Editor’s Note: The following account is written by Marcus, the young man referenced in Rachel’s story. Marcus’s story is an example of the troubling and blatant disparity between Gothard’s own standard of conduct, wherein unwelcome emotional and physical advances toward very young women are deemed acceptable, and the standard of conduct Gothard sets for other single men in the ministry, who have often been fired in disgrace for even perceived flirtations.
Marcus in his ATI days
I was invited to work at the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) headquarters during the summer of 1992. I said goodbye to my family in Knoxville, Tennessee, where we had traveled to attend the yearly Advanced Training Institute (ATI) annual conference, and climbed aboard one of the many vans transporting IBLP staff back to Oak Brook, Illinois. Along the way, we stopped at Ft. Benjamin Harrison outside Indianapolis, Indiana, and enjoyed the Fourth of July celebrations. I felt both excited and honored to have been invited to join IBLP’s staff. I was optimistic about the opportunities that were ahead as we arrived at the IBLP campus the next day. I was 17 years old.
My younger sister had made a brief visit to IBLP headquarters several months earlier and had made a few friends, so I was glad that I already knew a few people at Headquarters. While I would talk to these young ladies on occasion, I was well aware of IBLP’s stance that this should be a season of ministry, and that I needed to be careful not to “defraud” any of the young ladies at Headquarters by giving any of them undue attention. I also knew my parents would be upset with me if I were sent home for violating any staff rules, so I purposed to be very careful.
Once I arrived at Headquarters, I found that I enjoyed the collegial atmosphere of interacting with both young men and women. Despite my fears, interactions with members of the opposite sex were permitted so long as we did not single each other out or give undue attention to a member of the opposite sex. One thing I did notice, particularly at mealtimes, was that there seemed to be an “in crowd,” and everybody else. This “in crowd” was comprised of pretty young ladies and a few young men and always seemed to stand close to Bill Gothard, eat with him at the head table in our dining room, and accompany him whenever he interacted with any dignitaries. Neither the young men I had met, nor my sister’s friends whom I already knew, seemed to be part of this “in crowd,” so by default I was not either. That was okay by me, as my new friends made me feel at ease.
I was enjoying my time serving on IBLP’s lawn crew, where I operated a riding lawn mower, wore sunglasses, and spent a lot of time outside in the sunshine. I loved it. And by all accounts I was doing very well, making new friends and staying out of trouble.
Then one day, after lunch, I struck up a casual conversation with Rachel. She was about 15 years old, blonde, attractive, and had a nice smile. Although she had come to Headquarters about the same time I had, I had never really spoken to her, as she was part of that “in crowd.” I didn’t give the conversation a lot of thought, nor did I think I was singling her out in any way as there were other people around. I remember she laughed a few times, and afterward I thought to myself, “that went well.”
A few days later I ran into Rachel outside the Staff Center and we chatted for about 15 minutes. Again, I didn’t give the conversation a second thought as there were plenty of people walking past us as they came in and out of the Staff Center. It didn’t occur to me that I had done anything inappropriate, nor did I feel like I had broken any rules. It was just a casual conversation.
I was stunned the next morning when I was summoned to Bill Gothard’s office. I was both curious and a little nervous as I walked into his office. From what I had learned, Bill Gothard did not summon you to his office unless he had some opportunity he had pegged you for, or you were in trouble. Unfortunately, in this case it was the latter. Bill Gothard informed me that he was sending me home for “defrauding a young lady” on staff. I was shocked. I thought I had been so careful. My initial thought was that it was one of my sister’s friends. Perhaps someone thought I had spoken to one of them too frequently or that I was singling one of them out. There were those few times where I had called one of them in hopes of arranging transportation to church, since I did not have a car and IBLP did not provide transportation to church.
When Bill Gothard told me that Rachel was the young woman to whom he was referring, I was stunned. I’d only spoken to her those few times and I didn’t feel that either of us had said anything that was inappropriate. Nevertheless, my time at Headquarters was going to end and I was being sent home.
I tried to appeal to Bill Gothard on the basis that there were other girls at Headquarters whom I had spoken to much more frequently than I had ever talked to Rachel; I just didn’t understand why I was getting sent home for talking to her only a few times. Bill Gothard told me that Rachel was not like the other girls at Headquarters. He said she was fragile and was dealing with emotional issues, and that the last thing she needed at this time in her life was a young man like me trying to win her heart. He said that I was making her life confusing and could cause her more stress—or something like that. This really surprised me, as the few times I had spoken to Rachel, she had struck me as friendly, stable, and quite normal.
Since my parents were already planning a visit to Headquarters in a few weeks, I pleaded with Bill to at least let me stay until that visit as I did not want to cost my parents money for a flight home. I also hoped that I might yet redeem myself in Bill Gothard’s eyes, even though I felt hurt, confused, and even angry. Bill agreed to let me stay those few extra weeks on two conditions: first, I could not talk to Rachel at all during this time (a request I obeyed) and second, I had to stay with him in his office every evening after work as long as he was there (which I complied with as well).
Prior to this, I had not spent much time in Bill Gothard’s office, and I was surprised to observe that Bill Gothard frequently counseled young ladies in his office. In light of my “crime” this seemed like a double standard to me. Any phone calls that came into his office would be put on speaker phone, without Bill informing the caller that others were listening. I felt embarrassed for some of these callers, as they would share personal things over the phone. Bill would often put the caller on hold and ask me what I thought he should tell the caller. He would then take call off hold, and repeat exactly what I had just suggested. I felt honored that he perceived me as “mature” and “godly” enough that he wanted my opinion. I also felt hopeful that perhaps he would relent on his prior decision to send me home.
I would leave his office anytime between 9:30 and 11:30 P.M. each night. As I would bicycle back to the staff house where I had been living, I felt so many emotions: anger, pride, confusion, and even admiration. Yet, at the same time, my mind was filled with doubts about this man so many admired, loved, idolized, and respected. My parents arrived a few weeks later, and that was that. I left Headquarters never fully understanding why I had been sent home, why Bill Gothard treated me the way he did, nor why he seemed to treat those in his “in crowd” as a class unto themselves.
Marcus’s family joined ATIA in 1991. He was active in ATI and IBLP, working at IBLP Headquarters, the Indianapolis Training Institute, multiple Children’s Institutes, and Basic and Advanced Seminars. Marcus also worked at IBLP’s Verity program from 2004 until 2007. He is married with five children, and he is glad to be free of the legalism and false teaching that he was exposed to and participated in during his time with IBLP.
[…] I was amazed that Bill seemed to know where I was, what I was doing, and who I was talking with at all times. He controlled my friendships, telling me specifically which girls to avoid and directing me to more established, trusted, older girls. There was a 17-year-old boy who came to Headquarters about the same time I did. We were in some of the same newcomer orientations together. We had only talked to each other a couple of times (in public), and mildly flirted. Somehow Bill got wind of it and asked me if it was true. I didn’t deny it. He gently reprimanded me and told me to be more careful in my relationships, especially those with the opposite sex. However, he told the boy that he was being sent home. [Click here to read the story of Marcus, who was fired for talking to Rachel.] […]
Is anyone besides me wonder why Bill Gothard doesn't get sent home for defrauding a young lady?
Jim K.
Make that "wondering"... proofread James... :)
Maybe because he *is* home?! Plus there's no one with the authority to send him home! He *is* The Authority.
You hit the nail on the head.
No matter where one goes in life it is important to ask "whose authority are they under"? If there is no one, then run away! Doug Phillips the same thing. Two of my old pastors submitted to no one and the board were yes men. Never a good outcome.
Good LIFE lesson.
Thank you for this. The stories of the guys have not really been told until now, though I personally remember several being sent home for what seemed to be vague and trumped-up charges.
held hands with him, other students may misunderstand or feel defrauded. Male-female siblings were discouraged from familiar behavior while on campus. My brother and I often sat together at lunch, which was nice for our friends, because girls could sit with me and guys could sit with him, and we could actually enjoy co-ed conversation.
It was well-known that if you were a girl hoping to spend any amount of time at HQ, you had better be pretty or skilled; and if you were a guy you had better just do your job and avoid the ladies.
Living there with a brother (as I did) offered a conundrum for Bill, because if we walked with our brother or
Blocking us from these natural interactions with the opposite sex felt wrong to us even then, but since most of us were coming to HQ as teenagers with no real hope of going away to college, getting to work for IBLP was a real treat. We behaved the way we were asked to avoid being sent home. Besides, the shame of being sent home was almost unbearable. Nobody wanted to be that student.
Wendy wrote about her own first-hand experience with the brother/sister conundrum here:
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/07/dividing-sister-and-brother/
Kari, I remember you mentioning some of your concerns during your time at HQ. You did so very sparingly and cautiously so as not to be asked to come home by your own father, as I recall. You needn't have worried. I had drunk enough of the Kool Aid that I had become desensitized to things (behavior and teachings) that would have been a concern to me had I been looking at some other ministry objectively from the outside.
I also remember your brother being accused of a similar infraction as Marcus'. An older staff person (reluctantly, I'm sure, knowing him) was sent to question your brother and readily accepted the explanation that there was nothing to it.
I even remember suggesting once that you get closer to Mr. G's inner circle. What was I thinking? I'm just thankful that you guys managed to stay under the radar and avoid some of the heartaches that others went through (and without much help from me). Just felt it was time for a father to speak up.
I remember when all of this happened to you. And I remember how much you hoped and prayed that Gothard would change his mind as you really wanted to stay at headquarters.
I'm sorry this happened. There certainly was a double standard as many of us were guilty of "flirting" (or at least flirting by IBLP definitions), but you only got in trouble like this if you were perceived as flirting with one of his "favorites." I'm not sure if he didn't care about the rest of the girls or if he was so focused on his favorites, he just didn't notice.
The LORD despises double standards of every kind.
--Proverbs 20:10
If you switch the name of a person like Gothard who exemplifies double standards, this is a scary scripture for that pervert.
The LORD despises [Bill Gothard]{double standards} of every kind.
yes.
Gothard has been double standarding on so many things for so many years.. He ruined Tony"s reputation.. He is a deceiver and I am ashamed and still upset that my relative pushed it on us and my exhusband believed everything hook , line and sinker..
Thank you so much, Marcus. You are helping others by telling your story. Thank you.
Yes, more than 5 mins talking to a young lady, you were deff in "danger zone".
What struck me was all the bs about, "She's fragile". Uh-huh, you wish. I've concluded this must be something abusers tell [usually the person in question], in attempt to wear them down; a psychological manipulation to cause the target to see themselves as weak and unable to fight back.
I'm glad you see this great manipulator, for what he is. We were all chess pieces in a gigantic game, to him.
HANNAH you think like me. . All Gothard's teachings and programs were and are BS and forced upon you guys as kids and me as "submissive" wife, who in her heart was not I loved homeschooling but couldn't stand the wisdom booklets and OT law.. It never sat right with me. My brother in law was the pastor of the church we went to. He started the homeschooling program and got the church to. Sunday messages were all Gothard teachings.
Thanks Marcus and RG for continuing to paint a full picture of the hypocrisy and the sin perpetrated by Gothard and his ministry. I can't help but wonder whether things would have gone different;y for you had you let BG know you were a model or grown your hair out so it framed you face and highlighted you countenance. Sheesh!
Thanks for sharing your story, Marcus. I remember many guys disappearing over-night during my time at HQ. Often, BG would have a big story to go along with why so-and-so was sent home so suddenly. I'm so sorry you were one of those!
What a very nice looking young man. No wonder Bill felt threatened! Anyone know whether the majority of young men shamed and sent home happened to be rather good looking?
Oh, and the bit about muting the phone convos and asking you what he should say? Proof that he just makes it up as he goes along. [SMH]
Yeah, that's one thing that really hit me too. I know a family that has called and asks all kinds of advice over the years. I'm sure they would be shocked to know that they might have been on speaker with others in the room and, also, that the "wise' counsel given might have really come from a 17 year old young man. Very Wizard of Oz. The funny thing is that they were probably a whole lot better off with Marcus's answers, than the ones that Bill would have come up with on his own.
This really hit me too. Craziness. But I agree about Marcus' answers probably being better than BGs.
There are several things that are making me wonder if BG actually had no natural talent as a speaker/spiritual leader. But that the only way to please his father was to fake his way through it. Don't know, but I keep seeing hints of this possibility. What if BG would actually have loved...say...woodworking or something instead?
People have made the parallel to Gothard and Warren Jeffs. I wouldn't go that far. I live in Utah and Jeffs actually took and gave girls in "marriage", I am not discounting Gothards transgressions. They did have one thing in common and that is they viewed young men as competition like this story reveals. In Utah we actually have groups of young men called "the lost boys."
Marcus,
In hindsight, at this point in your life, I'm sure you're thankful yo got out of there.
Ryan, you find this exact behavior in herd animals with a harem system. The Alpha Male of the herd (herd boss) claims all females as his and his alone, driving out (even killing) any other male who could be a rival -- even his own male offspring when they hit puberty. Because then they're adult males, an automatic threat to the herd boss's position and harem.
One time he called me at home because he wanted me to come to HQ and work on a project. I heard giggling in the background and asked to be taken off speaker. He didn't re-extend the invite during the call. I guess he didn't appreciate being called out.
kit does that stand for kitrie? my names matt and I was on the lawn crew at the same time as marcus and was sent home for talking to my friend mandy bultman I was one of the rebellious youths that went against everything bill gothard was about and pretty much just wanted to cause havoc. I always wondered why the exchange girls from the Ukraine were kept isolated and what their purpose there was. I spoke briefly with one of those girls and I got the feeling she was trying to explain something to me but was very hesitant even with the language barrier I could tell she was scared to talk about it and it didn't dawn on me till years later and much travel in the army what she was trying to say. I hope all of you are doing good and not letting the bs baggage from that time drag you down. my family have all recovered from the years of blue pants white shirts or tan pants light blue shirts that the lawn crew wore everyday. Hey Marcus do you remember the Baby Dumptruck and scolding me for smoking cigarettes in the back of it lol? All the females not letting your hair have the "wet look" All in all I had a very wholesome upbringing and plenty of siblings that I otherwise might not have had if my folks hadn't been dooped by that little evil mister Rodgers dwarf lying bastard so I cant really complain. Now that I think about it Im overwhelmed with gratitude for the life I was given and the memories of my childhood. BG is a tool and needs his ass kicked regardless I just look at the positive when I can... I always wonder what happened to my friend Mandy after that since I wasn't allowed to ever speak to her again but anyway.....yall take it easy. Matt
Taken as a whole, all of these stories of control, punishment, spying, Bill writing letters home for kids, emotional abuse, issuing instructions on how to answer questions, false accusations, and I'm not yet talking about the touching, etc. -- are these the fruits of the Spirit of God? "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Is this kind of an environment the product of love and grace? No. This environment is a CULT environment. It is an environment of fear. All of these things are nothing more than an extension of the SAME false gospel and the same destructive spirit that saturates Bill's teaching -- indeed, most of these things have been made possible by the authority teaching alone. I grieve for those who have been made to stumble by this ministry. And even for those who continue to defend it. The people most deceived by Bill Gothard's ministry are those who are happy, thankful, and absolutely certain Bill teaches the Truth. I have never yet me a deceived person who knew it. It takes a miracle of God to open a person's eyes to Jesus Christ.
I have never met a deceived person who knew they were deceived.
So true. Take out the word deceived and put, 'legalistic, arrogant, judgmental' etc.. and the point stays exactly the same.
How abominable that this man is held up to the world as a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. It brings shame on the name of our Savior. The sooner he's removed, the better.
It has always struck me as a very weird imbalance as to the control, laws, and punishments that Bill Gothard devotes to matters of sex, dating, and courtship. Is everyone that much on the brink of committing immorality or adultery that no one dares to be in the same room with a member of the opposite sex without being accused of wrong intentions, or of a wrong appearance? Are we all that ready and eager to sin? I don't think so. Frankly, and I take no glee in saying this, I think that these controls are a reflection of what is going on in Gothard's own heart. His conduct towards young women says I'm right.
Is everyone that much on the brink of committing immorality or adultery that no one dares to be in the same room with a member of the opposite sex without being accused of wrong intentions, or of a wrong appearance? Are we all that ready and eager to sin?
Isn't that the same rationale behind the burqa, the locked harem, and honor killings?
This sort of confirms my point, however. Whatever Bill Gothard does, he does out in the open. Having the young man there during counseling would certainly cramp his style, for weeks . . . if he were a predator as described. Eye on Rachel to abuse her. He really believes(ed) he is(was) doing the right thing. No secrecy.
I believe Rachel . . . I believe Marcus . . . Ruth . . . Lizzie . . . Meg . . . Their stories ring true in all the details of things I have observed or has been reported by others. I do not believe "Charlotte".
No secrecy? He told these girls over and over to keep what happened between them quiet! Have you seen him behave this way in the open? No! He kept it secret. He hid what he was doing. That is secrecy. If you did see him behave like this openly and did nothing to help those poor girls, shame on you!
You say you believe most of these stories. How can you be okay with this? How can you keep supporting him? If even a tiny portion of these stories is true he is not just out of line, he is in great moral failure in light of everything he teaches.
You have said before that you would not stand for this kind of behavior with your own daughters. Is it ok that it is someone else's daughter? There is no grey area in this matter. He teaches strong guidelines for moral purity. He has violated those same guidelines. Either his teachings are wrong or he is personally wrong. More probable, both are wrong. There is no middle ground here. If you believe even one of these girls you have to accept the fact that he was, or is, in sin. He should not get a pass on behavior for which he condemns so many others.
There is no defense for this man's behavior. There should only be a call for repentance. He needs to be called on the carpet for his actions. He needs to be stopped. The girls who have been hurt deserve nothing less. The girls still in danger deserve nothing less.
"Bill Gothard was seen by staff employees patting and fondling women employees. Later, he admitted in staff meetings that these actions were 'moral failures' on his part." Los Angeles Times, April 5, 1982
[https://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/LATimesArticle.pdf]
Amen Shelley. Alfred, did you read the information about what Bill said and did to the man Tony who was on his staff? I think Bill should be eternally punished for the wreck he has made out of so many of our lives. I SPEAK FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE.
I have been in active correspondence with Tony AND Bill . . . so, yes, I know. I would guess that you could understand the possibility that not every implication or fact presented here is correct. There are some missing pieces of that puzzle.
For example, I encourage you to consider how it could be that a church you grew up in, where your family goes, that knows you inside and out, would suddenly side with an outside - albeit prominent - organization against yourself . . . and excommunicate you, forcing you to leave the area, leave the family business? Not straighten that out after decades, even after the organization making the complaint had its share of challenges? Would your church do that? No, not mine either. Think about it. Why . . . and why not?
Alfred, Tony's church did not give Tony a hearing. It is indeed inexplicable. Of course, Bill's "church" would not adjudicate complaints against Bill. So there you go. It appears that some people are adept at using loopholes and procedural fraud to achieve their political ends. But Jesus doesn't have to do that. Only weak men who don't have the truth behind them have to resort to such despicable means.
Why don't you contact Tony's church and ask if he got to answer the charges against him and cross-examine witnesses? Why do you stand behind Tony's church's improper condemnation of Tony but not accept the condemnation in IBLP's firing of B.G.?
Are we suppose to be impressed with your correspondence with Tony and Bill? You need to stop flaunting these things, especially Bill. All it does is make you a go between him and RG. You twisted Job 38 on another discussion here, haven't answered any questions and comments subsequent to that and now you are back here because Susan is commenting as a new participate. I can't follow the rest of your point about ex-communication because what you wrote is rather illogical and disjointed but you yourself have admitted that your own son working with Bill directly has seen him prefer and favor girls. So he is complacent in all of this and looked the other way. Has Bill been ex-communicated from LaGrange? I highly doubt it but since you correspond with Bill in more ways than one, maybe you can fill us all in.
Um, YES Alfred, churches do that kind of thing ALL the time! There's a Scripture about that, something about little foxes spoiling the vines, a whisperer separates chief friends, and such.. Don't even try to pull that as an excuse.
-One who has been through or watched several church splits and various other really ugly church drama over the course of her lifetime.
Tony's church gave Tony lots of hearings, as I hear it. But they didn't want to hear any more at this point. There were some, shall we say, burnt bridges. Excommunication was based on far more than any complaint Bill had to make. Does that make sense?
This article is about Marcus not Tony. I'm not sure what happen to Tony but you seem to have some secret glee in it Alfred. I find the situation none of your business, it shouldn't bee discussed on a article about Marcus and what happen to Marcus which is equally sick. You seem to have some sick obsession with Tony and what happen with him. You never offer to pray for him and what ever secret correspondence you have had with him, I hope he has told you off. Ex-Communication isn't something to be happy about for anyone Alfred. If you and your hero Bill are happy about it, then I would be careful because it seems like Bill now has reaped what he has sown in his own dismissal from his own ministry and to end it at age 80 is pretty shameful in its own right.
Alfred, it makes sense, but it is the first I've heard of any of that. You see, by IBLP refusing to publish verifiable information to counter these accusations, it fails to give an answer for the hope that is in them. They just paid a big time lawyer thousands of dollars to "investigate" more recent accusations and all they had to report was: "yep he did what he admits and there's nothing else there". No organization that wanted to maintain a good name in society would leave it at that, unless it could only get worse.
You are not a proper defender or presenter of "their" side of the story. You have no authority to speak for them, only for yourself. Your own efforts prove they have failed to defend themselves adequately, if they could. They have a board which can commission and publish any defense that exists. But it hasn't. And the corroboration causing me to believe Tony rather than Bill, is Dr. Schultz's resignation, Tony's uncle's knowing defense of himself, and Gary Smalley's cooperation with Tony in subsequent interactions. Who other than Bill has ever accused Tony of wrong?
Other than the Agent of Satan letter and any personal confessions of Tony to B.G., I have never heard one hint of accusation against Tony. So why haven't Tony and RG been sued for slander if Tony's credibility is so obviously nonexistent.
Your claims of secret knowledge wear on one's soul.
I would like to add to Don's comment with this: given your record of the way you pick apart, dissect, scrutinize, and then conclude with generally illogical, off the wall, and often difficult to understand answers to any given topic here, I cannot trust your judgment of whatever private communications you may or may not have had with Tony, simply because of what I have seen here. I do NOT believe you are deliberately (or perhaps maliciously) deceitful, but I don't think you're emotionally removed enough from the situation to make any good judgment regarding any information about anything to do with Bill. I'm not saying that to be mean, truly.
Goodness, Rob . . . read back up. I am responding to a direct question.
Don: Once again you get to decide if I am lying or telling the truth. I have unequivocally demonstrated that Tony stumbled with the "Cabin Story" with the sole source of that story to him denying the salacious details that make it impossible to understand in any righteous way. Again, just imagine the church situation as it is expressed, what happened, what was done about it. That should give you some clue that this was far from a "Bill destroys Tony" scenario. In fact, that is a most unfair representation. The "technicality" that excommunicated was, in fact, completely, emphatically, undeniably unrelated to Bill and would have happened regardless.
Maybe . . . MAYBE . . . the unwillingness of the ones at the center of this to mount a coordinated defense on many of these points that have been misfired on is the kind of stuff that keeps happening to me. When the sun sets . . . there will remain a thousand reasons to not accept the real story and, instead, turn around and tear harder and more furiously into the one standing to defend Bill. You suddenly realize that facts are merely tools to an end. If they don't fit the narrative, they are trampled underfoot.
Yeah, it is getting to me a tad.
Don said- "Your claims of secret knowledge wear on one's soul."
Word.
Alfred,
You said:
"I have unequivocally demonstrated that Tony stumbled with the "Cabin Story" with the sole source of that story to him denying the salacious details that make it impossible to understand in any righteous way."
How is it that you think you have "unequivocally demonstrated" this?- You had an email exchange, for which our only verification is your word, and in that email exchange, according to Alfred, Gary didn't really deny anything. According to you, he now says that he can't specifically remember what she was wearing. Your claim as to being able to remove the "sheer nightie" claim is based on your interpretation of Gary's non-reply to a statement of some sort that you proffered to Gary. There could be a lot of reasons why Gary did not respond to your email, but you take that non-response and run with it, making all kinds of claims that are just your interpretations of a non-response- nothing more. You now believe that your twisted logic conclusions represent unequivocal proof? I found you logic on this very much twisted. Gary has put his observation in writing multiple times in the past and has been specific about what she was wearing- in writing. If Gary wants to clear the air, he can do so. If Gary's non-reply to you, was meant to communicate that he agreed with your conclusion, then let him say so himself.
I really wonder what Gary's thoughts are about how you have used that email exchange with him to try to exonerate Bill. I have a very strong feeling that if he ever does care to wade into this conversation that his version will not mach yours.
You have demonstrated in the past that you can not be trusted with these types of secret information claims. Larne Gabriel, who rarely posts here, was so offended by the license that you took with statements that you were making about Ruth that he had to publicly rebuke you, not once, but twice. I think that you are lucky that Gary and Tony don't post here.
You have not earned any trust here that you can be relied upon to accurately relay information. If you want to say that based on your interpretation of certain non-answers and certain answers, that you believe that you can rule this out and that we all should totally trust your account and your own interpretation, then say that. But to say that you have unequivocally demonstrated such things is an unbearable stretch.
"there will remain a thousand reasons to not accept the real story and, instead, turn around and tear harder and more furiously into the one standing to defend Bill"
This statement makes me believe that you have some sort of martyr complex. It is as if you believe that you are being torn at for defending Christ. You are the one standing to defend a serial molester and harasser of children, Alfred. Please stop with the idea that you are some sort of martyr defending the truth.
Kevin said - "This statement makes me believe that you have some sort of martyr complex. It is as if you believe that you are being torn at for defending Christ. You are the one standing to defend a serial molester and harasser of children, Alfred. Please stop with the idea that you are some sort of martyr defending the truth."
^^^^ This times a thousand ^^^^
Well, Kevin, what I have stated was confirmed by Gary, verified by his wife . . . given to me in email and and told in person to others. Yes, I can't talk to specifics provided in confidence, but it as as I said. And there are folk that read this site that could counter if they chose. And have been asked to.
But I said that.
There was no cabin incident in a nightie. Lap sitting incidents are confined to a woman who believed - or Bill believed - to have a romantic connection. Fully clothed. Bill can only recall once, deemphasizes romantic ideas, others more, site definite interest . . . I am inclined to believe the latter.
The Lord knows it all. He is judge. Always gets it right.
“Well, Kevin, what I have stated was confirmed by Gary, verified by his wife . . . given to me in email and and told in person to others. Yes, I can't talk to specifics provided in confidence, but it as as I said.”
Alfred, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t accept your word that your secret communications are as you say, nor that your interpretations of those communications are accurate and proof that you have “unequivocally demonstrated” anything at all.
The problem is you have a history of reading what people communicated, and coming to wildly different conclusions on what the author actually communicated or intended- conclusions which “unequivocally” always minimize the harm committed by Bill Gothard.
By way of example:
You read the same stories that we all do by Meg, Charlotte, Ruth, Rachel, Annette, Robin, Lizzie and others. We they write of predatory behavior, grooming, picking the pretty ones, unwanted touching, feet running up young girl’s legs, hands placed between legs, feeling of breasts, feeling of crotches and a man who is described as palpably turned on while doing said activities.
Yet, when you describe what was written- when you describe what you think you just read: “Innocent games of footsie.”, “ no actual sin”, “pretty innocent stuff” ; And then you go on to question what the big fuss is all about. Your wife was disgusted by Bill’s behavior with these girls. I think you should probably listen to your wife a little more Alfred, as I think she is a lot closer to understanding what was written by these women.
We read a devastating letter written by Bill Gothard meant to tear down Tony and destroy his personal life- a vicious letter in which Bill communicates that Tony is an agent of Satan, which he sent to family, friends and church members of Tony’s. You read the same letter as we all do, but you have a much different conclusion. You play the seriousness of the letter down and amazingly claim that Bill really wasn’t saying that Tony was an agent of Satan.
The testimonies, as with the Tony letter- you read them, as we all do, but you are about as far off on your understanding of what is being communicated as can be imagined. When those of us here read your summary of what you just read, we are often beside ourselves. We have the actual communication, right there on the screen and we can go back to it and see that what you claim was said was not what was said at all. It is always the same, the distortions you make are over the top attempts to downplay, or in some cases completely erase terrible things that Bill Gothard did to others. You have admitted previously that you put the most positive spin on things as possible, in favor of Bill Gothard. We know this all too well.
This is your history. And yet we are, somehow, to take your word that you are forwarding to us accurately what you understood from these communications? No spin? No glossing certain things over? No cherry picking and twisting what people really meant? With the testimonies we can go back, read them again, and see how far you have distorted them. One can only imagine the liberty you must take in twisting things when you know that we will never have the ability to check you for accuracy. I would sooner invest my life savings in Sonic Bloom than to blindly accept that you are being reliable in your summation of these confidential communications.
For 30+ years Gary Smalley remembered what the girl sitting on Bill’s lap was wearing- he put it in writing several times that it was a sheer nightie. Now, you have an email exchange with Gary, and you claim that he can not specifically remember at all what she was wearing- 35+ years after the incident. You also claim that after you asserted that a nightie could be ruled out, that he did not dispute you. We have no idea what not disputing you means. Did you email this to him and he did not reply? So, now you go on, from this non-dispute of your assertion, that you unequivocally demonstrated that Tony stumbled and got the salacious details wrong about the incident.
Alfred, you miss the camels with your straining of gnats. Let’s pretend for a moment that you are reliable in your passing along communications about what other people said and that you got it right what it meant that Gary did not dispute your assertion. And let’s also imagine that the fact that he does not remember details about what she was wearing now, 35 years later, is more reliable than what he did remember for the previous 35 years. The big issue, the camel if you will, is that Bill Gothard was caught with a young woman sitting on his lap. That was contrary to everything which he taught and made him a hypocrite. He publicly humiliated many others for doing far less and sent them away in shame. It really does not matter whether she was wearing a sheer nightie or a moon suit. That a young woman was sitting on his lap in private, contrary to everything he taught and expected of others, was the salacious detail. That was the camel that you are so eager to swallow. You have not somehow made this go away, even if we were to accept your questionable conclusions that you arrive about what Gary’s foggy memory and lack of a refutation means.
Furthermore, in ranking the” bad things Bill did” this ranks way down the list. From all accounts it was consensual. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being the least bad thing Bill did, 10 being the worst, this is probably about a 1. The unwanted touching of young ladies he did, definitely 9 or 10; unwanted touching of minors- definitely a 10. Taking advantage of the misfortune of someone’s family and using that to make them into a personal indentured servant working inhumane hours, while holding the wellbeing of their family over their head as a threat if they complain about their conditions- 10. Destroying someone’s reputation and life because they had the courage to do their job and stand up to you- 10.
So, keep at it. We know you will. Try to claim that someone, who was not even a witness of the events, retelling the lap incident 35 years later and getting the location incorrect is very significant and somehow casts doubt on the whole situation. And then go on to assert, as you have, that this means that the incident never happened. I don’t think you’ve convinced anyone here at all. Wait, I take that back. I have a friend who says that she believes that all 50 of the women are lying. I’m sure that she is right with you there with your logic. But, I seriously doubt you have persuaded even one sober minded person here.
(Foolishly wading in) Kevin said, "You have not earned any trust here that you can be relied upon to accurately relay information." I agree.
The way I would put it: You have not earned any trust here, except some of us trust you to try and win at any cost.
I appeal to The Lord, and to Him I shall go.
Alfred, so for the few weeks or so that he worked with Gothard, obviously Gothard wasn't going to be petting any of his pretty young things during that time in front of him. Quite a simple explanation, really.
How can you POSSIBLY keep defending this man, Alfred? He perverts and misapplies the word of God (and in so doing, teaches others to do the same - a terrible sin against God and men); he confuses and obscures the gospel by teaching people they are sanctified by law-keeping (another terrible sin against God and men); he shows ungodly favoritism; he uses and manipulates people (you cannot do that and love people at the same time); his behavior toward young women shows that his mind and heart have been defiled with lechery for the past 40+ years....Your thinking is incredibly twisted if you think you should help this man stay in a position of influence and authority over Christ's sheep. Forget Charlotte's testimony for the moment. If she had never posted her story, all of the above (and more) would still stand. By helping Bill Gothard stay in his position, you are an accessory to his sins against the body of Christ. How can you not be sickened by that thought?
Alfred, I see it as Gothard keeping Marcus close to his side to be sure he didn't have a chance to talk further with Rachel or any other young ladies Gothard was sweet on. Why else would he want to keep his eye on Marcus? So Gothard may have had to cut back on flirting with the girls, but at least he could be sure Marcus wasn't talking to any of them.
That was exactly my impression, also.
"young ladies Gothard was sweet on" - or, more accurately, "young ladies Gothard was leching after".
First point: even without Charlotte's story, the unwanted attention Mr. Gothard forced upon so many young women is a reason he should be removed from any position to counsel, advise, approach or otherwise interact with them.
Second point: You seem to see only that he did not touch the others in what you consider to be an inexcusable manner, therefore he probably did not do so to Charlotte. From what I have read, than in each and every instance he made a point of pushing his behavior beyond each girl's comfort zone, going as far as he could before they realized something was very wrong and retreated. Charlotte's background seems to indicate that her father had altered her ability to know what was and was not appropriate behavior from men. Consistent with his other trangressions, Mr. Gothard was very careful to go as far as he could without making her draw away from him. The difference in the incidents is not Mr. Gothard's actions, but rather a difference in the childhood of the girls. Charlotte was more vulnerable than the girls we have heard from so far, and Mr. Gothard took full advantage of this fact.
You're exactly right Sarah! He was proficient in reading girls and knowing who he could push and how far he could push. I'm certain, from my own experiences, that he could tell if a person was strong enough to resist and if she would be believed by her parents.
Additionally, it is common knowledge that predators don't stay at the same level. They escalate whenever they can get away with it. It would be perfectly normal for him to push the boundaries more and more. I would not doubt Charlotte is the only one with this kind of story. I feel this is just the beginning and more will come to light. It's sad.
Im saddened by your comment "I do not believe Charlotte", no one has asked you to be judge and speak it. Unless you have proof it is not true it is best to not cast a judgement at all as you would be making your comment with very little information. These young people have come through very difficult circumstances and they deserve grace. Period. God is the judge and a good one so there is no need for a second.
Alfred,
It was not out in the open to the people with whom he was on the phone. They didn't realize they were discussing private matters with anyone other than BG. It is rude, deceitful, and unprofessional.
Everybody you have mentioned is sharing quite clearly that his behaviour is not ok.
Gothard has clearly taught that this behaviour is not ok. He KNOWS that it is not ok.
He did not think he was doing the right thing. He believed he could get away with it.
He realised that what he wanted to do with Charlotte he could not get away with, so he kept it secret.
For you to keep supporting this man, Alfred, when you admit that you believe Rachel, Marcus, and the others, shows just how lacking in discernment, or perhaps decency, you are.
Well put, TiaraLi.
Site needs a like button
Alfred, kindly remember that many of us were students who spend months and even years in close proximity to Bill. We knew him personally. We knew his habits. We knew what he liked to eat at midnight. He knew us by name and reputation. We saw who entered his office and knew how long they stayed. We knew the girls who wrote these accounts. We lived with them. Worked with them.
You, sir, in all respect, did none of the above.
RJ- yes! Thank you for this reminder. It's very easy to objectify the people involved, whether the victims or the perp. Alfred dismisses Charlotte's account because of his personal relationship (whatever extent it is) with BG. Or he'll read BGs indiscretions as naïveté because he believes he knows BG. The more those of you who know the victims and BG continue to corroborate and fill in the gaps the more the objective of justice will be achieved
Alfred,
I am ceaselessly amazed by your ability to (for the most part) acknowledge the same facts we are all looking and
- and construct a this fantasy world wherein you STILL perceive Bill Gothard as an honorable man.
Behold, your father: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwvnRneMHiY
Jeremy, I have never met you, and yet you are a kindred spirit. I called exactly what that link would be before I even clicked on it. Brilliant! Thanks for a moment of levity during such a grim subject matter. :)
Alfred,
So here is what you are saying you observe and are ok with. Since you like step by step, ABC, I will give it that way.
1. Running a socked foot up a young girl's leg, which has been testified of repeatedly by the people you believe.
2. Spending time alone in an office with a young girl asking probing questions.
3. Singling out blonde haired blue eyed folks to be in the inner circle and not giving that same privilege to say someone Black, Hispanic, brunette etc.
4. Defrauding Meg in a worse way than this young man at and around the same time period.
5. Hypocritically judging people for the very thing you are doing.
6. Legalism, where one is judged based on their outward standards as either a sinner or a saint. Blonde hair - saint. Black skin - sinner. Why Pastor Fields condoned this, I will never know.
7. Rejecting someone and sending them home knowing full well that the parents idolize this man and will be humiliated and demeaned by that maneuver. Knowing that this young person will feel rejected by God since Pope Bill the first and last (thank God!) is saying he is tops on the chain of command right under God.
8. Pretentiously letting a family believe that they're speaking to him in confidence when in fact there are many people in the room (possibly snickering or rolling their eyes whilst you are pouring out your heart) and then instead of giving them advice, letting one of these ATI punks give their advice. That is a whole nother leg of this journey that was heartwrenching for our family as so much power was given to some young immature individual who had no idea what they were doing but wanting to be on the top of the food chain and longing to be in that inner circle, would say or do anything Bill said and be his "eyes and ears." Like our lives were any of his business. I have a LOT of stories on that topic. I just don't know where to share them. :-)
9. He not only condoned but KNOWINGLY allowed his brother to seduce and ruin a bunch of girls. And his father was privy to that as well. These girls were brainwashed. That is why they let down their guard and conscience. They couldn't think for themselves and I think that is what was probably so troubling to them for years into the future. Why did I allow myself to be sucked in? In my mind, this is no different than the kind of power Hitler used against the Germans at a time in history when they were looking for someone to lead them and give them answers. The similarities in leadership are absolutely astonishing.
This man and his ideology are from the pit of hell and that is the truth.
I also was thinking a few minutes earlier the scenari is similar to Hitler.All these Christian pastors and teachers idoliizing him.It makes me sick to my stomach.
I am currently reading a very good book "My Battle Against Hitler: Faith, truth and Defiance" by Dietrich Von Hildebrand. It is his essays and thoughts about Hitler and Nazis starting with 1921. He was one of the biggest and first clear voices against Hitler. I also would encourage you to read about Dietrich Boenhoffer who was his friend. There were a number of clear Christian voices against Hitler. I can also think of St. Cardinal Galen as well. Due to the poor economic issues, the German people got too caught up in nationalism to see the dangerous path they were heading down with Hitler. There were Christian voices in Germany that didn't go along. Von Hildebrand left Germany when Hitler was finally elected. He felt that he couldn't stay in Germany as a devout Catholic
Alfred~
You are so weird and highly offensive. I'm in awe over you, really.
~Donna
^^ Ditto.
Alfred,
Just as you believe the "Friends of Mr. Gothard" Facebook group isn't the place to discuss Mr. Gothard's possible transgressions, this is not the place to discuss your beliefs on why these stories aren't reliable.
You may be right, or you may be wrong- just blindsided because your son has worked at IBLP for years, which would suggest you and your family have "drank the kool-aid".
Either way, you are NOT a voice "crying in the wilderness", you're a nuisance.
-N (former iblp employee/ coworker to nathan)
Wow Marcus, I'm story you were treated this way. Reading this story I find it highly bizarre that on one hand Bill told you that you were this dangerous guy who needed to be sent home for defrauding a girl but on the other he said that you were wise/Godly enough to give counselling advice to those who called him. That totally non-sequitur!
Just another example of how bizarre and twisted BG's thinking and judgment are.
Karah, what you said with the phrase "that totally non-sequitur!" caught my attention. First, the use of the word is great, "non-sequitur" totally in context expresses the thought exactly. Marcus was going to be sent home for doing something Mr. Gothard had been possibly doing for several decades is amazing! And then to allow Marcus to give significant imput to help someone in a counseling situation is absurd/bizarre. It sounds like James when he says "a two-souled man" is unstable in all of his ways.
Dr. Schrader,
So true.
-Donna
Thank you Marcus for sharing your story. Since my story appeared on Recovering Grace I have learned of a young man who was sent home because of attentions he showed to me, and was lied to for the reason. I hope he is reading your story, and I hope that so many other young men - because I'm sure there are more - who experienced this same treatment also find healing and the answers to questions they probably still have over their dismissals/exits from HQ or other training centers.
Meg
Thank you so much for sharing your story. That story really touched so many people and opened their eyes. God bless you!!
Vera
I am going to comment here as there is no general place to comment. Not to discredit your story Marcus but you were actually much more fortunate than the young ladies.
Since I made my comment about Bill's bogus PhD. Wiki has been edited to state that his PhD comes from a non accredited institution. Interesting, someone is monitoring, as they should be.
Second, whether Bill has done these things or not that he is accused of (of course he has, probably many more actually) He should come out and admit to indiscretions, plead for forgiveness and try to rectify.I google his name everyday for a response from him, NONE. Google is stacking up with stories which he has no control over. People in general and especially this crowd are very forgiving people. Not saying his ministry is going to survive but he is DONE at this pace. I guess it shows that his board and advisors are unsophisticated enough to let this go on, not surprising since none of them blew the whistle!
I was talking to friends of mine last night, she in her mid 60's him mid 70's. They had been to a few California seminars back in the day. If Bill would've started the process to make this right there would've been no need for my friends to google him and to know of his indiscretions which are spreading like wildfire.
Take some of your own medicine Bill. Do what you always told us to do, "Agree with thy adversary quickly while he is still in the gate." Yea, I paid attention.
You always get in more trouble with the cover up. On top of seeing his moral double standard with all of us even more incriminating is that revelation now that he may not be as intelligent as we all thought.
Ryan
Ryan-Alfred's son works at IBLP and has for many (Idk ~10 years). This may explain several questions people have had.
The double standard is the part that hurts me most. I was required to abide by every single detail of the avoidance of the appearance of evil; Mr. Gothard had taught my parents that it was their duty to hold me to the extremely strict romantic standards set forth by IBLP, even well into my twenties. While I strove to be respectful even when it hurt, Mr. Gothard was off playing by whatever rules he wanted, not just circumventing his own professed standards, but utterly playing God meanwhile. The hypocrisy hurts profoundly.
Many years ago, privately, on the Yahoo board "Gothard_discussion," off list, someone reported about the kinds of physical affection Bill was foisting on some young ladies. The footsie game was what was mentioned. At the time, the moderator of the board would not allow public discussion of this, presumably because he wanted to confine the board to known teaching that could be discussed. This happened in the chat room, when the chats were going on once a week.
I can't remember who brought it up in chat, but I believe the information was a second or third hand report to this person, and that she was a parent who was formerly involved in ATI, but I could be mistaken on that last point. It was a woman, and she was expressing concern about young women who were being mistreated.
There is no conspiracy here from the RG site to bring down Bill by all of a sudden fabricating false accusations. These issues have been known about, and have been being discussed for years, behind the scenes. Time has given him plenty of space to repent. To me, at the time(about 10 years ago), it was a rumor, and I had to treat it as such, and never said anything about it. But it lends credence to these testimonies that are now coming forth.
If only more people back then could have been made aware of the following:
"Bill Gothard was seen by staff employees patting and fondling women employees. Later, he admitted in staff meetings that these actions were 'moral failures' on his part." Los Angeles Times, April 5, 1982
[https://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/LATimesArticle.pdf]
Thank the Lord for the internet and Recovering Grace where the multitudes of witnesses can join their stories and voices together about what he has done and is STILL doing to this day. I don't think BG is going to be able to weasel out of it this time.
" I don't think BG is going to be able to weasel out of it this time."
Lori, you are right. He will have a very difficult time finding people to recruit that are oblivious to his behavior. It is forever etched in history, and thanks to the internet, it will always be at everyone's fingertips. Every couple days I do a Google search using "Bill Gothard", to see if any new publications have picked the story up. The last time I did it, there were 2 hits that were positive- both Bill's own websites, one that was neutral, Wikipedia and seven that were big red flags: Bill Gothard Sexual Predator, Recovering Grace website, and several other various sites that were carrying the story. People rarely just sign up for some seminar without doing a little research on the net these days, and anyone who does will know the truth and be warned.
The LA Times carried that story in 1982, but how many people that came into the system after that had any idea it even existed? Unless you were in LA and happened to read that particular article, or happened to know someone who remembered, you were out of luck.
He's done.
Yes, the trajectory was set. He admitted back then he had a bad problem. With that admission in mind, these testimonies now coming out should not surprise anyone.
I can collaborate this testimony as in my short time on the GDL many years ago, I too remember real sin being mentioned. Definitely the scandal of 1980 was brought up. At the time, I didn't know what to believe and when Bill would say things like, "I wish I could ban everyone from going there," it made me think that perhaps these people were off. Don't they have archives of those posts from Yahoo?
Marcus, sorry about what happened to you, but glad you are free from the legalism now! Your story reminds me of something. Remember the maxim Bill would say at the Basic Seminar, "Others may, you cannot." It appears as though he was kind of tired of all his self-imposed rules and decided to reverse this one at some point, making it, "Others (ie - Marcus) may not, I CAN."
LOL LynnCD, YES! I remember that "other's may, I cannot" teaching. But you nailed it:
"Other's may not, I CAN."
The favoritism and emphasis on looks was damaging to everyone. I know some now beautiful women who hadn't gone past the "ugly duckling" stage yet and were hidden away in less visible work areas at Headquarters. This emphasis on looks during those fragile teen years could have devastating effects. A person has to wonder, what is wrong with me? Is my value based on my appearance? There was teaching about accepting your unchangeables. Yet the obvious message was, sure, accept yourself but it's better to be invisible unless you're very attractive. You'll never be able to have a prominent place in a ministry unless you're beautiful. Add to that the fact that whenever a girl tried talking to a guy he immediately was trying to get away and end the conversation. Which led a girl to wonder if he was avoiding her because of the rules, or was she just that unattractive and uninteresting? I personally struggled with self-esteem issues for many years. We were taught it was better to have self-loathing than to have pride. I never understood that it is good to love the person God has made you to be. But it was just as damaging to be selected only for your looks and not for your skills. That also makes a person wonder, is this all I'm good for? Then what happens if something changes your looks?
Becky, I wonder about how many young girls felt and still feel bad about themselves on account of this - thanks for sharing what many others must be feeling. I met a woman who was at one of the TCs who said she was called out on how she looked - what she needed to improve - and although she was matter of fact about it, I can imagine many others are still suffering.
Yes, Becky, that kind of treatment can be terribly demeaning and cause a lot of damage to young women - especially those in their teens and early twenties. Women and girls get enough of these destructive messages from the secular media. It's abhorrent when they receive them from those who claim to follow Christ, and especially from someone who is an esteemed leader.
I hope there is a second part of this story that walks through Marcus' time at Verity enforcing legalism as the Dean of students. I'd really like to understand what happened between this story and Verity and why it was okay to enforce the same teachings and ridiculous relationship standards on other young people considering his own experiences. It was the exact same shtick there as any other training center I've been in...
Delphia,
Great question. I didn't give a full answer at all in my article, but here is what I said at the bottom of the article "Marcus’s family joined ATIA in 1991. He was active in ATI and IBLP, working at IBLP Headquarters, the Indianapolis Training Institute, multiple Children’s Institutes, and Basic and Advanced Seminars. Marcus also worked at IBLP’s Verity program from 2004 until 2007. He is married with five children, and he is glad to be free of the legalism and false teaching that he was exposed to and participated in during his time with IBLP.”
What is in red is me acknowledging my own participation in the legalism and false teaching. I do not deny that double standard and hypocrisy that I “participated” in during my Verity days. And I have apologized to the vast majority of the students who were at Verity during my 3 years there. I have tried to do that in person, but in some cases through facebook and phone calls. But, I am not been able to talk to everyone. I am sure some are still very bitter and probably don’t want to talk to me, don’t want to forgive me either and for that I am sorry too. I wish I never would have sinned against people in that way. : (
I will say this though Delphia, when I was at Verity a lot of the guys and so called “rebels” liked me because I talked to them straight, I told them how I felt about Mr. G and the rules and I told them the some rules were not biblical, not right and in many cases very hard for me to enforce. Also, I didn’t enforce all of the rules. I let many guys and girls slide all the time for things that they were doing in violation of the rules. Overall I was very lenient and I think the vast majority of Verity students knew that then and now. I also had talks with girls and guys explaining how I thought the “not dating” and the courtship emphasis was wrong and others areas as well. My wife and I tried the best we could to not be legalistic and to provide opportunities for Verity to be as normal as possible, but that was impossible in the IBLP environment.
We could have quit in our first year when the 05 and 06 class was there, but we both thought that the opportunity to minister to the guys and girls coming to Verity was important and we thought it was a once in a lifetime type of ministry and so we stayed on despite our misgivings and issues. Jennifer and I thought that we could help the students who were burnt out on Gothard and IBLP and through Chapel’s, Bible courses and the lifestyle we led show the proper balanced, biblical road. Believe me Del, that was a hard decision and possibly the wrong one. Jen and I talked about this all the time, daily, weekly and monthly. We almost quit more than any student would know. We are glad we stayed in many ways as we have seen much fruit in the lives of 06, 07 and 08 students who said that we had a lasting influence in their lives for good, not for Gothard or legalism. Ultimately, only God knows what we should have done.
However, with all that being said, you are right and I want to publicly ask you to forgive me for enforcing the same teachings and ridiculous relationship standards on other young people considering my own experiences. Thanks for your question, Jennifer and I miss you and enjoyed our time and interactions with you in Flint, in the Bible Minor and trips! You were a blessing to us!
Thank you Delphia for addressing this. I wondered when this would be brought up. I'm personally very close to someone who is still conflicted over their faith to this day because of emotional & spiritual abuse they were subjected to by the leadership at Verity. It doesn't matter how buddy-buddy you say you are with people if you perpetuate the same mentality you say you speak against behind closed doors. I sincerely hope you have seen the light and have changed. This "ministry" has destroyed and damaged far, far too many people.
"J" Wow, that is so sad that the emotional and spiritual abuse someone experienced at Verity has led to them being conflicted over their faith. Very unfortunate. I hope they can find a good mature friend or a pastor or a counselor to help them recover from their experience there. Hopefully a the Bible, Holy Spirit and Christ can help them overcome bad leadership, legalism, being treated unfairly and whatever else it is they endured. I was apart of this for about 24 years and God has helped me overcome. I know he can help someone who went through 21 months of this. That is the good news. The other thing that helped me was trying not to live in the past, but move on in my own life, which is easier said than done of course. It is so sad for my wife and I to see people who have not been able to overcome bad times in their life, I know Verity was a bad experience for some people, but it was nothing that a person cannot overcome with God's help, that is for sure. On a related note, the vast majority of students who keep in contact with us tell us that there 21 months at Verity was 2 of the best years of their life and to that I would have to agree. Despite the problems, I would do it over again in a second, just this time I would do a lot of things differently!
The time frame between Marcus' dismissal apparently around 1992 to when he came back to Verity in 04 is suspect and void of any explanation as to why he was allowed to return. It leaves me with much doubt as to the validity of his claims.
Alfred, since you believe Rachel's story to be true, can you explain what makes you think that a man who is okay with sexually harassing an underage girl by running his foot up her leg and trying to press his thighs up against her thighs would not take it to the next level and sexually grope an underage girl?
I would also like to know why a man who is incapable of following his own teachings should be a leader.
Or why a man who shows favoritism to young teens based on how they look is a good spiritual leader to young teens.
Also, Alfred, if what you say is true that Gothard really doesn't view any of this as wrong then that should also disqualify him from being a spiritual leader, advisor, and boss to teens. If he can't see the damage done by ignoring less pretty girls and favoring pretty ones or by sending away teen boys who talk to his favorite teens or by pressing his thighs against a female teens thighs and running his foot up their legs. If he is incapable of seeing the harm in these actions and that they are wrong then the board needs to demand he step down.
If he can't see the damage done by ignoring less pretty girls and favoring pretty ones or by sending away teen boys who talk to his favorite teens...
Herd Animal harem behavior. The Alpha Male/Herd Boss claims ALL females as his and drives off younger males who could become rivals.
Marcus, thank you for sharing your story.
Something struck me the other day about Bill's teaching and it's effects. I was very used to recognizing his chauvinist ideas about women. The ideas which say that a woman must be covered from head to mid-calf so as not to make the wandering eyes of a man sin (incidentally, it occurs to me that perhaps you could stop at mid-calf because this was BG's area of interest, but I digress).
Then it hit me like a lightening bolt.
I had worked through and understood that these ideas objectify women into a piece of meat which must be well-covered, but it suddenly dawned on me that I had been objectified as well. I knew it was wrong to think that a woman was to blame for a man's lust, but the other side of that truth is that it's wrong to think a man will always lust given the opportunity.
In IBLP, all men are considered to be raging sex monsters who only need opportunity/visual stimuli to act on the basest of passions. I started to grieve when I realised this, because that was what I was taught about myself.
It is good to teach boys and young men how to handle a beautiful, powerful force, how to bring it to Jesus. It is soul-crushing to tell them that they are destined to be controlled by a power so dangerous they must put many strange roadblocks in their own paths and must recite the proper incantations to keep their inner monster at bay. Because, in the end, you've taught them they are monsters waiting to happen. This perspective grieved me when I realised a little more how affected I had been.
The humanity of so many men offered up on the altar of a legalistic man with OCD who enjoys playing footsie with girls 50, 60 years his junior. Men and women are not monsters and meat. Absolutely ludicrous.
Wow! That's great insight into who BG is. It is possible he is assuming all men are like him in thinking impure thoughts all the time. After all, his own mindset would be his frame of reference, right? That may seem like a reach but I don't think so. Why else would he think every young man had wrong motives concerning females? It was never accepted, by him or his leadership, that a single man could have a conversation with a female without the man having ulterior motives.
I've been part of many ministries and other work places. There are usually guidelines against dating others in the same group in order to keep the focus where it needs to be. That is the case in many secular workplaces as well. I dont have a problem with that. However, equating conversations and normal cordial relationships to dating is simply backward. I think it actually has the opposite effect of what was intended. It makes the parties involved immediately question their morals and focus on improprieties.
What a horrible way to learn how to cultivate any kind of relationship, romantic or not.
Andrew -
I completely agree. I had no idea growing up that these twisted teachings were a basic projection of himself on the rest of us. How many struggles I may have foregone if I hadn't been taught this principle alone.
"How well do you understand the concept of justifying your sins by projecting them on others?" - Basically any "Wisdom Booklet".
I remember thinking something similar back when rumor had it that girls couldn't wear sandals at CI's because a boy had complained to Mr. Gothard that a girls toes were "sensual". I thought, "Wow, these parents are practically teaching their sons to lust by teaching them to examine every female for what she is doing to make them stumble." Women aren't walking traps and men aren't walking predators. We are all humans created in God's image for his glory to have fellowship with Him and each other in love and holiness. Thank God for His freedom.
I only spent 2 weeks at head quarters but I clearly remember getting rebuked for walking around bare footed in the front of the guys staff house which was way out in the middle of nowhere. If only they had known that I was listening to Michael W. Smith on my headphones I would have probably been sent home faster.
I'm only an amateur psychologist but it seems that there is a lot of unhealthy shame surrounding sexuality in BG's life and in his teaching and that that shame oozed out through his teaching and rules into many of our homes and our lives.
I've only just discovered this website in the last 24 hours so I'm processing a lot but an early thought is that his prudish rules and legalism set him up to feel not only powerful but to feel naughty for these improprieties regardless of how subtle they were. There was some sick psychological game that BG played with kids spiritually and sexually. May God have mercy.
[…] Marcus’s Story: Invisible Electric Fence […]
Andrew, I really appreciated your perspective on how young men should be taught about how to view and treat women. Reading these stories is saddening, but at the same time, most comments are simply rehashing old stories and experiences, which, while corroborating of other stories and helpful to those who have been hurt, in the long run do little to help those who grew up in ATI learn how to best deal with this mindset we've been taught. I spent close to 3 years serving with the ministry and although my experiences were generally very good, now that I'm an "adult" and have a rewarding career, I realize at times that there were certain views promoted in ATI which affected the way I related to guys, my views on dating, etc. These are the mindsets I need to change, and instead of reading stories over and over again, I'd like to seek more understanding and healing in my own life to know how to raise and teach my own children.
M,
Thanks for your comment. I think, if you look back at earlier posts from RG the original purpose was definitely to help us reconsider the bill of goods we've been sold by BG/IBLP. It was inevitable, though, when addressing the fallacies, that they would uncover the widespread hurt and damage done by those ideas. I think we're seeing a growing wave of expression of this hurt as more people find RG for the first time.
Like you, I want to let the hurt have its healthy time of expression, but not be so focused on the past that I make similar mistakes with my children as my parents made with me. Just today, I recognized some thought habits which are distinctly IBLP... to the point that I can remember the session where BG taught the ideas. Without an alternative that I could be sure of, I found myself just asking Jesus to take it all. I think that's the one key that everyone, no matter their theological bent, can agree on. Christ is everything. We're even told that the Holy Spirit prays for us because we don't know what we should be saying. That's pretty much opposite to a step-by-step approach.
If I have learned one thing about God since IBLP, it is that He is not concerned that we follow steps, He is concerned about having a relationship with us. That relationship can be perplexing, joyous, and sometimes strange just as all relationships can be... but as no other relationship, it is granted by grace and guarded by a perfect jealousy.
I guess all of that to say this, please don't focus on getting rid of "wrong" steps and finding the "right" steps to replace them. Just focus on Christ and His finished work on the cross. Understand the scandalous implication of the fact that we can do NOTHING to clean ourselves up, but Christ has already given us EVERYTHING we needed to be clean and that thought will both kill and cure at the same time.
I love the way The Message expresses Matthew 11:28-30: "Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you’ll recover your life. I’ll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won’t lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you’ll learn to live freely and lightly."
We don't have to worry about de-progamming ourselves really, we just have to learn, "the unforced rhythms of grace" from our Savior.
2003 Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/marchweb-only/3-3-33.0.html?start=1
2002 Personal Experience
http://www.fornits.com/anonanon/articles/200201/20020116-0.htm
Marcus’s story is an example of the troubling and blatant disparity between Gothard’s own standard of conduct, wherein unwelcome emotional and physical advances toward very young women are deemed acceptable, and the standard of conduct Gothard sets for other single men in the ministry, who have often been fired in disgrace for even perceived flirtations.
It's also an example of Herd ANIMAL behavior, where the Alpha Male claims all the females for HIS harem and drives out any males who might be a rival. Usually younger males who have just come of age sexually.
I know a guy who was sent home from his position at ALERT for this exact same thing. They also made him delete all females from his Facebook friend list. I've often wondered if others went through this, and I'm not sure my friend ever figured out what was said or what he had done wrong by speaking to girls.
I have never had the pleasure of working at IBLP or ATI headquarters (/sarcasm). I have, however, spent quite a bit of time around IBLP/ATI events as well as a lot of time at the ALERT Academy either in training or on staff. Something that has been really bugging me for a couple of years now is the clash of what is taught in BG's circles and what is really and truly practical/polite. Intentional or not, I have had engrained into me the mindset that interaction between the sexes is to be shunned. That it is so easy to defraud a girl or be too flirtatious that it is just better to not interact much at all. As a result, I feel highly uncomfortable whenever I am talking to a girl longer than it takes to say "Hi, how are you" and I tend to migrate toward light, sarcastic comments (hopefully that's not flirtatious... yikes!). Part of that could definitely be due to my personality as well, being that I am a fairly reserved person. But the issue still stands. It is an unwritten rule that you don't touch a girl. Hugging a girl not in your family is being too forward. You don't talk to them longer than is absolutely necessary.
I am now at the point in my life where I would really like to get married, but I have absolutely no idea how to get to know a girl with the depth that it would take to see if we were compatible. I am still stuck on the surface "weather" topics. Now I know that I need to just take risks and step out in faith and God will take care of the rest. But it still is so awkward. I am still trying to become comfortable giving girls a hello or goodbye hug because it feels so much more awkward to just wave at them from a distance when the girls are giving all the girls hugs and the guys are all shaking each other's hands and I'm just left with "see you guys next fall" (or whenever) to the girls. Romans 16 says to greet each other with a holy kiss. I'm not going to kiss all the girls, but what's the problem with a side hug?
Wow, that really turned into a rant. What I originally came here to say was that I empathise with Marcus to a certain extent and am amazed at how far removed BG's behavior is, not only from what is normal among decent people, but from his own teaching, which is far more conservative (or stringent, or legalistic, etc.) than that. The distance is mind blowing. Forget the apple... the tree has grown very far from where the seed was planted.
P.S. If anyone has comments or suggestions on my rant, I would be interested to hear them, though I'm not sure the moderators would appreciate the comments getting totally derailed. :/
Hey, Jason:
I feel I personally identify with your frustration in getting to know other people and establish relationships. Relationships, both romantic and otherwise, have been difficult for me since walking away from ATI in 2005. I want to recommend a few books to you that I believe helped me immensely. Based on your comments above, my first recommendation is:
How to Avoid Falling in Love with a Jerk. By Jon Van Epp. While I wish that I had been able to read this book when first leaving ATI, unfortunately, I did not stumble across it until this winter (2014). This book is reiterating to me that hindsight is "20/20," and I'm very fortunate that in spite of my social ignorance, I have landed in a very good place. The title of the book seems to suggest a primarily female reader audience that desires to develop a more keen awareness of "red flags" in male behaviors, but the content of the book actually addresses both genders equally and does not single out a specific gender for analysis. :) It's just a book loaded with current, responsible ideas about dating and relationships, beneficial to both guys and gals, single, in a relationship, or even already married. I'm already married, so I've been reading this book in hindsight. I am not married to a jerk, and I am very lucky that I'm not, because I dated a whole lot of them. You indicated that you were serious about getting married and that you were concerned about how to get to know a lady - that's perfect, because this book is dead serious and loaded with information about how to get to know a lady. In my opinion, this book is the best book on the market at this time about real dating. It's not radical, and it isn't "black and white." It reasonably presents ideas about how to develop boundaries for YOU in YOUR relationship. What I like most about this book is that it presents a diagram indicating the different types of intimacy in a relationship, and how to nurture these differing facets of intimacy over time, keeping your relational closeness in check by not rushing one type of intimacy before the other types are stable. I'll quite rambling - in short, I highly recommend this book to you!
The following three books I recommend because they helped me restructure my thinking, thinking patterns, ways of processing my emotions and social life:
Boundaries: When to Say Yes, How to Say No. By Henry Cloud & John Townsend
Take Your Life Back: Recovering from Cults & Abusive Relationships. By Janja Lalich. [I read this book from cover to cover, word for word. This book helped validate my experience of ATI as a cult as well as helped me verbalize to myself what I went through and how I could move forward mentally and emotionally.]
Hold Me Tight. By Dr. Sue Johnson. This book is one to keep on file. Once you have a relationship, whether married or not, you will reach for this book when the fit hits the shan. :) You could read it now, but it may seem like "Greek" (wow, it's been a while since "Greek" has even come up in any of my conversations! Haha!) if you haven't yet experienced a strong romantic relationship or a relationship that went down the toilet. Once it does, however, this book will make a whole lot of sense then!
Since I left ATI, I have read over 50 self help books, searching for relevant ways to address my need for mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual growth. The books I've listed are honestly the best of what I've read - I would be so pleased if the amount of time and money that I've spent on books over the past 8 years could benefit more than just myself. Good luck to you and learn to trust yourself and your gut. You'll do fine!
PS: If you don't like to read, remember that many books are available on audio CD and can be ordered online from Amazon or Booksamillion or such. I know that Hold Me Tight is on audio.
[…] Un tanar Marcus confirma marturia lui Rachel aici. […]
Oh so much focus on the girls with RG, when the real damage that is done is to the young boys. When your church gets " Re-Tooled " to be a mini cult in the Gothard way, the real victims are the young impressionable unfiltered boys. We are the ones who got the Paddles, and the " Dowling Rod " in the male dominated world that is created when the church is Gothardized. When these young boys grow up we find that American women don't really care for a dominating, verbally abusive, " Authority " man on a pedestal in the home. For most men who had the " Character Sketches beaten in to them, we are not able to even get to first base in a relationship with a woman. We are so screwed up in the head that most can barely keep a job. But what do we get as far as help and repair for this? We get stories of the GIRLS having to not wear makeup, or tight jeans. Forget the paddlings at the Gothard church school for just being a normal young boy in puberty. You see, girls can recover much more easily, because the world is at an attractive woman's fingertips. Men? We already have it hard with Feminist America, and then you add in all the Rules and regulations and punishments we were taught along with the dating teachings, and you have a pretty hopeless situation. I hope that RG will compile more stories and remedies for the real victims of Gothard, and that is the young boys who are taught to be abusive jerks. Josh Duggar is the tip of the ice berg with males in this environment. Boys need to be " De-Programmed before going out into the world. Just saying..
In all honesty, why don't you share your testimony and submit an article from the male perspective in being raised under this junk. Gothardism has been damaging to both sexes in different ways. While it may seem that much of the focus is on problems with being female and raised in ATI coupled with the fact that Bill had a problem with young women under him, there is room to hear the male perspective and testimony like yours on how you got out and trying to put your life back together. It sounds like you were raised to see women as objects to be pushed around and dominated. Again if you really look at your Bible, Jesus treated men and women equally. Both had equal access to Him. St. Paul did state we are joint heirs in Christ. That isn't "feminization" as you have been taught but true equality before God.
I agree with rob war. I am very sorry you were abused growing up. I definitely want to know more about your situation and how you are dealing with it. I would welcome more stories from men like you. I hope it does not betray too much of her personal information to reveal that rob war is female.
There is a pretty serious story of forced circumcision on RG that compares with any abuse of women covered here. I fear, however, that the Alert guys have yet to wise up to the abuses of graceless legalism because, unlike the young women taught to "submit", the young men were taught to "lead courageously". Too often, a Lieutenant nears the top of a hill and finds a bullet in his back before he understands that no one is following his bold "leadership". Guys are slow on the uptake. Just sayin'.