my parents were divided on whether I should go to college, but my dad insisted I go. I attended a Christian college in Longview, Texas, half an hour’s drive from the ALERT campus in Big Sandy, Texas. To my surprise, I found that many of my professors, and even my pastor there, weren’t very fond of ATI. After my first year of school and my cancelled bike ride, it was with mixed feelings that I read that IBLP newsletter sent to my family.
The lead article detailed how the 2008 Big Sandy Conference had ended:
“The weather forecast predicted an ideal week of bright sunshine and perfect temperatures with a 30 percent chance of rain on Friday, but God had bigger plans than any of us imagined.… As 120 men gathered in the upper room of the ALERT library to receive a special gifting of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands and anointing with oil, God demonstrated His power with the mighty, rushing wind of an unpredicted tornado minutes away from Big Sandy.”
A photograph of a tornado accompanied the story. I stared at the article, photo, and caption in wonder. Was this the same storm that had cancelled my bike ride? I immediately saw three major problems with the article’s reasoning.
Speculation as Testimony and Proof
1. The interpretation of the significance of the tornado rests on irresponsible hermeneutics.
The “rushing wind” was clearly a reference to Pentecost in Acts 2:2, “And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.” Even a single semester of instruction in responsible Bible interpretation had taught me not to read the Bible this way. In John 14:16, Jesus promised to send His disciples the Holy Spirit, which came at Pentecost. There is nothing in either passage to suggest that Christians should repeat Pentecost itself, nor did Gothard claim to see other relevant signs, such as tongues of fire. This sloppy theology alone would have been enough to discredit the article in my eyes.
2. The interpretation of the tornado praises and appropriates a natural disaster.
People in East Texas regularly die in severe storms. Trees blow over, cars are crushed, houses fall down, and people are washed away by flash floods or struck by lightning. It was incredible to me that Gothard would assume that a severe storm, much less a tornado, was a sign of God’s approval. What if someone had been hurt or killed? What if a tornado had passed through the Big Sandy campus? What if a tree had landed on Bill Gothard’s car? Would he still have considered it to be a sign of God’s favor toward him and his meeting? The article’s reasoning reminded me of theologian John Wycliffe’s synod trial in 1382. When a severe earthquake disrupted the synod, Wycliffe’s chief accuser claimed that the earthquake was proof of God’s approval of the proceedings! Gothard’s interpretation of strong weather as divine favor was similarly subjective, and was pure conjecture.
3. The tornado, as described, either did not happen or was presented in false light.
Interpretations of events are subjective, but weather is not. What stunned me most about the newsletter is that the tornado, as described, probably never existed!
Starting with the opening sentence, nearly everything in the account was an exaggeration at best. In order to present the storm as a direct sign from God, the newsletter created the impression that the storm came from nowhere during “an ideal week of bright sunshine and perfect temperatures.” Before May 2, though, it was clear that severe weather was on its way. In an incredible coincidence, my mom had messaged me the day before with her concerns about my bike ride. Included in our exchange was a copied-and-pasted forecast from the Weather Channel: “Tomorrow: Windy with scattered strong thunderstorms. Storms may produce large hail and strong winds. High 81F. Winds SSW at 20 to 30 mph. Chance of rain 60%.” The storm was certainly not “unpredicted.”
On the morning of May 2, 2008, there were no tornadoes reported in Big Sandy, and the sirens near me were activated only as a precaution. I searched the local newspaper. It confirmed the sirens, but reported the only actual tornado sighting and touchdown was in Beckville, Texas, where a funnel cloud knocked down some trees and closed a highway. Beckville is 50 miles (and more than an hour’s drive) from Big Sandy, much farther than the few minutes the newsletter described. There was another possible tornado sighting in Tyler, Texas, about twenty-five miles from the Big Sandy conference. The National Weather Service predicted the possible trajectory of a tornado through Big Sandy that morning, but no tornado was spotted actually taking that path. As anyone in East Texas knows, almost any thunderstorm produces a tornado somewhere, but none seems to have passed through Big Sandy that day.
Bill Gothard is vague about the sources of many of his anecdotes, which makes them difficult to verify. In this case, however, it was possible to investigate the story. By comparing three different sections of the newsletter (one section says the storm occurred on the last day of the conference, which was indeed May 2), I was able to confirm and match the dates. Those attending the Big Sandy conference did not experience a tornado out of a clear blue sky; they experienced strong winds as part of a forecast line of thunderstorms. If anything, a predicted tornado failed to arrive.
In addition to the discrepancy over the weather, I had three strong reasons to believe that the photo above the caption about an “unpredicted tornado” was just a stock image. First, the storm in question occurred in the morning. Since the clouds in the photo are back-lit by the sun, the camera would have to have been pointed east, toward Longview, where the sky was almost completely dark during the May 2 storm. Second, Big Sandy is located in a valley of pine trees, and there’s almost no clear view of the horizon. There’s not a single pine tree on the clean, broad horizon in the photo. Third, there’s no credit or attribution anywhere on the photo. If everyone was either taking shelter or upstairs being anointed, who would have taken this photo? [Editor’s note: Recovering Grace has confirmed that the photo cast in false light as record of a May 2, 2008, tornado in or near Big Sandy, Texas, was, indeed, a stock photo. A version of the image was previously published on the cover of the 2006 Dutch language edition of the Tim LaHaye and Bob Phillips novel Europa, alternately titled The Europa Conspiracy, ISBN 9789029718080.]
After reading the newsletter, I wondered whether God had really sent an unpredicted tornado 25 to 50 miles away from the Big Sandy conference to knock down trees, block a road, and cancel my long-anticipated bike ride specifically in order to demonstrate His approval of Bill Gothard’s men’s session in the “upper room” of the library.
A Breakthrough Realization
As I read the newsletter on my desk, I tried to view it fairly. “After all,” I thought, “it’s just one anecdote.” As I flipped to the second page, though, I saw the story of Whitney, a young woman whose dizziness was allegedly cured by special anointing during the same Big Sandy conference.
And then it occurred to me: Almost every IBLP teaching is supported by anecdote. Most of IBLP was built upon nice little stories that sounded good in seminars, conferences, and newsletters, but that mutated or were untraceable. I was a direct witness to events surrounding “unquestionably the most significant and important ATI conference we have ever held” [IBLP Newsletter, May 2008], and the account was not just erroneous, but likely fabricated. Why should I believe anything else in the newsletter?
I showed the newsletter to my parents. I told them what I knew. And, to my amazement, we were out of ATI completely within three months.
Dave Kuntz is the oldest of six children. His family was in ATI from 2000 to 2008. He received a bachelor's degree in Chemistry at LeTourneau University in Longview, Texas, and is currently working toward his doctorate.
LeTourneau! I was there for two years. Made a lot of friends, was on student senate. I loved it (other than the fact that the academic stress just about killed me)! ELH2 was a guy's dorm then, with the main distinction of avoiding distinction. I wonder if the one Mexican restaurant is still in town, the one where hot tortillas continuously come off the conveyor belt?
Anyway... Very interesting piece. Part of my disillusionment with the program came when I realized that what was said on stage and in newsletters was often more spin than reality. Many of the anecdotes are all about enthusiasm and sales but do not reflect how most people would have reported the facts. But it's hard to pin some of those things down. This is very interesting, that you were able to document such a specific fabrication.
I had a similar experience -- really becoming disillusioned when I realized that the fabulous stories in the newsletter weren't all that fabulous... that they were usually exaggerated and spun to look wonderful when they really weren't anything impressive.
When there is a genuine move of God there is no need to fabricate or exaggerate - you know its of God and stand (or fall on your face) in awe.
Also, it would have been no problem if a tree struck Mr. Gothard's car. If I remember correctly from the Basic he has a 7-step procedure to get vehicles.
Mr. Gothard drove a tank of a car. Had a tree hit it, the car would have won - hands down.
Drove? He (or one of his minions) still drives that tank. I drove by HQ a few weeks ago, and the blue beast was still dutifully parked outside his office.
Absolutely correct, that is such an important point. That is why Paul said that he had not come with deceit or flattery or impure motives but he was simply sharing the gospel and serving people: "For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts." 1 Thess 2
Paul did not say "I have some hidden principles that most people don't understand" nor did he say "we never used to understand why these principles work but now we are just discovering how to truly become successful", etc. He said in effect, "here is the same gospel we received, and we pass it on to you, and now it's your job to pass it on to others."
This:
"And then it occurred to me: Almost every IBLP teaching is supported by anecdote. Most of IBLP was built upon nice little stories that sounded good in seminars, conferences, and newsletters, but that mutated or were untraceable."
Once I realized this too, the credence I previously had given to the organization all came crashing down. I've long wrestled with trying to remember specifics (which you documented very well, by the way) then it occurred to me that is probably because so many things were painted as "unquestionably the most significant and important . . . "
Bill Gothard has absolutely mastered the art of salesmanship. But once you've been burned by a product, the product is no longer appealing regardless of how artful the salesman might be.
I didn't figure this out until I was working on my Master's degree in college and had to *cite sources* for all my claims in my papers. I thought -- wait, Gothard doesn't cite sources for hardly any of his claims; most of them reference some unknown, unnamed person in some state and that source would be impossible to verify!
I had to laugh reading this article. Gothard is all about putting on a good spin. I was only in ATI for a little over a year. It sounded so perfect. The families I knew were so nice and seemed so perfect. I went to ITC for the first EQUIP. It was so eye opening. Every time that man opened his mouth it was an exaggeration (ok maybe I'm exaggerating.) I got so tired of hearing about the great things God was doing when I could see reality did not match up to his good report. By the time I left the ITC I was completely disillusioned with the program and by any perfect method for life. Coming home I began to see how much this program was NOT creating perfect families or perfect children. I saw families hurt by trying to look so good on the outside when they could never live up to the standards on the inside. The good news for me is that I will never again be so fooled by some one trying to sell me the perfect way to finances, faith, politics, you name it. Yup I learned a lot from the program, like not to blindly follow any one.
I have re-read this article (great documentation btw) and read the attached newsletter and I came away asking, "Why?" Why fabricate anything? What a blessed time I'm sure many had. I've been to my share of men's prayer meetings, and when hearts are broken before the Lord and men are calling upon the mighty name of Jesus, it is powerful and amazing... why fabricate, why exaggerate. I just don't get it.
The same discrepancy between spin and reality kept me constantly unsettled also. I left ATI gradually, and one of my first acknowledgements was that what Gothard said and what the program delivered did not match.
Anyone surprised, really?
I actually discovered this website while searching for info on the ALERT academy. A young man from my church went there a few years ago and came back a completely different person. He is no longer following Christ. Can someone please give me an idea of what happens at ALERT? Either on here, or you can email me at [email protected] I'm really curious about what might have happened to my friend.
Dreamer,
I'm sorry about your friend.
Since ALERT (Air Land Emergency Resource Team) is organized for the purpose of delivering competent and effective aid during real-life disaster situations, its training is very intensive. I promoted out of Unit 34's basic training in 2005, but didn't choose to continue into Phase II or III, mainly due to the fact that I wanted a degree from an accredited college and wouldn't have had any funds left if I'd stayed in Big Sandy, TX, much longer. However, I do personally know several graduates of the complete year-long ALERT program, and even a prominent former member of ALERT training leadership.
I can say without qualification that ALERT basic was one of the most demanding physical and mental experiences of my life. (And I'm grateful for it: I knew beforehand what I was getting into, and what I ended up getting was what I'd wanted.) The first nine weeks of training are modeled after the Marine Corps' boot camp, and I've heard that ALERT Responders who go on to become Marines say that ALERT's training is more physically intense (though I've only heard it thirdhand). During basic training, ALERT recruits are constantly pushed to their limits of physical endurance and mental compliance. They learn to survive in the wild, to move men and equipment over miles of dangerous obstacles, to discipline themselves to keep up with the rest of their unit, and to obey their authorities instantly and without thinking.
Of course, in the prolonged situation of intense stress created by ALERT, not everyone will respond similarly. I saw some of my fellow recruits crash and burn and drop (or get kicked) out fairly quickly, while others struggled in more subtle ways as time marched on. Being as I am a very tunnel-visioned, goal-oriented person, I still regret the fact that I was usually too stressed about what was gonna happen next (which nobody ever knew, of course) to build lasting friendships with my squad-mates at the time. The stress really served to increase my self-awareness. Whoever I was going in, I became VERY MUCH that person when crunch time hit, unless I cried out to God.
Which brings me to an area at which ALERT excelled, I thought: mandated quiet times with God each and every morning, and plenty of Bible study in both small and large groups. We were constantly being encouraged by our leaders to trust in God, to depend on Him for strength, to cast our cares upon Him. (And boy, did we have cares to cast!)
All in all, ALERT was a very good experience for me. Is it a good experience for everyone? Definitely not. Could your friend have reacted very strongly against the rigidly authoritarian command structure, the relentless physical and mental exertion, or the indignity of leaping to fulfill a steady stream of terribly urgent yet seemingly arbitrary tasks? Quite possibly. Or it might've been something else. Or it might have been that ALERT touched off something in your friend which had lain dormant all his life until extreme stress brought it to light. I cannot say, because everyone is different. God knows. And cares.
-Austin
This was very interesting, thank you very much for sharing this part of your story. I was out of ATI by 1994 and iirc, they were just beginning to form the ALERT program around that time. I had no first-hand experience with it. Being that intense of a program, I can imagine that a person's physical and emotional state going in would have a significant impact. I'm thinking partly of the difference between a young man whose dad has helped him feel like a relatively capable person as opposed to the young man whose dad has crushed his spirit. The authoritarian structure could allow for some damaging abuses, I would expect - just depending on the person who happens to be the spot of authority. It seems to have helped some young men while crushing others. I have the impression that the leaders would like to think that the difference was that those who were crushed just didn't have the stamina or determination. I think there is more to it. It truly is good to be reminded that it was a very positive experience for some.
It is a shame indeed that you weren't able to form deeper relationships - sometimes relationships forged under such circumstances end up lasting a lifetime.
It's awesome that the times with God were a source of life for you. I have to think that if the mandated times with God were not that way for someone, say if a person felt that God himself was an abusive authority, then instead of it being a life-giving thing it could become a negative thing. But on the positive side, a lot of people long for extended and formative experiences with God. Hopefully it was this sort of experience for many of the guys (recruits? cadets? not sure the preferred term) who went through it.
For those for whom it was a good experience, I can imagine there would be a healthy pride and some fond memories. Nobody can ever take that away from you.
Thanks again, Austin. I always enjoy reading your comments and it was cool to learn more about your experiences.
Thanks, Matthew. Those undergoing ALERT basic training are recruits, while ALERT cadets are kinda like recruits-in-training, if I understand it correctly.
Although much of the carefully manufactured hardship of basic training comes from the element of surprise (if you're training to be always ready at the drop of a hat, you can't very well be given a schedule, after all), ALERT *does* put in a lot of effort to make sure recruits aren't getting into something they're incapable of completing (they organize "mighty man teams" for physically unprepared pre-recruits, and then of course there's the ALERT cadet program, though I haven't heard great things about it).
But yeah ... as with any military-style organization, the quality of the leadership determines much. I know ALERT's leadership has gone through various phases over the years, but mostly those were shifts along the sliding scale of "how-difficult-should-we-make-things-for-those-poor-recruits," not missteps into abusiveness. Though I recognize the possibility that ALERT leadership could become abusive (and if anyone has such an account, they should definitely share it), I've neither seen nor heard tell of such a thing. Mutual accountability and transparency are some of the (few) benefits of being afforded minimal privacy.
Just curious why Bill Gothard created ALERT instead of encouraging Christian young men to enlist in the military? I am a military wife and it just doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain? Thanks.
Dear "Why?",
Speaking solely from my own understanding (since I certainly can't speak for Gothard or IBLP), I'd say the answer to your question has a lot to do with the respective purposes of ALERT and the US military. If you visit ALERT's website (http://www.alertacademy.com/alert/about/vision), you'll see that the organization's goal is to prepare "men with the desire, skills, and opportunities to meet the needs of people in crisis and to share their faith and the love of Christ in dark places." This vision statement differs from the US military's goal ("to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic") in two key ways: first, ALERT is international (i.e. America's interests aren't its priority), and second, ALERT is Christian (i.e. its ultimate vision is eternal rather than material or temporal). Thus, even though ALERT training may look similar to military training, it has very different goals in mind.
I'll phrase the distinction more bluntly. While the military's ultimate goal is to kill America's enemies and break their stuff (a service I personally believe to be both crucial and commendable), ALERT's ultimate goal is to win people to Jesus Christ all over the world through National Guard-type humanitarian action.
-Austin
Great answer Austin.
And it may also be worth mentioning that Bill Gothard most certainly didn't create ALERT. He allowed Ron Furman to create it, and that somewhat reluctantly (according to the original ALERT promo video). Over the time I worked on staff there I got the distinct impression that...well, ALERT wasn't his favorite IBLP program.
Don't know Mr. Gothard's view on enlisting in the military, but all the ATI parents I know are/were simultaneously huge supporters of our military, and totally agast at the idea of Christian young men enlisting. "The military is a *terrible* place for a Christian", I heard so many times from different parents, as though they had all learned it from the same script.
When my husband joined the ARMY reserves (after we were married), his family was very upset. They actually drew the analogy that, now that he was sworn in, they would support him just as they would support a divorcee in their 2nd marriage. In their analogy both scenarios involved making a choice *clearly* in defiance of God's will, but having past the point of no return, they would accept the unchangeable and support doing what was right from that point forward. My husband's grandfather is retired air force, and the whole family is very proud of his service. To this day I am baffeled at the inconsistency. It's a puzzle...
Brandy provided great information. It is my suspicion that Gothard spun off ALERT because he could not control it. He could never create something like it because that kind of manliness is pretty remote from his sister-protected, little girl grooming world.
I did have cautions about ALERT. When young men rappelled out of the catwalks in TBA (Knoxville) over women and children, into the occupied sections of the arena, I considered that an unreasonably dangerous bit of showboating. When ALERT created goofy "patriotic" demonstrations of flag waving, including placing the cross in front of the American Flag, I considered them to be very confused about the two kingdoms. It is disrespectful, and violates the flag code, to put another icon in front of it or above it. I discouraged my pastor from displaying the flag in our worship services so as to not confuse visitors about our allegiance. But I host a 4th of July party every year and give patriotic speeches. For me, though, the repeated ALERT heart-grabbing displays at Knoxville represented using the flag and national patriotism to gain loyalty to the organization, a very deceptive thing for a Christian organization to do. It is not without reason that patriotism is called the last refuge of a scoundrel. Like others have said, if you want to join the U.S. Army, join it. Don't create a fake patriotic troop. If your oath and allegiance are to Jesus, put the cross on your shoulder, not the flag.
Thank you for the info, Austin. I do remember hearing that my friend was sick and throwing up almost as soon as he got there. I assumed it was just nerves at the time, but maybe he was just pushed beyond what he could handle. I think it was a combination of things that led him away from the Lord, not just ALERT. Still a mystery to me, though.
The picture is just too much! LOL Nothing legit to speak of in ATI. Just a bunch of fabricated junk to tickle their minds.
Great article!!!
I'm impressed that your parents listened to you. My family just recently had a debate with me over Gothard (yes, the first time we ever specifically talked about me disagreeing with him, it was heavy). My dad basically told me anyone who voiced any concerns was probably one of those "homeschooled kids who just wanted to whine about how they were raised". It's heartbreaking to see your normally intelligent loved ones be so blinded by one guy's slick tactics.
Rowena, Same here my parents still whole heart still follow Gothard and his teaching and still encourage my husband and I to participate in ATI. Even though we have expressed that I no longer want anything to do with Gothard. It makes me sad that my parents and siblings are still being brain washed from this man.
Yeah. I point blank asked my mom once, 'If I stop following Gothard's ways, but I still believe in Jesus, go to church, read the Bible, etc... would you think I have departed from the faith?" She said, "No." I believe she meant it, but I wanted to ask further (and didn't have the courage to), 'so why are Gothard's teachings SO essential to being a Christian?' 'Do you reckon all the Christians of the past weren't good enough Christians because Gothard didn't exist yet?" (A rather silly thing to say perhaps, but at the time was a very legitimate question for me.) I think my parents and siblings have reached an unspoken agreement to simply avoid the issue altogether. I realize that hundreds of current or former ATI families don't even have it that good, so I consider myself blessed, yet I still grieve for the lack of unity in my family.
Even as adults, and many of us are now parents of our own children, it is still a powerful experience to be dismissed by our parents. I guess on the bright side, it forces us to consider more carefully where we are going to look for validation.
According to tornadohistoryproject.com(http://goo.gl/DWE5s), there was a tornado in Canton, TX at 7:30am, about 40 miles West of Big Sandy, TX. the storm was traveling West, and probably went over or near Big Sandy shortly after. Aside from the tornado this storm blew down trees, power lines, and cars off of roadways. (http://goo.gl/jRxje) The definition of tornado is clear, but what isn't to most people is that on the ground there isn't a whole lot of difference between a storm that is capable of producing a funnel/tornado and a weak vortex that is actually on the ground. Of the 3 touchdowns in East Texas that morning, they were all F1s (73-112 mph winds). 8 people were injured by another tornado 30 miles from the conference. (http://goo.gl/jRxje) I've been under several storms that don't have funnels and circulating winds can get strong, not to mention any outflows, gust fronts or, rear flanking downdrafts which can create "tornadoic-like" conditions and cause damage.
I'm not supporting what was stated in the news letter. In fact, I think its silly when people talk about signs and supernatural happenings. God does speak to us, many times we should keep this to ourselves. Like the time the power went out at the Thompson Bowling Arena that summer in the early 90s, and instead of listening to what was probably another reversal pregnancy testimony we all sang how great thou art, in the darkness. it was awesome. Did God cause that? Yes. Did it make that moment anymore special for us humans? Yes, because we are largely emotional beings. Not because it was any more spiritually than any other moment should have been.
I say all this to point out that Mr. Kuntz appears to be yet another embittered former ATI student. Rather than jumping all over something from 6 years ago in this way, he could just continue down a path of righteousness. Anyone can see that there is no one leader or organization that has it all figured out. I read his story as an admission to this fact; that he got fooled into thinking ATI/IBLP was the end all be all. It isn't. Nothing Man can organize or teach is even close to the relationship that each one of us are capable of having with God.
Thank you for this additional information, Mark.
You are pointing out that there were 3 touchdowns in East Texas that morning, all F1s, capable of doing real damage. The newsletter, which Dave reports having read at the time, stated that the weather was expected to be bright sunshine, perfect temperatures, and only a 30% chance of rain (and frankly, in East Texas it's hardly newsworthy when it rains in the Spring, if I recall correctly from my time in those parts). Out of the blue, so the newsletter clearly implies, this "mighty rushing wind of God's power" came in confirmation of the prayer meeting occurring at Big Sandy. A question comes to mind: which of the 3 F1s were the unexpected mighty rushing winds of God's power? You point out that Canton is 40 miles away, which makes Gothard's report of a "mighty, rushing wind of an unpredicted tornado minutes away from Big Sandy" seem like a stretch at best.
I don't mean to speak for Dave here, but I don't see his point as being "there were no storms" but rather "there was a whole string of storms, as predicted." Gothard's claim clearly implies "there was one tornado, unexpected, and close to us." Gothard could have reported that one of many F1 storms seemed to them to be confirmation of God's approval but of course that would be less sensational. So he plays up the surprise factor ("bright sunshine, perfect temperatures, and only a 30% chance of rain"), specifically calls it a tornado, and doesn't mention any of the corresponding storm. The "tornado" supposedly touched down "minutes away" (the nearness is critical to the story's intent) but perhaps the closest of several strong storms was 40 minutes away? Your additional research doesn't help Gothard's story, which continues to fall apart under investigation like wet tissue paper. If Gothard had simply reported "we had the most awesome prayer meeting ever" no one could fault that report.
It is to be expected that every defender of Bill will accuse all those who question even the most objective of facts of being bitter - it's a knee-jerk reaction. How could this author possibly reword his story such that you would not accuse him of bitterness?
What I do see is trust lost. The author here was surprised to realize that a) a great deal of Gothardism depends on anecdotes repeated by Bill, and b) it seems that these anecdotes cannot be trusted. The apostle Paul did not attack the character and motives of the Bereans, rather, he praised them for doing their research. Perhaps instead of reading this report with an accusing eye, you might want to try re-reading it more charitably, picturing the author making an honest attempt to clarify objective facts. Putting yourself in his shoes, what effect would this experience have had on your trust of Bill?
"Rather than jumping all over something from 6 years ago in this way, he could just continue down a path of righteousness." I can't help pointing out the irony that while Kuntz should have quietly gone down the path of righteousness, you seem to have felt obligated to jump all over his motives, or what you presume them to be.
Hope I'm not sounding harsh - I'm banging this out in a hurry. Gotta go!
I just want to say that I live in E. Texas and I don't think anyone would consider a tornado that touched down in Canton to be close to Big Sandy. There is a big difference between a storm capable of producing a tornado being near Big Sandy and an actual tornado being there. Seriously, we have LOTS of storms capable of producing tornadoes. We know the difference.
Mark,
Sometimes the "path of righteousness" laid before us will require us to expose others' falsehoods. To insinuate that a whistleblower must relinquish a measure of personal righteousness in order to call attention to the deceptions of the influential is to create a false dichotomy. If this article had been nothing more than an emotional rant against Bill Gothard, then I'd agree with your dismissal of its author as "embittered." Truth must be tempered by grace. But this article is no rant; it's a logical, reasonable, and rather gentle indictment of a quantifiably false IBLP boast.
The idea that "unity" or "peace-keeping" is somehow more important than truth-seeking is disturbing to me. I've seen the corrupting effects of that mentality firsthand. In my experience, its an intellectual weapon kept in readiness for those instances in which power-drunk spiritual leaders have been caught in their sin and must quell their followers' unrest without relinquishing the perceived moral high ground. Yes, Christ pled with His Father for our unity, that the world would know He was sent by God and that He loved us (John 17:23), but look how He lived His life: He came "to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt. 10:35), He unleashed very public tirades against the corrupt spiritual leaders under whose supposed authority He'd been born (Matt. 23), and He ended up on the bad side of everyone with any measure of power in his culture. I'm not saying that such things are good or desirable in and of themselves, but it's abundantly clear to me that we as Christians shouldn't be afraid of them. To discourage people from speaking truth to power, especially when those people are speaking the truth in love, is to discourage them from following Christ.
-Austin
Clarification: When I wrote "quantifiably false" I thought I was writing "quantitatively false." As in, "empirically false." As in, "objectively disproven." As in, "false."
uh oh... the dreaded 'b' word! Mark, if anyone ever lies to you,(or otherwise harms you) and you are angry/upset/hurt by it, would it be fair or 'righteous' for someone to accuse you of being bitter about it, especially if you're not bitter?
Because even if you WERE bitter about a wrong that was done to you, does that mean that the person shouldn't be held accountable for the wrong thing they did to you? Would your 'bitterness' make untrue whatever sufferings you had to endure? Beware that in your haste to defend a sinful human being (Gothard), who has been the means of destroying hundreds of families, including mine, that you do not falsely accuse someone.
Also, exposing a false prophet IS righteous, and regardless of whether or not BG classifies as a false prophet, I'm sure you'd agree that false prophets ought to be exposed, and CERTAINLY false teachings ought to be exposed.
Anyway, I do not mean to come across as attacking, please don't think you're being attacked. Have a great day.
This made me lol. It's easy to write people off, if you don't share their experiences.
I wish we didn't even have to spend any time at all proving that there is a problem with Gothardism, that we could just point a good way forward. This is my over-the-top exaggeration but it honestly feels almost this bad sometimes:
Bill: God sent that amazing tornado just at the right time to prove a point.
Student: But there wasn't a tornado in less than 45 minute's drive.
Supporter: Bitter! Bitter! How dare you disagree with the Lord's anointed! I bet you cheat on your wife, too, don't you?!
I'm totally being tongue-in-cheek and Mark's comment above was not nearly that bad (please forgive me for picking on you, Mark!). But the point I'm wanting to clearly make is that when you disagree with Bill Gothard, even on something that is objectively verifiable, you are routinely accused of bitterness and other sins - this is business as usual when trying to have a conversation with him and his supporters.
That one-liner "a man's morality dictates his theology" that BG has used for years just sticks so well in the mind - especially in the minds of those who want to defend BG.
"You oppose BG's teachings...? There must be a root problem, a hidden sin motivating you!"
How hard is it to take a step back and consider just how manipulative that teaching is - especially when used to defend one man's teachings from any and all criticism...?
Interesting that so much weight was given to that one statement (which I do believe has a good bit of truth to it) in a system that claims to adhere only to the Bible and to eschew "man's wisdom." But that statement is in fact "man's wisdom." Same for "what the parents allow in moderation, the children will excuse in excess", except I think that statement is not very helpful at all. There are probably other statements but those two are flown like flags, yet neither one has a chapter and verse in Scripture.
The problem with saying that a man's morality dictates his theology is that it says that good theology is based in man's goodness rather than saying man can't be good on his own and can only have good morality or good theology by the grace of God.
I see your point, Ileata. Thanks for raising that. I agree 100% with your statement. I believe the best theology we can hope for is what happens when broken sinners meet a loving and grace-giving God - not when good people construct good theology.
I always understood part of the intended meaning behind that statement to be that sometimes people work backwards from what they want to excuse; they draw the bulls-eye of their theology first and then create reasoning around it to make it sound right. The idea is that you can have an unprofitable discussion about theology with someone who is being disingenuous about their theology. But the phrase in question does not exactly say this, and people do construct theology in good faith that might disagree with mine. It is hardly truth in love to always assume that the reason they disagree is because they are morally inferior to me. In fact, that's flying quite close to the flame of judgmental pride.
Beside this, I can point to plenty of areas in my own life where my attitudes and actions have fallen short of my own theology. If my theology were constrained by my morality, I would have an even more defective theology than I already possess. This gets me to thinking, and maybe I'm about to quit making sense, but that could raise the question of whether "morality" means the concept of what I think is right and wrong in spite of what I actually do, or if it means the practical reality of what my attitudes and actions actually are. If the former, then we acknowledge that someone is capable of holding a higher ideal than they live up to, which then erodes the maxim that their morality must "dictate" their theology...
And what about a person whose morality is adjusted because of their theology? I believe that we profit by learning to think more theologically than we tend to in our culture. To borrow a metaphor from somewhere else, a vine and a forest both affect each other. The forest shapes the vine as it grows, but even as it does, the vine subtly affects the forest around it. There is a mutual influence back and forth. Perhaps an accurate statement about morality and theology would get at that subtle back and forth influence rather than a bald claim of one dictating the other.
I'm beginning to think I don't like that little one-liner any more!
Great comments, all. Matthew, your comment, ' It is hardly truth in love to always assume that the reason they disagree is because they are morally inferior to me. In fact, that's flying quite close to the flame of judgmental pride.' is excellent! I'll be using that one! (and need to apply it to my own life as well.. wait, can I 'apply' a good thing to my life on my own strength? :p)
The tornado did happen. One may not like what he thought it meant, but it is propaganda to leave such a falsehood up as a title. I would expect better from the people who run this website.
I think "a" tornado happened. But the one reported as being "minutes" away from Big Sandy didn't.
which tornado?
Mark's post:
"According to tornadohistoryproject.com(http://goo.gl/DWE5s), there was a tornado in Canton, TX at 7:30am, about 40 miles West of Big Sandy, TX. the storm was traveling West, and probably went over or near Big Sandy shortly after."
The author of this piece indicated that he just assumed there was no tornado. That the stock picture of a tornado offended him. I get that. But the tornado minutes from Big Sandy was real.
If you know me you know I DO like to check into these kinds of accusations. If something comes up strange, I take it up with Mr. Gothard and his staff directly.
I would hope there is enough ammunition to take Mr. Gothard down without resorting to this kind of stuff.
That link shows a tornado touchdown from lat/long 32.56 / -95.87 to 32.56 / -95.85. For a quick reference: http://goo.gl/maps/wUAn1 (The tornado obviously did not follow the roads, LOL. I don't know how to make google maps show the straight line for a tornado.)
On my monitor, the touchdown to liftoff of the tornado is 1/4", Big Sandy is over 8" away from the liftoff point.
That's too far away from Big Sandy to see it or hear it, leaving the question: which tornado would have been witnessed from Big Sandy?
Even if a tornado had touched down right on top of Big Sandy and killed or wounded people, would it be a true statement that it was unpredicted and a surprise?
Would you accept it as a true statement if any place besides IBLP had reported it in that manner? It's not necessarily bad or wrong if you would not accept it as true if someone else had reported it that way, it would just mean that you hold Gothard and the Institute to a different standard, which you are entirely free to do.
:-) There was a tornado about the same time they were praying. Nobody said that anyone there witnessed it . . . they heard about it later. And it was "minutes away". The facts all check out. Be a noble person and say so.
I had a neighbor - who has nothing to do with Bill Gothard, for the record - describe a time he barricaded himself in his room, crying out to the Lord to send the fire and wind of the Holy Spirit. What happened - and he told me this with a chuckle - was that the roof caught on fire while he was praying (faulty chimney) causing some real damage . . . and there WAS an honest to God mini-tornado in downtown Bellflower, California (about a mile away, I think). The wind knocked a few trash cans over, as I recall (it was in the news).
I just can't imagine that spiritual sense of challenging his story. Even if he had taken some major spiritual significance out of it, which he didn't (he said he definitely was praying more carefully, though :-) ).
And the same applies to this story. It is bad to allege it never happened without checking the facts. Let Mr. G take whatever interesting purpose out of that coincidence he chooses . . . move on.
Alfred, CANTON is NOT minutes away from Big Sandy. I live by Canton. Trust me or better yet, come visit and drive from Big Sandy to Canton.
According to MapQuest, they are 53 minutes apart. No one, and I repeast, No one, who lives in E. Texas would consider a tornado in Canton to be anywhere near Big Sandy. I live closer to Canton than Big Sandy is and when Canton has a tornado, I don't think *we* had a tornado. Our alarms don't go off. We don't hide in the closet.
Defending BG on this one is a bit crazy.
Also, the title "the tornado that didn't happen," ime, refers to the entire report Gothard gave. Even there was a tornado somewhere in E. Texas that day, the one that Gothard reported, the one that came out of a clear blue sky on a perfect sunny day (when the news reports actually had been warning of possible tornadoes) didn't happen. The man lied. The report was false. That's the point of the article.
And comparing a tornado to the rushing, mighty wind of the day of Pentecost implies that it happened on location, not 50 miles away. Gothard is misleading people.
Why are you defending lies, Alfred?
The author never says no storm occurred in East Texas on that day. The author does say there was a storm - the point is that the tornado didn't happen as close to the conference facility as Gothard implies. . .
At the rate tornadoes move, that IS minutes :-) With you living there you should know that. And the tornado was in Canton when it started, moving toward Big Sandy. How about Beckville or Tyler? The author cites them as areas identified with touchdowns. Which, incidentally, makes me retract my assertion that the author never checked it out.
In Mr. Gothard’s defense:
1) Assume that a person believes that God is completely in control of the weather. Not a single random event . . . the weather prediction and modeling that consume the largest supercomputers we have have such a dismal success rate because God is in control. I, for the record, believe that.
2) From http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Tornadoes.html#b : “The probability of a tornado striking a given point in the area most frequently subject to tornadoes is 0.0363, or about once in 250 years.“ That means that the region in close proximity to Big Sandy would be very unlikely to be hit, even with a prediction of unstable weather. Ever note that large cities almost never get hit by tornadoes? It is not because the weather is somehow better . . . it is because cities are “so small” compared to the large tracts of land usually considered for statistics. However you slice it, this combination of events is very unlikely. And since God is in control, there was some reason for it, even if you can’t imagine it was to encourage a bunch of praying men.
3) IF God wanted to make a “wind” point in support of what the men were doing, would he send a tornado into the Big Sandy campus? Probably not . . . Seems like the unlikely combination of events that happened would be about as close as He might get.
38 years of getting newsletters (18 years in ATI) has taught me to expect Mr. Gothard to couch events in the most glowing of terms which - though technically accurate - leave you with a level of enthusiasm and assumptions that you would never get if you were there. He is a motivator . . . anything and everything becomes a push in the direction he is moving you toward.
No argument that most people would have never put this and that together and put it on the front of a newsletter. Unless they really believed what they were doing to be in the center of God’s will and interest, and were in the constant anticipation of Him doing something significant.
But to accuse him of lying? This is not an example of that. I get really unhappy with accounts which also involve things I know about or have checked out, which also seek to leave you with assumptions and perceptions about him that are not true. In this case, every aspect of the account is spun into the worst possible light. Not a great example of the opposite of what is being condemned.
I live in tornado country in Missouri and we have these types of storms all the time. A tornado 50 miles away is usually not considered "minutes away." If the tornado was moving at 50 mph, which is a rather quick pace for a storm, and the tornado was actually on the ground for the entire time (unlikely for such a small F1 tornado) and moving directly toward Big Sandy, it would still take an hour to get there. This doesn't exactly seem like a storm that is "minutes away."
Gothard is no stranger to stretching the truth for thematic effect. For example, I remember one year in Knoxville a year or two after the ALERT program was started, there was a dramatic video shown about how the ALERT team heroically rescued a pilot who crashed his small plane on the Northwoods property during the middle of the winter. Gothard talked abou this from the podium, and I think this story also may have been in a newsletter as well. While it was true that the ALERT team had rescued a pilot, Gothard neglected to inform everyone of one key fact: the plane that crashed and its pilot were part of the ALERT program.
Tyler, Texas is 28.5 miles away from Big Sandy. Mark said, "8 people were injured by another tornado 30 miles from the conference. (http://goo.gl/jRxje)" That must be the one.
Alfred - this discussion about tornados is a distraction from the author's main thesis: that Gothard liberally uses anecdotes to as foundation and support much of his teaching. Gothard frequently uses anecdotes that are unverifiable, inaccurate, half-truths, exaggerated, or distorted.
What is clear from this article - and the facts - is that here Gothard was exaggerating. While there was a tornado, it was not that close to the facility where the meeting was being held. The article in the newsletter leaves the reader with the impression that the tornado was very close and perhaps an immediate danger presented to those attending the meeting. There was not. It doesn't matter whether it was 30 or 60 miles away. The point this author makes is that the storm wasn't as close to the facility as the article implies.
But what about the author's thesis about Gothard's liberal use of anecdotes (that are at times not as Gothard describes) to support much of his teaching? I'd be interested in hearing what you think about that.
You seem confused... at first you said it was the Canton one, now it's the Tyler one. How confident can we be that it was the Tyler one?
You've got to be kidding, right? A tornado in Canton, here in E. Texas is probably going to do a little damage if any in Canton and the storm may not even be producing tornadoes by the time it gets anywhere near Big Sandy. Storms do not usually around here faster than cars and Canton is over 50 miles from Big Sandy. (And the TC isn't right in Big Sandy, so it's even further.)
Gothard reports that the forecast was clear. The author was watching for bad weather because storms had been predicted. That makes Gothard lying or misinformed.
The author already said that there was a funnel cloud in Beckville, also 50 miles away and a possible tornado in Tyler, 25 miles away. Again, Beckville is far too far away to be considered close. (And storms in E. Texas tend to follow a pretty predictable path. I don't think one would go from Beckville to Big Sandy.) Tyler would be closer but a "possible" tornado is not a confirmed tornado. It means possible. That would still put Gothard stretching truth.
And again, I live 20 miles from Tyler. A tornado in Tyler is not minutes from me and would not trigger the local alarms.
You can keep insisting that he was telling the truth, but if there were no tornadoes in Big Sandy that day, he was stretching it.
Tyler is "minutes away", right? And a tornado did touch down there.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/02/cnr.02.html
No, Tyler is not "minutes" away. Storms here usually travel at about 30 mph. That would be close to an hour from Big Sandy.
I live less than 25 miles away from Tyler and we would never consider a tornado in Tyler to be "minutes away." That was a stretch of the truth, no way around it.
Let's put it this way, if you daughter asks for permission to go to a friend's house and it's reported to be "minutes" away, would you defend her after finding out it was 25 miles away? Would an apprenticeship student be accused of lying if they got permission to go "minutes away" and it turned out to be 45 minutes away? Others would be accused of deceiving if they used that exaggeration. Gothard should be held to the same standard.
And you are still ignoring the part about misrepresenting the weather forecast.
Well . . . I would allow that the weather forecast for the week was exactly as given. We all know that these unstable systems can jump into place fairly quickly. I have never known Mr. Gothard to engage in a deliberate lie. Have you?
As to the "minutes" . . . We started out with no tornado, then one 50 miles away, now we know there was one half that distance. If you take the northern part of Tyler against the southern part of Big Sandy, maybe you can come even closer.
"Hey, Robert, there was a tornado in Tyler this morning . . . how close is Tyler from here?" "Wow, that is only minutes away, Mr. Gothard!"
My inclination is to give Mr. Gothard the benefit of the doubt, while you likely are inclined otherwise. So it may be best to leave it there.
Yes, Alfred, some of us do know of times Gothard has lied. This is documented a documented lie and you choose to continue believing him. That's your choice.
Is this published? If so, point me at it. That is something I take very seriously.
That's an interesting transcript, Alfred. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/02/cnr.02.html)
The commenter (Wolf) is talking about a major storm system and starts with Texas before moving on Arkansas and other states, and shows Tyler on a map and says, "We start off with a tornado warning in northeast Texas. This is the I-20 Corridor. Here's Tyler, Texas. Points east of Tyler, this is where we have a tornado on the ground. Again, we have visual confirmation."
So the fact being reported is that at "points east of Tyler" there has been visual confirmation of a tornado (perhaps more than one?).
He also says, "Now, this line of storms which is well over a thousand miles long -- you can only see just a portion of it here -- it extends all the way through Arkansas and back into parts of the Ohio Valley, and then rears its way back around towards the northern plains. This is going to be making its way off to the East. "
So what we have here is visual sightings of tornadoes that are part of a storm system that is 1,000 miles long and involves several states.
And Mr. Gothard chooses to report this as: "The weather forecast predicted an ideal week of bright sunshine and perfect temperatures with a 30 percent chance of rain on Friday, but God had bigger plans than any of us imagined" (accompanied by an image of a tornado that is implied to the one they saw, but they didn't see one and even if they would have, it could not have been that one, which was a stock image).
Also, the one in Canton was at 7:30am, the two that are shown east of Tyler were approx 3 hours later. I don't know what time the prayer meeting was happening .
Mr. Gothard had a prayer meeting. There was a significant storm with multiple tornadoes. Those are the two facts that are verifiable here.
Beckville is E. of Tyler and 50 miles from Big Sandy.
From this link or thread: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/bill-gothards-tornado-that-didnt-happen/
Alfred Corduan October 22, 2012
{ A person sees what they are geared to see. }
You believe that a person sees what they want or are prone to see. I suppose this applies to you as well?
Alfred Corduan October 22, 2012
{ I have never known Mr. Gothard to engage in a deliberate lie. Have you?}
Well then BG certainly gets the award for the most unintentional lies ever spoken. And of course that lets him off the hook... because lies only count if they're intentional right?
From the following link or thread: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/03/a-matter-of-basic-principles-a-review/
Alfred Corduan April 13, 2012
{ Bill Gothard makes or implies many things that he ends up “changing his mind” on, or, I suspect, forgetting. }
Further, as seen above you excuse BG’s teachings as changing his mind or worse forgetting what he taught. Wow. God's Word does not change. Sorry, dismissing faulty teaching as “hey give the guy a break he forgot what he taught” is irresponsible at best.
"Unintentional lie"? Come on . . . if it wasn't a person's intent to lie, they didn't lie. "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius" (1 Cor. 1:14) Paul, you lied! "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." (vs 16)
Just using his definition of truthfulness....."accurately reporting past facts to gain future trust."
You have said basically that he paints things in the light that he wants to. By his defintion and your description, the man is not truthful.
"Just using his [BG's} definition of truthfulness....."accurately reporting past facts to gain future trust."
You have said basically that he paints things in the light that he wants to. By his defintion and your description, the man is not truthful."
Well? What do you say to Ileata's comment Alfred?
"38 years of getting newsletters (18 years in ATI) has taught me to expect Mr. Gothard to couch events in the most glowing of terms which - though technically accurate - leave you with a level of enthusiasm and assumptions that you would never get if you were there"
This is precisely the point. Although I disagree that the accounts are always "technically accurate". Most of the time, I think that Gothard just takes a couple of facts and spins the story to say whatever he wants to push whatever agenda he has at the time.
Here's my story, and while *you* probably won't think ill of Gothard for how the newsletter published this, it was definitely the beginning of my recognition that Gothard cares little for accuracy:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/wpNwKfpyM9J-14ryaIEwodMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
"In the beautiful setting of 700 acres of woods, streams, and canyons in northern Oklahoma, J.W. and Jeanne Fain and their daughter Tamara are seeing how verbal blessings are increasing gratefulness and a focus on the person rather than the problem.
"When one has a special need, all the girls write out a blessing, and then gather around and speak them to her. The written blessings are then given to her for her review. This has brought tears of joy and gratefulness as each one recognizes her value to the Lord and to others."
I was there. The truth? When one of the girls was graduating from the program, or a leader had finished her service time, and was moving home, we'd all gather (not always, but at the time of this article, this was very common, specifically for those who had been there for 2+yrs). One of the things we'd do is "speak blessings". They may or may not have been written.
We did *not* all gather every time one person had a special need. Honestly I can't remember *any* time that we did that. Individual cabins (3-4 girls) *may* or may not have gathered when a girl had a special need. We did not include all the other girls or leaders when one person was having a problem because it would have been a grave violation of her privacy. The article explicitly says that we did do that, and we most definitely did not. <-- that's called a lie, btw.
This was the first time that I realized that the newsletters and their "wonderful Acts-like stories" were pretty much BS. Because I was there for this story. It wasn't just a suspicion anymore. I knew.
And this doesn't even take issue with the fact that whoever wrote that article had never hiked on that property... or is just used to exaggerating. There were no canyons. Streams, yes. Woods, yes. Canyons? No. -- only ditches.
But this is not the primary point.
My dad wrote to BG when he realized that students were losing confidence in Gothard because of the "glowing reports" in the newsletters that weren't what really happened. Students were saying, "Welll, it wasn't really like that," and my dad was concerned.
Gothard's response was a scathing letter accusing my dad of poisoning his children.
That was because I had written a letter to him after teaching at a CI where the children were lied to. When some of the children didn't believe what they were told, I defending the leadership, saying, "They wouldn't lie to us." Then I thought about it and agreed that the kids' suspicion made sense so I asked someone in leadership as they walked by my team station. They got that "deer in the headlights" look since we were in front of my whole team. But, sure enough, it had been a lie.
Alfred, by Bill Gothard's own definitions of "truth telling' he was lying. (What's that he used to say about gaining 'future credibility by accurately portraying past facts?'?)
He also has a lot to say about "maintain higher standards, called to a higher calling, etc etc etc." Yet he wallows right there in the worlds version of "spin" "marketing" and "truth stretching to make a point". He doesn't not practice what he preaches. Why should we listen to the the Charlatan? He does the cause of Christ great damage with his lack of integrity.
No one has yet identified a fact in this account not accurately reported. Right? As to "future credibility", I have a lot of accounts to work from . . . I use the proverbial “grain of salt” to wade through the enthusiasm, but he really believes it. He does not lie.
On Mr. Kunz’s main points:
Irresponsible Hermeneutics: I believe Pentecost has come and gone and Bill never mentioned it. That being said, what precludes God making a wind to make a point we can understand? Nothing I know of. I have had many fortuitous “coincidences” that have come after earnest cries to the Lord. When does a “coincidence” become a miracle? You see what you want to in it, I guess.
Natural Disaster: Almighty God does not allow random “natural disasters”. Every “act of God” is, well, His act. And tornadoes in a given area are extremely rare. I live in a part of the active “tornado alley”, 5 miles from path of the famous T5 “Plainfield Tornado” (Chicago area) that struck around 1990. 5 years, and the closest tornado we have seen has been 100 miles away.
Didn’t happen, False Light: We have been over this point sufficiently. It did happen. The "light" you see it in is, again, probably what you are geared to be looking for.
Yeah. Why is BG and his teachings SO essential to the Christian faith? What's wrong with your copy of God's word that you need someone else's teachings? Seriously... People act like BG is the only person God uses. Well, I guess the Scripture does say, "The Lord uses the wicked for the day of evil" (or something like that...) lol/jk
"38 years of getting newsletters (18 years in ATI) has taught me to expect Mr. Gothard to couch events in the most glowing of terms which – though technically accurate – leave you with a level of enthusiasm and assumptions that you would never get if you were there."
Alfred, do you think that Scripture is written at this level of accuracy, or do you believe that Scripture is written to a higher standard of accuracy than this?
The rhetorical question :-) But . . . let me ask you this, what does this verse mean?
"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." (Ephesians 4:29)
followed by . . .
(vs. 31) Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice"
That seems to suggest that we more or less refrain from talking about bad things with the goal of serving up helpings of grace to those that hear. The goal of our speech is to build people up (edify). Which makes us talk more about some things, and maybe less about others. What do you think?
Huh? We don't talk about bad things? Do you mean we are supposed to sugarcoat everything? That's certainly not my understanding of "corrupt communication", quite the opposite actually, since I believe uncorrupt communication would involve honesty above trying to make things sound "nice".
Well, I DID ask for an explanation of the verse. "Corrupt" means "rotten, putrefied, corrupted by one and no longer fit for use, worn out, of poor quality, bad, unfit for use, worthless". Bad talk, rubbish talk.
Here are three more along the same lines when it comes to talking about people:
Titus 3:2 "Speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men"
2 Timothy 2:24 "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose [added "themselves" is not in the original]"
James 4:11 "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"
Every time I read them I am convicted. No shining example here. If they do not mean, "Don't talk bad about people and things", what do they mean? That is a serious question. Whatever it is, the opposite provides grace to other people who are listening or reading.
Wow, for starters, I definitely think "no corrupt communication" would involve speaking the truth to our fellow man! It doesn't say, "Ignore things that aren't pretty".
The goal of speech (or in this case the written word) is to communicate ideas.
Those verses certainly do not imply that calling someone on the carpet for untruth or distortion is not edifying. The author of the very book you cited, Paul, certainly did not see anything unedifying about correcting untruth, or warning others about the false teachings of others. I seem to recall Jesus even called people names at times ("brood of vipers", etc).
But what of this author's main point - that Gothard frequently uses anecdotes, which may be factually twisted, as foundation and support for much of his teaching? The main point of the story about the tornado was to illustrate this point.
So . . . what DOES that verse mean?
People are very encouraged with stories of God at work in supernatural ways, right? Lots of grace is ministered. And . . . Bill Gothard is used to expecting God to take him seriously and answer prayer in powerful ways. I think that is kind of awesome. I don't think the Lord is too offended if this was a case of Him sending the tornado for some other purpose, and Mr. G seeing the Lord in it for him. If it were some wicked thing is it trying to support with "signs and wonders", then both the Lord and everyone else would be offended. But . . . encouraging men to pray to a living God? Maybe folks can pick a better example to dissect, eh? There must be some.
"People are very encouraged with stories of God at work in supernatural ways, right? "
Yes, when people hear TRUE stories about how God actually worked, it ministers grace, entirely contingent upon those stories being true. Misleading stories set people up for disillusionment. It ministers grace to me to hear about Corrie Ten Boom. If I were to discover that she was a fraud (like Mike Warnke, say) then her story no longer would minister grace, it would actually discourage me.
Paul said, "we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God." It should very concerning to anyone who defends Gothard that in order to do so, they have to rationalize away misleading stories. Trust and truth are at the heart of the gospel. Playing fast and loose with the truth is a very serious mistake.
So, stretching the truth to encourage people to pray is ministering grace?
Do you know how many people walk away from God all together when they find out that the man who "encouraged" them in their walk with the Lord was not being truthful?
It's like Gothard is saying that what God really did wasn't good enough and he has to stretch it a little and show you what God "could" have done. I don't need that. I need reality. God does plenty of wonderful things every day, there is no need to misrepresent Him by stretching the truth.
If you are right, Paul shouldn't have named by name those who "did him much harm."
Matt. 18 says to go to someone 2 and then tell it to the church. So, ummm...yeah, it's ok sometimes to tell bad things.
And in the area of untruthfulness, my dad and I both went to Mr. G......I feel like it's perfecttly in line with Mt. 18 now for me to speak publicly about it.
The Matthew 18 thing with Gothard: Suppose someone went to Gothard and Gothard did not respond, and that person took 1 or 2 others and Gothard still did not respond - which pastor would then be responsible to speak to Gothard? Which congregation would he eventually disfellowship him until he repented, in the case that became necessary?
I did not ask a rhetorical question. I asked a real question of real consequence. You have a habit of dodging questions. I don't know about you, but I'm staking my life on the veracity of Scripture. If Scripture is only as trustworthy as you yourself have described Gothard, then I'm out. Seriously, I'm out. Out of Christianity, out of the church, out of the ministry. I'll go pursue a secular counseling degree or a Masters in computer science or something if I ever conclude that Scripture is only as accurate as you have described Gothard to be. One of the things that truly saved my faith was when I took hermeneutics in seminary and realized that Scripture was not up the whims of people like Gothard to coerce it into the mold of their making; Scripture is an ancient text that contains truth (and reveals the one who is Truth).
The verses you list are very important and I believe them. I believe we edify people by being honest and telling the truth in love. I believe if anyone - me, you, the author of the article here, or Bill Gothard - speak with bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil speaking, or malice then they are speaking from the flesh, not the Spirit. (though Scripture does indicate in other places that anger is not always wrong, but that would be the sole possible exception). When Bill speaks to girls about how they are beautiful or not, depending on their weight and hairstyle and other physical attributes, or when he misrepresents events by how he reports them, I would see this as "corrupt communication" and not "good for the use of edifying".
Jude speaks very, very strongly against false teachers who worm their way in and he says we must contend for the faith. I take that verse seriously as well, and I see my interaction here at RG as exactly that: contending for the faith.
I do not believe that "truth in love" means we never contend nor confront. Matthew 18, Jesus in the Temple, Jesus vs. the Pharisees and Scribes, Paul when he confronted Peter, Paul in 1 and 2 Corinthians all serve as examples. It's not about lashing out with a chip on the shoulder (which may be an ugly but normal part of the healing process for us as humans) but about being motivated by the love of Christ to call to people to be reconciled to God. Jesus literally upset the apple cart in the temple, and the very next verse says "The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them." Jesus broke the Pharisees's rules, and he broke Bill Gothard's rules, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.
I can make this extremely personal and honest: I sometimes fail, but I try to have a habit of praying about each response to you, and of praying that some day you and I might have a friendly relationship, and that when that day comes, I will be able to look back on my exchanges with you and see them as an attempt at reconciliation for the good of the body of Christ, and not be embarrassed to realize that I was unduly harsh or attacking to you. Many times, I ask questions and honestly try to figure out what you are thinking. That is how I see "truth in love" being worked out in this sort of conversation. What drives me batty is that you can be confronted with example after example of Mr. Gothard being disingenuous (at best) and instead of admitting what is plainly obvious to the casual observer, you switch into defense lawyer mode, like Clinton redefining the meaning of the word "is", meanwhile leveling personal and character attacks at people who are honestly seeking truth. The Lord loves you and I both, and he treasures both of us deeply, and he treasures those victims who have been crushed by the hypocrisy of IBLP and ATI, and he reaches out to us all with a healing touch.
If my heart's motivation for interacting with these conversations at RG is to make Gothard look bad, then I'm operating from Flesh. If my heart's motivation is love for the Lord and love for his people, then I'm keeping in step with the Spirit.
My question to you stands: Alfred, do you think that Scripture is written at this level of accuracy (that you described as characteristic of Bill), or do you believe that Scripture is written to a higher standard of accuracy than this?
Alfred, 'the light you see it in, is probably what you are geared to be looking for.'
Well that sums you up entirely. You see things how you wish to see them, and no other way. Pity.
"He who closes his ears to the cry of the poor, he shall also cry himself, and not be heard."
Have a nice day.
"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure" (Titus 1:15) A person sees what they are geared to see. To some people all of life is a miracle, drenched in the mercy and grace of a loving heavenly father . . . to some life is random, ugly events controlled by evil people with God off somewhere, doing something else. That was my point.
But calling a lie truth is not a good thing Biblically. It is calling evil good.
And some people consider it denial and not living in reality....sort of like saying the holocaust never happened.
I cannot disagree with anything you said.
Alfred... Curious then... Has BG lied whether intentionally or unintentionally?
From this link or thread: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/bill-gothards-tornado-that-didnt-happen/
Alfred Corduan October 22, 2012
{ A person sees what they are geared to see. }
You believe that a person sees what they want or are prone to see. I suppose this applies to you as well?
Alfred Corduan October 22, 2012
{ I have never known Mr. Gothard to engage in a deliberate lie. Have you?}
Well then at the very least BG certainly qualifies for nomination for the award for the most unintentional lies ever spoken. And of course that lets him off the hook... because lies only count if they're intentional right?
From the following link or thread: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/03/a-matter-of-basic-principles-a-review/
Alfred Corduan April 13, 2012
{ Bill Gothard makes or implies many things that he ends up “changing his mind” on, or, I suspect, forgetting. }
Further, as seen above you excuse BG’s teachings as changing his mind or worse forgetting what he taught. Wow. God's Word does not change. Sorry, dismissing faulty teaching as “hey give the guy a break he forgot what he taught” is irresponsible at best.
How do you possibly justify your comments?
Point to the lie :-)
MY point was that you could take the most solid evidence on this earth that BG is a crook, and YOU would find a way around it because you see 'what you are geared to be looking for', and you are avidly seeking Gothard's innocence in the very face of eyewitnesses who declare otherwise.
Pardon me if I seem blunt. I can't stand the destruction that the whole thing has wreaked on my family, and many other families I know, so I have an especially difficult time with people who REFUSE to see the truth.
Have no problem with bluntness. But I like to see "the beef". I don't know your story, so cannot comment.
I grew up in a very conservative church. I have seen lots of young people who blamed it for all of their problems . . . rebellion, messed up families. But I see lots of others who believe that upbringing to be the greatest blessing they could have gotten. I see both sides. Same with IBLP.
And . . . as to seeing what you want . . . that was intended as a bit of a challenge. Some people see God in everything, all of life, cradle to grave, everywhere, active, loving, in charge . . . some people see the same circumstances as evidence of a distant God, unloving, angry, hateful . . . or even worse, of God's absence. Same circumstances . . . just depends on what you are expecting to see. See my point?
What is the difference?
You are avoiding my statement entirely.
No . . . I can only respond as I did.
o I don't believe BG is a crook, or I would not be here.
o "Geared" has to do with believing God to be intimately involved in all the little details of life, loving us fully, even in apparently awful circumstances. Whatever you may say, Bill Gothard really believes what he preaches, and the "anecdotes" are real, from his perspective. He tends to be over-excited and over-zealous at times, but I can live with it, for on the whole it is as he says.
o And I do not know your story, so cannot comment. And I obviously I don't believe everything everyone presents as truth.
The issue of truth vs. untruth is important. When Clinton tried to redefine words and say things such that he could be "technically correct", many of us determined him to be lying and realized we could not take him at his word.
A noteworthy comment was made recently. If an RG author were to make this statement, he/she would likely be attacked as being bitter and as slandering Bill Gothard. However, it was an ardent supporter of Gothard who said, “38 years of getting newsletters (18 years in ATI) has taught me to expect Mr. Gothard to couch events in the most glowing of terms which – though technically accurate – leave you with a level of enthusiasm and assumptions that you would never get if you were there.” In other words, Mr. Gothard tells stories in such a way that you would not recognize them if you had been there. This is in direct contrast to Mr. Gothard's own definition of truthfulness: "Earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts (Ephesians 4:25)" (http://billgothard.com/teaching/characterqualities/)
Scripture has something to say about truthfulness. Satan is a deceiver and the father of lies. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Peter knew that he could trust Jesus because Jesus did not fudge the truth. Jesus was not a politician who engaged in "spin".
Here are some related Scripture passages:
Psalm 119:163 I hate and detest falsehood
but I love your law.
Proverbs 14:5 An honest witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies.
John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
2 Corinthians 4:2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
Ephesians 4:14-15 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.
Ephesians 4:25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.
Colossians 3:9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices
1 Timothy 4:2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:163;%20Prov%2014:5;%20john%208:44;%202%20cor%204:2;%20eph%204:14-15,%2025,%2029;%20col%203:9;%201%20Tim%204:2&version=NIV)
It is noteworthy that the 1 Tim 4 passage in context talks about people who "forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving."
The question that a supporter of Bill might want to ask themselves is how would they know if he were to have a seared conscience? What would be the signs? Surely he would not stand up and proclaim that his conscience were now seared. Far from it, he would stand and proclaim the exact opposite. So how would you know? This gets back to those newspaper stories from the 1980s where a large number of his staff either left or were fired, and people have been leaving and voicing the same concerns ever since, that Bill is not a man of his word, that he cannot be trusted.
Jude instructs us to contend for the faith. When dishonest teachers of the Word twist Scripture to say things it doesn't say, it eventually becomes necessary to contend against those teachings and speak the truth in love, praying that the person will be drawn to repentance.
Matt: You are a hard person to respond to at times. You don't need to instruct me on how truthful God or the Scriptures are. That is my "rhetorical question" comment. Your use of absolute whites to condemn everything else as black makes no sense. Even godly Isaiah found his mouth to be filthy and corrupt in God's presence. If you want to condemn others based on that, go ahead . . . but you know the sword swings back around quickly.
Is there ever a time to highlight certain truth things and minimize others in order to highlight a pathway for others? Do you have the same discussions with your (presumed) children as your (presumed) wife when it comes interacting with the realities of life?
Let's say you are teaching them about the faithfulness of God . . . do you give equal time to all the the past and pending situations in your life that would challenge His faithfulness? No . . . you highlight the clear examples that show Him faithful, and assume that unresolved issues in the near term will eventually be resolved and explained. Because . . . God is faithful! We have believed Him, so we interpret life accordingly.
Tell me . . . does that fulfill your standard of truth? Does faith trump perceived realities at times?
This has been a very thought-provoking comment for me.
There is a lot here. I would like to comment about the third paragraph, the comment that you emphasize "the clear examples that show Him faithful, and assume that unresolved issues in the near term will eventually be resolved and explained." This is because the "unresolved" situations might "challenge His faithfulness."
But what would be the consequence of not doing this?
In "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse", page 188, there is a chart of how the trap of abusive systems match up to areas of "learned helplessness" in those who get trapped. Number 4 is "Lack of Balance" (in abusive systems) which maps to this in the victims:
Alfred, I honestly think you live in a place of extreme denial, even delusion. In the conversation about how Gothard trampled the boundaries of girls who had a certain physical appearance, you played defense lawyer for Gothard all through, never once giving a sense of understanding the feelings or emotions of the victims.
And here, you show a need to control what people think about God. I don't mean that as an insult, only an observation. You are doing for God what you do for Gothard, that is, you are playing defense lawyer. If a situation is unresolved, you will gloss over that until it is resolved, otherwise it might "challenge His faithfulness".
But does Scripture do this?
The majority of the book of Job 'challenges God's faithfulness' in that sense - and Job's suffering is never truly "resolved" in the sense of which you speak here. Sure, God restored his stuff in the end, but why let it happen in the first place? Was God not faithful through the entire experience even if it looked like Job was getting a raw deal? God promised his people blessing in this life, yet Psalm 73 wrestles with the reality that sometimes the bad guy does fine while the good guy suffers.
Psalm 22 'challenge His faithfulness' in that sense as well. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" David cried out of the depths of some terrible struggle, and Jesus "borrowed" those words (which of course he had inspired) when he himself was suffering.
I can honestly tell you I do not do as you say here. I do in fact tell my family about the situations that are unresolved. I tell them places where I am confused and struggling and don't understand (obviously prudence dictates that you don't over-share, but that is an issue of decency and respect, not of controlling how God looks). I pray with them in the middle of the messy situations and ask God to remain faithful through it all, trusting that he will be. I do not carry the weight of being God's spin-master or his defense lawyer. He has done many things for which I have no great explanation. I believe CS Lewis that God is not a tame lion. And yet, I feel safe with him. We are in the middle of a couple of major experiences right now that are very unresolved and very challenging, and yet they do not challenge God's faithfulness. In fact, I am seeing him work in the middle of it. I truly believe that the God of the universe, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is actually working in the middle of these situations.
If you think about it, the responsibility to control what people think about God is a major weight on the shoulders. On top of which, you have to white-wash anything God does that doesn't make sense, which, frankly, is a lot.
I'm speaking honestly from my depths here - I have interacted with literally hundreds of ex-ATI students online. Some of them have pursued a grace-based relationship with God, some of them became atheists. Almost none of them make only minor changes to their beliefs and continue in them. I wonder if this thing you describe, spinning events to make God look good, is part of the dividing line for what people choose... I wonder if some people decide that God's reputation has been propped up with spin and overblown accounts and that when the chips are down, God really won't actually be there; they have heard all these amazing stories but when they realize the stories were exaggerations and sales pitches more than cold facts they make the intellectually honest choice and decide God can't be trusted. It's a small logical and intellectually honest step to becoming an atheist after that.
Other people conclude that the God they have been sold is not the real deal and so they throw away the false version, such as Gothardism, and pursue the true, living God in an authentic, rugged, dangerous, uncontrolled, phenomenological relationship where they question, search, push, and question some more even as they sense they are being pursued by this God who loves them.
The fact is, God does not play by the rules of universal, non-optional principles and "higher standards". You can go to church every Sunday, tithe 11% on your gross income, listen only to hymns and memorize the entire Bible and you are no more protected from getting cancer or your child dying than your playboy neighbor down the street who hates church with a passion. You can do all these things and find that your marriage is dead in spite of the fact you were promised that doing it "God's way" would result in "happily ever after."
When people hit that crisis where God has not paid them $200 for passing Go, they have a choice: either God is a cheat or they have been playing by the wrong rules. Or, stick their head into the sands of denial and delusion and keep playing.
I will tell you - the day I realized I was not God's last line of defense was a day I breathed a literal sigh of relief. I literally sighed and felt lighter the moment that it occurred to me that I could simply live my life in God's presence and that I could neither protect nor threaten God's work on this earth. I can cooperate with him to my joy or fight against him to my pain, but neither one makes him worried or relieved. Even if I were to declare all-out war on God and attack his bride, the church, with a vengeance, I could not kill it, nor would it die for having lost me.
I have no need to control what people think about God. I can live honestly before him and seek the truth and seek him - God is a big God, he can handle himself. This doesn't mean I'm passive. I am an ambassador, I try to persuade people: be reconciled to God! It's better! But to spin events and try to control what people think... I left that behind a long time ago and I don't miss it.
Sorry for the length. Your comment there has numerous significant statements and this one touched on something deep down inside of me that changed when I left Gothardism like the false religion that it is and I began to pursue the living God who is full of grace and *truth*.
I don't know your heart, man. If you are truly seeking God and seeking truth, then I have confidence that he is drawing you and you will find what you are looking for. If you feel a responsibility to control what people think then you carrying a heavy load that you don't have to carry, even as you miss out on the real deal.
Bravo... [clap, clap, clap]... Bravo, Matthew!
This was me. Tired of the rules, regulations, ever higher standards that demanded to be met. Realizing my god was too small for me to trust. Coming to the point of vowing, "If what I have is all there is to Christianity, I want no more of it. If my parents' god is all there is, I am through!"
And then, just when I was ready to turn and walk away from it all, being surprised by grace, and meeting the living God... the authentic Jesus, the one I had never known. And so began a Christian life that was more than motions and words.
As I've alluded to, The Jesus I Never Knew (Yancey), was a part of this journey. It was a book that gave me freedom to be disappointed and disillusioned with God, and re-examine what I thought I knew about him... and to discover how very much he differed from what I had been taught that he was.
“38 years of getting newsletters (18 years in ATI) has taught me to expect Mr. Gothard to couch events in the most glowing of terms which – though technically accurate – leave you with a level of enthusiasm and assumptions that you would never get if you were there.”
This statement actually sums up well part of the reason for RG's existence. The pillars that Gothardism is built on are his anecdotes and stories every bit as much as his "universal, non-optional principles". Gothard is a good story-teller. He often presents a principle or a rule in a way that he knows people will find hard to accept, then he tells a story to soften the blow and inspire people to "go and do likewise."
People are taken in by his enthusiasm and his stories. They believe that if they could just be closer in, they too would be experiencing this constant amazement at what God is doing. When the day comes that they realize that every single story, example, and proof that has been offered is suspect and probably stretched or misrepresented, the whole building begins to sag and crumble like the temple around Samson.
Those of us who try to help clean up the rubble are grateful when people choose to leave Gothardism but not God and the church as a whole. But it's heart-breaking how many young people pick up an attitude of "fool me once..." and walk away from the faith entirely.
I just see it more and more how important it is that we live in "truth in love" versus deception and misdirection.
While I have gained a healthy skepticism toward any material put out by IBLP/ATI, I can confirm Whitney's story. I was at the DTC during that time and had served with her. She and my sister were very good friends. Thank you for taking the time to share your experience and perspective.
From the article: "After reading the newsletter, I wondered whether God had really sent an unpredicted tornado 25 to 50 miles away from the Big Sandy conference to knock down trees, block a road, and cancel my long-anticipated bike ride specifically in order to demonstrate His approval of Bill Gothard’s men’s session in the “upper room” of the library."
Answer: Yes, He really did.
"As I flipped to the second page, though, I saw the story of Whitney, a young woman whose dizziness was allegedly cured by special anointing during the same Big Sandy conference.
And then it occurred to me: Almost every IBLP teaching is supported by anecdote."
And this is also true, we know learn.
So . . .are we opposed to anecdotes, or just ones that aren't true? The "Testimonies" of Scripture tell the tales of what God has done . . . they really encourage us, showing that God is real and He means what He says. That's what testimonies to God's greatness do. Some are even put to music . . . praise.
Mr. Gothard has lots of amazing testimonies of God doing amazing things in response to faith. Exact amounts coming in in answer to prayer. Split second timing providing deliverance. People being healed when believers prayed. Demons speaking out and then being cast out. With all of the interest and experience on this website, SURELY we have better examples to work from to show that Bill Gothard is a liar than this newsletter.
Alfred, how do you know God's reason for sending a tornado?
That's one of the things that has caused me to lose respect for Gothard. He always presumes to know "why" God does things. I think that's actually very presumptuous.
Would it make you feel better if the author had said, 'Almost every IBLP teaching is supported by unverifiable (therefore possibly distorted/untrue) anecdotes' (which is possibly what he meant) thus making his position more clear?
This is the article that has really stuck with me since discovering this website. Alfred: God does not need embelishment to demonstrate His power. And that is exactly what the whole tornado story is - unneccesary aggrandizement. A changed life and a regenerated soul, I'll take that as a true testimony to God's power over some fabricated story anyday.
Back to my point. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God". (Matt. 5:8) Everywhere, in everything. The Russians went up in space and said that they hadn't seen God anywhere . . . Multiple American astronauts have testified to the wonder of God's presence and handiwork. Some live in awe of God's power and creativity in the miracle of the smallest created thing . . . some see nothing that reminds them of God anywhere. "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure" (Titus 1:15)
It all depends on what you are expecting. I believe in a God so awesome that He controls every raindrop, let alone every storm. Maybe you do too. Jesus said that God is so focused on us that at every given moment He is both recording every word we speak, AND keeping an accurate count of our hairs.
That same God dwells where there is praise, and draws close when those that love and fear Him and cry out to Him, even those that are quite imperfect, like ATI fathers. And to, then, call that tornado - as statistically unlikely as that was on that particular day and locality - a "coincidence"? Not a chance.
Again, this is a lousy example to be pounding on. With ALL of the testimonies given, surely someone, somewhere has a much better account to take apart.
I believe God is sovereign and controls everything. But, the account of Pentecost had a rushing mighty wind IN a building, accompanied by visible flames and speaking in unknown tongues.
To take a possible tornado that was 50 miles away and say it was basically the same thing is laughable and the very sort of thing that discredits BG. If you choose to believe it, that's your choice, but his "example" is a huge twist of Scripture and any Bible scholar would laugh at him.
We have probably beat this to death. But . . .
"God demonstrated His power with the mighty, rushing wind of an unpredicted tornado minutes away from Big Sandy."
Stop reading more into it than what it says. God did indeed demonstrate His power in the tornado . . . nothing here says Pentecost. God's Holy Spirit is the "wind" . . . and an interesting meteorological event serves to make some wonder if God was making a point.
I remember an "anecdote" from the "Advanced Seminar" on spiritual gifts . . . he had the various participants at an early conference who believed themselves to have the individual gifts to group together and share notes, then appoint someone to report to the whole. When the "prophet" (preacher) representative came forward, he said that they had come to the conclusion that some are "weeping prophets" and some are "thundering prophets". As he spoke the last phrase, there what a huge clap of thunder. Bill laughed as he recounted it, and quickly noted that a storm was passing through.
*I* think that was cool, though. I am no more or less inclined to believe in "thundering prophets" . . . but I think God has a sense of humor and sometimes does things to remind us that He is near and very much focused on us. You will allow that for me?
You started your quote in the wrong place if you are trying to say Gothard wasn't making it a comparison with Pentecost. 120 men in an upper room and then the phrase "rushing, mighty wind." You really can't believe he wasn't trying to make that comparison unless you are unfamiliar with the passage in Acts 2.
120 men?! I missed that part :-) What an interesting set of circumstances.
I have never heard Mr. G talk about the "filling of the Spirit" or "Baptism in the Spirit" . . . ever. Again, don't take more out of this than intended. A cool set of "coincidences" that seemed to him to say that God was watching them, interested in what they were doing.
In the King James, Acts 2:1-2 says, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind..." Gothard makes much of the "one accord" for the 'one accord power teams' and here borrows the notion of a sudden, mighty, rushing wind. This is a headline story, not a sidebar on page 3.
The intended implication is obvious.
How about this? Post-Pentecost . . .
Acts 4:4 "And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord . . . . 31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."
Guess that was an earthquake? Do we insist that the Lord NOT use such things to make a point in modern times? Just trying to understand.
No-one I know in ATI took any more out of it than that. Most of us know that he tends to get excited and see wonders that we might not. Sometimes you smile. But, again, I kind of like that . . . much prefer a person who expects God to be real and do things than someone who is cynical and lives by what he can understand.
ok now for a real tornado story and how God protected our home, pets and other stuff-and it happened right in Paris TX TWICE- in 1982 and 85 and the two paths intersected on our house, which each time both pets, horse, art on the wall, were spared. It actually goes back a month earlier when a friend accidentally stepped on a painting I had done. I took it to the insurance place who said they did not cover items for sale but we agreed to up the house insurance as we had done some improvements on the place- we lived on 1/3 acre. Then came the April 1982 tornado that took 11 lives and wiped several businesses and many homes off the map. I had just sold a horse so she was spared as the little barn in our backyard was smithereened. The little milk goats came our unharmed as did our cats and dogs. All through the house you could see glass impacted into the walls but totally missing the paintings.
It costs to repair were covered by the newer higher coverage insurance.
In 1985, chapter two of the same book, a smaller tornado came over but did more damage...this time the mortgage company took all our insurance money and left us with a house that needed repairs- windows, roof, a wall came off the foundation, etc. I had quit teaching to return to college and the retirement money was given to me which was just enough to cover the damages. Come to find out when I bought back my retirement when I went back to teaching is that they said they never do that. I told them I did not know to ask, they had just sent a check.
In the 2nd tornado, again all pets and this time my new horse (I still have that horse, she is 31 years old) were untouched as was the new barn but the small garage on another property was totally destroyed. My horse's pen was right next to that garage and she was totally untouched. One of our cats had a tree fall on and trap him by his leg him but he was ok. Our dogs were found unharmed. I really knew God had His hand on us as just before the 2nd tornado, my husband and parents, visiting from Calif, all were watching TV. For some reason the TV suddenly changed channels and a black preacher was saying "My God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory" then changed right back. "Did you see that?" I asked. Everyone said "see what?" I was the only one who apparently had noticed what the TV did and I took it as a word from God. And indeed it was because I needed it as the tornado hit barely a week later. My parents had just left a few days before to return home.
I do not want to go through any more tornadoes, thank-you God, two is more than enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow . . . that is really awesome!
Alfred, I had asked the question, "do you think that Scripture is written at this level of accuracy, or do you believe that Scripture is written to a higher standard of accuracy than this?"
You eventually returned an answer here: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/11/lucky-charms/#comment-11285,
"Why take me down pathways like that, Matthew ...? Of course it is written . . . to the highest standard, “purified 7 times”. You knew me well enough to know how I would answer, so it is rhetoric."
Actually, what I was wondering was what sort of threshold you have for something being trustworthy. When Scripture says there was a mighty rushing wind and tongues of fire, do you believe that if you had been there watching, you would have heard the wind, seen the fire, heard the people speaking in tongues, etc?
I was actually intrigued by the tack you took, which was to say, my paraphrase, Gothard is only human and less than perfect.
I wonder if Bill admits that he fails his own standard of truthfulness, which is, "Earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts (Ephesians 4:25)"? I wonder if he accepts the excuse for himself that he is only human?
One could use that excuse for anything: I'm only human, therefore I lie, steal, cheat, sleep around.
I have three issues with this. 1) I recall wondering the same thing about the rationalizations you made for his treatment of young female students - I wondered if he would have accepted the excuses for himself that you made for him, and I wonder that now, would he admit that he reports things at a lesser standard than his own standard of truthfulness? 2) Of course we are all human and we all fall short, but do we choose to use that as an excuse for bad behavior? Oh well, I'm only human, therefore I can just be comfortable doing this. 3) When has Bill ever admitted this himself?
The irony is pretty thick here: Bill teaches that those who disagree with his "standards" are rationalizing compromise, and his standards touch everything including clothes, circumcision, sexual activity between spouses, dietary rules, music that is not allowed, etc. However, his defenders must rationalize much about his behavior, including his treatment of single young females and of his truthfulness in reporting.
It seems to me that you accept that Gothard fails his own standard of truthfulness, but he's only human after all, and his exaggerations and stretches are done in attempt to motivate people for God. The end justifies the means. Perhaps not for anyone else, but for Bill, the end justifies the means.
Matthew: nobody has raised this account to the level of a lie . . . In fact, we appear to have validated each point. Except the idea that it means something . . . Which appears to be left to the perceptions of the observer. I did say that he is not perfect, but the higher issue was whether he loves the truth and loves Jesus. So, no, you can't use that to get away with anything . . .
And-again- if this is as bad as it gets, it gets kind of goofy to be spending this kind of time on it.
"nobody has raised this account to the level of a lie . . . In fact, we appear to have validated each point."
There was a very large storm system that day which extended over 1,000 miles and people were being warned to take shelter. Where did we validate which of the three tornadoes that touched down in that general area of Texas Bill was talking about when he said, "God demonstrated His power with the mighty, rushing wind of an unpredicted tornado minutes away from Big Sandy”?
And . . . just so we are clear on the standard of truthfulness we are pursuing, back to a prior point. Perhaps you say to your children (as I do): "God has always supplied all our needs". Then we sing:
"God will take care of you, through every day, o'er all the way;
He will take care of you, God will take care of you"
I don't tell them about sleepless nights, sweating out an empty bank account, insurmountable illnesses, the times I might have even said, or screamed, "Lord, where are you?!" Not the little kids, I don't.
When telling them missionary stories, do you give equal time to the ones that washed out, the ones that committed adultery, the ones that lost their faith? Or do you just tell them mostly only hero stories? When singing "Faith of our Fathers" do you tell them that the author converted to Catholicism prior to writing that, or that the author of "Come Thou Fount" washed out as a Christian? Do you show them the world the way it really is on TV, or do you censor things? Do you tell them all your family's dirty laundry, how each person has sinned, or do you tend to only tell them the good things?
Are you - in other words - guilty of manipulating your children's world view by withholding or presenting information that suits your purpose? Do you do it at all?
I KNOW you do :-) If so, tell me how that is justified by the standard of truthfulness you are upholding here.
So basically, Gothard is like the father figure and we are all his little children who can't handle the truth - we trust him to manipulate the truth and spoon-feed us what we can handle? How would he and we know when we can handle the truth?
The issue is not about me, and not about what I tell my children as they grow and mature (though I definitely attempt to be trustworthy in what I report) but whether Bill lives up to his own standard for truthfulness. The reporting in question in this case is his front-page story on his newsletter.
Matthew, you are implying that the presentation of events that has become "The Tornado Story" is an example of failing of God's standard of truthfulness, of "Earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts". I am asking you to clarify the standard you are preaching. Does it allow for deliberately tailoring presentations to mold those we are discipling?
After suffering with extreme kidney stone pain for hours and on the verge of a trip to the hospital I remembered that I had not actually "cried out to the Lord", even though I knew He was there and watching. So I asked for mercy - out loud - and at that very moment I had instant relief . . . and a trophy minutes later. Have I failed of that standard when I tell my kids - and you - that God really does honor humbling ourselves and "crying out to Him", even though I suppose it could have been a coincidence and there have been other times when relief was not instantaneous? The account is true - you may or may not like the conclusion, but that is not a "truthfulness" problem.
The goal of this story is to leave you with the idea that "God really focuses on groups of believers in earnest prayer" . . . "God takes us seriously when we take Him seriously". I can allow that God deliberately allowed 120 (unplanned number) men to pray at the more or less (maybe exact) same time that a statistically unlikely violent wind was ripping things up in the vicinity. It could get your adrenaline going if you were expecting God to do big things in response to earnest prayer.
I have heard that kidney stone pain is truly terrible. A friend of mine is convinced that he should enter his "trophy" to the Guiness Book people! I fear I may get one some day - I drink too much coffee and not nearly enough water.
I totally believe that God answers prayer, and he may well have answered yours by causing you to pass the stone at that time. Even if it would have happened anyway, I still believe that God is sovereign over all of nature and history, so even in the day to day events, whether natural processes, "coincidences" or whatever, I think it is right and proper to give God credit.
I think it's encouraging to hear a believer say that they prayed to God (I don't want to get into the issues with Bill's formula for "crying out") and that God answered them in this tangible way.
But if I were to find out that it wasn't actually your kidney stone, but your neighbor's, and that he didn't actually pass it right then but somewhere in that same week, then your story no longer has an impact on me. See what I mean?
Bill could have said, "we prayed, and the storm raged, and it was an awesome prayer meeting." But that's not nearly as sexy as implying that God dropped a surprise tornado in response to a prayer meeting, as if this were Pentecost all over again. That is very much the sort of thing Bill routinely sells. The intended effect of the story seems to me to be a desire to validate Bill more than a desire to encourage people to pray. The tornado was not a surprise, it was not just one tornado but a 1,000 mile storm with multiple tornadoes, and there were no tornadoes in Big Sandy. We don't even know which of the three tornadoes in East Texas he's trying to claim. Bill's line that the "weather forecast predicted an ideal week of bright sunshine and perfect temperatures with a 30 percent chance of rain on Friday, but God had bigger plans..." makes Bill look the hero but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Your story is different, and believable. If the events were basically as happened, then you are living up to Bill's standard of "earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts". The problem is, Bill doesn't live up to his own standard.
Any tips for avoiding kidney stones?
Haha! I wish. That was my first (that I know about). Pretty minor compared to what others have gone through. Proves I am a wimp, regardless.
Matthew, the bottom line is whether you believe Bill Gothard to be "real" or not. It is sort of like a romance, if you will. When "in love" the object of your affection can do little wrong, every action and even failure is seen in the best possible light, with the best assumed motives. One day a lover has a crisis of doubt . . . and may find they no longer "believe in" their significant other. Suddenly everything is reinterpreted in the WORST possible light, with the worst motives. They find themselves hating the person with the same passion that they previously loved them.
Perhaps neither mode is completely correct . . . but with fellow believers (and especially when married) you go with option 1 to an extreme. Love "believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things". Takes no account of wrongs . . . all the good 1 Cor 13 things.
I still "believe in" Bill Gothard. You don't. You have to give an account to the Lord for that. That does not mean you are wrong - you just have to give account for opposing him. I see a man with flaws, but on the whole he is who he says he is, and he tells the truth. Please believe me that I have stopped "believing in" other significant people when I reached a point where I could do no other, and I am fully prepared to "give account" for doing do.
Regardless of what you think - and I will likely never convince you otherwise - I am not a "Gothardite" as I may have once been. I rarely quote him, but seek rather to address Scriptural issues directly on their merit. The discussion on "Grace" elsewhere is key for me, one of the biggest reasons I still "believe him". No-one else is able or willing to address my deep concerns with the standard and modern "definition of grace".
I know others strongly disagree, and I can live with that. Please also give me credit for never shying away from an accusation. I dove into "the book" with a lot of trepidation . . . but I had to. I put myself out there for people to give me their worst. IF Bill Gothard is a bad man, THIS will NOT be the best example of "lies" to try to dissect. Bad people do bad things.
I have asked for better examples repeatedly and if and when they come, I address them. On the Metochoi forum I got a "good one". A young man told me that a newsletter account of God's miraculous provision of a large amount of money for a printing press was, in fact, no miracle, that the Institute planned all along to sell property to get the money. THAT would be an example of deceit along the lines of what you are talking about. I contacted Mr. G, who had a cadre of officials who were there at that time write me back a statement of their own. The bottom line was that although the money came from the government's subsequent "Eminent Domain" condemnation and forced sale of Institute property, at the point they "cried out" they had no idea of where the money would be coming from. I have the statement in front of me.
I have to decide whether they are sincerely telling the truth or not. I believe them . . . young man remains suspicious.
So far as your "being in love" with Bill Gothard analogy, what many of us are experiencing is the feeling of being in love with a spouse, living with them for years, emphasizing their strengths and downplaying their faults... And one day you wake up, and realize you have been living with a horribly abusive person, and you have got to get OUT!! Suddenly their behavior all comes into perspective, and you realize they have been deceiving you for years. And you are done taking the abuse, risking your very soul for this person.
That's where many of us are. We are like all of Gothard's exes, trying to warn his current loves, that these are not mere differences of opinion, these are not personality quirks, these are abusive, manipulative behaviors... Both of Scripture, and of the people who work for him.
The current "wife" will try to tell us we're lying, we're the ones with the problem, he's changed, etc, etc. But we still bear the damage of that relationship, in our very persons, even after years of therapy.
Thank you for understanding my analogy. I have been roaming these forums for many years, so I am well aware of those sentiments. Comments:
o I grew up in a very conservative church. Not a few have rejected it and blamed lifelong troubles on it. Others have thrived.
o I have seen "Fundamentalism" blamed for many woes, with support groups and the like. This involving a literal interpretation of the Bible, heaven and hell. Others could not disagree more.
o In fact, Christianity as a whole is fingered by not a few "ex-believers" as responsible for messing their lives up. Support web sites and all. They daily thank "whatever gods there be" for getting out. A lot of us would, again, disagree.
So . . . I listen carefully and seek to find my way through all of this. But I have stopped being impressed with a mass of accusations as a basis for decision making. I see a section on “Sexual Abuse in ATI”, and find that these are “preexisting conditions”, and even openly acknowledged to not be caused by ATI. “He should have known”, but he didn’t cause it. I read about abusive training centers . . . again, the only issues that have risen to the level of legal action have been summarily dismissed. I see a book that 3x accuses Bill Gothard of immorality . . . yet I have spent decades now trying to get those authors and their sources to explain what they are referring to. And, to this day, no-one has. It is not for lack of trying, Hannah.
I know that Bill Gothard can be extremely insensitive at times. Hopes dashed, hearts broken. I heard Dr. Dobson being accused in similar manner by disgruntled ex-confidantes. I hope if I ever have the responsibility of running a ministry half as involved as theirs I may do as well. He has seriously messed up at times and he knows it . . . and where my telling him that will help, I will.
And his stuff works – I don’t know how else to say it. Everyone is ready to declare a death . . . ATI enrollments down, training centers closing, staff being slashed. Suddenly, enrollments are steadily back up. Why? Well . . . now the effects of his principles are being presented, not in seminars and conferences and little groups of ATI fathers in monthly meetings, but on worldwide television, running almost 24 hours a day. The audience is a skeptical world. My family watches the Duggars and the Bates and we want to be like them :-) And I guarantee you that nobody in IBLP EVER imagined such a thing.
I just have to do the best for my family that I know, and for now that is ATI. But . . . I promise you too that whatever I – personally – can do to rectify situations that need it, I will do. I am NOT indifferent to suffering. I have suffered more than you can know, too much to dismiss that gone through by others.
We are not one of the “5 Star ATI Families” . . . we fail of many things. We find our own way before the Lord, and as long as we can do that, we are sticking with ATI.
Sure, I understand you don't throw out an entire lifestyle just because you heard someone, somewhere, was disgruntled with it. All we can do is share our stories; you form your own conclusions. For me, some of the stories I was hearing mirrored my own experiences so closely, that I could have no doubt as to their veracity. And that's what you have to do: take our stories, filter them through your own experiences, and see if you think there could be any shred of truth to them, and if so, how much? The stories can only serve as a warning, and to give weight to your own experiences. Fwiw, I believe there is even much truth to the claim that Christianity has ruined many people, which is why I seek a pure expression of the same. The claim, itself, is quite valid.
So far as, "his stuff works..." ...Um, I highly disagree on that point. But you knew that. It "worked" my family right over a cliff. But go ahead, tell me we didn't do it right.
I will never do that, Hannah. I am not sure that we have ever "worked it right". And maybe that is the point. In hindsight our group of "Southern California ATI Families" seemed to have had a decidedly independent attitude. We felt in charge, we did it our way. Fathers taking the notion of HQ being in charge of our families quite personally. When someone, no matter how awesome, reaches the "guru" status, maybe Jesus takes that personally. I really cannot and should not comment further.
Thank you :)
My disillusionment was complete when I got too close to the editing and publishing departments at Headquarters. A photo of the Indianapolis Training Center was beautified by dropping in evergreens from a Northwoods picture, among other things. Having visited both campuses, I couldn't believe we were dressing up the urban area to look like a resort. It seemed fake at best, even offensive. Of course the correct response was that Bill Gothard was a spiritual visionary, already seeing things the way they would or could become. Whatever.
That sort of thing bugs me too. The whole "beautiful people" thing . . . the presentation. In fact, I have yet to meet a person who says, "way to go". My fellow ATIers roll their eyes.
He colors his hair. The reason given is for "video purposes", so clips of his seminars in the 1980s mesh with clips of him now :-) The problem comes, of course, when he speaks of the advantages of fasting in the context of aging more slowly, and you come away impressed, ready to start fasting, because of how dark his hair is.
"Dress for Success" is one of his favorite books. If you have read it you understand that it is in fact a scientific treatment of what types of things instinctively make people take you more seriously, listen to you, trust you. The IBM "white shirt" syndrome - show different groups of people the same models, in one context wearing white shirts, the other colored . . . when you build the sample to take all other factors out, the "white shirts" are seen as "more trustworthy", "more professional", "better father", etc. etc.
There are scriptural precedents for this. Besides the treatment of the tabernacle/temple with perfume, incense, gold, etc., as well as the presentation of “perfect” animals for sacrifice to instill a high standard we have this:
“Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken [ouch] ” (Leviticus 21:17-20)
Elsewhere God assumes personal responsibility for congenital defects . . . so it has nothing to do with value. But God’s standard demanded that otherwise worthy individuals refrain from doing the priest duries if they had deformities.
And – of course – “we are not under the law” . . . just the point the God really does think like that with His stuff. Even we think like this when we cover our blemishes with makeup or put on deodorant or take pictures surrounded by flowers.
I fit the model of the OT prophet, “that weareth the rough garment”. I am most comfortable disregarding the exterior and just focusing on the message. Of course, I am the guy that people have a hard time taking seriously because of stains on the tie or garlic breath. “Manners” Pray for my poor wife.
There is a balance in all things. Personally I think a Christian ministry would do well to deliberately turn away from such things in at least some contexts to make a point. And actually, for the record, Bill does. This thread has mentioned his 1970’s car. He makes a point of emphasizing thriftiness with his wheels – and I agree, a tornado would have a problem disabling that tank.
So . . . I don’t know where to draw the line. I would draw it way back, but, again, maybe that is the reason I am not running a worldwide ministry.
At this point, we are still unable to say which tornado is allegedly featured in the story, correct? I could be mistaken but I was thinking that Alfred had identified one but then changed his mind.
It would help if we knew what time the prayer meeting was.
Not having been there, Alfred is relying on information available on the Internet. We have one at the right time, but 50 miles away . . . we appear to have one much closer a couple of hours later? Some of the resources use UT (Universal Time), which I confess has me confused. We definitely have a line of storms spanning several states that morning. Events can be very local and very transitory, lasting seconds.
I know Mr. Gothard well enough to know that he would never make up facts. The accusation of liberal assumptions and running with incomplete information may occasionally be lodged. All that being said I am quite sure that each of his carefully chosen phrases was true. The "weather forecast" may well have been the last one he heard, the one given the day before . . . "minutes away" may be 50 minutes . . . or less. I am guessing that others who read this over time who were actually there will be able to elucidate.
Some of us know that he does lie. I mean, if he's never lied to you but he has to me then you can say that as far as you know, he's not a liar. But that doesn't take away the fact that some of us have very different experiences with him.
I don't know if your story is published . . . obviously it is frustrating for me to have an accusation like that without explanation. I can live with that, some things are personal.
You would honestly believe our accounts? Because I don't see that in you. And Lora and I both shared some instances of dishonesty above.
I'll share my husband's story:
When my sister was preparing to go to Russia in 2004 (I think), we recieved the newsletter with the wonderful report of how the young men who were teaching English and how they unanimously volunteered to donate all of their wages from the Moscow Department of Education to support the retired teachers. I was impressed.
Then my sister married one of those young men. He told a different story. The guys had been promised a monthly pay check and then when they got there, Mr. G encouraged them to "donate" their check. Whether they wanted to or not, they had to give their check up every month.
When I heard that, I thought maybe Mr. G just got carried away with a good idea.
That was until I married someone who had been an English teacher the year before. Same story. The "unanimous" decision was a "Hey, who thinks this is a good idea?" With a few vocal "yesses." Then everyone, even those boys who had went to Russia knowing they could only afford to be there because of the promise of being paid, had to give up their pay check.
That's when I realized that the promise made to my brother-in-law of a pay check that second year was something no one intended to actually let him have. Mr. G already had set the precedent, when my husband was there, of requiring the guys to "volunteer" to give it up.
You can go on defending Mr. G's honesty. But those who have been lied to and basically robbed by his dishonest bait-and-switch will have a hard time agreeing with you.
It was bait and switch. And that is dishonest.
Makes me feel old that my Moscow story happened almost a decade prior to that...
One of the things that jarred me out of the trance was when we were pulled back from Moscow in early 1993. We were promised that we would receive training that would include a notebook with two columns, 1 column would be what to do, the other column would be why. I told one of the principle of one of the schools I was at about this new training and he (a rare male principle, most were female) was so excited, he all but begged to send a couple teachers along to Indy with us to get the same training. NOTHING like that was ever discussed when we arrived in Indy. One entire session, we had to listen to a local news person ramble on about how girls were strange and wonderful creatures to him and he hoped he could marry one some day, followed by BG thanking us for our flexibility and he told us what a ministry it was for us to listen to that person (who, coincidentally, was a good PR contact for BG in the local media). Session after session, Moscow was not even addressed. Meanwhile, we visited kids in downtown Indy and I was told by poor families there that they had been visited repeatedly by our staff but not by the same people twice, and none of the promises made to them had been fulfilled.
As an aside, something else that happened was we went to a local church, the one attended by many local politicians, and the pastor said some things in the sermon that implied that Scripture was not necessarily binding but it was a good idea. There were some dads and students alike who really reacted to that. BG instructed the group as a whole that anyone who had complained about the sermon had committed sin and was asked to repent publicly; one by one people stood up and confessed and asked for forgiveness for complaining. ATI families routinely complain bitterly about their home churches and are in some ways encouraged to do so, but *this* church was a very good political connection, therefore off-limits for disagreement.
The experiences began to pile up for me faster than I could rationalize them away. Integrity on Gothard's part would have been to at least acknowledge that we did not receive the training we had been promised, and to have given us something, anything to take back to the schools. Nothing. We would have had to make up our own excuses to the schools for why we had suddenly left and then returned but had not rec'd any special training as promised. We were already teaching out of only one book (внимательность, attentiveness). I heard Bill laugh at the fact that he had told them he had an entire curriculum when in fact there was only one book.
Someone could look at that and say it's not a big deal. But I realized this was a way of life: make promises that will never be fulfilled and turn it into and issue of submission and complaining. If you say anything at all, I mean one word about it, you are marked as rebellious and a complainer. Meanwhile, it is up to the students to make up excuses and explanations to those who have been sold something that doesn't exist.
I don't hold that up as proof that BG is some sort of terrible liar; I know anything can be explained away. But I did realize that time and again, Mr. Gothard was "playing" while others were "paying." You could trust him to deliver exactly nothing that he promised, and he promised the moon. Take a step back and look at it: if Bill cannot be trusted, the entire ministry does not have a leg to stand on. And I realized from personal experience that Bill cannot be trusted. That was a long time ago, I feel no emotion about it now as I write that. I'm not angry or bitter. BG owes me nothing; and in terms of the Moscow trip, I owe him a debt of gratitude for the experience as a whole. It was truly once in a lifetime and an overall awesome experience. But I say all this to say that these other experiences have a ring of truth for me - I experienced the same sort of thing myself. I discovered personally that Bill's word cannot be trusted. (note that very few parents experienced this side of things - this was the day-to-day grind that the students went through while separated from their parents)
Ha, ha, Matthew, I put the wrong year. It was around 1994. We are old! :-)
He is big on ideas . . . a lot of things get promised "by faith" when there is little of substance to fill it up. "Shoot for the moon, hit a light bulb". I know that. There is a lot of frustration in that.
We have lived it. Funny you should mention 1994, our inaugural ATI year. Knoxville, first "Children's Institute", if you will. 4,000 kids, bussed across the city, under the direction of smiling 17 and 15 year olds. My organized (and very pregnant) wife was somewhat alarmed observing the lack of a check-in and check-out policy as she turned over our 7 and 6 year olds. My son got "wisdom walked" one day and, well, accidentally got left.
Next year was different, better. Growing pains.
And . . . they are not all duds. My son signed up for a video training course that didn't exist, paid hard earned money for a year of training. The staff really did a good job . . . yes, a lot of it was "On the Job Training" working on stuff the Institute needed. But they were overtly trained. And they were paid a weekly stipend for living expenses above the meals provided which amounted to all of the fee paid, so nobody was making any money off of them. The coverage "holes" through the years have provided an opportunity to grow into roles that he would never have been able to assume that quickly elsewhere. He IS the video department at the moment, has been all over the world, built up an impressive resume that I would have frankly had a hard time paying for. [If you watched the recent Duggar episode of the wedding of David and Priscilla - and I am sure you all did - he is the videographer in the blue shirt]
My daughter is doing the Taiwan ESL program, teaching school kids English . . . so far a really excellent situation in every way you look at it, including financially (paid by Taiwanese companies).
I know there are growing pains along the way - He often makes things up as he goes which causes pain on the young kids trying to work it. Things get better. My family may be benefiting from your pain.
I agree it is very wrong to lead someone to believe that something will happen, and then forget or modify. This is his biggest fault. But it is one thing to be "overly enthusiastic" and forgetful, quite another to be deceitful.
The paychecks . . . I can see the hurt and frustration . . . a man is worthy of his hire. I have not seen him ask anything more than he himself does. It is the sort of thing that George Mueller and Hudson Taylor would do, so he thinks those that he is discipling will benefit from that. That "peer pressure giving" reminds me of Acts and the selling of lands and laying large sums at the Apostle's feet. God is no man's debtor, as they say, and anything given to Him or in His name, well, I would love to roll that forward and see if He (not the Institute) didn't pour back in, pressed down, shaken together. That you could tell me.
The financial pressures on IBLP are real, constant. When staff get invited join a team to go on these major trips to Romania or Peru or elsewhere, they usually have to pay their own way. For a business to ask that would be unfair . . . for a ministry, not so much. My son eats well, lives free . . . taking the money they pay him for his work (minimum wage, no overtime) and using it to further the ministry is not unreasonable. From my way of thinking. And he still seems to have enough money for the latest iPhones and gadgets . . . a car . . . so maybe it does work.
I have not seen him ask anything more than he himself does. It is the sort of thing that George Mueller and Hudson Taylor would do, so he thinks those that he is discipling will benefit from that.
I probably shouldn't comment on this because my goal is to be pro-grace much more than anti-Gothard, but your comment reminded me of Ronald Allen's "Issues of Concern":
I am very inspired by Mueller's and Taylor's life-long commitment to serving God and living by faith. But I am unaware of them ever ruling over a "$40-million-asset empire" and flying with personal pilots in private jets worth millions of dollars, and essentially being catered to by a personal staff.
The LA Times article named the excesses at the Northwoods center as part of its complaints, including the $2.4 million Lear jet (and personal pilot; the planes and pilot are long-gone now), $9,000 backgammon table and $100,000 duck decoy display. The Institute was bringing in $8 million dollars per year from the seminars back in the hey-day. The Times mentions the bowling alley, too, though I personally think a bowling alley is a nice touch if you are going to have youth around so I've got no complaints there. But my complaint is that families who are scraping by think that Gothard lives a simple lifestyle when in fact his food is custom prepared, his creature comforts are all taken care of in fine style, and he can fly anywhere in the world that he wants to at the drop of a hat (he has flown commercial for a long time now). He has a staff that knocks itself out to keep everything just right for him. A high-powered CEO expects to receive such service but a "humble servant" of the Lord kind of sends mixed messages by expecting it. The Institute's finances include many millions of dollars and many of those dollars have gone to fine things. Back in 1979, they were able to spend $17 million dollars on land and buildings. In this, Gothard has lived at a very different standard and lifestyle than George Mueller and Hudson Taylor. This is how it feels to me: the actual day to day comfort level of Gothard's existence has not been so different from your basic TV prosperity preacher. That's fully his right but the problem is the disparity of the image he sells versus the actual lifestyle.
2 Corinthians 9:1-4 "For as touching the ministering to the saints[read "Donations"], it is superfluous for me to write to you: 2 For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many[generated a lot of contributions]. 3 Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready: 4 Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting."
Do you get this? Paul had bragged to the Macedonians, "See, the Achaites are giving big time to help the poor saints in Jerusalem", pushing the Greeks to give. Now he doubles back to make sure the folks in Achaia actually cough up the money. "Wouldn't you like to give your salary?" Do you read it any other way?
Any glimmer of understanding of WHY Paul, at the end of his life, testifies that essentially everybody he had discipled was hating him, happy to see him out of circulation in prison, nobody standing with him?
Like, I said, Alfred, you don't really listen to what we have to say. BG LIED. 2 years in a row. Boys were robbed.
They went on the missionfield without the money they actually needed to live off of because they had been promised a wage. Have you ever lived in a foreign country with no income? He absolutely is requiring something he doesn't do for himself. He takes a wage.
But you are going to defend him to the death, so why should we waste our time trying to tell you.
We have accounts of inappropriately touching young ladies. You defend him (which in my book in completely inexcusable!)We have stories of dishonesty. You excuse him. Stories of breaking laws. You excuse him.
If you want to send your kids to that kind of a ministry, go for it. But when it happens to him, please, believe him.
Matthew: The Ron Allen article . . . from 1984. 20 years ago.
I have no personal information from back then. He was packing out 10,000+ seat stadiums (twice a year in Portland, Oregon) all over the nation for week long seminars, flitting coast to coast, plus traveling back and forth to the Northwoods in the Upper Peninsula when back in Chicago.
Ok . . .
“ . . . every creature comfort is provided by company funds.” I laughed when I saw that . . . but maybe you have more information. I – personally – am unaware of anything remotely resembling that statement. His “personal chef” is a random 18 years old that goes to the kitchen to make him an egg salad sandwich. He drives himself around. I am at a loss to fill it in . . . but you confirmed it . . . so . . . please fill me in on what you saw.
The Jet – I was unaware that the Institute ever had a Jet until quite recently. So I asked . . . I got this answer: “IBLP did own a Learjet for a while back then. Since Mr. Gothard was traveling to so many seminars all over the US at that time, having a private plane was going to save a lot of time waiting at airport terminals. This was especially useful when trying to fly to and from the Northwoods Conference Center, which was in such a remote location.” Knowing Bill I am sure they paid pennies on the dollar for it . . . or it was a donation. Just a guess. That was the early 1908s - the Jet was not around long. Given the strains on the body and schedule, hey, maybe that made sense. Commercial doesn’t fly to the Northwoods.
“$9,000 backgammon table and $100,000 duck decoy display” - You forgot to mention the "sand glass" filled with water and diamonds, worth millions, that I saw (a video of). Tip it over and the diamonds fall slowly, glittering in the light – absolutely amazing. The latter item was recent, last few years. I know it was given to him by a wealthy man in Mexico . . . never saw it since that summer, maybe it was sold? I don't know anything about the others. I know that many things have been given to him by well to do people. I guess I will have to ask around. I mean . . . did you ever see such things?
“The Institute was bringing in $8 million dollars per year from the seminars back in the hey-day.” It was also spending an enormous amount. Billy Graham’s budget – I just had a peek . . . this is not a heyday for the ministry, but they are working with budgets way bigger than what you are describing.
“Bowling alley” - Bowling alley still remains one of the few "entertainment" items up at the Northwoods, besides canoeing. Services a lot of mostly young people on a yearly basis. Like you, I am cool with it.
“the problem is the disparity of the image he sells versus the actual lifestyle.” – I HOPE you are relying on more than the LA Times, Ron Allen, and 1980s here. My statement is based on what I know living in the area now for 5 years and having a son on staff for almost 10 year. I will stop talking and let you respond.
Again, this is really not my main motivation for being involved here, but -
I am curious, what is your standard is for what you accept as truth, that is, what would have to happen for you to believe an account of wrong-doing on Bill's part?
I'm reading your comment here, I notice that you fill in: "Knowing Bill I am sure they paid pennies on the dollar for it . . . or it was a donation. Just a guess." So in the case where it looks like Bill might have used excessive money on personal comfort, you fill in "just a guess" and that seems to be satisfactory for you. It seems to be the same for the other items, I think you are saying you are satisfied to assume they were donations. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm honestly inquiring into what standard you hold: If you were to discover that these items were not donations but were in fact large expenditures, using the Lord's money, would that present a problem for you? (for some people it would, for others it would not, so I'm asking what you personally believe)
Second, I think I am seeing a double standard. If Ronald Allen says something, I think you are saying you reject it categorically based on the fact that he said it, but if Gothard says something, even if it takes guesses on your part to fill in the details, you are OK with accepting that. Am I misinterpreting you or is that your basic standard on this? If I am getting you wrong, would you say that you are applying the same criteria to Allen as to Gothard? The LA Times and the the Christianity Today articles refer to people who were former employees, including Gothard's pilot, a personal assistant, someone in an executive capacity, as well as the students who write in stories to RG - the same question would apply: would you say that you are applying the same criteria to these folks as to Gothard for whether to believe them or not?
[I actually don't know what the hourglass was worth . . . it was a lot . . . millions seems like too much]
Well Alfred,
I will quote BG himself. "Do you ask these questions to find out the truth of the matter, or do you ask these questions merely to argue your position?"
Really I'm not even sure why you are on here, aside from obsequiously defending Gothard beyond all respectability, perhaps you are trying to convert people into being duped by him again.
The best way I can think of to sum up your behavior is this: Pride and Prejudice's Mr. Collins, and Gothard is your Lady Catherine. (except that I do think you are more intelligent than he was, you are just not combining intelligence with common sense.)
I hope for you and your family's sake, that you do not suffer the harm from BG and his teachings that the rest of us have, but more than that, I sincerely hope you do not live the rest of your life so seriously duped. I really do wonder why God and His word are not sufficient enough for you, that you cling to any other man's interpretation/teachings SO much.
Men's sessions are early, before the main part of the day. So 7:30 - 8:30am? A tornado was reported 50 miles away at 7:30am. And, again, Doppler Radar can only do so much in identifying tornadoes . . . they can detect rotation, but the weather service relies heavily on "spotters", training observers to declare a touchdown. "Coupled with obvious subsequent reports of damage", he quickly added.
Awesome, thanks for this bit of "insider" information. That's helpful.
Alfred, am I correct that you started thinking it was the 7:30 tornado, then switched to a different one, then switched back?
I am not saying any more than you read in this thread :-) I don't believe Mr. Gothard would knowingly misstate the facts, so am guessing that, when the dust clears, we will have a tornado minutes from Big Sandy during the prayer meeting.
Perhaps someone who was at the prayer meeting could come forward and give his interpretation of the events ...
"We have accounts of inappropriately touching young ladies."
The accounts put forward on this website. Of him holding on to young ladies' hands too long as he talks to them in the presence of large groups of people . . . of "playing footsie", again in front of a large group of others . . . and sitting close enough to a young lady so that his thigh touches hers. These things that made young ladies very uncomfortable. Please fill in if there are other things that have surfaced.
He talked openly about these behaviors in front of the ATI assembled conference in Knoxville this year, BTW . . . indicating that the line would be drawn much further back in the future.
I am NOT indifferent. I have 7 daughters. I have stated here that I didn't like the appearances, that it was severely embarrassing at times. Also offered to go with, help facilitate individuals wanting to confront him (got no takers).
But I have - with complete confidence - sent my daughter out this summer to support IBLP ministries. People with hidden perversions will always act on them, one way or another. My son has spoken to me privately on a number of occasions of the preferential treatment young ladies on staff appear to get at times. He is intensely protective of his sisters . . . yet with all of that he has continued to actively encourage them to plug in there, if they can. Which tells me that with almost 10 years of living there he in no way thinks there are dangerous, illegal, harmful activities going on.
"We have stories of dishonesty"
Case in point this thread. Everything is out in the open, here, Ileata. I may interpret things differently . . . everyone reading draws their own conclusions. [I have a probe out, BTW, for more info on the tornado . . . and will report back what I hear.]
"Stories of breaking laws"
And that is where it has remained . . . stories. I took some time looking into accounts of bizzare "big brother" abuse at Indianapolis, first hand accounts of imprisonment, whole chapter in "the book". Government investigation which basically shut down the orphan work. I had an email interchange with Don Veinot and asked for access to his sources that he indicates in the book are readily available for querying. I got . . . nothing ("packed away"). He, instead, suggested I go into the lion's den and join the overtly anti-Gothard "Metochoi" group and ask there. I did. After some 8 months of roaming over there, asking much as I do here, I got . . . nothing. And I posted at least one open call with exactly this request.
The roommate of the young lady cited issued a public challenge to her, indicating the accounts were lies. Bill told me that he had seen the young lady reconciled to her parents. All I know is that she quietly shut her website down.
And, in the end, the government quietly closed the investigation and labeled the accusations summarily and officially "unsubstantiated". I am tired of the "stories".
There were the cabin building permit issues in Arkansas referenced in "the book" . . . I know nothing there, other than that IBLP disagreed with the interpretation of the laws that was being presented to them. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that. I too do not agree with every official's personal interpretation of the law. No record of them being cited, penalized, etc., right?
Is there anything else you are aware of? I am guessing the best stories are already out on the website here, somewhere . . .
If you are tired of "stories"... why are you still here? All we can do is tell our "stories". That's all anyone can do. When you hear several stories from several different directions, saying essentially the same things, it should make you wonder. If it makes you wonder, you look into it further. You compare it to your own experiences, and that of your acquaintances (although you must first decide whether you believe even your friends' stories), to see whether or not you think there is any truth to the increasing volume of stories.
We can't "prove" our stories to you. We can only tell them. You don't have to believe them, if you don't want to. What else do you expect us to do?
But really, what motive would we have, a bunch of otherwise unrelated xers, for making this stuff up? This is a nonprofit organization. No one gets paid for any of this, in fact, it's done at our own expense. We are all grown and out on our own, so you can't attribute it to "rebellion". Why would a bunch of random xers get together and make this stuff up?
In my opinion, no one has taken you up on your offer to act as a mediary, because a) you are clearly not on our side, and b) we are waaaaaayyy past that point. That point was a decade ago, when we were first coming out of the program. And those of us who did confront (which were many of us), were summarily dismissed, and swept under the rug. We are beyond looking to actually be heard by that man. He had his chance.
OK, that didn't come out right. I am tired of tales that noone has validated but keep on being brought up as the truth. That was where i was going. The 2nd hand "Way Back" machine. I am conversely very interested in real stories.
"Prove all things". 1Thess. 5:1.
And as to "he had his chance" . . . ANY irony in that "removing favor in the face of human demerit"? Is this an expression of the Grace of which we speak, the endless 2nd chances, the open arms to even a glimmer of hope for recovery? What we see God doing to us at our worst is what we impart to others who do their worst to us. Of all the things that move me to doubt the reality of the "grace" being promoted, I.e. " you got it right", this is probably the biggest.
I probably will regret saying that . . . But it is the truth. A general sigh not directed at you in particular.
He does have unlimited grace with God, if he repents. Heck, he might even have a second chance with some of us, if we saw evidence of genuine repentance. But I am not spending the rest of my natural life trying to force repentance out of someone so far removed from me, who isn't interested. Who, furthermore, was abusive towards my family. No, there comes a point at which you cut an abuser out of your life, to protect your own. The "he had his chance" referrs to this, certainly not to his relationship with God!
I think you are confusing human gratuity, with God's unmerited favor. Again, two completely separate concepts.
"He does have unlimited grace with God, if he repents" Is that how you understand grace? I am trying to see what you see. That almost seems like the opposite of "God not removing grace in the presence of human demerit". Not that that was your quote.
We show grace to others as we understand God to do to us. 7x70 times, all he has to say is, "I am sorry", and we are to forgive him "from the heart" (all of that in Matt. 18). That is the modern version of "I repent", the phrase Jesus instructed Peter to accept as "payment in full".
Would you accept that as "evidence of genuine repentance"?
I have forgiven him, although he has never asked me, and I wouldn't talk to him at this point, even if he did call me. However, even Gothard himself teaches that forgiveness does not mean that you let an abuser back into your life. It doesn't change the fact that I continue to warn others of his false teachings.
And yes, I do believe that acceptance of grace involves repentance. This is consistent with the teachings of Scripture. However, I do not see saying, I was wrong, as a meritous act. I see it as only the rightful thing to do when you are found in transgression. One cannot come to Christ, accept they repent of their previous mindset, that of not being in need of him.
"I do not see saying, I was wrong, as a meritorious act" Again, I agree.
What we see God doing to us at our worst is what we impart to others who do their worst to us.
That's a fair point. If God is gracious to a fault, and if we have been touched and changed by his grace, then it ought to show. And it won't be proven in the easy cases, it is proven in the hard cases. (I'm reading "Generous Justice" by Keller, which makes the same point in a powerfully convicting way)
Important to note that only Jesus was full of grace and truth, the rest of us fall short. But we do our best to follow his example. Grace and truth sometimes feel like they are at odds, but Jesus was full of both. In 3 John, the author is clearly pushing back with truth against an abusive leader. Paul confronted Peter, Jesus confronted the Pharisees. Jesus' harshest words were for the religious folk, not the down and out sinners of his day, but through it all, he was full of grace and truth.
It falls on us to treat others with grace, and it is fair to point out to each other where we fall short of being grace-full. I know I fail a lot. But part and parcel with that is that we need to be willing to put aside falsehood and speak the truth in love. It is not OK for a believer to pursue truth with vindictiveness, nor is it OK for a believer to obscure the truth, rationalize, and cover up. It is the religious who cover up hurts and victims of abuse and toss them aside in order to protect their own interests. It is the Good Shepherd who tosses out those who turn God's house into a house of income and abuse and then turns to tend to the wounds of the needy.
You may not be aware of this, Alfred, but many of your comments have been dismissive of true pain and real problems, and have been extremely frustrating to me personally. You probably have no idea how much God's grace actually has tempered what I have said in return, even if I'm imperfect. Believe me, the Matthew that is not affected by grace can be one ugly character! I do want to keep in step with the Spirit, which is all intertwined with love, joy, peace, etc. None of this means that I turn a blind eye to the oppressed and give the oppressor a free pass. In fact, God's prophets called out repeatedly against God's people for doing just that.
Dude - if you were to put the energy into helping those people in your community who have been taken advantage of in some way that you put into defending and explaining and even attacking those who speak against Gothard, man, you would be an amazing advocate for people!
I think I actually like what you said :-). It is never my intent to be dismissive or unkind . . . I have suffered too much.
I don't know what your convictions regarding spiritual gifts are, but if you allow Romans 12 to define the gifts with other sections highlighting aspects, might you fall into the "mercy" category? You may gather that I find myself more on the "prophet" (preacher) side , I.e "truth". Mercy and truth . . . Paired, inseparable, nothing without the other.
I would tend to value truth over earthly relationships or even life. I gravitated to Mr. Gothard years ago because i believed it to be true. He explains the things others can't and over 30 years of examining against Scripture and proving in life - at some cost as you can imagine- leave that perpective unaltered. [there are a few exceptions]
I have dealt with some amount of baloney over the years with some that oppose him. I get into a cynical - ungodly - frame of mind at times, and there is the problem. So . . . I appreciate your comments. I am sorry.
I have gotten to know a number of folks that oppose Mr. G that I have found to be straight and godly and very much in love with Jesus. That being the case i know good things will happen - one way or the other-from a pursuit of onemindedness in Him.
[...] U.S, and I was working as a Russian language interpreter when the ATI newsletters started arriving, filled with glowing reports of great ministry happenings. By this time I had been to Russia three times on mission trips with other organizations, and these [...]
I grew up in ATI. I attended the Basic, worked with Children's Institute, attended EXCEL... I wasn't as involved with ATI as a lot of people I know, but it was enough for me. The reference to Whitney? I think I may know her. And if it's the same Whitney, I don't think the healing worked. Maybe it was a limited time thing? To be honest, the ideas ATI teaches about healing are what started me on an investigation - during which I discovered your site. Being familiar with ATI and knowing many ATIers, I unfortunately can verify stories on this site.
As to the "mighty rushing wind", that actually made me laugh, but I must say it seems kind of out of character for ALERT. I have been involved with them, and while I am by no means a fan of ATI or IBLP and am currently not too impressed with Mr Gothard, I can't say much bad about ALERT. To be honest, I am one of many who wish they would break ties with ATI/IBLP and become independent. The whole idea of the ALERT guys being Mr Gothard's army just isn't true. Although the training is military style, they aren't soldiers, nor do they try to be. I know some of you will think I can't be a fan of that without being a fan of Gothardite ATI, but I beg to differ. I am thoroughly disgusted with ATI. Don't get me wrong. But I think there's a little of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some good has actually come of all that stuff. Now if we could only get the good to break away and be even better!
ALERT was after my time but it makes sense to me that some people will think of it fondly, while the experience of others is that they were traumatized there. And most people are probably in the middle, with some good and some bad. I believe that some people made life-long friendships in it while others kept to themselves. Each person's experience is different and each story is valid :-)
[...] accounts. But who’s to say whether these stories are true? Who’s to say whether the newsletters complete with glowing reports of conferences and ministry trips were accurate, or were embellished, in the name of “encouragement?” I have [...]
Okay, so I was actually at conference in question on said date, DURING said storm.
I SAW A FUNNEL CLOUD.
The staff took appropriate measures and went through the campground with a megaphone, advising campers to seek shelter in the concrete storm shelters. I was there, and my parents and I watched the approaching storm until the last possible moment. There was indeed a "mighty rushing wind"; it nearly stripped the pine trees of their needles! I also spotted a funnel cloud some distance away before being herded into the building with the rest of my siblings. In the newsletter, they reported having 120 men in the room. For those in "recovery" who've never seen Big Sandy Campus, the building in which the Father's Morning Session was being held (The Library), has two stories. They were in the UPPER ROOM. There were (in an official count conducted by my friend) exactly 120 men attending that meeting. The verse in the newsletter was not meant to imply that this had been the "Second Pentecost", but merely an "isn't-this-a-cool-parallel" statement. As to the stock photo claim, this is true. However, you must understand that NOWHERE on the letter does IBLP claim that it is THE infamous Big Sandy Twister. The picture is intended to be (like in so many IBLP materials) AN ILLUSTRATION. Plus, there have been many instances where a strong storm system moves through an area and small tornadoes go through undetected by radar or satellites. I have seen this happen in my own geographical location numerous times. Simply put: if a small tornado went unnoticed (as in no radar signature) in a rural area, why would anyone check into it further? If it didn't affect anyone, there would be no need to spend time and money trying to confirm it. So, it may not be a "registered tornado", but it happened.
Lastly, about your questioning the goodness of God: you seem to list a lot of "what ifs". Why do you focus on what could have been, instead of what WAS? Basically you're saying "Tornadoes are scary, bad things and they can't be used by God in a positive way". As if God shouldn't have chosen to use a tornado, just in case it got away from Him and hurt someone?! Please! You are saying that God is not in control. He had it under control, it didn't hurt anyone, and IBLP chose to look at it in a positive light.
Right... uh huh.