As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you…and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. —The Apostle John — 1 John 2:27 [NASB]
You may have heard someone tell you God “anointed” him or her to be your leader. Or, perhaps, someone else pointed to another person and told you that person had a special “anointing” from God’s Spirit to be your teacher, shepherd, or whatever. That may have sounded pretty wonderful at the time, and if so, you undoubtedly began looking up to that individual, idealizing him or her, and marveling over the fact God would bless you so much by bringing such a person into your life.
Hey! — was that a beam of sunlight or did some kind of halo seem to be forming around his head when they called him the “anointed” man of God?
How those early days seemed so heavenly at times!
But after a while, the word “anointed” began to take on a different connotation. Maybe it started when you first heard a sermon on the text “Touch not mine anointed!” (1 Chr. 16:22; Psa. 105:15). Suddenly, to question the anointed leader was to question God!
In the beginning when followers spoke of the leader’s anointing, the stress was on his spiritual gifts; now the stress was on his supposed spiritual authority. How did this subtle shift occur? Was it because you missed something they explained earlier? Or did a new meaning sneak in through the back door?
If you even dared to let yourself entertain that last thought, it was only for a moment. You realized if any other followers had the slightest idea of what you were thinking it could mean big trouble. Were you already starting to question God’s anointed? You decided to “leave it in the Lord’s hands” for the time being, hoping He’d eventually help you better understand it all.
But over weeks and months, this teaching became more frequent, more emphatic, and more burdensome. Didn’t David refuse to oppose the evil King Saul, even though he was out to kill David, because Saul was “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 24:6)? Therefore, how dare you disagree with your leader or call into question his moral judgments! He’s the anointed of God! Even if you think he’s morally wrong—even if he asks you to do something that goes against your conscience—to go against him is to go against God!
Then it dawned on you something like that was bound to happen. It seemed inevitable you would eventually run into some kind of conflict with the leadership. Even though you knew of no immediate problems, your common sense told you it would be just a matter of time.
Your leader had many in his flock, and to help manage them all, he declared (on his own authority) several of his assistants were “anointed” leaders over various sections of the congregation; and they, in turn, had “anointed” leaders under them. Eventually, you realized you could hardly do anything without going through one of “the anointed,” and each one had obvious shortcomings and noticeable personality quirks. So it had to happen, and one day it did. You did everything in your power to carefully and respectfully express your sincere convictions and do what you thought God wanted without making any waves, but you soon found yourself accused of harboring “rebellion” in your heart—rebellion against God’s anointed, no less! And that was only the beginning of one long, horrendous nightmare.
• • •
You’ve been out for some time now, but all the Scriptures they used and arguments they brought to bear against you still churn ferociously through your head, haunting you in the darkness through the echoes of sobs that were once your only company through many sleepless nights. You hope the worst of your despair is over. The empty, frightened shell of a person you were (and sometimes still are) when you escaped occasionally senses a ray of sunshine. But recalling the trauma of that departure can still drain all color from the most beautiful of days and replace the happiest of moments with an aching hollowness.
You wonder: Were they right? Have I sealed my fate by rebelling against God’s anointed? All those verses! Do I have any right to think I understand the Bible better than they?
When your mind isn’t racing for answers, it’s stuck in a kind of cerebral mud, not even bothering to spin its wheels out of a sense of futility as the gloom of another hopeless day oozes down around you.
I know how it is. I’ve spent many a month trapped inside such spiritual bleakness.
God put me under that spiritual authority and I rebelled! What will become of me?
Thoughts like these can form a kind of emotional undertow that takes you away from your family and friends every bit as much as did your former leader. To the casual observer, you may appear liberated; but inside, you’re still drowning in a tormented sea of unresolved questions.
For quite a while, I searched desperately for a quick fix. Each day renewed my quest for “the breakthrough” I hoped would rescue me from unrelenting spiritual torture. For quite some time, I wondered if I’d ever find my way back to a close walk with God. “How long, O LORD? Will You hide Yourself forever?” (Psalm 89:46, NASB).
And then it dawned on me: My ex-leader didn’t mess up all my thinking in a single day. He did it methodically, and hence, slowly—over a long period of time. So, I shouldn’t expect to be able to clean out all his mental garbage overnight. In fact, I realized the whole concept of “the breakthrough” was something he’d saddled me with as he rode me up and down his emotional roller coaster. Each time he won another battle to gain further control of my life, he credited me with having a “breakthrough” (which, in practical terms, simply meant he’d conquered yet another area of my Christian freedom)! He’d found a way to break through the proper boundaries between biblical fellowship and carnal control, and he encouraged me to keep letting him have more control by flattering me with talk of my “breakthroughs.”
God doesn’t work that way. Yes, He does give us flashes of spiritual insight, but not in order to fool us into surrendering to Him. Yes, He enlightens our minds (Lk. 24:45), but He doesn’t replace our minds, nor do our thinking for us. He renews our minds, but not apart from our own efforts to think seriously about His truth.
So, I finally resigned myself to the fact the path back to sanity would be long, and that it led straight through God’s Word. To ensure my dependence on him, my spiritual abuser had worked hard to destroy any confidence that I could understand Scripture without his help. God, on the other hand, tells us His Word is clear enough for anyone to understand it’s primary message (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Would I believe God or my ex-leader?
On a purely intellectual level, it was an obviously simple choice, but I had to live it out on a spiritual battlefield where Satan took advantage of the fact I was badly out of practice in the use of my spiritual armor (Eph. 6:11-17). On some days, it was truly terrifying; but I lived to talk about it. I’m confident you will, too. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t mind discussing a few things I learned about the whole business of “anointed” church leaders with you. It all boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding about how to interpret Scripture.
• • •
Perhaps you’ve noticed all the Scriptures those people used to support their “anointed” teaching came from the Old Testament. There’s a good reason for that: no verse in the New Testament supports it.
Why is that? Is it because the Old Testament was wrong in this area, and the New Testament corrected the error? Is it because Christians can’t learn anything from the Old Testament? Certainly not.
Instead, it’s because of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. You see, the Bible is a book of progressive revelation—over the many centuries during which His Word was being written, God progressively revealed more of Himself, more of His purpose, and more of His plan to more of His people. And this progress meant change, because God was working toward a goal, and the realization of His goal was going to make a huge difference in human history. Christ and His cross would change everything.
This is something so many Christians, including those who should know better, fail to take into account when trying to apply Scriptures from the Old Testament.
There were things practiced in the Old Testament that became obsolete in the New Testament, because they had fulfilled their purposes, and God said it was time to replace them with something better. A case in point: The Old Testament anointings have been replaced by something better. What, you ask, could be better than an anointing? The fulfillment of what the anointing symbolized!
You see, the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament is much like the relationship between a prediction and its fulfillment. Once the fulfillment arrives, the prediction has served its purpose and has actually stopped being a prediction. It’s now a fulfilled prediction and no longer points to the future because the future it foresaw is now in the past. Thus, the prediction should no longer command the center of our attention, and we should no longer cling to it, because the fulfillment was the whole point of the prediction. The fulfilled prediction now only serves to remind us of the reliability of the One Who made it.
So what did those Old Testament anointings symbolize? They were symbolic predictions (or figurative foreshadowings) of Christ. Now that we have Him, we don’t depend on Old Testament predictions and foreshadowings; and, therefore, we no longer depend on Old Testament anointings. God doesn’t have a whole lot of use for them, either, other than reminders to us of His faithfulness. They’re also useful for apologetics purposes, but not for current Christian practice.
The Bible makes this same comparison in metaphorical form when it teaches the relationship between Old and New Testaments is like the relationship between a shadow and the person casting it (Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 8:4-6, 10:1). Before Christ came, the ancient Israelites only had predictions and foreshadowings of Him. All those centuries before He came can be compared to times when someone is coming our way, but all we can see is the person’s shadow. While we may get excited if we recognize it as the shadow of someone we love, seeing the shadow doesn’t excite us nearly as much as looking into our loved one’s eyes when we finally have him or her in front of us.
Those who cling to “anointings” and “anointed leaders” are unwittingly clinging to mere shadows of Christ and losing sight of the substance of His Person. Instead of looking straight into His eyes, beholding Him, and honoring Him, they’re crawling around in a vain effort to grasp His shadow, usually without even realizing that that’s what they’re doing. They certainly don’t appreciate how much of Christ they’re missing. And He’s not at all happy about it.
How can you know what I’m saying is true, you ask? Please, bear with me as I explain.
The only people who were anointed in the Old Testament were prophets (1 Kgs. 19:16), priests (Ex. 28:41) and kings (1 Sam. 15:1). These three offices symbolically foreshadowed our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the ultimate and final Prophet, Priest and King.
In ancient Israel, the act of anointing (by pouring perfumed oil on the subject’s head) was the standard way of declaring a person to be chosen by God as a prophet, a priest, or a king. It might be helpful to think of the anointing of kings, for instance, as comparable to the kind of coronation ceremony we still occasionally witness in countries that have monarchs. Every culture on earth has some kind of ceremony that effectively installs new leaders in their offices.
These days, we inaugurate presidents and prime ministers whom the electorate chooses. We ordain ministers whom churches choose. In ancient Israel, they anointed prophets, priests and kings whom God chose—and those three offices combined foreshadowed Christ Himself.
While God is free to send prophets whenever He chooses, it’s a simple fact that, in more than 2,000 years, other than Christ Himself, He hasn’t sent a real prophet since John the Baptist. That’s because He wants us to remember Christ is our Prophet!
We also no longer have priests who regularly offer sacrifices for sins, because Christ’s death on the cross was the perfect sacrifice, that covered all our sins, and put a complete end to any further need for that type of priest. Christ is now our great and sympathetic High Priest! Furthermore, Christians don’t (or shouldn’t) go around anointing “kings” for believers to follow, because we have our anointed King — the Lord Jesus Christ!
But, someone might ask, can’t we talk about Christians being “anointed” in a more general sense? Maybe we can’t talk about anointing one Christian as the leader of all believers, but can’t we talk about Christians being “anointed” as leaders, say, over local churches or denominations?
That’s a fair question. Now, let me ask you a question: Is Christ the sufficient source for all of your spiritual life—both in this world and in the world to come? If so, why would you want to “anoint” someone besides Him? If He’s not that sufficient source, then you need to re-read your New Testament (especially Colossians 2)! I’m afraid the real reason so many clamor for “anointed ministry” these days is because they aren’t satisfied with Jesus. They act as though the “anointed” person they can see, hear, and potentially touch is somehow more “real” than the Anointed One Who sits at the right hand of the Father, when precisely the opposite is true. Any self-proclaimed, “anointed” minister is as phony as a lunar real estate agent.
But, I won’t dodge the question. Yes, it’s true many Christians talk about “anointings” today. They talk about everything from anointed leaders (for example, over local churches), to anointed TV preachers, to anointed singers, to anointed puppet ministries. They mean well. They’re simply trying to honor those whom they believe are truly gifted and called by God to their ministries, so I would never condemn them for this practice. I just wish they’d find a more appropriate word. The New Testament doesn’t support this use of “anointed,” and it plays straight into the hands of those who teach we must obey “anointed” human leaders the same way we obey Christ. Once the word becomes commonplace among a group of Christians, all cult leaders, false shepherds, and other spiritual abusers have to do is string together a few Old Testament verses to create massive confusion and enslave God’s children. We’ve seen this time and time again.
In sharp contrast to that authoritarianism, notice the only time the New Testament uses the word “anointed” — other than in reference to Christ — is when it discusses the anointing shared by all believers (2 Cor. 1:21-22; 1 Jn. 2:20-28). The New Testament teaches there is no special class of “anointed” Christians. Instead, it teaches all believers receive a spiritual anointing from the Christ of Scripture that remains in us, reminding us to stick close to Him—not to some human leader (1 Jn. 2:27); and, thus, He will be our source of security and stability (2 Cor. 1:21-22).
All believers have the Holy Spirit’s anointing (1 Jn. 2:20-28). Therefore, just because someone is a “Christian leader,” it doesn’t automatically follow the “leader” has more of God’s Spirit than any other run-of-the-mill Christian. This being the case, true Christian leaders will not ask believers to do anything that violates their consciences (Ac. 5:29). True Christian leaders will not order others around like their own personal servants, but will serve them instead (Mk. 10:45). And true Christian leaders will not make accusations against other believers that cannot be proven in keeping with Scripture (Mat. 18:15-17). Under these criteria, does your former (or even current!) leader sound like a true Christian leader?
True Christian leaders will remind their followers that, in Christ, believers enjoy a relationship with the Father that is better than the one had by Old Testament believers. In Galatians 3:23-26, the Apostle Paul compares their position to that of spiritual children, in contrast to our position of spiritual adulthood. Through the transforming events recorded in the gospels—Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension—God’s people came of age. We grew up, as it were; and, thus, we no longer need the things children need. We don’t need the Law to act as our spiritual babysitter (Gal. 3:25). We don’t need a human “king” to rule over us so we can live in his reflected glory. We don’t need “anointed” leaders in whom to take pride.
The problem is, however, that like so many children, we don’t want to grow up. Being adults means taking responsibility for ourselves, and that seems pretty scary at times. We’d rather pawn that responsibility off on somebody else, and let them take care of us.
Just as Israel demanded a king so they could power posture like the other nations (1 Sam. 8), we want someone who will strut back-and-forth and say the things we’re too timid to say in public so that we’ll respect him enough to do whatever he says. We want to go backwards in God’s plan, and there are all-too-many preachers, gurus, and shepherds out there who’d be more than happy to take us there. True Christian leaders will get out of God’s way and let us grow up. Is that the kind of leader you have?
• • •
When God transitioned His people from the Old Testament to the New, things changed. The nature of anointing changed because Christ’s coming changed the role of human leadership among His people. In the Old Testament, anointing was physical; and the role of human leadership in Israel was to foreshadow the authority of Christ. In the New Testament, anointing is spiritual; and the role of human leadership in the Church is to declare and defer to the authority of Christ.
Therefore, your leader—whoever he or she is—does not have Christ’s authority. Only Christ has Christ’s authority (Mat. 28:18), and He never “delegates” it to anyone. Therefore, your leader cannot exercise Christ’s authority. He or she can only call upon you to submit to Christ’s authority.
Does this mean there is no such thing as church discipline? Of course not, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Just remember: Church leaders are appointed according to scriptural qualifications (Tit. 1:5), not anointed. This means believers don’t need any special “anointing” beyond what they already have as Christians to serve in church leadership. However, it also means leadership appointments are as fallible as those who do the appointing. There is no such thing in the Bible as “appointment for life” or “once an elder, always an elder.” So, if an appointed leader is subject to recall, how much more suspect are the credentials of a self-appointed leader? Such “leadership” is more than merely worthless—it’s downright dangerous!
Christ has come, and He remains with us each day even though He’s ascended into heaven (Mat. 28:20). The anointing He received is far superior to anything ever had by anyone else (Heb. 1:9; Psa. 45:7).
So, why be afraid of those who can’t harm your soul (Mat. 10:28)? Why waste another minute of your life wondering if you rebelled against God by having a difference of opinion with someone who can’t tell his own random thoughts from Scripture? Why worry about anointings that don’t exist, claimed by people whose cruelty renders their Christian testimonies suspect? Many of their kind will wake up one day to realize that blowing all that hot air during their lives was a rehearsal for their eternal occupations.
Meanwhile, you’re heading in the opposite direction, and it’s time you started doing that joyfully!
What a timely piece...it spoke to my heart and brought up a flood of memories as to exactly why my husband and I no longer attend church. We talk about going but then my husband says he does not want to run into the same old-same old, the inner circle of the "anointed" the cliques, those who are favored by the inner circle and the dramas. He does not want to get hurt again.
Actually it took only that one scripture of not touching God's annointed to keep us all in line about questioning the leadership.
And it became the sin we were most afraid of committing.
To add to my own comment- I had my husband read this and he commented later that at our church he had been pulled aside and talked to by both the pastor and pastor's son that I was rebellious and to find out why I hated my husband so much. I guess it was because I spoke my mind and of course, wore pants, rode horses, did art, etc. They sure did not turn down the gift of a large painting for the new office. The Duggars were not around then, but it was as if they wanted me to always look at my husband in an adoring way and smile that pasted on smile with bright eyes and never say anything. YUCK! Gotta go puke!
I'm in the same boat. Although I know I should be a part of a local fellowship in order to encourage and be encouraged, I'm hesitant to do it as a result if being burnt. My family was very involved in a small church, helping any way we could. Well,because I dated to question the scriptural basis of the "anointed's" teachings, I was reprimanded,branded as rebellious and kicked out of the church. My family fell apart - husband sided with the pastors & divorced me (maybe that he used that as his way out), and the children I taught to love the Lord are wounded, bitter and need to return to Him. It hurts! Btw, the church finslly closed its doors,7 yrs after this and other disasters (among them covering up sexual sin). But the leaders never admitted their wrong (they just said they were retiring. Sigh.
This wonderful artcle states it well...the healing is an ongoing process....when I think I'm past the experience, and suddenly something surfaces, and I want to run for protection. Really, there's no other place to go but God's loving arms. I guess He's still peeling away the layers of deception & pain so we can truly be healed. What I can say with assurance is that we cannot afford to compromise God's truth found in His Word just because a self proclained "appointed & anointed" craves power and demands devotion. See Exodus 20:1-6....I am the LORD your God...You shall not have any other gods before Me....
And 1 Peter 5:1-3...shepherd the flock of God...serving.,.not by compulsion...not for dishonest gain...nor as being lords over those entrusted you..
May the have mercy on us all!!
This is a wonderful article. Everything explained makes total sense. From replies, it can be seen many of us are in this long going process of healing. Many of our families have been divorced, kids embittered. It is so refreshing to know I am not the only one. And to realize that these false teachings were put on us gradually over a long period of time and will take time for us to heal. I have only been on this site for a few days. Is there a prayer group amongst us? I was in the Gothard church for 20 years. Have been out for 14 years aND there is much still.to be healed. Any suggestions are welcomed. Thank you!
I wish you could come to my church, esbee! You sound so interesting! We have lots of horse riders in our congregation. Occasionally they even (gasp!) skip regular services to go down south for a big ride and a small service around the campfire. And even our pastor's wife wears pants. :)
The more I read responses like yours the more I detach myself from celebrities like the Duggers. The legalism I see is just oppressing.
"Many of their kind will wake up one day to realize that blowing all that hot air during their lives was a rehearsal for their eternal occupations."
Whoa-oa-oa-aoh! Shudders!
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light"--1 Peter2:9
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=royal+priesthood&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1
We are ALL anointed of God through Jesus Christ.
O dear! scriptural confirmation that BG shouldn't have been playing footsie, etc. ("touch not God's anointed") ;-)
But seriously, praise God for our freedom in Christ!!
"true Christian leaders will not ask believers to do anything that violates their consciences (Ac. 5:29). True Christian leaders will not order others around like their own personal servants, but will serve them instead (Mk. 10:45). And true Christian leaders will not make accusations against other believers that cannot be proven in keeping with Scripture (Mat. 18:15-17)."
This was very helpful to me, especially the reminder that a true leader doesn't make unproven accusations.
I was slightly amused yet utterly horrified about my physical reaction after reading this article.
I got the 'pre-spank butt clench.'
After years of not being in ATI, much reading and searching for God, professional therapy and prayer/meditation, I believed I was over the teachings of Gothard. Obviously, my thinking is erroneous. Silence about the abuse of ATI has been my verb, and I never correlated the silence to the existing fear of 'God's authority/anointed.' The fear that was instilled into me at a young age still exists in some form subconsciously, and your article was a humbling read as I am reminded that I still have much work to do.
Even as I type this, I have that clammy feeling of being eaten by bears or zapped with lightening for even questioning the 'anointing of Mr. Gothard.' Fear is a sneaky beast, rearing it's head at the most surprising of times. Words that encourage respect should be wielded very wisely, for it turns into the language of abuse in the mouths of those not worthy to edify.
As tiring as confronting old mindsets can be, there is always the tangible promise of peace of mind. So, I grudgingly thank you for posting this thought-provoking article. It's time to once again pack my spiritual bags and move further on the path of life.
Matthew
What a great post Matthew! Fear is indeed a sneaky beast.
Yes!
Wow wow wow! This just dawned on me:
People who quote the, "touch not mine anointed" verse, quote it way out of context.
David was not saying that Saul had not sinned, nor was he denying that God had actually called him [David] to take over the kingdom (a treasonous idea).
-Saul had sinned
-God had taken His blessing from Saul's life
-God had taken away Saul's kingdom and following.
David was just saying that he personally, was not allowed to kill Saul.
So obviously, it does not apply to us as individuals, or RG in general, regardless of what some may think.
I agree and too many persons use this verse to mean not even questioning the person even though the apostle paul says to test everything in light of scripture.
This is an excellent point Elsa. People forget that the verse they often quote "Touch not my anointed" was not David deferring to the King, right or wrong. In fact, David was leading an army that was in direct opposition to the King's will at the time. He just recognized the danger in being the one that carried out physical retribution on "Gods Anointed". This lesson is appropriate even today. Assuming that a Pastor in the pulpit is "Gods Anointed", even if doing serious wrong, assassination is NEVER the answer. Holding people accountable, no matter what their "position" is, is not only allowable, but could be said to be commanded by Scripture.
"Assassination is never the answer"
This made me laugh! Thanks, Patrick!
Excellent!! Explains the subject in such a clear, understandable and biblically accurate way.
I'd like to add this scripture passage: "The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:10-11)
The Jews of Berea were not only commended for receiving the word with eagerness; they were commended for testing what they were taught - even what they were taught by a chosen Apostle of the Lord - against what was already written in the Scriptures.
Those men who rebuke Christians for testing their teachings against the word of God are not only claiming to have more authority than the original apostles - they are claiming to have more authority than God Himself. What a perilous position to be in. How can anyone claim to be a true believer who sets himself above the word of God?
Ron:You and Don Veinot co-authored a book titled "A Basic Matter of Principles",in which a chapter probed into the Nuremburg Trials.The Nazi defendants gave the testimony almost to a man that they were only obedying orders,submitting to higher authority,a commandant,from the Nazi "State".The defense was that the defendants themselves may have been at best morally neutral.The point was they were indeed guilty of mass murder,pillaging,destruction of property,slavery,deportation to death camps,with the tribunal seeing behind the difficult question of how there may indeed be a price to pay,a sacrifice to make,but the resulting compromise far too worse,far too evil,even if they would have to pay with their lives.Millions of victims,plundered,killed.In Gothardism various tactics are used from "the end justifies the means",to God will change it all to work thru the authority,change the authority,[?],and then comes "obey the anointed.No matter what".Amoung those Nazis,back at Nureburg,who were hung was Fritz Pappen who repented saying if Germany lasted a thousand years Its sin would still remain.I believe hard conclusions need to be drawn from what happened in Gothard's Empire of Obedience,to Germany.The Nuremburg trials would not be lost to a holocaust survivor.Is the name Henzel Jewish?
I wish to make a correction on my comment about the Nuremburg Trials.This excerpt was in Ron Henzel's "Beginner's Guide to Bill Gothard,where Ron made the comment that at the time of the trial Bill Gothard" was 11 years old.He then went on to say that evidently the trial made no impression on Gothard.It was not in "A basic Matter of Principles".It was interesting in Henzel's book,that he included this period of crime trials.Isreal would become a state in only two more years.
David,
As far as I know, the name Henzel is not Jewish. I was raised Roman Catholic. On my mother's side I am Irish and Scottish, and on my father's side I am Polish and Irish. My surname came from a Polish-speaking region in the Austro-Hungarian Empire (prior to World War I), and was originally spelled Hendzel (at least when transliterated out of the Polish alphabet). Our branch of the family apparently dropped the "d" in my great-grandparents' generation, around the time they immigrated to the U.S. My great-grandmother, a Henzel, spoke only Polish until they day she died in 1968 (I was 9)—and not a word of Yiddish.
But why do you ask?
Dear Folks,
In reading your comments, I've observed that some comments are passionate, some are judgmental, some are sarcastic, some are humorous, some are dismissive and some are very sad.
Those who comment seem to be generally well-educated. Some are pastors, educators, therapists, attorneys, and other admirable professions. Some are just starting out in adulthood and some are seasoned travelers in life.
There are the "regulars" who post their comments frequently and there are those they call a "drive-by", which seems to be a term usually reserved for a one-time comment that is not in agreement with the majority of posts. If a person does respond, and the reply is not supportive of the RG theme, then an onslaught of comments usually follow.
There are RG supporters who suggest some others have not yet seen the light, or former "Gothardites" who are in the process of coming to the truth, or those who have no clue what to believe.
For myself, I attended my first seminar in 1998 and it was a life changing experience for me. My oldest daughter and her husband were struggling, so I invited them to come to a seminar with me. They did, and were so impressed they joined ATI and followed IBLP exactly. I followed it somewhat, and when they invited me, I went to the family conferences with them. They joined other ATI families in the area and had a great time. After eight years and five more children, they dropped out of ATI agreeing with their pastor that it was a "cult." My daughter continued to homeschool my grandchildren for a year or two, and then they moved across the state and put the kids into a small public school.
I don't know whether they hold me responsible for their involvement in ATI. We don't talk about it. They are "so busy" with school activities and sports now and live five hours away, and my husband and I have our jobs that keep us here. My daughter did say she thinks the kids will "be okay" and aren't "damaged" very much. My grown grandsons joined the military so they can go to college when they are through.
Hi Mary,
Thank you for sharing your story. I'm very glad to hear that your daughter feels the kids will be okay.
I have no doubt that the seminar that you attended was a life changing event in your life. Also, I know that you encouraged your daughter and her family to attend because you believed it would be a positive life changing event for them as well.
A lot of things have come to light regarding IBLP, ATI and Bill Gothard. A lot of people have things that they need to work through because of their experiences with the organization and some were clearly more affected by others. There is no way that you or anyone else could have known about all of the things that had happened in the past or that were going on behind the scenes with the organization, and as a parent, your encouragement was, I'm sure, out of a deep love for your daughter and her family.
Hi Kevin,
Your comments to me are kind, encouraging and uplifting and I appreciate them very much. I hope my daughter, her husband and their eight children become as understanding as you. IBLP/ATI seems to be a closed chapter for them now and they've gone on to a new life where no one knew them in long skirts or Alert shirts.
Since I've never worn long skirts except to church, social functions and seminars/conferences, I haven't made many visible changes. I still don't wear red, though, or listen to rock Christian music or watch much television.
Having adopted, as well as biological, children and grandchildren remains a blessing and a challenge. I am happily remarried now, despite Bill Gothard's counsel to remain single to focus on ministering to my children and grandchildren. And I finally earned my master's degree which was on my list before I married the first time.
My current husband went to ATI family conferences with me when they were opened to all IBLP alumni. We both enjoyed hearing Bill Gothard, Roger Magnuson and David Gibbs, but we didn't go this year now that things have changed. It was my choice.
I have empathy for those involved, which is probably why I'm a registered nurse on an inpatient mental health unit in the local medical center. Everyone looks then same in their hospital scrubs and they're all in the same boat, so to speak. We don't know who is a CEO, homeless, a student, a felon, a stay-at-home wife and/or mom, a pastor or anything else unless they tell us or it is documented somewhere. They are all just human beings in need of help because somewhere along the line they lost faith in something and made serious mistakes.
Thanks again, Kevin.
"Everyone looks then same in their hospital scrubs and they're all in the same boat, so to speak. We don't know who is a CEO, homeless, a student, a felon, a stay-at-home wife and/or mom, a pastor or anything else unless they tell us or it is documented somewhere. They are all just human beings in need of help because somewhere along the line they lost faith in something and made serious mistakes."
This is a beautiful image of all our need of grace! If you don't mind I may use it as a sermon illustration.
Hi Mary Olive, I don't think there are any two people who are in the exact same stage in their journey on this website, as you aptly pointed out. It seems from your post that you may be in a really great position with your kids. Please don't let up on that relationship! I don't think you will, but let me speak on behalf of many here who would love to have an open relationship with their parents, how much joy you will give to your children by maintaining such a good, honest communication with them!
Blessings!
Dear Megan,
Thank you for your comments and encouragement to keep up the relationship with my adult children and grandchildren, even though we no longer live in the same area.
I'm an introvert and more reserved, so it's a bit of a stretch for me to regularly make contact with them when they are "so busy", but I appreciate your concern and will make an additional effort. Thanks for the counsel.
It reminds me of how I was with my own mother at the same stage of life. It also reminds me of my mistakes as a parent.
When children reach adulthood, especially daughters, it seems they remember everything their mother did or said, and for some reason the mistakes bother them even more. I hear comments made about mother-in-laws or even mothers by younger women and wonder if my daughters or daughter-in-laws are saying similar things about me. They would deny it, of course, if I asked them, because they wouldn't want to hurt my feelings. Meanwhile, since I don't remember most of what I did or said that many years ago, I'm not able to ask forgiveness for a specific offense.
Do daughters and sons, as parents themselves, understand how difficult it is to do things "right"? What was considered a standard mode of treatment "in those days" is now, and rightly so, called abusive. Not that it's an excuse, but it's what was taught at the time. Oh, some of us understood and rebelled at the abuse and male supremacy during our childhoods, but for the most part, to be accepted, we adopted the standards of the day. I don't blame anyone as they were just modeling what they learned from their parents.
Patriarchy was overtly in full bloom until 1975 and now is slowly diminishing. I believe all permanent changes take much time and thoughtful application. I do believe that the male was made bigger, stronger and more aggressive for a good reason, although I'm not sure now what it is. Sometimes they seem to lose control of the situation and things get out of hand. Whether it's on purpose, or by accident, it still wreaks havoc, doesn't it?
Thanks again, Megan.
Blessings to you, too.
Forgive me for butting in here. I hope I'm not overstepping.
"Do daughters and sons, as parents themselves, understand how difficult it is to do things "right"?"
Yes! Or at least they most likely will. From my experience, all I ever wanted was to see my parents acknowledge with the kind of humility you show here that they understood my hurts and there own shortcomings. Just good healthy relationship stuff. I did not need them to walk back through and apologize for all the specifics.
Your love and support for them is HUGE.
Not all daughters-in-law are catty. My years in ATI caused me to decide that once out of ATI, I would face life and people head-on. I would be straight up with people, and not judge or hold grudges, etc. Once my mother-in-law waltzed into my life, I had a lot of practice speaking up for myself in an honest, frank, respectful way. Because I didn't have good relationships with my parents, I hoped for and had an unrealistic expectation that my in-laws would fill the void in my life. Mothers and mothers-in-law are definitely not the same, and one cannot fill the shoes of the other. I learned the hard way, which involved some serious straight up conversations.
As a daughter, I do recall the negative things that my mother did. I also recall the good: it is common for me to brag to my husband about how well my mom taught me to do laundry, clean a toilet, plan a meal for company, and drive. My mom did a lot of things right. Yet I still say I was raised in a cult. It's a world of gray. It's not one way or the other. It's a mix of lots of different facts and dynamics, and the mix is called LIFE.
Will add my voice, saying, All I ever wanted from my parents was a genuine acknowledgement of the wrongs done, with a willingness to change. No denial, no justification... Just an honest acknowledgement. You would be surprised to learn how hard that is to come by.
Being a parent, myself, I am honestly shocked at the things my parents felt justified in doing. Things I would never dream of.
But still, an honest acknowledgement without justification, a sincere, "I'm sorry," with no "but"s, is all I ever wanted.
"So, I finally resigned myself to the fact the path back to sanity would be long, and that it led straight through God’s Word."
Yes!
Interesting post. Remember the Robert Duvall movie The Apostle? The protagonist basically annointed himself as apostle.
Years ago I was involved in a church where we started getting only sermons about "touch not the Lord's anointed" Sunday after Sunday. Something didn't seem right, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
I went on to another church after I moved out of the area. I came back on a visit, and found out that the senior pastor had been having an affair with another church employee. People were beginning to find out, and he didn't want to lose his ministry (eventually, and thankfully, he was caught).
Short story: Whenever I hear anyone in leadership going on about being the Lord's anointed, and that he/she should not be questioned, I'm gone. I've found it's too often a reason why spiritual leadership is failing or in sin, and they can't figure out what else to grab onto. Healthy people in leadership don't have to hold their authority over your head.
This article is so good and timely. I felt a weight off my shoulders and took a deep breath.
The Basic youths seminars were such a popular thing to go to. (I first went in the late '70's) The submission teachings permeated so many other ministries and churches.
If you were a woman with a question you could be accused of having a Jezebel spirit and for too long a time, one heard sermon after sermon (even on the TV and radio) about the Jezebel spirit. So many intelligent women I knew were severely wounded over this or intimidated into not saying anything even in their own homes.
Women were even silenced if their husband was committing grievous sins in their home.
In our church one of the young Gothardites accused a seasoned Christian lady (on the church mission board, who had taught Architecture at a University, with a daughter who was a Wycliff Bible translator) of not being in submission to her husband of 50 years. She replied to him "in our home we are in submission to Christ." Knowing her husband I know he would agree with her.
As a woman amongst those who went to these seminars every year I felt like I was suffocating and being imprisoned. Then the Shepherding movement came around in our church and I could see more bondage added on to the prison we were in and I left.
The years since have been trying different churches and leaving if I started to hear and see those teachings for control for like a disease they spread and spread unchecked for decades.
Thank you for this article and summing up and putting words to what I felt.
Hey Connie, my ladies Bible study just talked about the submission Scriptures last night. I don't know whose writings they were referencing, but they picked apart the Scripture, 'Let the women learn in all silence and submission, in peace...'(something like that, don't remember off the top of my head). They looked at the culture of the day where suddenly because of Jesus, women were allowed to learn at all now. Timothy even commanded that women be allowed to learn. That was a big, new thing. The 'in peace' wasn't referring to the the women, it was referring to the overall environment of the assemblies. The men would get up angry and fierce in their praying and speaking, and that environment was wrong and bad for everyone, you weren't really learning anything. Timothy's command of 'in peace' was this: 'give everyone (women too) a peaceful environment to learn in'.
the word 'silence' wasn't in reference to 'shut up and don't speak a word you despicable female!' it was a necessary command. Now that women had been given a new freedom of equality they had never experienced before, they were 'going crazy' with it, and disrupting the sermons/assemblies etc. So Timothy has a creative solution. 'Alright ladies, we can't get anything done like this, here's what we'll do. When you have a question, wait til you get home, and ask your husband, ya'll can talk about it then.' It was NOT the burdensome, demeaning instruction that the church has made it out to be for all these years!
Also, this teaching only applied to Order in the Church (because that is a necessary thing.) This teaching did not apply to women being in positions of leadership/authority in work, the marketplace, secular world, etc.
CONTEXT. It's a beautiful word. :)
My comments were not in reference to the women being silent in church scripture.
If you had been there you know what I was talking about concerning submission teachings, it permeating many churches, ministries etc and then taken to even more exteems such as "Jezebel spirit". There were plenty of offshoots of Gothard encouraging the unsuitable taking more authority than they should have had and further teaching intimidating others (in particular younger and women) to be unquestioning submissive.
I don't think you quite grasped that but I'm confident if you keep reading this website you will understand more
Oh, I did understand what you were saying, I was adding my two cents on a related issue before I forgot what I had learned in the Bible study. :)
Thanks Megan! I am now struggling to understand the true meaning of authority, submission, sanctification, etc., after growing up in ATI. Your comment was really helpful in understanding the intended meaning of this difficult passage.
Also recently heard someone else expound further: 'women, ask your husbands when you get home.' because the worshippers were segregated by gender, a woman couldn't very well ask her husband in the middle of a service, she'd have to shout across the room, which would be highly disruptive, and there was no point asking whoever she was sitting next to, because at that time remember the women were still probably very ignorant, and wouldn't have been much help to one another at that moment.
Point being, some of the commands were very necessary for practical reasons only. Not the gender shaming thing it is today. :)
totally forgot to add, the word 'silence' first appears in the KJV, which as most of us know, was a political document meant to appease a rather violent king. there is an insinuation that the word was deliberately mistranslated to silence, changing up the entire meaning/context of the verse.
No wonder Bill likes that version so much!
I realize that I'm kinda just nit-picking here, and that this is not what the article is about, but I can't help myself...
Wasn't John a post-Christ prophet?
Curious... Which John are you referring to? John the Baptist was considered pre-Christ (he "prepared the way" for Christ's ministry, and he also said, "He must increase and I must decrease") and the other John, Jesus's brother, was an apostle, not a prophet. That's my take on it.
Hi Bev, I believe that John the apostle was the son of Zebedee. John and his brother James were two of the first disciples that Jesus called. James, the disciple was martyred. James, the brother of Jesus was one of the leaders in the church at Jerusalem, and was the author of the book of James. John was not Jesus brother, as I understand it.
you might be thinking of John the Baptist : Jesus' cousin (mary and Elizabeth were sisters). Apostles james and John were brothers to each other, sons of Zebedee.
Yep--total brain blank there. Thanks!
Hi Greg, I think that Luke records Elizabeth as Mary's kinswoman a (near relative). So it is correct that John the Baptist and Jesus were cousins, but I've never heard that Mary and Elizabeth were sisters.
According to early Christian tradition, Elizabeth was Mary's mother's sister (i.e., Mary's aunt). John was therefore not a 1st cousin of Jesus--I think that would make him Jesus' 2nd cousin. There were three James who were important in the early Church. Actually, there were two James among the 12 apostles: James the brother of John, the Beloved disciple, and James, the son of Alphaeus. Then there is also James, the Just, the first leading presbyter in the Jerusalem Church, who presided over the Council in Acts 15. This is the James, who was known as "the brother of Jesus."
Just a small correction, if Elizabeth was Mary's aunt, then Mary and John the Baptist were first cousins, and Jesus and John the Baptist were first cousins once removed. If John the Baptist had had children, those children would have been Jesus' second cousins.
I was referring to John who wrote Revelations. He is not typically called a prophet, but by the most basic definition he was a prophet.
It's clear from Scripture that the New Testament Church had many prophets operating: Acts 11:27, Acts 13:1, Acts 15:32, Acts 21:10, I Cor. 12:28, 14:29, Eph. 4:11. Plus those, like the Apostle John, whose main title was not that of prophet but certainly functioned that way at times.
Some people (including Bill Gothard, I believe) teach that the operation of the gift of prophecy ended with the New Testament era, but there is really no biblical evidence for this, and in fact it seems to be contradicted by Paul says in Ephesians 4:11-13. But I've never heard of anybody who teaches that there were not even prophets in New Testament times.
More to the point of the article, it is evident that NT prophets didn't/don't carry with them the same kind of authority as in the OT. Because Holy Spirit is now disseminated throughout the Church to all believers, the entire Church has the authority and responsibility to weigh and evaluate prophetic utterances. (I Thess 5:20-21) This is exactly why putting the label of "God's Anointed" on any one man is inappropriate. We all have the Holy Spirit, so we are all anointed.
Ron Henzel
I don't know if you are reading these comments, but could I offer some (hopefully) constructive criticism?
You content is right on the mark!! As many have said, so timely.
However, I would encourage you to drop the accompanying graphic of the distorted preacher in the shadows, as well as the implication in your last paragraph that these pastors are going to hell.
Why?
Your article does not need it. What it does do is turn a well written and well balanced article into something you did not intend--a biased viewpoint against these pastors.
I read and appreciated your book, A Matter of Basic Principals. I wanted my Gothardite family and friends to read it and see why they were being misled.
The problem? All of them immediately wrote you off when they saw the cover of your book, showing a menacing looking depiction of Gothard lurking behind the red drapes. It gave them a reason (albeit a slim one) to accuse you of being biased against Gothard before they read a single word.
You writings are good. A large audience needs to read them. I don't want to provide a justification for them not to consider your writings, because of a perceived bias.
Thank you for taking the time to write this article, and I wish you success.
Thank you for your comment. Just FYI---Most of the graphics on this site are selected by the RG publishing team, not by the individual authors. Mr. Henzel was not a part of the selection process for this picture, but we appreciate your honest thoughts and will keep that in mind for future articles.
No offense, but I thought that picture looked a lot like Ryan! Haha! I thought it was funny. :)
I also think that the graphic is unnecessary and creepy. It's the kind of thing that can give visual folks like me nightmares.
Based on the title of the article, I don't think that's supposed to be a preacher in the shadows. The person in the shadows is the author, and perhaps the reader. (Is anyone here that creepy? Don't answer.)
Please read some more. After you thoroughly research this site, I think you will no longer find the pictures to be overkill.
Funny, because it was that very creepy caricature of Gothard that I couldn't get out of my mind after reading AMOBP. Like, the picture really reinforced that, if I just squinted to see him at a slightly different angle, suddenly he was not the wonderful saint I had come to venerate... He was a monster!! In that sense, I would say the graphics accomplished their intended purpose!
I also wish the graphic on the cover of the book could be changed. I want my hurtful Gothardite family to read it but I know they never will because they will "write it off" and not give it a chance.
I have always been amazed at how easily and quickly certain types of "leaders" ignore or dismiss Jesus Christ in all this "anointed" talk.
Since Jesus is the ultimate Anointed One, that is probably a pretty big clue as to how a true leader should act...doing a servant's work in washing dusty, dirty feet...becoming human, even though He is God...setting aside His rights in order to make us righteous...the first shall be last, the last shall be first...sevant of all...
Jesus knows who he is. He doesn't need to prove it to himself, or to anyone else. If Jesus has truly placed you in a position of (earthly) leadership (in any form), he has already given you the perfect example to follow...himself.
"If Jesus has truly placed you in a position of (earthly) leadership (in any form), he has already given you the perfect example to follow...himself."
There is a book my husband loves on Leadership called "Servant Leadership". And it is exactly what you are talking about. As a businessman, he believes in serving the needs of his employees to help them better serve customer in our community. As a Servant Leader Jesus is his example, humility is his method of action. Success is seen in fulfilling the greatest amount of need without creating new frustrations for others.
@RG...and I forgot to say, thank you for republishing this excellent article!
Hi Shane,
The typo jumped out to me when you quoted my paragraph beginning " Everyone looks.." It should read "the same (not then same) in their hospital scrubs and they're all in the same boat, so to speak." It's just an observation and you're welcome to use it. Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say.
If you are the same Shane who commented on my subsequent post to Megan, then I want to say I appreciate the clarification about what you want from your parents. Perhaps pride and position prevent them from acknowledging their past shortcomings. You know, the "Father Knows Best" mentality. I believe it was part of the patriarchal indoctrination.
Pride and position are what keep me from being completely public and open about my beliefs and experiences regarding ATI and various abuse. My openness would jeopardize my relatives' livelihood. Because they have not expressed any deviation from BG's teachings, nor expressed any regrets, I cannot nurture a relationship with them, nor threaten their current social circles and professional lives. For what it's worth.
Thanks, Brumby, for sharing your position about your relatives and why you aren't able to "nurture a relationship with them". I don't know your situation, but it sounds like you're in a difficult place. I'd like to pass on Megan's advice to me to keep trying to reach an understanding with them with your love and kindness. It's sure not easy when someone doesn't understand or believe what you're saying, I know.
Yes, all believers are anointed, and in the early Church this was both physical (water baptism and the laying on of an Apostle's hands symbolized the new birth in dying and rising with Christ and reception of the Holy Spirit respectively). When the Church grew in size to the point that the laying on of an Apostle's or bishop's hands was impractical, following OT precedent, in the Eastern Church bishops blessed anointing oil that was distributed to be used by the local presbyters in this initiatory rite for receiving new members symbolizing their reception of the Holy Spirit under the bishop's authority instead. Still, to this day in the Eastern Orthodox Church, anointing is both physical and spiritual, being part and parcel of the initiatory rites used for reception of new members into the Church.
Ordination to the presbytery/priesthood in the Orthodox Church still requires the actual presence of the bishop who lays his right hand and stole on the candidate's head for the gift of the Holy Spirit to bestow the spiritual gift for presiding over the local congregation. This is not understood as a license to lord it over the flock, however! Practically on the ground historically in and in the present day, those ordained to the priesthood and bishopric are probably the most-severely criticized members of the Body. In the early Church, during the age of the martyrs as leaders of the flock they were the first to be arrested and martyred for their confession of Christ. Therefore, understandably individuals were typically quite reluctant to accept the call to be a presbyter or bishop in the early Church (never mind seek the office!) and this is reflected in a point early in the rite where two deacons are required to grab the candidate by the arms and "escort" him bodily up to the Altar for his ordination! This is not to say that authority was never abused--even in the period of the NT, there were "impostors" and deceivers claiming apostleship and insinuating themselves into local congregations, and of course after the legalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the presbytery of the Christian Church was further compromised by the ordination of individuals for worldly rather than spiritual reasons.
There is a saying attributed to one of the most famous preachers and bishop (also Saint) of the 4th century, St. John Chrysostem, that that the road to hell was paved with the skulls of (worldly, hypocritical) bishops! Perhaps if modern Christians were more deeply aware of the history of the Church and the actual attitudes and behaviors of those deemed to be exemplary Christians in the Church, they would not be so easily taken in by contemporary heresies about the nature of biblical authority like that of Gothard and other groups like the one Mr. Henzel was trapped in.
What interesting context, Karen, thanks! It is enlightening to realize that the 'greater condemnation' of James 3:1 would have included being the first to be arrested and/or martyred.
Contrast that with the attempts by contemporary leaders to be the LAST person to be held accountable, even when they are clearly at fault.
Great comment, Karen. Church history and education in general is so vital. We must learn to think for ourselves.
Greetings Mr. Henzel! What about the NT verses that say "obey them that have the rule over you"? (I Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7,17,24) Christian leaders may not always claim to be "anointed" but they still will demand authority over your life based on Hebrews 13:7. Then they add all those horrible things that will happen to you and your family if you do not submit, saying "God gives the Pastor a sixth sense" that you don't have. Or they can also throw in comments like "if they are even saved at all", referring to those that dare to disagree with or "disobey" their teachings... and all of it backed up with Bible verses! And they teach that "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved". (Acts 2:47) So God put you in your church and the only "right" way to leave is to die or be called to into the ministry. I really want to obey God, to be so deeply in love with Him for all He has done for me; I long to trust Him so completely with my whole life, to rest contentedly in his arms of love and grace. If the Pastor has Scriptural grounds for wielding authority in the lives of his church members, then so be it! I will follow God's teachings. But what are the Scriptural limitations on the authority of the Pastor?
Hi Thais,
In thinking about pastoral authority, it helps me to remember that God never gives anyone the authority to sin. If a pastor is sinning in behavior toward a member of their flock, they are acting completely on their own and cannot claim God's authority as in the verses you referenced.
A pastor's behavior is given boundaries, particularly in Titus 1 and I Timothy 3. If they are acting outside of those boundaries--if they are, for example, being angry or unjust or not maintaining a good testimony before others--they are sinning and therefore acting without God's authority, and have no authority over you.
I doubt that answers your question completely, but I hope it helps some, or at least starts some new thoughts!
This link also has a good summary of scriptures that should provide a balance to the discussion of pastoral authority:
http://ericpazdziora.com/antidotes-to-spiritual-abuse/
Thais...
Run. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, as the saying goes.
Run from these pastors.
I agree with P.L. and Hannah, Thais. If you are being told such things at your church, you are in an extremely dangerous place spiritually. You have wolves, not true sheep of the Master, for "pastors." Flee to a place where Christ (not the pastor) is front and center. Start listening to what the Holy Spirit is directing you in the depths of your heart. In places where Scripture is being manipulated and twisted to serve purposes of control before being fed to your mind, the feelings and intuitions coming from your gut will be a better indicator of what the Spirit is trying to tell you than the tapes playing in your head.
Wow! Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that there is no need to give reference or obey those that God put in your life as your authority because there is no such thing as being anointed to lead?
And there's nothing in NT that talks about this? Are we reading the same Bible? What about Hebrew 13:17? Leaders are leaders because God entrusted some people about whom they will be responsible to God. They cannot do this just by the same anointing that God gave to all believers they day we got saved. If that's the case, we'll all leaders specifically responsible to others' life.
And what do you mean there's no real prophet for 2000 years? How do you define real prophet? So what about the 5 offices of church ministry in Eph 4:11? One of them is prophet.
I'm sorry brother, but there's so many scriptural error in this article.
I agree that some leaders got astray. They may fall morally or doctrinally. They may deeply disappoint us. But there are only 2 ways to deal with falling leaders: privately talk to them and pray for them OR leave them and pray for them. Any choice must be done prayerfully and by the strong conviction by the Holy Spirit.
Badmouthing, humiliating, or nullifying their position is an act of rebellion which never comes from the character of God.
Even God Himself didn't tell the Israelites to leave Egypt before Pharaoh permitted them. Moses was sent to ask for Pharaoh's permission, and God showed that He is able to change the heart of our leaders, no matter how evil they are, if we maintain the right attitude.
You ask good questions, but I am convinced that we are not called to obey "leaders" who practice evil continually. If leaving is an option, then pressing the truth to save the church from the false leader must also be an option. Paul did this repeatedly. The article is about the dangers of blind obedience to evil leaders who abuse authority.
If there are prophets, are there apostles? Same list in Eph. 4.
That same chapter tells us that the "leaders" ("gifts in my bible") are called to train us for works of ministry, so yes, we all grow into leadership responsibilities, we are a kingdom of priests, not to remain children. But our leaders are not to lord it over us as the gentiles do. So this authority thing must be out of whack when leaders are lording, demanding obedience. Paul never told people to obey him, he gave them reasons to imitate him, but never demanded obedience.
"Tell it to the church" (Jesus) does not sound like leave or keep it quiet. Nor does I Tim 5:20 "But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning."
When Pharaoh changed his mind and tried to stop them, they refused to obey him. This was a matter between God and Pharaoh, not between Pharaoh and the Israelites. God delivered them, not Pharaoh. And Moses publicly confronted Pharaoh repeatedly and openly, not privately, telling him what to do -- "let my people go" -- not simply appealing for reconsideration of harsh working conditions. No one gave Moses permission to leave the first time (when he fled) and he was not condemned for his murderous disobedience.
Please reconsider your passivity toward evil leadership. The Word is to rebuke and correct, and when a leader needs correction and is injuring people, we should not be silent. How can they hear without a preacher? We should pray for him, but not defend such a one.
Who is in authority over your life?
The government. That's all I find, as an adult. You are accountable to the government, and God. You may be accountable to an employer in a limited on-the-job capacity, if you choose to work for someone else.
That's all I come up with.
Interesting that this article doesn't even mention Bill Gothard or IBLP. Let alone attempt to tie this teaching to him. He doesn't teach this level of authority. I have pictures from the basic seminar, the main IBLP course, on how to confront an authority. He does teach that you should first make an appeal to that authority before going to someone else, based on the biblical model. Just common courtesy too.
When you take away these false accusations to IBLP's teaching, and the unsupportable and very strange accusations against Gothard himself by biased witnesses with 0 evidence, and the mishandling of the problem with his brother, the remaining differences are no more than that of the Baptists and the Pentecostals. We can discuss the differences but avoid using the Cult word for true such cases. RG doesn't have a leg to stand on to make such an accusation.
Good point, but then logic begs the questions....where in the world did all those who followed BG's teachings to the nth degree get this crazy notion? And if it did come from outside his teachings, why did his followers even allow it in their lives? And why did BG himself not question it or address it, since it is not one of his teachings?
You need to first substantiate the point that this was prominent with those following IBLP. There are a ton of false accusations being tossed around that just reference each other.
This misrepresentation or allusion common on RG, whether stated or not, is the whole idea that people who are in ATI have to do everything Gothard says. Or that we see him as more than just a good teacher. we take what we want and leave the rest. As with anyone or anything some may go too far in idolizing him due to their own weaknesses. And if you work there then sure you’d have to abide by some rules like anywhere. But most people just listen to his teaching as any other teacher.
For every person firing arrows there’s probably 1000 or 10000 that say the IBLP teaching has helped them in their Christian walk, they just don’t spend time on this site.
I put some stuff on my Facebook site that has helped me. Recovering Grace and FREEDOM.
If all the accusations are false, why did Gothard resign? If you were wise to accept some of the teaching a reject other parts, why do you object to people publicly criticizing the bad teaching? Gothard may have covered his teachings on authority with many exceptions and qualifications, but he continually refuses to respond to thoughtful critique of his teaching: circumcision is a moral duty of Christians, generational sins, umbrella of authority, delaying marriage.
From my observations after reading a lot of the postings, this site does not specialize in false accusations (please identify those you believe are false) but in an honest critique of the man's ministry, teaching and treatment of people. It also encourages healing for those injured by the teaching or the application in their homes.
Your categorical rejection of it all as false amounts to slander against many sincere, careful, thoughtful, or verifiably damaged persons who are speaking truth in love.
I am like you. I had my family in ATI. I rejected some of the teaching, but I am coming to accept that I should not have exposed my children to any of it. It is the "principles" and "steps" that are false. And as other parents have asked themselves: what if one of those "inappropriately touched" girls was your daughter, entrusted to IBLP for apprenticing to the master?
If there were 1000 gaining for every one damaged, there would be 200,0000 people in ATI right now. But numbers are dwindling. It is my view that the man built and carefully nurtured a personality cult that was always doomed to fail as his life ebbed away. No one trained or qualified to take his place, no successful delegation of any program or responsibility, ever. Control freak. Dying program. And in the man's philosophy there are reasons for this ending.
Please think through what you have posted above in light of what you know to be true.
Oh, come on! Were you in the ATI (homeschool) program? Of course this was taught! It almost doesn't even matter what was in the Basic, because this was only the first tier of indoctrination. Gothard plainly said as much, in the Advanced Seminar, which was the second tier. The ATI program was the third tier. You sure as heck got a level of indoctrination, there, that surpassed the first two tiers. So no, you can't go only on the Basic seminar textbook. That's Gothard Lite.
Only a cult leader is able to stay in power and control over decades with mountains of evidence against him of false teaching, sexual harassment, inappropriate pursuit of and actions with underage girls, etc. So many hurt in so many different ways. But the cult starts by teaching/preaching a false legalistic gospel that one's works (as defined by BG) are how we curry favor with the Lord. Faith alone in Christ alone, and His gift of grace to sinners is NOT the doctrine of BG.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with Him and
seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2.4-6
God is love...
Mj, you stated: "RG doesn't have a leg to stand on to make such an accusation." RG has more than a leg to stand on, as RG is standing on the Word of God for the clear delineation of BG's false teaching.
It’s interesting to see people dodge the real issue. The issue is simple: before listing this teaching as a false teaching of IBLP and discounting it, you have to first substantiate that IBLP taught it. And since he taught in several places how to confront an authority when needed it should be OBVIOUS he didn’t believe teachers should not be spoken against or contested, as this article correctly agrees with. This RG article used the Word of God okay but did not tie IBLP to the teaching they refuted. It is clearly a false accusation. This is only my 2nd look into a RG accusation against IBLP teaching and both have shown to be false by logic. No one has directly addressed the actual issue in either one, but instead have brought up a plethora of other false accusations. As God gives the grace I’ll continue to work thru the list of accusations.
I saw only 3 points made after my comment that were NOT further accusations and I’ll try to hit them quickly:
Why did Gothard resign? Not sure, this is about IBLP being called a cult, not the man Gothard. He can fail as anyone can but it doesn’t make IBLP a cult. Although I don’t think he failed as far as he’s being accused (with 0.00 evidence from accusers organized by a biased organization by the way). He was careless on several issues, as he’s confessed it. On a plane I sat behind a guy who worked for Billy Graham and I was shocked at how little attention he paid to the lady next to him (to the point of being rude) who was talking to him, even about spiritual things. Later I asked him and he said he discerned she was a little inebriated. Then he told me the story of another prominent Christian leader who just gave a lady his business card and how she made all kinds of trouble over it. Christian ministers, especially prominent ones, just have to be so so careful.
If I reject some of his teaching why do I object to the accusations? The things I differ with IBLP on are trivial doctrinal differences no greater than those I differ with on the Baptists and Pentecostals, etc. I object to IBLP being called a cult because I haven’t seen anything SUBSTANTIATED that warrants that term.
200,000 people in ATI? I said there were that many helped, not that many in ATI. I run into these people all over the place, for example in the middle of Mexico as missionaries. They just took the benefit and went on; as I’ve said before somewhere, most people just take IBLP as another teaching source. For whatever reasons they didn’t use the ATI curriculum (many have grown kids). Besides, it’s not pushed real hard. We went thru the basic seminar twice and never paid any attention. I think I saw later there was a small add in the booklet. We had to inquire about what it was when we went to a church with other IBLP families that had children.
Mj: I don't know about everyone else here, but my primary grief is with the ATI program, not IBLP. I feel ATI is a cult because it has characteristics of cults, such as clothing/uniform requirements, you have to pay for membership and pay for materials, and pay for updated materials. ATI requires parents and students to make numerous verbal and written lifestyle commitments, with a show of hand, verbal acknowledgement, or signature on various documents (many of which must be submitted to ATI in the cases of students seeking a "diploma").
The educational materials provided in exchange for the price paid do not reflect a bargain: as of the early 2000's, the materials were still printed in grey scale with some random blue markings. Other than the Pre-K materials, the 1st through 12th grade materials are essentially all presented on the same level, posing a difficulty for parents to translate to their various aged/able children. In fact, the material is to be recycled every 6 years and represented to your children (there's only 6 years worth of education...). To provide a well-rounded education to an ATI student, parents must use additional resources from other companies (i.e. "A Beka", for example, is a common go-to for ATI parents). The institution of ATI just reeks of worthlessness to me. I can't see a viable reason why any parents would want to use ATI to homeschool their children when so many other fabulous homeschooling resources are available elsewhere: there must be another reason. There are even other Christian programs for homeschooling...why ATI???
I knew something was up at 10 years old at my first Children's Institute at the ATI "conference" in Knoxville. In what universe, do American parents leave a 10 year old girl at a university in a big city on an enormous cement ramp with 2 teenage boys and then walk away from her while she stays "inside the tape" and waits for a bus to take her to yet another undisclosed location????? Not to mention, everyone around me and including myself, were all wearing the same outfits and I somehow became adorned with a sash, like all the other juvenile members of this new group. At the end of the week, I was appreciated for being "like an elephant", since elephants are obedient. :) That was a new one.
Authors, teachers, self-appointed life coaches, etc, can write all the nutty books they want all day long. At the end of the day, people can buy and read what they want. I see IBLP in this category. There is no reason why BG can't write about all his notions and sell his thoughts to anyone who is interested. However, ATI is a whole different ballgame.
ATI is not IBLP: ATI is a membership based, money based, behavior based, and belief based program, driven by a fabricating narcissistic individual (until recently...). It's really just time that a spade is called a spade, and when candidates for ATI Google it to check its reviews before becoming a member, this page pops up and they can make a better choice for their family by being more informed and proceeding with caution.
I'll go ahead and take a pre-emptive strike: I can't "substantiate" my statements here regarding the materials of ATI - you know why? Because I don't have access to them anymore. I would never pretend to be interested in the ATI materials still in my parents' home, and they're not supposed to give them away anyways. You're supposed to BUY them. And you can only get them if you're a MEMBER of ATI by which you earn the privilege of BUYING things from ATI. I would have to literally join ATI, or coerce a legitimate ATI family to let me look at their materials to gain access.
I'm sharing my experience, my opinion, and my beliefs here. Writing about ideas, feelings, and experiences, isn't all about "substantiation." Believe things you read or don't: that's the reader's freedom. I just don't agree that it's fair to make people feel like they can't share or write because they're not "substantiating" enough. Professional and "substantiative" (new word! Yay!) writing has its place, but shouldn't be used as a threat in the cafeteria, if you catch my drift.
I'll check out your link you provided.
Mj, you've been posting similar comments on both the facebook page and now here.
It is your contention that IBLP did not teach an extreme view of authority and submission because the "How to make an appeal" booklet adequately addressed the subject of how to respond to wrong demands of those in authority, is that correct?
Further, you believe that RG is attacking a straw man by responding to IBLP's teachings about authority without including that booklet in their articles.
Is that a fair statement?
In case I get censored from this site. I put my Facebook address where you can continue to see my progress in going thru the accusations.
https://www.facebook.com/Gracenfreedom
"It’s interesting to see people dodge the real issue. "
What is the real issue? (see my last paragraph) I am sure that differs with the person affected by BG teachings. The many stories on this site deal with those issues.
In my case, the story was called "Designed to be a Finger"…which I invite you to read.
For any of us who were affected by Gothard (whether posititive or negative) it started out with his Basic Seminar with the intro to the seven basic principles, which he describes as Biblical and non-optional. That means they cannot be changed. But perhaps I made a mistake in my thinking on how I put those principles into play. Let’s look at the first one for example and apply it to my life.
"DESIGN---Understanding the specific purposes for which God created each person, object, and relationship in my life and living in harmony with them. Thanking God for my design brings Self-Acceptance".
Gothard then goes on to teach EXACTLY in detail the how a female is to live harmoniously with God’s design...A specific kind of dress (NO jeans), hair styles (soft curls), when to have sex, large families (i.e. no birth control), how to keep house, pets, if any, should be given very little attention so they do not get to be an idol, no college, no outside job. Everything based on uber-feminity which in this day and age looks very medieval and stifling.
So taking BG's basics as non-optional and comparing them to my life, EVERYTHING about me, my personality, likes and dislikes was SIN and out of sync with God's design because I did not wear dresses, keep a neat house, I wear jeans and ride horses, have several cats which I love immensely, went to college for a education degree and held a job outside the home teaching in public school. Try living under that weight, thinking your whole life was SIN because it did not line up with what this man of God said was “God’s best” “God's ‘ non-optional principles”. It was what our church taught also.
It took a supernatural intervention with and from God to find out what He did and did not want for my life (before I totally went crazy) to show me that God’s plan for my life was not like anyone else’s plan. Horses, cats, jeans, etc are all part of my life.
Unfortunately, there are some who grew up immersed in Gothard teaching that the only way for them to escape into sanity was to become atheists. They were constant pressure to be a Gothard clone (i.e. Duggars) while their inner most needs were neglected. Jesus was presented as a harsh task master with precept upon precept heaped on them that crushed their souls.
To me, what is non-optional is what God says in the Bible about Himself and His son Jesus and sin and redemption. And Jesus left only 2 non-optional rules for us to follow before He went back to heaven--- Love God and love your neighbor. Too bad it took me so long to find that out.
But the real issue comes to what is Gothard’s definition of grace, the basis of which the whole purpose of the Bible is based on? If that does not line up with the word of God, then the rest of what BG teaches is suspect.
The issue is simple: before listing this teaching in this article as a false teaching of IBLP and discounting it, you have to first substantiate that IBLP taught it. It's clear IBLP didn't teach it because there's evidence in their teaching that they taught the opposite.
Just like I said before. No one is directly showing how IBLP taught this teaching of the article. Just as before everybody is throwing all kinds of new accusations out. Accusations upon accusations referencing other accusations. Lets just deal with this one issue. It will test your integrity on how you are going to respond to the other issues.
Referring quickly to yet another series of accusations: You obviously took the term non optional out of context and way too far. Perhaps you were trying to fit into a church group. But again you need to substantiate that IBLP put such pressure on you to do those things. They may have taught that you should. But its a one time seminar. You can take it or leave it. That kind of peer pressure only comes from a entity that you frequent often and develop friendships. If you didn't like them you should have found another church. If you work there this would be the case and then sure you'd have to follow the dress code and beliefs of the ministry. If you didn't you should find another job. Common sense. You also need to substantiate your other more serious accusations.
But again you should address this issue in this article first. If you admitted for a second that this article may not apply and should not be here you'd have more credibility. Or simply prove IBLP or ATI taught it.
MJ, just out of curiosity, what is the level of your personal experience with ATI/IBLP? I ask that honestly, because it doesn't sound like you've been in the inner circle. Your arguments and fascination with this subject sounds like you're someone who attended the seminars on the fringe and genuinely got a lot out of them, without moving further inward into the heart and soul of the program. If so, I'm not condemning your experience, but cautioning you that there's more to this than meets the eye of the casual observer.
Mj: My integrity will be tested? Ok. Shoot. I'm ready.
You do realize that Gothard taught some contradictory things? So, just because you find a teaching which seems to say the opposite, it doesn't mean he didn't teach it. Prime example would be the contradicting statements: "Grace is God's unmerited favor and is a free gift," and, "Grace is the desire and power to do God's will, and we receive more grace by humbling ourselves." Well, which is it, Bill? You can't have it both ways.
In any case, the survivors of the ATI program can tell you what was "really meant" by these words, and how it played out in actual practice. Yes, Gothard "loaded the language" so that casual Basic seminar attendees would hear one thing, but dedicated followers would hear and do something else, entirely. He would spend extended amount of time defining and redefining terms, making a given word say whatever he wanted it to. The higher tiers of indoctrination knew how to read the "secret code". A casual seminar attendee, would not.
Welcome to RG. Glad to have someone, like yourself , who is so thoughtful and careful giving much needed pushback. Thanks for the "0.00 evidence" stat. Well done. I've also seen "0" and "0.0" given elsewhere.... your stat is so much more complete and convincing.
Best of luck getting in max cardio while you grind your axe. Unless you are horribly rude, you are not likely to get censored or banned here. This is not the IBLP website, and the mods are not into groupthink, so stick around and give us more amazing , careful, commentary.
@mj: above is helpfully (?) sent your way..
More to the point: testimony is evidence and there is a lot more than 0 evidence on RG. Without testimony, there is no evidence that Jesus rose from the grave. Proof is evidence that has been tested and found credible. In court, the legally necessary proof may vary according to the particular law being applied: either "more probable than not" or "clear and convincing" or "beyond a reasonable doubt". We make decisions every day on differing standards of proof (I may follow directions to the bank of one unverified witness, but I won't put my money in that bank without clear and convincing proof that it is insured and well-regulated.) Our generation's loss of objectivity and reliance on subjective feelings has destroyed the function of these terms. "You can't prove that" is an escape from anything I don't want to believe. "He said she said" is a refusal to scrutinize the testimony of him and her. We should be careful how we use "evidence" and "proof".
Did you not state: "When you take away these false accusations to IBLP's teaching, and the unsupportable and very strange accusations against Gothard himself by biased witnesses with 0 evidence, and the mishandling of the problem with his brother, the remaining differences are no more than that of the Baptists and the Pentecostals"? Thus, we have responded to your categorical denunciation of accusations rather than your dismissal of the article itself.
I intended my 200,000 comment to reflect that IF the ratio of positive to negatives is as you say, then ATI (and the IBLP seminars) should be bigger today than 10 years ago by word of mouth alone. That is before you consider how many of us have raised large families of Christ-followers who would eagerly join ATI and take their spouses to IBLP seminars if the benefits were so felt.
Some may believe that the differences between Pentecostals and Baptists are profound and that the differences of both with Orthodox and Calvinists are profound. I am one of these, having exposure to the good and bad of all four of these.
Obviously, you are not being filtered out, so would you please defend the "principles" that you feel are so unfairly attacked? There are articles on authority here: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/08/fundamentalists-denounce-gothards-chain-of-command-1974/
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/07/behind-every-good-man/
Your substantive responses to those would be beneficial to all of us.
My understanding is that Gothard taught a "proper appeal" but demanded obedience ot the authority when the appeal is rejected. Can you share with me from the seminar materials where Gothard taught an adult Christian should follow their Scripturally formed understanding rather than obey a husband or parent on a point that Scripture does not address directly?
Do you see any difference between biblical (mutual) submission and obedience to authority as trivial? This is my non-trivial concern about the teaching. Gothard has helpd to fuel a patriarchy movement in conservative circles that is threatening to destroy Christ's teaching on covenant marriage, and the redemption He accomplished, pointing us to a co-regency of man and wife in Genesis 1 and 2, as opposed to the "rule" of the husband under the curse of Genesis 3. Jesus broke the curse. Christians have a different view of women than Muslims have. Christ tells me that my wife is my sister and partner, not my subordinate. My headship should nurture and demonstrate unity, not control. If the unbeliever departs, let him depart, she is not in bondage to such a one. For freedom Christ has set us free, do not submit again to a yoke of bondage. How does Gothard's instruction on authority differ from bondage?
Finally, do you see the imposition of ceremonial OT law as trivial? The apostles addressed that repeatedly because it was a significant problem in the First Century church. The first Council was called to address that problem.
Those who now oppose Gothard's ministry do not see these differences a trivial. If you agree with him, please explain your reasoning rather than merely your disfavor of us. I want to know the truth. The truth will set me free.
Gothard resigned because of the truth of some 'very strange accusations against Gothard himself by biased witnesses' and many, if not all, of what you earlier referenced as a 'ton of false accusations'. His (partial) admission in his recent letter constitutes proof you must not ignore. (BTW, harassment victims are frequently biased by victimhood. Crime victims are biased, that is why they can't be judge or jury, but they can be very credible witnesses: they were there and saw and experienced the violation.) I believe we all want unbiased review of all accusations, but IBLP chose a biased investigator, a long time legal insider who speaks to ATI conferences and likely receives honorarium for doing so. There are available, unassociated, qualified, Christian, credible people willing to investigate the conduct charges against Gothard.
That is correct no one is directly showing how IBLP taught this teaching of the article. Just as before everybody is throwing all kinds of new accusations out. Accusations upon accusations referencing other accusations. I challenge you to just deal with this one issue. It will test your integrity on how you are going to respond to the other issues.
But for now... on to you other issues: His primary teaching on authority is on parents, husbands, and employers. And all of these are reinstated in the NT. It was not abolished at the cross. Peter and Paul both mention a wife’s submission to her husband. The husband doesn’t take advantage of it but lovingly leads the family. And it is limited; the word is submit, not obey. The IBLP teaching is all about encouraging those under authority in submitting to it, to a limit. I have pictures on my Facebook site of IBLP teaching on resisting an authority.
"imposition of ceremonial OT law"? Nope they didn't do that. They taught that certain of the OT laws had health benefits.
Do you see the baptist and Pentecostals calling each other a cult? They have significant differences but don't use the cult word.
To the point: many of us took the authority teaching to imply, if it was not explicit ("God ordained authority") that authority had the status of the Lord's annointed as described in the article. I do know that Gothard taught favorably about David's deference to Saul, when Saul was trying to kill him. I believe it was a direct application of the Scripture's presentation of "God's anointed" to the parent child authority "chain" or "umbrella" (your choice, its still bondage). Ironically, David did make godly appeals, but he also ran and stayed in hiding rather than obey Saul (who was king and father-in-law), but Gothard emphasized the submission not the rebellion.
"Obey" in my English translations is used for servants and children, never for wives. Many if not most Gothard followers took his teaching to place the wife UNDER the AUTHORITY (power, control) of the husband, bound to obey him and/or the church if an appeal is rejected. I am glad you did not take it that way. But, Jesus (pointing to the full equality and mutuality in Genesis 2) and Paul (I Cor. 7) presented a more equal relationship. Wives' submission was either a subset of mutual submission (Eph. 5) or evangelistic to win the soul of the unbelieving husband, not an eternal principle for a bountiful communion of persons. Gothard may have touched on these contexts of "submission", but the unbiblical umbrella (and consequential sins) taught lordship of the husband, just as the governor lords it over the citizens. (I will spare you more on parental authority over adult children. NOT. IN. THE. BIBLE.)
I see this article as appropriate to the purpose of correcting false teaching, whether or not it was Gothard's particular teaching. Many here are concerned about more than Gothard. I do think the "lord's anointed" is relied on by many impacted by Gothard and many Gothard pastors and fathers. (King of the house?)
If you are looking for line by line refutations of Gothard's materials please check these: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/10/a-call-for-discernment/
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/07/basicseminarletter/
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/08/circumcision-blue-jeans-cabbage-patch-kids-the-dangers-of-jesus-theology/
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/03/a-matter-of-basic-principles-a-review/
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/05/four-pre-digital-reviews-of-gothards-theology/
Keep seeking. I for one will try to be more patient with your broad dismissals, and more to the point with reference to your specific points.
Mj, for the probably dozens of times you will use the word 'accusations' or any of it's derivatives, please be aware that whether you intend this or not, you are accusing a whole bunch of people of some rather ugly things, (lying/false accusations etc..). Please take that into consideration as you continue to discuss these various topics.
MJ,
You wrote:
'"imposition of ceremonial OT law"? Nope they didn't do that. They taught that certain of the OT laws had health benefits.'
This is incorrect. In his official booklet on the subject of circumcision, Gothard did not limit his arguments for "Christian circumcision" to health benefits. Instead, he was very clear that this was to be classified—as he often put it—as one of those "non-optional principles" when his literature stated:
"Because this is one subject which is so strongly commanded and reinforced in Scripture, there is no question what the decision of Christian parents should be on the matter.
"It is important to note that circumcision was established before the Law was given. Circumcision goes back to the faith of Abraham. Thus, those who would seek to dismiss circumcision with the Law, have no Scriptural basis to do so."
[How To Make A Wise Decision on Circumcision, (Oakbrook, IL, USA: Medical Training Institute of America, revised 1992), 5.]
Gothard was very strong on his view that the "Old Testament law—as interpreted by Jesus' command to love God and neighbor—compels us to practice circumcision," (ibid.). He clearly and without apology imposed Old Testament ceremonial law on Christians today.
Yikes! And, all that despite the apostolic ruling of the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15! BG apparently, thinks he knows better than the Apostles and presbyters in the NT Church who were eyewitnesses to Jesus and His teaching. That's scary.
IBLP does teach on an authority structure with the husband as head of the house. We should all submit to one another (IBLP calls it “yielding rights” and it’s a great teaching in line with “turn the other cheek”. It explains it real well and all the benefits of yielding rights like that.) But there is a special order that Paul sets up.
eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…
And yes there is also some teaching of authorities being God’s agents. But this article wasn’t referring to authority in general like this. It was talking about the specific extreme cult-like teaching of having NO recourse against an “anointed one”. And IBLP simply does not teach that, as obvious by their prominent 7 steps to resisting an authority when they are wrong. In my seminar book it’s near the beginning of the book in the basic seminar, the main seminar. Did you see my pictures on my facebook page?
It sounds like you’re starting to concede that this article doesn’t apply to IBLP. But I don’t agree this is article addresses false teaching in general. RG’s mission is clearly dedicated soley to countering IBLP teaching, no other. And this article is included in the list of other articles that refute IBLP’s teaching. It should have a disclaimer if that is its intent. Otherwise it misleads.
Another reference to other accusations!! Aaarrgg!! Just kidding… But seriously you’re the first to even attempt to directly address the issue. So thank you for discussing with me because most just throw out lots of accusations and references to other accusations. It’s like circular reasoning. That’s why I wanted to zero in on one issue and try to get to resolution. Then I can move on to the next. When you throw out so many at one time it’s hard to discuss any logic.
So if you want to clarify further on IBLP’s relation to this article I’d still be glad to hear it.
Mj, what do you make of Larne Gabriel and what Bill told him when he said he would seek the Lord about whether to be a pilot for IBLP? If I were doubting that Bill lived what the article above spells out, Bill's response to Larne would convince me of the truth of the article and how it applies to IBLP.
In case you hadn't read that part of the exchanges, Bill basically told Larne that Larne didn't need to hear from God -- since Bill was the authority, Bill could hear from God for Larne, and Larne would have to be obedient to what God was telling Bill, because Bill was the authority.
The IBLP teaching on authority makes the authority the anointed one who hears from God for those under him, and very clearly, against Scripture, stunts the direct relationship to God of those under authority. It is astonishing to me that you don't see the connection of the above article to Bill Gothard's teaching, and his behavior both.
MJ,
You wrote:
"...IBLP simply does not teach that [i.e., having NO recourse against an 'anointed one'] as obvious by their prominent 7 steps to resisting an authority when they are wrong."
First: I have never heard of any "7 steps to resisting an authority when they are wrong" by IBLP or Bill Gothard. Can you provide a bibliographic reference or URL? Has some new publication come out with the title you've cited? I do have, however, a copy of How To Make an Appeal, which contains "Seven Basic Requirements for Making An Effective Appeal." There is no small difference between your title and the one I possess. Your title suggests that Bill Gothard admits that (a) there are times when it is appropriate to "resist" an authority, and (b) an authority may actually be "wrong." I see no such admissions in my printed copy. It seems from what I have that Gothard cannot pull himself to use the words "resist" and "wrong" with respect to authority figures.
Second: In How To Make an Appeal, not only is there no mention of resistance when the authority is wrong, but if your appeal is rejected, the only advice Gothard gives is to respond graciously and to follow Daniel's example by getting cast into the Lion's Den for following his convictions. Even if Daniel's story is supposed to teach us about authority (which I think is an extremely erroneous interpretation—see what I write in my "Third" point), why are there no applications offered for situations in which we have further recourse, such as in some church denominations, such as my own, where an appeal can be made to a "church court?" How do you take this illustration from the life of Daniel, which pertains to life under an oppressive ruler, and apply it in the family, on the job, or in the church? Gothard only leaves us with getting thrown to the lions. It seems to me that allowing one's self to even figuratively get "thrown to the lions" in a church situation is utterly unbiblical and should be further resisted. Gothard can offer no help here, because he assumes that the "line of authority" in the church parallels and functions similarly to the lines of authority in the world, which the Bible flatly contradicts (Lk 22:25-26).
Third: Gothard's "Seven Basic Requirements for Making An Effective Appeal" are onerous and unbiblical. He provides no Scriptural support for these steps that we supposedly must take, only examples that he interprets based on his own unproven assumptions. And yet, according to him, before we can even make an appeal we must first make sure that we (1) are in "right standing," (2) have the right motives, (3) are appealing at the appropriate time, (4) are giving accurate information, (5) have the right attitudes (which is redundant of point 2), (6) are using the appropriate words, and (7) are displaying the right response if our appeal is rejected. Nowhere does Scripture command these things as prerequisites for making an appeal. If someone were trying to make it as arduous and intimidating as possible to even decide whether or not to make an appeal, they would be hard pressed to do a better job than Gothard has done here. Furthermore, his very first requirement—to in "right standing"—is contradicted in the story of Daniel that he presents in his seventh requirement. Did Bill Gothard even read Daniel 6 before using Daniel as an example of making an appeal? Not only was Daniel was already not in "right standing" with the king, because he violated the law as soon as he knew that it had been signed by the king (Dan. 6:10), but nowhere do we read that he appealed to the king. He did not appeal to the king before the law was enacted, nor did he appeal to the king afterward. In fact, Daniel did not say anything to the king until after the angel rescued him (Dan. 6:21-22).
Bill Gothard's house of non-optional principles is built on sand. This is because it ignores the plain teaching of Scripture. When the storms of life come, those who dwell exclusively in it will be swept away.
That "appeal" booklet is real winner for sure. Two other complaints with it: 1) lack of discussion of how to recognize abuse of authority, and 2) its use of Balaam's donkey as the example of how to make an appeal. In reality, the story is an over-the-top irony in which Balaam is shown up by his dumb beast. Are we supposed to think the donkey somehow knew about the seven steps of how to make an appeal and managed to follow them? Further, Balaam was escalating in his abuse of the donkey and was at the point of threatening to kill it when Balaam's eyes were open and he saw the angel's sword. Balaam responded to the threat on his own life (the angel and sword), not the amazing ability of his donkey to follow seven steps of how to make an appeal. In fact, the booklet actually falls apart on that point. The donkey's "appeal" was being met with verbal and physical abuse and might have resulted in the donkey's death if an outside party had not intervened.
YES, Matthew, and for another $25 plus shipping, we will send you our latest DVD that will enable you to speak enough 'donkey' to get the lesson thru to even the dullest of beasts , and your donkey as well.
ADVANCED DONKEY Dvd set will be a little extra....
oh, no! lol
There are so many good jokes here, but I'm afraid to say what I'm thinking the title of the DVD set should be...
I also meant to say that yes I’ve started looking at these other lists and the ones that are legitimate are trivial matters. For example, Gothard teaches you should read scripture to your unborn child because it helps him discern scripture better. There are some studies of children hearing their mother’s voices and all but he takes the scripture a little too far there. So you can disagree with it, as I do. But it’s not worthy of cult status.
The differences in the Baptists and Pentecostals, my pet example, are far worse and more serious.
This issue of no recourse to an anointed one would warrant cult status but can been proven false by simply pointing out this 7 step IBLP teaching on confronting an authority.
If you only judge by the written materials, you might be correct. But most people would judge "cult" by behavior. As a result, Gothard's refusal to follow the principles he taught, and his destructive control of all aspects of the ministry are prominent aspects of RG's witness.
The Queen of England is the Head of State. Her authority, however, is quite constrained. She represents and speaks for the nation. She embodies the national purpose and identity. Head does not necessarily imply controlling authority. In ancient times, I have read, they did not consider the mind of man to be in his head, but in his "inner man". They knew the head was special, you can't survive it's removal, but they considered it the source of life, like the head of a stream or river. In Ephesians, the references to the Headship of Christ are all about unification, oneness, reconciliation. No command or decision-making authority is implied. This discussion is obviously broader than IBLP issues, many conservative Christians take the headship authority of a husband for granted without seeing that the rule of a husband is a Genesis 3 curse and Christ has broken the curse to allow full communion of persons in a Christian marriage. But the umbrella, the consequences of "disobedience", the hole in the umbrella theory and the original "chain of command" militaristic presentation of authority are central to Gothard's teaching and they represent the extreme end of abuse of these Scriptures. Jesus said his disciples should not lord it over. Bill Gothard lorded it over his organization, and he taught a view of authority of husbands, fathers of adult offspring, and pastors that encouraged many of them to lord it over.
Agree with Don. The phrase 'personality cult' exists for a reason. Teachings alone do not necessarily make a cult, although they generally coincide. It's behavior as well. Behavior you would not have seen if all you ever did was attend a few seminars now and then, without every really delving deeper. A cult, by definition, would be very attractive on the outside, and new members would have no idea what was really going on on the inside until they're good and sucked in, often brainwashed by this point.
Consider also that human behavior does not fall into neat little categories: cult/no cult, etc. Whatever your definition of a cult it, it probably entails some relationship aspects that you view as unhealthy. If you are attentive to avoid every such unhealthiness that would creep into your life, you will avoid falling into some group or activity that contains many such aspects. It may be better to describe the "cult like" experiences and conduct that you have observed or can verify rather than arguing back and forth "cult" "not" "too" "not". We will be communicating when we verify our assertions and assent to those assertions that others have credibly offered. In other words, our understanding of the facts need to conform before we can expect any agreement on our conclusions. (Yes, I know that some of us spend our time nitpicking to avoid acknowledging facts (or calling opinions "facts"), but patient perseverance is the only advice I have for that.)
I'm so glad you gave us permission to disagree with Gothard in the same areas you do :p It's a good thing I was not waiting for anyone's permission, in that regard.
Bill does teach on authority a lot but he does not teach that an authority is an unapproachable anointed one not to be ever questioned. That would be cooky and what RG seems to accuse him of a lot. But you just don't find that in the teaching. In fact you find the exact opposite. The hard facts are clearly against this accusation. It's all just people's accusations.
Accusations are highly suspect, especially when biased.
But I say again if these things are true and rampant and have been going on for decades, with so many people going thru the same ministry the accusations would be in the 1000's. And there would be proof. The case with Bill's brother is a classic example of what happens when you're like that.
The accusers, even those arguing here, are a relatively small group of 2,000,000 people. And the people testifying all seem to support the Grace living goals of RG. There is no doubt a push nationally on a more secularized form of "Christian" living. Christianity is no doubt heading that way and so more and more people are going to oppose a ministry that teaches more conservative values. There is a clear connection between these two.
My family has known a super solid Christian lady for years and I contacted her when i heard of all of this. She knows 3 of the 7 immorality accusers and can see thru their accusations and how they are distorting the facts. They all worked there at the same time. She also told of how they were throwing off their conservative values. I'm going to try hard to get her to testify, even anonymously (but with enough facts to show it's legit).
Now you are beginning to show your true colors.
1) You claim: "Bill does teach on authority a lot but he does not teach that an authority is an unapproachable anointed one not to be ever questioned. That would be cooky and what RG seems to accuse him of a lot. But you just don’t find that in the teaching. In fact you find the exact opposite." I call your bluff: page numbers. Give us page numbers where "the exact opposite" is taught. This should not be hard since you assert that you are speaking of "hard facts."
2) You know somebody who knows somebody and therefore all the girls are lying and are no longer conservative. That's the kind of attack and insinuation that should get you blocked sooner rather than later from any site that promotes civil discussion.
Amen Mathew! Most of her accusations are very misinformed and often do not make sense (relatively small group of 2 million people)...
The pages are already on my Facebook page rcovering grace AND FREEDOM as has been recently discussed.
I know someone who knows 3 of the accusers not just "somebody" but I concur that wouldn't mean anything to anyone else. My point stands that Accusations without proof however are certainly suspect.
@MJ: I've been dodging most of the drama here, however, I would be so interested if you could answer my questions of curiosity.
I see on your facebook page in the "About" section the statement following:
"This page is dedicated to confronting a growing heresy in the church that teaches that salvation is by grace and faith ALONE. It makes light of the consequences of sin and even attacks ministries that teach on the seriousness of it."
Why are you so passionate about all this? What is your story? What happened or what did you see that has created your drive to counter heresy?
My questions are not to further the debate about who or what teaching is most heretic: I really want to know the preface to your stance, because I don't understand what is going on here.
In addition, please don't feel I am attempting to ostracize you by requesting for an explanation or reason for your opinions/beliefs. For example, my story is that I was an ATI student, eventually I left because I came to believe it was a cult, and now I'm passionate about validating others' experiences in ATI and possibly keeping other families from joining ATI.
Thanks in advance for sharing. (I hope! :) )
Mj, accusations by eyewitnesses like Meg, Joy, Bill, Tony, Rachel, Ruth... are evidence. If not refuted by other witnesses such statements can suffice to "prove" their assertions in a court of law.
Please clarify what you mean by 'accusation', 'proof'. You may mean that RG saying something happened is hearsay and not reliable evidence. We all agree. But eyewitness testimony and many of the documents (i.e. 19 page signed vindictive libelous letters) do constitute proof in the absence of evidence of equal or greater credibility.
The burden on the defense is to provide statements of 1980 Board members and staff members refuting Tony, Schultz, Smalley, Joy, Ruth, et al. You also need to provide eyewitnesses who can establish that the young ladies in the 20+ years that followed were not likely ever alone with Gothard sitting on his office couch, nor in the presence of Gothard with his shoes off and his feet touching them, nor alone in a car with Gothard. You need to have Gothard's sister sign a statement that Gothard never talked to the Board about his marrying a woman decades younger than he and that said sister never confronted this girl out of the blue to announce that Gothard would NEVER marry her. You need to comprehend that there is much credible evidence on this site constituting far more than mere "accusation". It is you who bring accusations but offer no (0) non-hearsay evidence to back it up. Your mere disbelief does not refute evidence.
Your comments have not been censored on this site. You seem to be censoring comments on your anonymous FB page. That is OK. I am willing to interact with you there by message. I am not ashamed of who I am nor of what I believe nor of why. I am certainly not ashamed of Jesus Christ of of His Gospel. You are not as fair and open as are those whom YOU accuse. Please consider all these points over the weekend and share your conclusions with us. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Unless that 'somebody' was present when the situation occurred, the 'somebody' CANNOT know for a fact that these girls were lying. And departing from conservative values means absolutely nothing in this argument, especially considering the values they had to begin with may not have been from God, but man-made law.
Remember Charlotte's story where Bill told people that she wasn't a person to get close to or trusted? Maybe this somebody believed Bill, without ever taking time to determine whether or not Bill was actually making Charlotte look like a liar, so that if Charlotte told anyone what Bill was doing to her, no-one would believe her. No-one seems to want to consider this a possibility.
MJ: please, you do not have to respond to this, I don't really have the patience to dialogue with you; my observation is: you would not know a FACT if it jumped up, slapped you, and called you daddy. Your posts are a carnival mirror of amusement.
Ouch!
MJ: if you are a "her", then make that "....and called you MOMMA" thanks.
Hi Greg R,
I think Mj is a guy. One his website, he indicates he's an engineer and volunteer pastor with a wife and child.
Nevertheless, I wonder why you wrote what you did about his comments. Maybe you were making a joke?
@mary olive: maybe it's a joke,maybe not; that's in the ear of the beholder, I guess. MJ is notlikey to listen to any kind of rebuke, so I was probably just working off lunch.
I also thought Mj was a woman, the manner of speech and language indicated femininity. I stand corrected.
Mj wrote: "Bill does teach on authority a lot but he does not teach that an authority is an unapproachable anointed one not to be ever questioned."
That is not the thrust of the article by Henzel. The article is about a person taking the place of Christ in another person's life.
It seems you are stuck on the term "anointed," claiming, since you have no solid references to people calling Gothard that, that therefore this article has no bearing on Gothard's teaching or behavior.
Secondly, you cite Gothard's teaching about making a godly appeal, claiming Gothard teaches that authorities are approachable, yet you fail to deal with the whole realm of Gothard's other teaching on authority, which does place authorities in the place of God at some points in his teaching.
Thirdly, you gloss over the many testimonies of those, such as the recent one of Tony Guhr, who were demonized as rebellious for doing absolutely nothing wrong (in fact he was doing everything RIGHT), and being met with nothing but stonewalling when trying to "approach" Gothard in order to bring about reconciliation, or confrontation over sin.
Your argumentation is myopic and misses two points: the first one is the main point of the article, and the second point follows that the main point of Ron Henzel's article is demonstrated in another aspect of Gothard's teaching on authority:
Here is the crux of Ron Henzel's essay above:
"Therefore, your leader—whoever he or she is—does not have Christ’s authority. Only Christ has Christ’s authority (Mat. 28:18), and He never “delegates” it to anyone. Therefore, your leader cannot exercise Christ’s authority. He or she can only call upon you to submit to Christ’s authority."
Mj, what you are failing to take into account is Gothard's faulty view of authority w/respect his teaching on authority in the role of mediator between God and the person(s) under authority. Unmarried adults are taught (I am looking in my basic seminar red notebook of 1982 now) that they are to receive guidance through their mother and father. This is an example of what Henzel was talking about in that quote.
In a patriarchal society, the male head of the clan's word is law. That is not the same thing as being guided by God - it is just the way law and order are dispensed within those types of social structures.
There is no biblical proof that unmarried adults in the church age are to receive direct guidance from God through their parents. There was no biblical proof that unmarried adults were to receive guidance through God through their parents, either. In the end, Rachel was asked whether she would go with Abraham's servant to marry Isaac, and she said, "I will go."
Gothard's teaching on authority clearly places mothers and fathers (especially fathers) in the place of God in their respective adult children's lives when it comes to guidance. And that is wrong. It is putting authority in the place of God, which is the point of the article above.
This is from "Ruth's Story" from this website:
[quote]. . . Bill set himself and his father up as his brother’s only sources of accountability, while continuing to send a stream of young Christian girls to work for him. Predictably, many of them were seduced and violated. At its roots was the slow brainwashing by Bill and his family, accomplished under the banner of the “chain of command” teachings. It may sound extreme that sincere young Christian women who loved the Lord became entangled in this situation, but the extremely controlled environment which focused on externals, “what other people thought,” “not damaging the ministry,” and the constant teaching of God’s direction coming through your “authorities” became the perfect tool that allowed this sexual harassment and abuse to occur.
Again Ruth writes, “Bill’s misuse of the concept of chain of command literally robbed his staff of their personal accountability to God and the maturity that comes with such responsibility. They were encouraged to hand over their minds and spirits in a way totally contrary to Scripture, and without the maturity of a close personal walk with God, they were easy prey for the tragedies which occurred.”[end quote]
Yep. Ron Henzel's article is spot on, and applies to Bill Gothard and IBLP to a "t."
"The accusers, even those arguing here, are a relatively small group of 2,000,000 people."
No idea where you got this number but percentages don't matter. The Biblical standard is 2 or 3 witnesses as to a person's conduct, and there are far more than that here at RG. Do you not follow the Bible Mj?
And that doesn't necessarily mean 2 or 3 witnesses to a single *incident* (which in cases of abuse Bill kept private to protect himself) but 2 or 3 witnesses who can testify to the behavior.
I could produce 100's if not 1000's of witnesses against all these accusations if I were to spend tons of money and hire who knows how many people to run a "ministry" solely dedicated to bringing this ministry down. They would cancel out your witnesses.
in the simplest terms, this article due to its location accuses IBLP of TEACHING this so naturally you'd have to prove they taught it before refuting it. Apparently there was another article written that also doesn't have references and the author concedes there may not be any.
MJ, you wrote: "I could produce 100′s if not 1000′s of witnesses against all these accusations if I were to spend tons of money and hire who knows how many people to run a “ministry” solely dedicated to bringing this ministry down. They would cancel out your witnesses."
While we tolerate many differing opinions, this statement makes you look like you're on the warpath against the women who have already been harmed by Gothard. You are welcome to question the teachings, but we will not allow you to attack these women. This is your only warning.
"... this article due to its location accuses IBLP of TEACHING this ..."
No, actually, it doesn't.
Nowhere in the article is it claimed that IBLP taught this. You have spent days trying to argue the point that IBLP didn't teach it, and YOU ARE CORRECT in that. You are NOT correct in stating that the article says it did, and it's really time to let it rest.
None of the terms IBLP, IBYC, or ATI are even in the article. The article is not about IBLP doctrinal error, but rather describes an *atmosphere of control and intimidation* that may be applied at the reader's discretion to IBLP as well as to any other church/ministry/organization where the "shoe" may fit.
Anyone who thinks the shoe fits IBLC should be entitled to their opinion and not made to feel they must defend it. Whether you agree is entirely your opinion.
The point about IBLC teaching or not teaching something has been stretched entirely far enough, in my opinion.
I certainly await your hundreds and thousands of witnesses, Mj. Until then...total hearsay.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that your 'witnesses' refer to those who would attest that BG/IBLP/ATI did not 'teach' about an anointed leader in the way that the article you are disputing conveys. However you should keep in mind several points:
1. Much of this site documents a stark divide between what BG says and what BG does. Many witnesses attest to the fact that he behaved as if he was specially anointed. His behavior is also a way of 'teaching', particularly to those closest to him, i.e. at Headquarters. In fact, it reveals his true belief system far better than his rehearsed words.
2. While BG seems to have allowed appeals to be made, and indeed taught that they were appropriate, he has repeatedly disregarded such appeals, as documented by multiple witnesses including members of his own board. Sometimes he gives lip service to making a response, but does not follow through. Again, this behavior 'teaches' his true belief system, regardless of what he might say.
3. Part of what Recovering Grace does is provide resources to those struggling to recover from authoritarian organizations. This article is in that vein, of helping those people to understand in general the idea of anointing (which authoritarian pastors frequently use to protect their status and cover their sin). Nowhere in the article does it refer to a specific teaching of IBLP. So your attacking it on this basis makes no sense.
Look at what BG does, not what he says.
Did I hit a nerve? How is referencing the size of RG financially an attack on people hurt by IBLP.
Elizabeth, I've been trying to get people to admit that very thing but no one has been willing to do so. This article is listed in the refuting of teachings and since RG is solely dedicated to refuting IBLP's teachings it does seem like it was aimed at IBLP. I mentioned one time they should have a disclaimer otherwise.
So, what's stopping you? Spend your money, put up your website. Knock. Yourself. Out.
(Although I do like the insinutation that RG is a financial giant next to the multi-million dollar IBLP empire... Ha... Ha... Haha... You're hilarious, man! More like, the corner gas station goes up against Bill Gates...)
I agree, 'Hannah'. I would love for ATI alumni Gothard fans to create a website full of
— detailed first-hand stories of the wonderful benefits of following Bill and playing footsie with him and letting him stroke your hair
— clear documentation from the last 40 years of how he lived by his principles
— articles by independent respected bible scholars and pastors about how Bill's teachings are in fact in line with what the bible shows as the trajectory of God's plan for the world
It wouldn't really take any money at all to set a site like this up. There are plenty of free hosting platforms. I recommend Tumblr with Disqus comments. Blogger is also very good.
I, too, would be fascinated to read a site like this---especially with independent, well-respected Bible scholars and pastors giving their input. Great idea!
Wait, there are 2 million people who accuse Bill? I think there were only about 3 million seminar attendees, ever? So 2 million would be a pretty good chunk! ;) Or was that a typo? Just thought you might want to double-check your numbers.
He meant a small proportion of 2000000. He's not very precise with his words, but can be understood if you have and idea what he is wanting to say. But he has a funny idea, if 2 or 3 witnesses were required in the small communities of Bible times, then a similar proportion would require hundreds of witnesses to prove something against a leader of masses like Gothard. Really doesn't understand the first thing about proof, corroboration, evidence, standards of proof, etc., which are principles of justice that the Scriptures reflect: do not put a man to death on the testimony of one person. Why? Because corroboration can "prove" an "accusation".
What does the "throwing off" of certain values have to do with the substance of the accusations? Absolutely nothing.
The very fact that a) you seem to think the first cancels out the second, and b) you seem to think it's a problem for people to change their views and values over time, well... These are just evidences of the influence the cult has over you. Most people do change and grow over time. Unless their growth is stagnated by cult involvement, having someone else do all their thinking for them.
Maybe he has learned his lessons well: no accusation can be made by anyone who is not completely clear of bitterness, incomplete knowledge, mistrust of the the accused if in authority, partisanship, racism, sexism (did I wander into politics?), jealousy, taking up an offense, being overly offended, not completely understanding the wrongdoer's motives, not being grateful for the benefits of suffering, .... With such requirements, no one can accuse the leader. (Except Jesus.)
Mj, it seems the only evidence you will consider sufficient is if someone shows you where it is written in IBYC/IBLP materials a combination of statements that “Bill Gothard is the anointed,” “The anointed is not to be questioned,” and perhaps “IBLP is a Christian cult.” You will likely agree that they wouldn’t publish the latter. :)
I did not grow up with the materials or attending the meetings, so it is entirely possible that such statements are in print or on audio in some form. But let’s assume not. Here is other evidence:
1. William Gothard, Sr. viewed his son as the anointed, and he instilled that view in Bill Gothard, and the ministry leadership created that culture within the ministry. His status as specially anointed was reinforced by the phenomenal attendance at his earlier seminars. IBLP’s culture speaks to its unwritten rules, which are rules and teachings nonetheless.
2. In 2012, I wrote the RG article https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/05/the-leader-who-lost-his-anointing/. The point of the article is that if King Saul lost his anointing, it may be possible for Gothard to lose his, if he had it in the first place. I did not cite specific teachings. Why would I write this article and not cite specific teachings? Because “He is God’s anointed” is one of the most common responses heard from “gothardites” in defense of Bill Gothard. Why would they respond like that? Because even if unwritten, this is what many, many believe.
3. Has Bill Gothard said that he is NOT God’s anointed, special one? He may have written teachings that would imply such…but he has actually made statements to the contrary, asserting his special authority (“The Lord’s Anointed”), and this has been reported in various places in comments and Facebook posts. Dr. Schultz stated that Gothard “is not subject to the authority of the Board.” And, “Bill seems to stubbornly maintain an attitude that his interpretation of scripture is beyond question.”
4. Have you read the Silencing the Lambs 3-part series? Can you see what happens if a charismatic leader combines BG’s authority teachings with his teachings meant to deflect questioning? In light of the evidence that says he has every reason to want to deflect questioning? And that he’s wanted to deflect since the mid-1970s?
5. We repeatedly see Gothard asserting his special authority/anointing by separating parents from their children (at seminars, TCs, etc.) and instructing the children not to share information with their parents. Gothard himself, not his teachings, had supremacy over an awful lot of disciples. Parents and children.
6. Gothard’s own view of himself seems to be so large that he mimics Lucifer. Consider another statement by Dr. Schultz: “Has Bill lost his sense of the fear of God?” I would say he has not regained that fear. In his own mind, he is elevated, and he is specially anointed.
7. He fires and destroys people at will (or at least used to). He tells them what God says they should do, and he does not tolerate being questioned. Gothard has told people that bad things will happen to them if they come against him, because coming against him is like coming against God himself.
That’s all I have time for now. Have you read the RG site widely? Of all the topics you could choose to refute, you chose one for which you will have to refute articles and comments spread throughout the site. For you must address the unwritten teachings as well as the written.
Yet More accusations without supporting evidence of any kind. And you wrote a whole different article without references too? I'm making my way thru the list and as I've said before I see nothing but accusations referencing accusations mixed in with some petty differences. Doesn't anyone balk at having no references here?
Some accusations are preposterous.
I've been around IBLP,ATI, camps, conferences etc a lot and I've never heard him called "THE anointed" in any manner by anyone. Any of us can "be" anointed however ( ie with oil).
he gives orders and fires people etc... that's normal for the head of an organization.
Yes, much that has come out of IBLP and Bill Gothard is preposterous. Everything I listed is firsthand testimony (references) that I passed along to you. If you don't like to hear what people have to say, then people won't be able to help you. But I do wish you the best in your inquiry.
Those of us who have perused more of the articles are familiar with the Schultz statements. He was one of Bill's professors at Wheaton and resigned from the IBYC Board after (I think) Bill was reinstated without becoming submissive to the Board. That is plenty credible evidence on three of the points above. Did you read all the articles he listed or are you looking for full documentation in a comment string? Please don't be so combative. If you ask an honest question, it will be answered. Some people here are angry and hurt, but you have no reason to be. Are you taking up an offense? That might interfere with your objectivity.
As a matter of fact, to cut to the chase, would someone please give mj the link to the Shultz document? That summation by Gothard's long time mentor pretty well makes all the case that is necessary to prove Gothard is unqualified for ministry leadership. The accumulation of other accusations are a direct result of: the organization not dealing with the problem in 1980 (unresolved old conflicts), and Gothard continuing to abuse people and the Word of God for 33 years since then. Dr. Shultz is an eyewitness to the matters that he reports. If you don't think he is credible, call him, if he is still alive, and cross-examine him. RG is merely reporting such matters and compiling such evidence.
Here is a link to the Shultz document:
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/the-gothard-files-the-basic-problem/
Point 4, on the 4th page down: Are there any indications that Bill has a real sense of the fear of God?
Chilling question. And it is being asked by Bill's own "umbrella of authority", that is, if Bill were not in reality a thorough hypocrite.
anyone who says that there is "0.00 evidence" has made up their mind. do not contest with a stupid person, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience....
I confess that aphorism (about "stupid people") makes me laugh every time, but a request that we do be careful not to call names. "Gentleness and respect," ol' Peter says. And I'm sure Peter would agree that some battles are best un-fought.
Thank you for posting the Shultz document. Oh.My.How.Telling.
I wonder if any who insist there is no evidence have contacted Dr. Shultz. They are basically calling him a liar.
Nothing new, of course, as the propensity to disbelieve the accounts of the groomed girls and testimony of other staff, based on your own opinion that "Bill could never do that" or "That's not the Bill I know" treats them as liars as well.
Ostrich Syndrome!
@Matthew: agree 100%...... mea culpa X three (ask a catholic)
You're really grasping at straws here.
1. You're going back to 1980
2. No where does that letter address the "anointed one" issue of this article. More on that below.
3. Schultz's accusations are mostly procedural/political differences in how Bill should run his ministry. Apparently he didn't convince the rest of the board.
4. The very presence of a board that squabbles with him is clear evidence that he does not practice the unapproachability that he was accused of in this article.
Does he maneuver in a political way to obtain his objectives? Sure. Isn't that normal for the founder of a ministry? Do you expect him to leave the whole ministry he created due to one, or even more than one, disgruntled board member that he hired? Apparently the rest of the board didn't think he manipulated to a point that was inappropriate but instead thought Schultz did.
When you create a ministry you have certain rights to lead it. It would be different if he was hired on and then started changing everything and taking over (as it seems in fact Schultz was trying to do).
When you are asked to join a minister you need to leave that ministry if you have major objections to what the minister teaches unless there are serious clearly dangerous teachings. Schultz made a lot of allusions but the one biblical issue he specifically mentioned several times was that Bill thought one commandment was greater that the rest. Doesn't sound like he agreed with Bill's long standing teaching on dating either. That's trivial stuff like I've mentioned before. You don't try to take the ministry down because the founding minister doesn't follow your wishes and agree with you on your doctrines. You start your own.
So yes there are certain rights to make decisions and lead a ministry you create. That is perfectly normal. All founders are expected to do that. But this is different than teaching that you are an "anointed one" and should never be questioned. There would be no board at all if he thought that.
After all this discussion the only support that Bill taught or practiced this specifically is from a few testimonies from biased witnesses. They are clearly false because there is now, thanks to your Schultz input, ample evidence in both his teaching and his practice that he did not follow this idea. He's was just the leader of a large ministry.
@MJ: as I pull on the pet by its ears...
you wrote
When you create a ministry you have certain rights to lead it..
You can stop right there. We know where this kind of road leads, and this is not at all unique to Bill, this is an americanized, corporate version of divine right of kings. this has nothing to do with how to conduct oneself as a representative of Jesus and HIS gospel.
So what is Bill, a corporate leader, a ministry founder, or a representative of Jesus ??
"There would be no board at all if he thought that."
Actually, Mj, having a board is a requirement of the IRS for a non-profit. It is no way demonstrates that BG was willing to put himself under authority, just that he wanted to be a 501(c)3.
You don't seem very well-informed.
" Do you expect him to leave the whole ministry he created due to one, or even more than one, disgruntled board member that he hired? "
You don't seem to understand corporate governance, Mj. BG, founder or not, works *for* the board. They do not work *for* him.
Though in fairness, his board members don't seem to understand this either.
Dear P.L.,
I'm wondering if you've considered Founder's Syndrome with regard to Bill Gothard's behavior. He is one, among many founders of organizations, (nonprofit, Christian, large, or otherwise) who have either resigned or been fired, for one reason or another, by the board of directors in the organizations they founded.
The syndrome, with its researched and published symptoms and characteristics, is, I understand, preventable, or possibly survivable, with careful planning and implementation.
Yes, Mary Olive, I think a well-planned exit and succession strategy for Bill could have helped....if that was the only problem. But it wouldn't have addressed his long standing issues with the treatment of women, or his doctrinal errors.
Dr. Schultz is deceased, but many are alive who knew him.
For those who do value testimonies, here's a quote from the 1980 Scandal story (https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/the-scandal-1980/), which has added meaning with Tony's story:
Bill’s behavior toward his aide was reminiscent of Saul in the Bible, who at one moment was soothed by David’s harp, and in the next moment attempted to impale him with his spear (1 Samuel 19:10). The story of Saul and David might be considered an appropriate parallel for other reasons, as Bill often spoke about not stretching out one’s hand against the Lord’s anointed, a designation that Bill applied to himself (1 Samuel 24:6). For many years before the events of 1980, many on his staff had accepted Bill’s application of this teaching to himself.
Thanks Jay. I'll believe the real people here at RG over Mj's phantom witnesses any day.
grace=secular vs. conservative. That seems to be pretty categorical for one trying to clear up the eternally difficult harmonization of "salvation by faith and not by works" and "faith without works is dead". I'm beginning to think that you are not very familiar with the history of the church if you think these matters are so easily and categorically settled. I have learned, too late in life, that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are much more conservative than nearly all Protestantism, that secular and grace are very different world views, and conservative often means that the traditions of men are superior to the written Word. (King James Bible anyone? That is as silly as the Catholics who stand on the Latin!)
You do much better sticking with Scripture than throwing around conservative/secular labels (in the 70s we would have said conservative/liberal). And be careful trying to define conservatism by your own theology. The Dutch Reformed have a much longer pedigree than you do and they've worked out some pretty long established understandings on things like works/faith/grace. The Popes have had a pretty long run too. There is nothing new under the sun, brother. And there are all kinds of "conservatives"! There are those of Gothard, those of Rome, those of Paul, those of Apollos, those of Cephas, but many more and better grounded are of Christ.
". . . conservative often means that the traditions of men are superior to the written Word." following immediately on the heels of "Catholicism and Orthodoxy are much more conservative than nearly all Protestantism" could open some very interesting discussion from my perspective as a former Evangelical turned Orthodox Christian! :-)
Big subjects these, but I categorically reject the notion (having now looked at both sides of this issue from the inside) that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are building on the "traditions of men" mentioned by Scripture whereas "Sola Scriptura" Protestants are not.
Catholics interpret Scripture through the lens of the "Magesterium" headed by the Pope (bishop) in Rome, and there are as many issues between Catholics and Orthodox over Papal claims and other doctrinal rulings that have unilaterally occurred in the Western Catholic Church post East-West Schism (1054 AD) as there are between Catholics and Protestants. In fact, Orthodox regard Protestants and Catholics to be more similar in some important respects than Orthodox and Catholic or Protestant. Orthodox reject many of the same Catholic teachings that Protestants do (e.g., Papal infallibility/supremacy, merits, indulgences and Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary--though some of these for different reasons than do Protestants).
Protestants interpret Scripture through the lens of various selected portions of early Church creeds and traditions and/or whatever Reformation figures and/or more recent Protestant teachers and movements were important for their particular strain of Protestantism (and often for many in the increasingly amorphous "Evangelical" category, bits and pieces of all of these cobbled together according to personal or pastoral preference/conviction).
The Orthodox interpret Scripture through the lens of the Church Fathers (taken in their own context), the rulings of the"Ecumenical Councils" of the self-described undivided orthodox "holy, apostolic and catholic church" listed as an article of faith in the Nicene Creed, and through the Orthodox Liturgy (i.e., Eucharistic service--called the "Divine Liturgy" in the EO tradition). The Orthodox Divine Liturgy has remained virtually unchanged in form since the 8th or 9th century and in its general shape from that of the earliest known Christian Liturgies (i.e., formal order of Sunday gathered worship), e.g., the Liturgy of St. James, attributed to St. James the Just, the first bishop in Jerusalem and presider over the council that met at Jerusalem in Acts 15. The primary Liturgies in use in the Eastern Orthodox Church today are the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostem (because he edited it from earlier versions) and the Liturgy of St. Basil (slightly longer and older than that of St. John and used mostly during the Sundays in Lent). The selected Scripture readings, prayers and hymnody of these services are very revealing for understanding a fully Orthodox Christian faith.
More pertinent to the topic of this post, I have observed, from personal experience, that legalism, externalism, and authoritarianism (inherently abusive) are not unique to any one segment of these Christian traditions today (which all descend in one way or another from that earlier undivided orthodox apostolic Church of the first millennium). Legalism, externalism, and authoritarianism can exist in any religious tradition, regardless of its polity or official doctrinal statements, or the presumed correctness of its definition of "grace" for that matter! Further, a church's doctrines (and the Scriptures themselves) must be judged not just by what they say to me as an observer on the outside looking in imposing my own particular cultural and philosophical "orthodoxy", but what they actually mean to those who are that tradition's most exemplary practitioners (as seen in both words and manner of life). In the Orthodox tradition, that would be those who are identified as our Saints. Of the Saints, those who had the calling to teach and who did it especially well (i.e., mostly godly bishops and priests, but some are monks or nuns, who are members of the laity) are especially important for understanding the church's doctrines. In the EO tradition, only three such teachers have also earned the title "Theologian" for the profundity of their theological depth and vision: these are the Apostle John, writer of the fourth Gospel, St. Gregory Nanzianzus (one of the three "Cappadocian Fathers" in the 4th century), and St. Symeon the New Theologian in the 10-11th century. Anyone interested would undoubtedly find their biographies and writings quite instructive as to what Orthodox Christian faith is.
Thank you for the wonderful repsponse. Forgive me for tying the two statements "conservative often means" and the Roman/EO identities. I've studied Orthodoxy a little, after a trip to the Georgian Republic, and do believe it has retained a faithfulness to the Church Fathers that should make Rome jealous. But my main point was that conservative Christianity, as conceived by say an independent Baptist in America committed to the things prioritized by Gothard, is nothing truly conservative by comparison to the much longer standing doctrinal positions. Your brief apology for EO makes my point in ways I never could.
I would love to hear more of your journey from Evangelical to EO. Do you worship with a Greek church? Russian? Why are Orthodox in Eastern countries hostile to evangelicals? Why don't they understand the differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and people promoting the Jesus film? I have always felt warmth from the Greek Orthodox I've known in the U.S. But in eastern nations I suppose Protestants appear simply alien and cultish.
Thank you, Don. No forgiveness needed, I assure you!
I currently attend a larger and quite diverse Eastern Orthodox parish in the Russian tradition (of the Orthodox Church in America), but I've also been a member at one that was in the Arab/Greek tradition as well (Antiochian Orthodox). Polity, dogma and liturgy are of course the same in these churches, and they are also in eucharistic communion with each other. Some regional customs and things like musical style are different from parish to parish, and in many American parishes there are often a blend of such things in a given Orthodox parish, regardless of its jurisdiction (i.e., Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Russian, Antiochian, etc.). I'd be glad to answer questions for you or point you to resources that can do so. I give my permission for RG to give you my email address if you would like it, since that wider discussion would be mostly off the topic of this site.
Frederica Mathewes-Green articulates a helpful perspective on what have sometimes been rather tense relations between Russian and Greek Orthodox with Evangelicals entering their countries to do mission work. That can be found here:
http://frederica.com/writings/proselytizing-in-orthodox-lands.html
Interestingly, I noted a number of years ago that the Russians (even Orthodox) really welcomed Billy Graham and his Crusades to their country. This is because BG doesn't try to establish his own brand of church, but rather works with to add to and support the ministry of the ones that already exist.
Thank you. I read Green on National Review whenever they post her stuff. I will enjoy her perspective on that. In Georgia, I was just happy to put a Georgian (Church approved) Bible in Georgian hands. Don't want them to leave Orthodoxy but to fall in love with Christ!
Amen to wanting Orthodox to fall in love with Christ, Don. Many, of course, already do (and in ways that put many of us western Christians in cultures where our faith is not persecuted to shame), but Dr. Brad Nassif (Orthodox Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at North Park University in Chicago) has noted that many Orthodox parishes and institutions need to mount an internal mission to preach the gospel clearly to their own people -- because, as I noted, externalism, legalism, nominal faith, etc., can and do afflict Orthodox members, parishes and whole regions, just like they can any other Christian tradition's members or institutions.
strong post; I'm guessing you are EO, I liked this quote the best:
Legalism, externalism, and authoritarianism can exist in any religious tradition, regardless of its polity or official doctrinal statements, or the presumed correctness of its definition of "grace" for that matter
Mj,
Let me see if I'm understanding you here. It sounds like you're trying to say the following, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly:
- RG is misinterpreting BG's teachings; therefore, RG doesn't have a leg to stand on with respect to exposing BG as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
- BG's teachings don't explicitly advocate the behavior of which BG and IBLP are being accused; therefore, the teachings and the application of those teachings are a non-issue.
- RG is filled with people who abuse grace and have departed from "conservative" theology; therefore, their judgment is suspect by default.
Is that a pretty fair summary?
J.B., you are forgetting that Mj has scores of witnesses lurking somewhere in the shadows. We all need to sit tight, because pretty soon all these unnamed witnesses will totally discredit many of the testimonies on RG. Mj assures us he or she is able to provide enough detail w/out giving names so that we will all know that what they say must be true.
Yeah, but he/she is lacking the necessary funds or time to pull this off, dang it all. well, IBLP is sitting on millions...check.... anybody got a well working time machine to loan ? MJ: stop while you are behind, the more you type, the more your credibility leaks behind you.
Lol, now I am picturing Roz from "Monsters Inc." Seriously, since I tried to discuss the matter with Mj and have been written off and ignored, and since Mj's responses have not dealt with th substance of the comments he/she is responding to, and since Mj claims to have connections that could discredit RG, but has yet to produce, I have written off whoever this is as some IBLP hack or troll.
The teachings weren't in the PAPERWORK!
LOL!
May I offer a differing perspective? These disclosures and critiques of Gothard and his teaching are scratching off 40 years of scars and scabbing. As those still enthralled, either with Gothard, or the philosophy that he embodies (creator of a ministry?) confront this information, we will see strong, hostile, defensive, minimizing reactions. Mj can be sincerely wedded to the philosophy he projects, sincerely defensive of Gothard, without being a mere "troll", etc. He has admitted that he is just acquainting himself with the "accusations" and he clearly is having trouble focusing on multiple levels ("this article" "those other accusations"). However, he can be sincere and we ought to allow him some time to adjust to this world that appears as dark to him as a smoke-filled exotic dancing tavern. The truth will set us all free, even Mj. May we patiently entreat all who enter into the discussion.
I have been very open to the concerns raised by RG, but taking them in in large volumes in the past month has left me quite dry and depressed. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for one who enters here committed to giving the world a new approach to life, who sees that approach pictured as being in a state of hopeless collapse.
Right! I knew I was forgetting something.
The reason why I'm trying to narrow these points down to something tangible we can understand is because I'm curious to know why Mj is so passionate about "bringing this ministry down," as he said himself in an above comment. Why all the animosity toward RG? Why the strong defense of IBLP? Why do you believe IBLP to be so essential?
Here's what I think, and if I'm misreading you, Mj, please forgive me. On your Facebook page, you seem to be committed to emphasizing the need for preaching a Gospel where both grace and the need for a fruitful spiritual walk are emphasized. I'm not here for a theological debate concerning that in relation to salvation, so please note as such - but I can definitely understand where you're coming from. Principles like those IBLP teach can easily make one feel more secure in their spiritual life, especially when they seem to be bolstered by biblical support. And people like those you see on RG can seem very one-sided in their emphasis and approach. To you, they may come across as grace-abusers who have abandoned the safety of the "conservative" doctrine with which you are personally familiar. Are you afraid that it's people like them who will define Christianity in the days to come? Don's comment above this thread is a perfect response to that, so I won't reiterate it here.
The truth is, we come from a lot of different walks of life. Some of us - probably most of us you see in the comments sections - are believers. Some of us aren't. Some of us have more conservative points of view. Some of us don't. The underlying thread that ties most all of us together is that we have experienced life within the culture of IBLP, whether it was a part of our lives growing up as a family in the ATI program or in the "inner circle" under the employ of Bill. It seems like your earlier comment is attempting to establish a correlation between an apparent mass departure from "conservatism" and this movement to expose the corruption within IBLP. I'm sure there are a handful of folks who might fit into that mold, but please do not project such a blanket generalization onto everyone here, especially when there are so many of us who are still committed to seeking Biblical truth, even if we may not all fit within your preferred interpretative or hermeneutical model.
Everyone else has provided you with the links to the various testimonies that detail Gothard's narcissistic, sociopathic, and abusive tendencies, so I won't repost them here. But I will say this. I don't believe you fully grasp the sheer gravity of the spiritual and emotional abuse that this "relatively small group of 2,000,000 people" suffered, especially the girls who worked for Gothard. By exhibiting the combative attitude you've been showcasing toward their testimonies, you are marginalizing everything they've been through and are, in essence, putting them down by slapping a label of "biased" on them. (Ironically, any witnesses you find to counter their testimonies would have to be just as, if not more, biased - only their bias would be more in line with yours. Convenient, right?) You cannot possibly understand how difficult it is for them to speak up after decades of repression and silencing. This is why we've waited so many years before these stories have come to light, aside from the advent of the Internet. And keep in mind that there are many, many more who haven't come forward yet.
And that's the insidious part of spiritual abuse, Mj. It's not something you can nail down in an explicitly stated set of false teachings in IBLP's doctrinal statements and instruction manuals. It's fostered in a hiearchial culture of unspoken rules and expectations. Just read books like "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" by Jeff VanVonderen for a more detailed explanation if you really are genuinely concerned about the state of the Western church and just how un-Christlike it has become.
Of course there won't be any clear-cut, outlined statement condoning spiritual abuse in IBLP's materials. All you need is to establish a performance-based culture that invites people to feel more spiritually elite under a hierarchy atop which you can control the flow of information and dictate standards by which everyone else besides yourself can live.
Wow. I can't possibly respond to all of this at once. Ill be digesting the points made and updating my facebook website [FB page cited previously -Moderator].
But for now. I said IF i wanted to bring it down.
Dear Don Rubottom and J.B.,
I appreciate your efforts to address Mj as someone who is interested in presenting the truth as he understands it. Perhaps some of the statements he makes and language he uses are the result of passion and his intent is really not to inflame the "inner circle" readers.
I believe we are all responsible for what we write and publish, on the internet and elsewhere, and, I understand, need to be careful about making libelous statements that may become a matter of record. This was one of the first things I learned in my undergraduate technical journalism course of study.
Mj, one thing to bear in mind is that many of the folks who agree with and write for RG used to be...you. They would have agreed with you, and many would have been even more outspoken. But something happened to make this vast cloud of witnesses see things differently. Will you read widely and listen to them? What happened in their lives? Why do many of them say that they are abiding in Christ more fully now than they were previously? (You will find much written evidence along the way...)
Oops, forgot to issue a sarcasm alert. Sorry.
I really hit a nerve there. Even threatened with being banned.
All I was saying is that you can't rely on testimonies alone. Yes i believe there would be 100's if not 1000's that would testify if they could be reached. That takes money for advertising, running a web site etc.
So my point was we need to back up our accusations with documented evidence
I will concede this point: there are no doubt 1000's , 10,000's, or even 100,000's who would say that Bill and his teaching have blessed them, and their walk with Jesus is better for it. I don't think anyone on RG would dispute that.
But that is far different than saying that there are the same number who would testify that the testimonies on RG are FALSE, that they know the witnesses are lying, and can summon evidence beyond the generally positive feeling about BG in order to REFUTE that testimony. That is entirely a different thing. If you have THAT evidence, MJ, I'd love to see even a shred of it. From what I've read, Bill sure doesn't have it.
Excellent point Greg. I would make another point.
There are many who count themselves blessed by the teachings, but I would question whether this is really true, or whether the teachings really made them more Christ like. For example, I know some people very well who are long time Gothard followers and would consider themselves deeply blessed by the teachings. But, I have heard these people say negative things about other families, calling them worldly behind their backs, because they don't dress to the standards taught. They wear tank tops, for example. This is a Christ following, wonderful family that this was said about, and they do this all the time, for one reason or another, when other families don't meet the Gothard standards. So, I would disagree with their own self- assessment, that it has blessed them. In my view it has made them very legalistic and caused them to use man-made standards to judge and put down other Christians.
Also, I wonder about some of the families who reportedly followed the teachings and sent their adopted children away to orphanages. In two of the case studies that one of the Care Booklets cites, the families felt it was a blessing to have done so- God blessed them with financial gain afterwards and so forth, ostensibly to show his approval with their obedience. If we are to believe the case studies, they sure made it sound like they feel as though they have been blessed by following the guidance given by the organization. I would say, however, that despite their self assessment, it has moved them considerably further from walking with Christ, particularly if they think that they have done a Godly act by sending their adopted children away, removing them from the only family that they have ever known.
Don't worry about deleted comments, Mj, I have experienced that myself. But I agree with greg r. Gothard has already confessed to acting in a dispicable manner with many young women. His public statement is posted on this site. He denies sexual intent but has agreed that the footsie and other inappropriate physical touching he did with the women were wrong. He also confessed to acting in a despotic manner - like heathen authority - toward many in that letter. Since he has confessed to such evil behavior, where are your witnesses to refute the testimonies that discuss behaviors that Bill has already confessed he has done?
Agree with greg r. Gothard's response, not counting the denial of sexual intent, was ALL ABOUT acknowledging how he acted as though he was the the Lord's anointed king, which gives credence to the many testimonies here, the latest one being Tony's response to Bill's defamatory letter, which is, btw, documented. I am referring, of course to Gothard's response which has already been posted on this site.
And tho I think Gothard hugged women in their nightgowns held them on his lap, played footsie up and down their legs with sexual intent, in that letter he did at least admit to the behavior. So, Mj, any witnesses you call against the testimonies here will have a huge credibility problem, on account of what Bill has already admitted.
Indeed. When one talks about evidence, the fact that the accused has admitted the behavior is about as solid evidence as one can get, the fact that the intent of the behavior has been denied notwithstanding.
Whoops, sorry, Mj, I was referring to "Bill Gotarrd Issues Public Response" which is posted on this site, I will believe Bill when I see him undoing the damage he did to Tony Guhr, which would include a letter reaching as far as the lies have gone, I will believe Bill when I hear he has personally sought forgiveness from the women who have spoken out so far. And so on and so forth. Anything less is just window dressing. As an aside I am a former seminar attendee and have spent time and money on IBLP materials and am just upset that I contributed to a system where so many were badly damaged. And please, don't demand documentation; Bill already has acknowledged they have been damaged by his actions.
You say "you can't rely on testimonies alone", but you yourself want to offer testimonies (hundreds, thousands) as your own 'proof'? That doesn't make any sense.
The point I'm making with that is that testimonies are invalid. You can find some I can find some.
Thousands of inmates are in prison based on testimony. Yes, perjurers can be found, they were used to convict Jesus, but testimony is the primary evidence in trials. Occasionally, honest witnesses have statements that contradict each other and the judge or jury must determine who to believe, based on the circumstances surrounding the testimony (who had the best view, who seems to have the best memory, etc.). But the Bible says "two or three witnesses" clearly indicating that testimony is a proper form of proof of facts. Please do not confuse eyewitness testimony with unsubstantiated allegations. The only thing they have in common is their oral nature. But TEST every witness. I say this sincerely, it is VERY unreasonable for a Christian who builds their life and world view on the testimony of four Gospel writers to say, categorically as you did above: "testimonies are invalid". In fact, it is self-refuting. You are testifying that testimonies are invalid.
If "testimonies are invalid" then Bill's teachings are invalid. He constantly uses anecdotes as evidence.
But when you say a person is always like xxxx, whatever quality you pick, then you need to get testimonies of all who have been around him. Not just pick a few you find that agree with you. We would need a neutral agency to advertise far and wide and ask people if they thought Bill was ever called or thought of as "the anointed one" for that is specifically what the article is accusing. With an apparent lack of significant evidence for this specific thing (heard 1 witness, the pilot, say it), the discussion has morfed into was he controlling and stubborn, a much less serious accusation (and the testimony is from 34 years ago)
And by the way the same logic would apply to even the accusation that he was controlling and stubborn. I don't believe that one either and though it is serious it's far from the anointed one accusation
We need to quit characterizing the other's statements. Respond, or ask for clarification on actual statements. I have seen no statements that anyone was "always" anything. This site has testimony that someone regularly (not always in every way) treated young women in particular ways, and the testimonies are eyewitnesses. Yes, the "accused" might testify to the opposite, but he has already admitted to the bulk of the factual assertions, merely denying any sinful intent.
Back to "annointed", are you suggesting that we ask all who were there whether he behaved in the manner described in the article? I believe we have a number of witnesses to his unaccountability, unteachableness, refusal of correction, not listening or responding to sincere and wellmeaning criticsm, control, and other attributes consistent and associate with one who thought he was God's specially called leader. I think we can agree that he taught Saul and David (the Lord's annointed) as normative of authority relationships. Thus, the real discussion here should be attempting to review all such evidence to see what fits and what is missing from a full indictment for "annointedness". I doubt that the 3/4 of staff that were fired in 1980 would be very helpful witnesses to Gothard. Certainly none of these young ladies who closely experienced his specialness would testify that he didn't think he was speciall. Maybe Gothard's sister might want to offer her testimony as to whether she or their parents thought BG was annointed of God for some special work. I would be happy to receive their testimony. But it would be a fool's errand to advertise for anyone in the world who might have something to offer. Better for you to seek and find particular witnesses to contradict the witnesses marshaled on this site, and RG ought to be willing to listen to those witnesses and share such testimony with all of us, or you can share it through your own means. But the thing is that Gothard never is able to find witnesses to contradict the accusers among those who worked closely with him, even when he tries like when he called Smalley circa 2008 to testify that he never touched a woman. It's just that Smalley couldn't oblige because HE WAS A WITNESS AGAINST GOTHARD!
Rather than searching the world for witnesses to Gothard's non-annointedness, your time might be better spent carefully examining the many critiques on RG of various Gothard teachings: umbrella of authority, Matt. 15, evil reports, ignoring evil reports, visualization, circumcision, dietary restrictions, earned grace, etc., and find reputable Bible teachers who are willing to publicly defend these teachings and point out the flaws in the critiques. That would help you and others stand behind this man's teaching.
Your fixation on the annointedness of Gothard (having never been close to him yourself) indicates that you think that the connection on this one accusation cannot be established to the satisfaction of all so it proves that ALL accusations against Gothard are not fully verifiable. It's like defending a criminal against 25 felony charges by focusing on just one charge and feeling victorious saying: "see, you didn't prove THAT one beyond a reasonable doubt". Meanwhile, the one you defend stands convicted of the other 24 charges because there was no defense on those. I don't think you will really feel vindicated when your client is sitting in jail for the rest of his life. The same will be with Gothard's false teachings. You might convince yourself that he did not hold himself out as annointed. But you are ignoring so many explicit false teachings in the process. You are merely proving that you are unwilling to believe anything significant against the man until forced to do so. But if the majority of disinterested objective observers tell you they believe, you have a serious problem with the likely truth, not the falsity of the charges.
I do think RG could do better concisely listing the various factoids that convince them of Gothard's belief in his annointedness, but I am not losing sleep over that (the David, Saul teaching convinces me) and I am not RG so I don't have to answer your assertions that there is no substantiation.
"... for that is specifically what the article is accusing." (Bill being called "the anointed one.")
YOUR. STATEMENT. IS. NOT. TRUE.
Or to borrow a phrase from a SC Congressman - You lie.
BG's name is not in the article. IBLP/IBYC/ATI is not in the article.
It is entirely up to the reader to make application where s/he chooses.
Nothing about BG is "specifically what the article is accusing," which is the basis of my accusation, which is made entirely out of frustration, NOT ill-will or hatred.
You cannot claim just because the article is on the RG website that it "specifically" says something it does not specifically say.
To engage in any argument ... and CONTINUE to argue ... about whether BG was anointed, or was considered anointed, or was labeled anointed, or ever claimed to be anointed is to chase a red herring that has been thrown very effectively. IMHO, it is a huge waste of energy.
Just another thought in defense of the article and its placement on the RG website.
If a reader reads the article and connects with the idea that BG was not to be questioned, confronted, or accused because he was considered God's anointed leader in authority over him/her/them/the organization, then the article serves to encourage him or her to explore the theological bases of assumptions he or she may have carried - and maybe questioned - for some time. Another reader may connect in another context.
The article serves a significant purpose - *without specific accusation* - in helping us all understand and properly apply Scripture. Period.
This article is one of many on a page that tries to expose IBLP falsities. This article accuses “some group” of TEACHING (present tense) that the leader was “THE anointed one” or a “SPECIAL anointed one” that is not to be questioned. It is in present tense so it would imply that he is currently like that. It doesn’t say he WAS (past tense) considered The anointed one. And so far only one person (Elizabeth) has entertained the thought for a moment that this DOESN’T apply to IBLP.
I haven’t seen any evidence that IBLP TAUGHT this so already the article is void of evidence because it says they taught it. But we’ve DEVIATED (I’m going to start capitalizing that word when I see a deviation, the other capitalizations are just for emphasis) that it wasn’t taught but practiced. But even this has only been supported by one person during a quick conversation 34 years ago. And since this is supposedly an ongoing problem, we could easily ask all IBLP participants (not the WHOLE WORLD as you DEVIATED to) to give their testimony as if they thought this was true or if they saw it taught or practiced.
But as is so normal, the responses keep DEVIATING from this accusation to so many other things. This is not about Bill being stubborn or controlling (the common DEVIATION mentioned in responses), that’s much different and where most of the support for this accusation has come from, albeit from 34 years ago. And though this is a somewhat serious accusation, it’s far from the cult like teaching of “the anointed one”. And it’s not about him being “AN anointed one” (DEVIATION #2). There’s even a big difference in changing that little word. 1 Corinthians 1 and 1 John 2 talk about how we are ALL anointed.
But addressing the deviation of Bill being stubborn or controlling. Aren’t we all that way? Aren’t you and I being stubborn in our beliefs and trying to convince others? I’m reminded of Luther’s famous quote: "Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
The things that people have brought to Gothard have been trivial matters that can go either way. For example, the first point in “a call for discernment” (the PDF version anyway) is questioning the scriptures that Bill gave on a mother reading scripture to her unborn child. We don’t know what Paul meant in 2 Tim 3:15. But they make the case in their letter that it CAN mean unborn child, as well as an infant. Is there scripture that says a mother should NOT do that? Is that wrong? Was Bill being “the unapproachable anointed one” by not listening to that rebuke or was he just being like you or me? Or was he doing so when one board member opposed him and the rest supported him, 34 years ago. Besides Bill is not God, you can’t prove him to be a false teacher when he makes one mistake. If Jesus did then yes that would make him false because he was supposed to be without sin. Teachers are not that way, they can make mistakes.
So in summary, even the arguments to the DEVIATIONS are weak but are far from the original accusation in this article which has no, and virtually no, support depending on if you say the article addresses what IBLP taught or practiced.
Let me make a DEVIATION of my own, if for nothing else to show you how it feels. I’ve asked you, Don, four times if you thought Christianity and Islam were the same or should be united somehow. You mentioned something one time that made me think you thought that and I’ve been asking for clarification.
@RG and freedom:
Don typed this: But the thing is that Gothard never is able to find witnesses to contradict the accusers among those who worked closely with him, even when he tries like when he called Smalley circa 2008 to testify that he never touched a woman. It's just that Smalley couldn't oblige because HE WAS A WITNESS AGAINST GOTHARD!
to repeat: those who knew Bill the best, those in his inner circle, are rarely those who want to go to bat for him. Yes, he has his raving fan girls/boys, but they are ususally like Deb Pearl: they don't really know the man, they are fans from somewhat of a distance. We should we trust the man (today) when those who knew him the best raise so many red flags, and consistently on the SAME issues, raising the same kinds of questions that have troubled many for decades ??
And how any of this is NOT 'evidence' is simply beyond me. I don't know what , if anything, meets those requirements in your mind.
This is outrageous.
Some of my comments are being deleted, others edited, and others don't seem to show up on the web version of the website.
What are you afraid of. These are not vulgar or even overly insulting comments? Just hard questions.
Outrageous? All websites monitor and screen comments. You do it on your FB page. How easily outraged you are. Do not let the sun go down on your anger. Have you approached the moderators to clear up this conflict? Maybe they have some information that may help you to be reconciled to their rules on their website. What do you mean "show up on the web version"? Do you have access to another version? Some of my comments have been held pending review, usually because they are too long. How long did you wait before expressing your outrage? What is OK about "not overly" insulting? What is your standard for acceptably insulting? Why do you need to insult anyone? If you are offended, why don't you turn the other cheek? Where is your mercy?
I changed my site name here. This is MJ
We're really getting into the weeds and I want to get back on subject soon but I thought it was outrageous that a website supposedly dedicated to exposing truth is suppressing it. I've never done that on my website.
I was pointing out that I haven't done anything to deserve being banned except for ask hard questions.
Mj, we have not deleted any of your comments. All of your posts now require moderation by a volunteer team, so we will get to them as we can. It is not uncommon to allow people to mention their own sites once, maybe a couple of times, but not to spam. The only editing of your comments was to remove the excessive linking to your own pages.
Regarding the previous Moderator comment, the problem with your comment was the attempted discrediting of the women who have been abused by Gothard. In response to your concern: the women are not being paid for their testimonies. They were not focused on finances. They have been silenced for years, sometimes decades, and are thankful to now have a voice.
RG has never paid anyone to do anything. It has provided a place for thousands of people with a shared past to connect and communicate. And we believe we've seen God work through RG time and time again, publicly and behind the scenes.
We strongly encourage you to bring yourself up to speed on all of the stories on this site before you step into arguing one point while disregarding the totality.
That's not the point I was making at all. I was just saying that to FIND people who would give testimony it would take finances to get the word out.
It sure got me thinking though. Are you willing to share your financial information? As you've looked at that of IBLP are you willing to allow the same. Again this is nothing against any people but your ministry and perhaps those who gain financially from it.
Is it helping people to heal by tying to destroy IBLP? Isn't that more of a vendictive role?
Dear Mj,
I think this site is like being invited into someone's home for a purposeful meeting. If they don't like what you're saying or the manner in which you say it, because it upsets the other guests, after a warning, they may ask you to leave.
I think that's a great description, Mary Olive.
MJ, you come across (to me, at least) as a little bit demanding, as if you're on a crusade or mission and refuse to hear the other side---not as someone who wants to have an honest conversation and ask honest questions. Even Alfred, who is one of Bill's good friends and defenders on this site, has had a more respectful tone than you have shown. There have been many disagreeing voices in the comments, but tone seems to make all the difference here. At least that's my take on it.
Mj, fwiw, I have been gently chided for my tone today (thanks, Don). And I agree with Beverly's remark. I will repeat to you Bill has already admitted to serious sin that was ongoing for years. I implore you to respect those who may still be hurting. To be sure, many are beyond it, but we need to allow that some may not be there yet.
Mj, I've visited your facebook site and noted Lauren's comment to you regarding her own experience with Bill Gothard. Do you consider hers to be an accusation with 0 evidence?
Notice that in contrast to your account of an experience with the teaching at a seminar (what Bill 'says'), her account is of an experience with Bill himself (what Bill 'does').
Lets see if this goes thru. Too many points have been made this afternoon. I'll be digesting the points made and updating my facebook website
Recovering grace and freedom
I'm obviously not just trying to spam. I'm legitimately addressing these arguments. I'll post here as we'll but if i get banned I want to still express my opinion. The threat of being banned for a simple statement regarding RG's finances was shocking. See above.
@MJ: if you want to carry on a conversation, a civil conversation here at RG, just do it dude/ma'am. I for one do not care about your facebook website. NotOneBit. If truth be for you, push on and persevere. Having been on a few blogsites in my time, you REALLY have to try to get even moderated here, though I have a time or two. No big deal.
well said. I said this once already in a different comment this morning, but I continue to be a little surprised at how strongly IBLP supporters push back against any moderation at all here while IBLP's pages are a joke - there is a comment box but I have yet to see any comment on their site that is not 100% in agreement with them. I appreciate the tone here at RG. I know from years of experience in interacting with a variety of blogs that it takes work to maintain that.
I am surprised at their bitterness. :-)
You're speaking as one who supports the goals of RG. It may be a little harder when you express an opposing view point.
AT least you are given the opportunity to offer your differing opinions (within moderation, like the rest of us). that opportunity is clearly not there at IBLP and similar websites. stop whining, it hurts my ears
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Master of Propaganda said, If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Why did MJ get banned? What is the purpose of moderation?
How certain are you that MJ is banned? Is it possible that he did not get banned but is playing the victim because a comment was moderated?
I continue to find it ironic that IBLP allows 0% disagreement on their site yet their supporters (such as MJ) seem to feel they have the right to post any and all of their comments on this site, no matter how rude or provoking. How does it happen that the folks who are so dedicated to "higher standards" cannot themselves abide any standards at all? (not aimed at you, L.B., just a rhetorical question in general)
L.b. Thanks for breaking the log jam. They WERE being blocked.
Mj
Clearly the word "volunteer" means nothing to you.
When I wrote this article some twelve years ago, I was not addressing any specific person, church, or organization, but rather I was addressing evangelicalism as a whole on a problem that is common among evangelicals in general. Even so, that does not mean that Bill Gothard was not on my mind when I wrote it.
If Gothard is not a part of evangelicalism, then I suppose you could conclude that nothing in my article applies in any way to him. But last I heard, he has been a "mover and shaker" in evangelicalism since at least the early 1970s, if not earlier. He has been written up in evangelical magazines and has been the subject of evangelical columnists since at least the mid-'70s. I have come across references to him in several evangelical books. The first book about Gothard (to my knowledge) was written by an evangelical Lutheran pastor in 1976. The sex scandal involving his brother rocked much of the evangelical church in the early '80s. Given all this it seems hard to believe that he is not aware of common characteristics and tendencies of evangelicalism, since he himself is a product of evangelicalism.
The specific reason I wrote this article is that there is a tendency in wide swaths of the evangelical subculture to unbiblically elevate leaders to a level where it becomes very difficult to hold them accountable. We continue to see news stories about the fallout from this practice today. In some cases this tendency has been woven into the fabric of a given church's or denomination's character; it is part of the general ethos that everyone takes for granted. In other cases this idea enters churches when strong, charismatic leaders assume control. In these cases the tendency to elevate the leader has often been introduced through new teaching. In either case, tragedies (or should we say atrocities?) have ensued when savvy individuals take extreme advantage of a pervasive culture that fosters a general willingness to follow. And in many cases throughout much of the 20th century, the expression “Touch not mine anointed!” (1 Chr. 16:22; Psa. 105:15) was frequently used to defend tyrannical leaders. I, for one, remember hearing it cited in discussions about church disputes when I was a new believer back in the late 1970s. The view remains common that pastors and leaders are special "men of God," a cut above the rest of us. And it is easy to see how such an unbiblical view of authority, promoted by a popular evangelical teacher such as Bill Gothard, and embraced by a large portion of the evangelical church, became an additional support for already-existing authoritarian leadership practices both inside and outside IBLP.
Did Gothard ever apply the words “Touch not mine anointed!” directly to himself? Not as far as I know. But that is beside the point.
For one thing, why should he? Experienced manipulators know that it's better to have others say good things about you than to say good things about yourself. It keeps you looking both humble an heroic at the same time. The leader who surrounds himself with a crowd of well-trained sycophants not only has an unpaid PR staff, but a team of defenders ready to swing into action at the slightest sign of opposition, quoting verses like “Touch not mine anointed!” as part of their rationale, so Gothard doesn't have to. Given what I know from firsthand experience in evangelicalism over the past 38 years, I find it difficult to believe that Gothard's supporters have never quoted it on his behalf.
For another thing, he's not that stupid. He surely not only knows that he would be exposing himself to well-earned charges of spiritual despotism and unflattering comparisons with Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) if he actually went on record claiming special anointed status, but he also knows that people are more susceptible to subtle intimidation than they are to its more crude and obvious forms. When a person out-and-out claims to be anointed, he or she runs the risk of looking silly, if not a bit pathetic. It would be far easier to brush off Gothard's direct claim to being anointed than it has been to ignore some of the things people have reported that he has actually said to them. I'm talking about things like, "Bad things have happened to people who people who have gone up against me ... some have lost their businesses ... some had spouses die..." Why would a spiritual despot even need to quote 1 Chr. 16:22 when he can simply evoke the fear of the consequences for supposedly breaking it in other people's minds? And all the while he gives himself plausible deniability that he ever told anyone that he was "special" or "anointed?"
In 1983 Harold L. Busséll wrote a book called Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians. His point for writing it was that there are certain unbiblical emphases in the evangelical subculture that make many evangelicals easy prey for cults. Many evangelicals are taught that accepting Christ and/or living according to Scripture will cause you to be ceaselessly joyful and "victorious" over sin. When some conclude that this is not to be found in their local churches, they come to believe that they have found it in a cult that is able to fake it long enough to suck them in. Other evangelicals are taught to identify all their inner feelings, impulses, and the occasional odd thought that pops into their heads with "the Lord's leading" (often informing others about it with the words, “the Lord said to me,” instead of describing what they actually experienced), and there are cults that specialize in using that as a hook to reel in unsuspecting Christians. Still other evangelicals are taught that the only leaders worth following are those brimming with blunt, unyielding, and aggressive self-confidence and who "aren't afraid to offend people" (translation: they are obnoxious revilers), and there are legions of cult leaders with the "spiritual gift of swagger" who act like magnets for people with this view.
Bill Gothard was able to draw people into his vortex because he was "speaking the language" of so many evangelicals who had been poorly taught about so many things, but were particularly ill-informed on the Scriptural view of authority, which is the cornerstone of his propaganda. He knew that there was a strong craving for order and authority in American evangelicalism—especially in the chaotic days of the late '60s and early '70s—and he took advantage of it. He built his own little kingdom, his own little spiritual empire, inside of which he harnessed evangelical attitudes, concepts, and buzz-phrases for his own ends. While he may never have directly quoted “Touch not mine anointed!” he has certainly displayed a fondness for the word "anointed" itself, and other things he has said have tended to apply the meaning of those words to himself.
I had already written several articles about Bill Gothard by the time this one was first published. Our book, A Matter of Basic Principles, was in the process of being edited and printed at the time. I was then in the process of turning my thoughts to the currents within evangelicalism that made Bill Gothard and his organization possible. The theme of “Touch not mine anointed!” has been and continues to be one of those currents, so that’s what I wrote about. But even if Gothard never explicitly said that that verse applies to him, he has certainly acted and spoken as if it does. And so have many of his followers.
Excellent post and 'rebuttal', though MJ's comments really don't need/warrant that. How silly and foolish to lean on what Bill explicitly said, for most of his errors at least. Look to the fruit, the track record, the life long habits.
Thank you for clarifying. However you seem to be back peddling. Your article above is clearly written against a kooky idea that this leader had some "special anointing" that you should follow. See excerpts below. Now you are saying its the widespread evangelical belief (supposedly) that you should not speak against ANY leader of a church.
Your words:
"You may have heard someone tell you God “anointed” him or her to be your leader. Or, perhaps, someone else pointed to another person and told you that person had a special “anointing” from God’s Spirit to be your teacher, shepherd, or whatever. That may have sounded pretty wonderful at the time, and if so, you undoubtedly began looking up to that individual, idealizing him or her, and marveling over the fact God would bless you so much by bringing such a person into your life.
Hey! — was that a beam of sunlight or did some kind of halo seem to be forming around his head when they called him the “anointed” man of God?"
I disagree with 1) this kooky notion of SPECIAL anointed AND 2) not speaking against any church leader. IBLP certainly didn't teach them either. They taught you should not bad mouth the leader before going to him first. Its clearly in their teaching.
You even admit you have no evidence even to the 2nd teaching. Your "evidence" is just your speculations. And by your own words even if you could prove it, then you'd only make the case that he's a typical evangelical, not a cult as is so often proclaimed on this site. Now we can go to the next cult accusation.
You also seem to be against evangelicals. What definition do you use for that? Or what characteristic besides this one, which certainly they don't all adhere to it, do you disagree with? What religion are you promoting?
I looked up some on Wikipedia, websters, and the NEA site and came up with this.
Evangelicalism is a world-wide Protestant movement maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ's atonement.
1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels 2 : protestant 3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
NAE.net
Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a "born-again" experience and a life long process of following Jesus.
Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity
Recovering Grace and Freedom,
I am not backpedaling. I have no idea why you would say that. I wrote this article on the tenth anniversary of my departure from a spiritually-abusive group. The leader of that group had once been active in IBLP (back when it was IBYC). During those ten years I was amazed to discover how common my story was. The “leader” I discuss in the opening paragraphs is a hypothetical composite of the various ones I learned about over those ten years, both in my reading and through personal accounts of people I’d come to know, plus the one I had escaped ten years earlier. And if you’ll notice, I do not even mention my own experience until the fourteenth paragraph, or more than a quarter of the way into the article. I only discuss it for eight paragraphs before I move on. My purpose at that point in the article is to relate to others with similar experiences to mine.
As for this teaching of the “special anointing”—I agree with you that it is “kooky,” and that it is wrong to prohibit people from speaking against any church leader. But anyone who questions whether this is a concept that is found in many branches of evangelicalism clearly does not get out much. In my nearly four decades of traveling in evangelical circles, I have come across it many times, in churches ranging from Baptist, to Bible, to Pentecostal, to whatever. It’s very pervasive.
And as for what IBLP has taught along those lines: first of all, to be fair to Gothard and IBLP, I am not aware of Gothard ever giving permission to “bad mouth the leader” (your words), even after going to him. So I don’t see how you can claim that it’s “clearly their teaching” that “They taught you should not bad mouth the leader before going to him first.” I will have to see the claim that they permitted bad mouthing a leader after confronting him documented before giving it any credence. Such a concession on Gothard’s part would permit everyone who has ever confronted him to “bad mouth” him, and that would include scores of people over the past 40-plus years.
Secondly, as we have already documented in our book, Gothard has rebuked people for criticizing him even when the criticism was private and for obvious sins (A Matter of Basic Principles, 242), as we show in our chapter on the Alpena Mountain Home fiasco, wherein he repeatedly broke his word at great expense (nearly $100,000) to Christians who were actually trying to support him and IBLP (ibid., 225-247). And we have received numerous testimonies from former IBLP staffers and others of Gothard’s threats against those who might speak against him after following all of his steps for appealing to him as their authority (e.g., "Bad things have happened to people who people who have gone up against me ... some have lost their businesses ... some had spouses die..." and so on).
Now, when you say, “You even admit you have no evidence even to the 2nd teaching,” I assume you are referring to the fact that I make it clear that I have no evidence that Gothard ever directly applied the exact words, “Touch not mine anointed!” But I also make it clear that he has said virtually the same thing as that with different words, and I have quoted him based on reliable sources. And the fact that so many of those formerly involved with IBLP resonate with this issue right here on this comment thread is also evidence. There is a reason that it strikes a chord with them, but I will leave it to any of them who are willing to explain that.
As for my attitude toward evangelicals: you seem to enjoy reading my comments in the least charitable way possible. I am not against evangelicals; I am an evangelical. I am an elder at a church with the word “evangelical” in its name. I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the centrality of the Gospel, the Great Commission, the New Birth, justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the fact that Christ will return and could do so at any moment, and so on. Did I leave anything out?
There are varying definitions of “evangelical” floating around. There is, for example, “Bebbington’s Quadrilateral” (biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, activism) coined in 1989, and apparently the basis for the definition you found at the NEA site. I frankly think that these definitions are incomplete, because they leave out such things as the inerrancy of Scripture and the importance of the Second Coming. They strike me as lowest-common-denominator definitions rather than historically accurate ones.
In the meantime, if you’re really looking for evidence, I suggest you start by obtaining a copy of A Matter of Basic Principles. We did the best we could to document everything we wrote, and more troubling information about Gothard has surfaced since then. I receive no royalties from this book; all proceeds go to Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., and it is available as a Kindle book on Amazon.
Until you at least try to get informed concerning the evidence for the charges against Gothard, your denials concerning evidence will only serve to demonstrate how ill-informed you are.
You are intermixing two terms interchangeably for a potent mix, which seems common here.
Your original article is about a leader having a “SPECIAL” anointing and how the followers think he should be followed unquestionably because of that SPECIAL anointing. The language is certainly that of “special” “the anointed” etc. The description is even kooky of some special annointed leader. If you can’t see this from your wording below... (I have to be careful for using any term that would seem derogatory, like you have, because I may get blocked).
Your words again:
"You may have heard someone tell you God “anointed” him or her to be your leader. Or, perhaps, someone else pointed to another person and told you that person had a special “anointing” from God’s Spirit to be your teacher, shepherd, or whatever. That may have sounded pretty wonderful at the time, and if so, you undoubtedly began looking up to that individual, idealizing him or her, and marveling over the fact God would bless you so much by bringing such a person into your life.
Hey! — was that a beam of sunlight or did some kind of halo seem to be forming around his head when they called him the “anointed” man of God?"
Then in your recent explanation it shifts gears completely and says it applies to ALL leaders. No focus on special anointing, no kooky descriptions. In fact there is language that this is very common with lots of churches. Total change of tone.
The first one is a kooky cult, the 2nd is a common teaching many churches adhere to. Though I disagree with the teaching, and will try to find a little IBLP booklet explaining what I said, if you prove IBLP practiced this 2nd one you really haven’t accomplished much. I’m ready to go to the next accusation.
I have your book but don’t have it in front of me. Do you quote anything of substance or just more of your own articles? I noticed that about the book, that many of your quotes reference your own works or works of your friends.
Mj says, "I have your book but don’t have it in front of me. Do you quote anything of substance or just more of your own articles? I noticed that about the book, that many of your quotes reference your own works or works of your friends."
What an insulting and ugly comment, Mj. You're showing your true colors.
Agreed, P.L.
Mj, you also stated, "I have to be careful for using any term that would seem derogatory, like you have, because I may get blocked." What exactly did Ron say that was derogatory? Your comments on here suggest that RG is employing a double standard regarding people who disagree with their mission, but none of your comments have been blocked, and the only editing to your comments concerned RG's multiple-link-instances-outside-usernames policy.
Let's stop beating around the bush and just cut to the heart of the matter. Why is it so important to you to defend Gothard, even after mounds of evidence and testimony - including his own admission of wrongdoing - demonstrate a pattern of behavior suggesting that he has not been concerned with living up to the very standards he imposed on those who trust him? Even more importantly, what about the people who are still suffering under his manipulation? Are they that unimportant to you that you'll consciously choose to continue enabling this abuser by being a part of the IBLP machine?
Recovering grace and freedom
You wrote:
“You are intermixing two terms interchangeably for a potent mix, which seems common here.”
This is highly vague. I have no idea what it is supposed to refer to or mean, but it comes off as rather accusatory. I suppose that was your goal.
You wrote:
“Your original article is about a leader having a ‘SPECIAL’ anointing and how the followers think he should be followed unquestionably because of that SPECIAL anointing. The language is certainly that of ‘special’ ‘the anointed’ etc. The description is even kooky of some special annointed leader. If you can’t see this from your wording below... (I have to be careful for using any term that would seem derogatory, like you have, because I may get blocked).”
Yes, this is how the teaching is frequently presented in various evangelical churches, and it may seem biblical if you are only looking at the concept of anointing as it is presented in the Old Testament, where there is no such thing as a “general anointing.” All OT anointings were special, because they were for the purpose of appointing someone to the office of either prophet, priest, or king. And many churches today transfer the OT concept of anointing to the pastor, to itinerant preachers, to televangelists, to missionaries, etc., so that to one extent or another the average person is required to defer to the authority of “the anointed.”
You wrote:
“Your words again:
‘You may have heard someone tell you God “anointed” him or her to be your leader. Or, perhaps, someone else pointed to another person and told you that person had a special “anointing” from God’s Spirit to be your teacher, shepherd, or whatever. That may have sounded pretty wonderful at the time, and if so, you undoubtedly began looking up to that individual, idealizing him or her, and marveling over the fact God would bless you so much by bringing such a person into your life.
‘Hey! — was that a beam of sunlight or did some kind of halo seem to be forming around his head when they called him the ‘anointed’ man of God?”
I don't know how commonly the actual word "special" is used as an adjective for "anointing," but even when it is not, the idea that such-and-such an “anointed pastor” or “anointed ministry” or even “anointed word” is downright special is implied and understood. So cult leaders then come along and take advantage of this misuse of the term “anointed” by exercising more extreme levels of authority and requiring more radical levels of obedience.
In the New Testament, however, the anointing is no longer special but general, since all believers are part of “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9) because Christ “has made us kings and priests to His God and Father” (Rev. 1:6), and thus all believers are anointed (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Jn. 2:20, 27).
You wrote:
“Then in your recent explanation it shifts gears completely and says it applies to ALL leaders. No focus on special anointing, no kooky descriptions. In fact there is language that this is very common with lots of churches. Total change of tone.”
You are obviously not tracking with me and thus missing my point, so I’ll start by going back to what I wrote earlier: it begins with churches that misuse the concept—and if they are limiting the number of the “anointed” to those holding a particular office or engaged in a unique ministry then they are misusing it. These churches do tend to generally apply it to all leaders, and even though it hasn’t gotten “kooky” yet, it’s still an unbiblical limitation. (The New Testament does not classify pastors, teachers, and leaders under some “anointed” category, but rather among church offices, and among those with special gifts.)
It is when cult leaders and spiritual abusers come along and use this unbiblical concept as bait to lure Christians into their cults that it becomes “kooky.” And by “kooky” I mean that it is taken to extremes. In some cases we may be talking Jonestown-type extremes, but usually not. Even so, that does not mean it does not become quite oppressive spiritually, nor does it mean that some terrible abuses do not occur.
Whether one chooses to call Gothard a cult leader or spiritual abuser is largely a matter of semantics. A personality cult had certainly grown up around him, and he definitely abused people spiritually, and all this happened among Christians who had been taught by general evangelical subculture that pastors, teachers, and leaders are specially “anointed.”
You wrote:
“The first one is a kooky cult, the 2nd is a common teaching many churches adhere to. Though I disagree with the teaching, and will try to find a little IBLP booklet explaining what I said, if you prove IBLP practiced this 2nd one you really haven’t accomplished much. I’m ready to go to the next accusation.”
On the contrary, abundant testimony points to the fact that Gothard laid claim to possessing the kind of authority that is essentially the same as that commonly associated with a “special anointing.” This was an authority he assumed for himself; it was never given to him. And when he assumed it he took it to the next level and misused it the same way all cult leaders do: to make himself accountable to no one while running roughshod over the personal liberties of others.
You wrote:
“I have your book but don’t have it in front of me. Do you quote anything of substance or just more of your own articles? I noticed that about the book, that many of your quotes reference your own works or works of your friends.”
You evidently have not familiarized yourself with our more than 400 endnotes, which are packed with references to IBLP literature (as well as literature from IBLP subsidiaries), letters to and from Bill Gothard, commentaries, study Bibles, lay-level Christian books, standard biblical and theological reference works, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, newspaper articles (including URLs for web copies), encyclopedia articles, published papers, court cases, books that Gothard references in his literature, and so on. As I searched through all these endnotes I only came across two that referred back to anything we wrote, and only four that referred to people we know well enough to call friends (although I may have missed a few). So perhaps you are thinking of different book, because I do not recognize your description as fitting ours.
Your original article only makes any sense if it was only addressing the “extreme” use of the anointed teaching by cult leaders. (talk about semantics. I call it two teachings, you call it one teaching with an extreme application of it, whatever. I’ll use your terms). Otherwise all your description of the despair of leaving this leader would be negligible because you’ve found “another” anointed leader, no big deal. And as I’ve tried to point out the wordage you used was that of a one and only type of leader that you idolize. It’s not the wording you’d use for finding “a” teacher, all of which are anointed. “The anointed one” would be “an anointed one” etc.
It’s only in your recent explanation that the idea of all teachers being anointed ones came out.
The article referenced below shows that IBLP teaches we are all anointed. The testimony I’ve seen only show that he was stubborn and controlling, and I pointed out earlier we are all that way to the extent that we are able to. I have not seen this abundance of testimony that you are referring to where Gothard used the anointed terminology.
Recovering Grace and Freedom,
I do not deny that the main subject of my original article was the "extreme" use of the anointed teaching by cult leaders. When I wrote it 12 years ago I was not talking about how the word "anointed" had already been distorted in various evangelical circles. This latter idea is something that I brought in with my initial comment on this thread.
The reason I brought it in was to provide an explanation of how, even though my 12-year-old article did not mention Gothard, it was still applicable to Gothard, both when I wrote it and now. It was applicable to Gothard because he utilized the "anointed" concept (not the actual word) the way that cult leaders use this and other concepts in the evangelical subculture: as lures to reel in unsuspecting Christians. I have now tried to explain this to you several different ways; I hope this one makes sense to you.
Moving along: the article you referenced does not show that IBLP (or Gothard) teaches that we are all anointed, because (1) it is clearly referring to physical anointing with oil, and (2) the only thing it says all believers should receive is the laying on of hands. You have mistakenly equated its later reference to the laying on of hands(on the second page) to anointing by making the prior error of assuming that the articles reference to "laying on hands and anointing" on page 1 means "anointing by laying on hands." It does not, because its reference to anointing is clearly to physical anointing with oil, and the notion of "anointing with oil by laying on of hands," which is required by your (mis)reading, is absurd.
Moving on again: if you have only seen testimony that Gothard is stubborn and controlling and nothing more serious than that, then you have not done any significant research on this subject and should not be commenting here or anywhere else—unless you are only interested in telling people what you do not know. Get our book; read it. It's on Kindle. Then your opinion might begin to have credibility.
You wrote:
"I have not seen this abundance of testimony that you are referring to where Gothard used the anointed terminology."
When I read things like this, it causes me to lose any remaining confidence that you either (a) actually read what I write, (b) choose to interpret what I write with any integrity, or (c) choose to write what you do in a straightforward manner. Either you are just disrespectfully skimming through what I write, or you are deliberately distorting it, or deliberately responding in a confusing manner. Of course, you could also be dyslexic, as I have heard that Gothard is, but if that's the case I will ask you to confirm your interpretation of what I write with someone in your household, such as your spouse (assuming you're married) before you respond.
Your very sentence here is vague enough that it is potentially deceptive. The clause, "Gothard used the anointed terminology" could mean a couple of different things in the context of our discussion. It could mean either (a) Gothard simply used the word "anointed" (that's the most basic meaning), or (b) Gothard called himself "anointed" (that's the question we've been discussing).
If all you mean is (a), then go to IBLP.org, enter the word "anointed" in the "Search" field, and notice how many references you come up with. Yes, he uses "the anointed terminology" frequently if you simply mean he uses the word itself.
But if you mean (b), then I have little hope for progress in this discussion, because you are twisting my words into utterly unrecognizable caricatures of what I said. Not only have I never said that Gothard called himself "anointed," I have repeatedly indicated the opposite! If that's what you're saying, I have to ask: why is it so hard for you to accurately represent what I have written here? Here is exactly what I wrote in my previous comment:
"On the contrary, abundant testimony points to the fact that Gothard laid claim to possessing the kind of authority that is essentially the same as that commonly associated with a 'special anointing.'"
I was very clear here. I did not state that Gothard claimed to have a special anointing. Instead, I stated that he claimed the things that amount to a special anointing. He has attacked people for daring to question his sinful practices. We have documented this in our book. He has threatened people with God's retribution (ruined careers, dead spouses, etc.) for opposing him. Several ex-IBLP staffers have come forward with testimonies of this. These examples are virtually identical a "Touch not mine anointed" attitude, even though the actual words are not quoted. That's all I said, and I said it plainly, and I said it repeatedly.
You think I’M confusing?? I think we both now agree that the original article was on the abuse of the anointed teaching by some cultish leaders AND you had Bill Gothard on your mind. Your first statement yesterday seemed to say the article was more focused on the general problem in the churches to call a church leader the anointed. “I was addressing evangelicalism as a whole on a problem that is common among evangelicals in general” When I pointed out that the article only makes sense when it was focused on the cultic abuse of this teaching, you went back to the other. “I do not deny that the main subject of my original article was the "extreme" use of the anointed teaching by cult leaders. When I wrote it 12 years ago I was not talking about how the word "anointed" had already been distorted in various evangelical circles. This latter idea is something that I brought in with my initial comment on this thread.” Now you’re clarifying that the original article only STEMMED from the general teaching on submitting to an anointed one which is prominent in many churches but the article was indeed focused on the abuse of it. Okay we’ll go with that.
But then you said if “Gothard is not a part of evangelicalism then I suppose you could conclude that nothing in my article applies in any way to him.” That would seem to indicate the article was only on the general evangelical teaching on submitting to an anointed church leader because if Gothard was abusing this principle, wouldn’t the article apply to him whether he was part of evangelicalism or not? The statement doesn’t make sense. What does the tie to evangelicalism have?
You can see why I was, and still am a little, confused. But other than these outliers I got the basic idea.
But you keep saying that Gothard didn’t use the principle of the anointed one to himself. Isn’t that the whole purpose of the article, to show how leaders cite this anointed one stuff to give them power? And how the cultish ones do it to an extreme? But Gothard didn’t use the term at all to himself?
So now supposedly there’s overwhelming testimony that he used the “idea” of his anointing to threaten people. Why are you so reluctant to share this “abundant testimony”? Shouldn’t it be as easy as copy and paste from Kindle or refer to an article? Is almost all of this testimony from three decades ago by chance? I’ve seen some of it and it’s not real convincing.
Mj,
Your comments on this thread are poorly reasoned, flawed in logic, and lacking in clarity. It is often difficult to know what you are talking about, or what your questions really are.
Ron provided you with a detailed, reasonable, and well-written explanation of his position as the author of this article, including his desire to provide warning regarding a practice within evangelical groups, and from that you decided that he has something against evangelicals? Your conclusion is bizarre and unsupported by anything he said.
And btw, most of us here don't need wikipedia to tell us what an evangelical is.
If the reason you're supporting Bill Gothard is because you don't believe he teaches 'special anointing' then fine, move on from here.
I appreciate Ron's article, the insight it gives into an inappropriate view of spiritual leaders, and the patient way he has engaged with your nearly incoherent comments.
I have taken my extended comment here from June 10, 2014, in which I provide the historical background for the use of the word "anointed" among evangelicals, and worked it into an article for the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. blog titled "Leveraging Lunacy: How Bill Gothard Rode a Wave of Evangelical Goofiness." It was posted yesterday and you can find it at midwestoutreach.org.
This morning the article was picked up by the aggregation web site, Real Clear Religion (realclearreligion.org), and is second on their list of Friday Morning links. My article links back to key articles on this site, and it is my hope that it will be of benefit to those who have suffered from the scourge of Gothardism but have not yet been introduced to the wonderful work that is being done by Recovering Grace. May many more be blessed by the efforts of the staff and writers here!
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/bill-gothards-tornado-that-didnt-happen/ This article speaks to the anointing issue.
Lynn,
Thanks for sharing the link. The article does speak clearly to the anointing issue.
the article on anointing in the attached IBLP Letter on that RG article actually helps makes my 1st point that they taught anointing is for everybody.
"In Hebrews 6 we discover that the laying on of hands (a method of anointing that they had mentioned on page 1- my add) was not only for those who enter full time work. Rather it is listed as foundational for EVERY believer."
Emphasis and parenthetical comment mine.
Commenting quickly on the RG article itself: God does work with natural processes with uncanny timing so if they heard a wind while praying you could see how they thought it was from God.
They just made the mistake of thinking it was a tornado. also not every tornado is recorded, especially small undamaging ones. Using stock images is common in magazines.
Recovering Grace and Freedom,
You wrote:
"In Hebrews 6 we discover that the laying on of hands (a method of anointing that they had mentioned on page 1- my add)..."
That's not what it says on page 1. Rather it lists "laying on of hands and anointing" as two separate items under point 1. And as the caption to the accompanying photograph shows, this is a reference to "anointing with oil"—something quite different from the "special anointing" concept (e.g., "anointed pastor," "anointed ministry," etc.), which refers to a spiritual "anointing," which is unverifiable except, presumably, by the supposed "success" of the the person supposedly "anointed."
Meanwhile, as someone who came from the state with the 5th highest number of tornadoes per 10,000 square miles (Illinois) and who 12 years ago moved to the state with the highest number of tornadoes per 10,000 square miles (Florida), I can't help but ask: what is supposed to be the significance of the term "unpredicted tornado?" Is it now possible to go beyond predicting the risk of a tornado hours or minutes ahead of time? Has there been some kind of technological leap in meteorology that only IBLP knows about? Someone should tell the National Weather Service! This is great news!
Okay it seems like more semantics but okay you think the article doesn't apply. Some of your supporters have also said it did.
Care to comment on the IBLP teaching in the main seminar on 7 steps to confronting an authority when they tell you to do something that is wrong? The pages are on my Facebook page. Doesn't seem to fit with this whole don't question the anointed teaching.
IBLP taught that you shouldn't speak against an authority before going to them first that's all.
We'll as one living in the official "tornado alley" and one closer to Big Sandy, sure they have an elaborate system of predicting the possibility of tornadoes. Torcon?
But surely you see that you're trying to get way too much mockery mileage out of a simple statement.
@recovering grace and freedom: when has IBLP EVER said that it was OK to speak against an authority, EVER. I don't mean to disobey an authority that asks you to sin, I mean taking the next step and speaking OUT AGAINST that authority. When was this ever explicitly taught, and affirmed by example(s). Waiting breathlessly.
Greg r, If you look at what's currently on the IBLP website, you'll find this article on "How to make an effective appeal": http://iblp.org/questions/how-can-i-make-effective-appeal. This is what it says in the intro:
"When you are asked to do evil or when your authorities are about to do evil, an appeal should be made. As you mature in Christ, you will learn to view circumstances in life with wisdom from God. As you gain wisdom, you will become better prepared to make precise, effective appeals. All your appeals may not be granted. However, if an appeal is denied, you can be confident that any suffering you experience as a result of standing alone and refusing to do evil is truly suffering that is for Christ’s sake."
As you read through the document, it's interesting that they don't ever encourage you to speak out against the evil request. The only line that I see referencing it is the one above, assuming that you'll stand alone and just refuse to do the evil (but only with a good attitude, as you see later in the document). But it doesn't say, "You SHOULD speak out against evil and report your authority to the higher-ups." Instead, it assumes you'll refuse to do what they ask and quietly suffer whatever ill-consequences follow (basically be a doormat with a smile!).
In step 7, this is what you should do if you're asked to do evil and your appeal is rejected:
"7. Respond correctly if your appeal is rejected.
Your response to an appeal that is rejected will reveal your true attitude about the situation. A gracious response not only will be a proper testimony; it also may prompt your authority to reconsider the appeal. Also, a right response will influence your authority to be open to your future appeals."
Clearly, they've never worked with abusive authorities before. A good attitude (in general) doesn't make abusers feel repentant---in fact, the lack of push-back often just keeps the cycle of abuse and dysfunction going.
And my own personal favorite about the above document... please note that in #2, that the masculine gender is emphasized with italics, which seems to indicate that the authority is ALWAYS male. (I got a kick out of that one! Clearly they haven't worked with any female bosses in the workplace.) And if you want to make the instructions REALLY creepy, just insert a person's name into the paragraph. Let's use the name of Bill, for example:
"Your appeal should communicate your sincere concern for three aspects of your authority’s leadership: Bill's reputation, Bill's goals, and Bill's authority.
You should warn an authority about a wrong course of action that will damage Bill's reputation.
You should have an understanding of your authority’s goals and work diligently to help him achieve them. If you become aware of a situation that does not support Bill's goals, you should make an appeal.
As part of your commitment to do all you can to make your authority successful, you should alert him to situations that would diminish or threaten Bill's authority, because if Bill is robbed of his authority, he will be unable to fulfill his responsibilities.
So let's not rob Bill or anyone else of their authority. It's their divine right.
Oh wow---there's an even better document on IBLP's website that addresses this: http://iblp.org/questions/what-should-i-do-if-authority-asks-me-do-wrong. And yes, you should just suffer quietly for not doing the evil request---no challenging of the authority is allowed. Wow. Just. Wow.
Beverly, awesome! Also, note that the entire discussion assumes that every relationship is hierarchical. Where does IBLP materials EVER discuss interaction with teachers who are not "authorities" in your life? What if your children are in a church or organization led by false teachers? May you speak out against a false teacher if you are not under their authority and have no personal route of appeal? If I wish to denounce Islam, do I first need to go to every Muslim Imam and offer them my correction before speaking out?
Don't forget first jumping through all the hoops of self-examination before you make your appeal to the false teacher... who then laughs in your face! But hey, at least you've suffered for righteousness while getting nowhere with them!
The booklet “Instructions for our Most Important Battle - supplementary alumni book volume 2” gives some teaching on discernment vs. judgment and reproving vs. reviling.
There is a lot of scripture and reasoning of the loving motivation but since I can’t copy it, I’ll say basically the steps are
1) go to that person first
2) get all the facts
3) Then tell others
And all of this is with the intent to win them back, not hurt them
It’s interesting that in this booklet IBLP tells how to approach a Christian leader right along with an older person with no distinction. And it says an older person not an older man, so it applies to how we should treat older men and women. It just points out that in these cases you should do it respectfully and with a submissive attitude, not rebukingly. The interesting point is that there is clearly no distinction whatsoever made between a church leader and an older person. So much for the anointed church leader teaching in IBLP.
"Clearly, they've never worked with abusive authorities before."
Indeed. It's a bit different when you are the abusive authorities.
IBLP does teach on caution when taking steps 4 and 5, the public accusations. I referred to the booklet of that process previously. Like anything his teaching applies to normal circumstances. You can take extraordinary circumstances and show that you should take extraordinary steps. Bu that does not make the teaching false. Although in this case taking the steps even to a cult would apply, you’d just not expect to get anywhere when you approached them hoping they would repent.
Realized this wouldn't make sense out of order. Corrected it to make more sense.
IBLP does teach on caution when proceeding from private confrontation to the public accusations. I referred to the booklet of that process previously. Like anything his teaching applies to normal circumstances. You can take extraordinary circumstances and show that you should take extraordinary steps. Bu that does not make the teaching false. Although in this case taking the steps even to a cult would apply, you’d just not expect to get anywhere when you approached them hoping they would repent. See my new post for more.
@recov. grace and freedom: point blank, I do not trust your 'synopsis' of what IBLP taught. What Beverly is quoting seems to refute you, and she is dealing with direct quotes of current material. I will look into this firsthand , but you have not given me solid reason to believe that you know what you are talking about.
The card that I see IBLP playing continually is "suffer silently, GOD respects that....". As true as that is, that is NOT the whole story.
"IBLP taught that you shouldn't speak against an authority before going to them first that's all."
Since people from RG HAVE gone to Bill Gothard first, then I'm glad you agree that it's okay for them to now 'speak against an authority', Mj
I call common ground!
Mj says "Although in this case taking the steps even to a cult would apply, you’d just not expect to get anywhere when you approached them hoping they would repent. "
Which is exactly what happened when people approached Bill...they got nowhere. So are you saying that is consistent with the character of a cult?
More common ground!
Dear Ron Henzel,
You wrote today to Mj: "Of course, you could also be dyslexic, as I have heard that Gothard is,...."
I think Bill Gothard may also have Asperger's Syndrome, which is a mild form of autism. I suggested to him that he take an online test that might confirm (or deny) that possibility. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but some people tend to discount what they don't understand.
ASD could explain a lot. It's possible to be dyslexic as well. There are many undiagnosed adults with Asperger's syndrome. In addition, I suggested previously that Bill Gothard might have developed a "founder's syndrome", but that wasn't taken seriously by other readers. It's a common malady among founders.
If you would like my credentials, I'd be happy to provide them for you.
Mary Olive, just because we do not comment does not mean we don't take your contributions seriously. I thought your "founders syndrome" mention was golden! I grew up in the shadow of Oral Roberts University and it can be pitiful how a founder can be overtaken by his own success. When a man with no higher education founds a university it can be extremely traumatic. I honestly look at such men with compassion, knowing how crazy I would behave if I had people handing me millions of dollars and following my every notion. But when the man identifies himself with the mission, it must be an extreme struggle when the mission may slip away from the man. See how Steve Jobs had to work his way back into Apple.
Mary Olive,
I did indeed take your 'founders syndrome' comment seriously, but I understand that it is considered a syndrome of the organization itself, not of a person. So for me, it doesn't explain Gothard's personal issues with mistreatment of women, or his theological errors...though perhaps it does speak to the lack of institutional will to challenge him. I'm happy to hear further thoughts you have on the matter.
Dear Don Rubottom and P.L.,
Thank you so much for you responses and illustrations. I stand corrected. I see that I could have put a qualifier so my statement read "but that wasn't taken seriously by some other readers." I know better than to write in absolutes, since there are exceptions to almost everything.
I can only imagine how difficult it might be to be the founder of a mushrooming organization. Aila H. wrote a nice response below from her experience.
It does appear that Bill Gothard had more than one problem to deal with during his years as head of IBLP/ATI. All things considered, I'm amazed he is still alive.
Hi Mary Olive,
I needed to have the time to research founders syndrome, so that my reply would be meaningful. I believe that you have identified a legitimate problem with BG and ILBP. I served on a local nonprofit board. From the outside the director and founder seemed wonderful. After serving on the board, I began to see the problems of control, micro management, family members working everywhere, a demand for loyalty, and a willingness to sacrifice ( terminate) any employee who got in her way. She recruited the board members, kept us in the dark about important issues and finances. After the nonprofit she founded got into trouble with the state, she was barred by the state from being the director. During this nightmare I was board president, and was regularly getting calls from employees calling from home to fill me in, and begging the board to fix the mess. She was still trying to run things, and told the board her daughter would be taking over. I explained that the board made the decision on who would be hired. She had many friends and church members on the board. Her daughter was hired. She immediately began to operate just as her mother had. I resigned from the board. There was nothing else I could do. Other board members thought I was over reacting, but four months later five others resigned. All this to say that I recognize that a person with founders syndrome works very hard to control what he/she has created. They structure everything to suit themselves, board members are purposely kept in the dark.
This is a serious problem, and may be one reason the board wasn't able to function well over the years. It appears though that BG has layers of dysfunctional behavior. His mistreatment of young women, and all the other narcissistic traits that have been discussed here point to an individual who should not be considered a ministry leader.
Dear Aila H.,
I so appreciated your thoughtful response. You provided a view of the dilemma of founder's syndrome from the board of directors point of view. I was once a school board member and understand how the key person, in my case the school superintendent, can sway board members to a certain point of view almost imperceptibly.
I believe Bill Gothard finally understands he has a problem and needs help. The pride of patriarchy is a tough nut to crack. It is so deeply ingrained. Perhaps that is why there are similarities between IBLP/ATI teachings and old order Amish rules and practices. The Amish are notably patriarchal.
Hi Mary Olive,
I'm curious why you believe that BG finally understands he has a problem and needs help. You have had some good insights on personality issues that may explain why he has behaved the way he has. Perhaps I've missed something, but I haven't read anything that indicates he understands he has a problem and needs help.
In my very limited experience, the non profit I was involved with was able to continue because, as board members and staff left, there were always new people willing to do the charitable work until they also burned out. The difference with BG and IBLP is that sites like this one gave a voice to those who had been harmed by the teaching, something that neither BG nor the board could ignore, if they want the organization to survive.
Because there are many people within the IBLP organization that depend on it for their livelihood, I cannot see any motivation there would be to disavow the legalistic teachings. They would be losing their income, and acknowledging that their teachings were not Biblical.
Dear Aila H.,
I am hesitant to write anything more on this site in view of the recent comments from Greg R:,
"One irony here is that Bill knows enough, is shrewd enough, to talk a 'humble game' when called upon. He knows when to "admit his faults" or "seek counsel", but his track record speaks for itself. You cannot always gauge a person by his/her explicit words, because some people use words like they use people: they are a means to an end, and Bill is as polished at playing a religious role as Elmer Gantry. That doesn't mean ALL that he does or says is fake, but only a fool will take what he says at pure face value."
I think I'll wait to answer your question until perhaps the skirmish subsides and the men have put down their swords. I like verbal warfare even less than I like name calling.
I will say the staff left working at IBLP/ATI are busy preparing for the 2014 family conference to be held in Sacramento on July 1-4th. They've changed the location from the downtown Sacramento Conference Center to a church in a nearby suburb.
Bill Gothard's presence was completely eliminated from the program. It's my understanding staff have been advised to carry on until the investigation is complete and the board has decided upon a plan of action.
All this, as you know, I'm sure, is a challenge for them without the founder to guide their every step. They are Christians, talented and very hard-working, but most were raised in a patriarchal environment, so it's a step-by-step learning situation for them, too.
@mary olive: you wrote
I believe Bill Gothard finally understands he has a problem and needs help.
Well, of course I hope you are 100% right, but I see nothing that points that way, including , and especially Bills most recent (public) letter. So far I see regret aplenty, with little repentance.
That may sound harsh, but I'll sing a happier tune when Bill starts to try and make amends personally and robustly with the Tony's and Larne's of the world, people he used and abused, and some of the young women that were his playthings (yes, he can start with admitting to SOME kind of interest beyond 'daddy' interest).
Till then, I'm hopeful in the LORD, skeptical reg. ministry moguls.
"I believe Bill Gothard finally understands he has a problem and needs help. "
It would be SO AWESOME if that were true. If it is true, Bill is sure doing a great job hiding the evidence of it.
I really like the line someone posted a few days ago about how a wolf in sheep's clothing looks like a sheep, not a wolf. Of course Bill will look and sound repentant when he needs to, but are there "fruits of repentance" to back it up? One evidence would be for him to stop defining both the problem and the solution on his own terms and acknowledge the voice of his victims as they describe the problems created for them.
It bears repeating, I've said this before: I need as much help as Bill, I am no different place , except that I am not a ministry leader or former leader. The effects of his mistakes ripple out futher, perhaps, but I"m not that different than Bill in lots of ways. I don't find repentace tons of fun either.
"One evidence would be for him to stop defining both the problem and the solution on his own terms and acknowledge the voice of his victims as they describe the problems created for them."
Excellent point Matthew. Well put.
Dear Aila H.
I'm ready to answer your inquiry about why "I believe that Bill Gothard finally understands he has a problem and needs help".
At the risk of being chastised by Biblical scholars and regulars on the Recovering Grace site, I'd like to refer you to the statement Bill Gothard issued on his website on April 17, 2014. In it, he actually identifies several of his problems.
Many of the comments that followed the release of Bill Gothard's statement on this site were negative. They seemed to discount much of what he wrote, called him a liar, and so forth.
Please understand, I'm not trying to justify what Bill Gothard admitted to doing. He clearly states he was wrong, and I agree. And when he says he is repenting, I choose to believe him.
At the hospital where I work on the crisis inpatient mental health unit, all types of patients are admitted. Some have lost their livelihoods, their families and friends, their reputations, their physical health and any hope for the future. Many of them have totally given up on themselves and life, and want to end it all. Our job is to keep them safe until they're able to forgive themselves and others enough to want to carry on.
I believe there's no way to really know for certain what's in a person's heart except by what they do. I've been a registered nurse for over 38 years and a psych nurse for almost 7 years, and I've learned to take a person at face value. I read their histories, but it's their actions and attitudes now that really count. If they're not truthful, then they most often will eventually suffer the consequences of their own making.
Bill Gothard has lost his job, his position, his reputation, some of his friends, a lot of his followers, and his dream to give his life to the Lord through the IBLP/ATI ministry. Some of his shortcomings are painfully obvious in his statement. Others he didn't mention, so perhaps he's still in denial and not ready to face them. No patriarchal man I know likes to admit he's wrong.
Bill Gothard will be 80 years old in November. In my experience, he has nothing to gain by not telling the truth, and everything to lose, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. If I'm wrong, then I will repent.
Mary Olive,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I do hope that you are correct in your beliefs. I re-read BG's statement of April 17. He does acknowledge sorrow for those who were injured or suffered, but my concern has been the way he acknowledges it. He uses a passive voice much of the time "people . . .were cut off. . . were treated as expendable." I notice this because it was something I never got away with when I was growing up. When an apology was necessary in our house, my mom never let us get away with an apology in a passive voice. The apology had to address what we were sorry for and why. "I'm sorry there was a misunderstanding " was not ok, if I had been rude or disrespectful. So I am particularly aware of this.
Another concern of mine was his comment, "my wrong focus produced a further consequence. . . ". It seems much more serious than a wrong focus, because so many of his teachings were just not biblical. I don't want to rehash those teachings here, but I am more skeptical when an apology seems so well scripted. I do hope you are right, perhaps he finally understands how serious and damaging his teachings and behaviors were.
Mary Olive,
It could very well be that while these discussions are taking place that Bill is getting some long needed proper counseling or psychological intervention. We just don't know what is happening; I will admit that. The reason I'm highly skeptical is that it had to come to being publicly humiliated before the whole English speaking world, so to speak, after such a long track record of so many others being severely abused in order to be either used, or neutralized by him, and the apology, as was pointed out above, was so general and so weak sounding, and so focused on himself, I find it hard to believe.
Considering it's been weeks after this public statement that Tony's story has now come out, complete with the caveat that he was reluctant to share this, I tend to side with others in this matter. What Bill did to Tony was EVIL. Bill, in this matter, is a modern day Diotrephes. What little common sense I have informs me that Bill would be like Zacchaeus at this time - seeking to make things right as far as he knows as he has wronged people - but there just is zip evidence of this taking place, and instead, he has just gone into hiding. That is why I said I'd believe his, what I consider to be a non-apology apology, when I hear, not details, but some indication from the principals who have reported here, that good communication is in progress. That would be so encouraging to hear, and I am yet hopeful that we will hear it. As for now, I am highly skeptical.
@mary olive: you sound like a compassionate and thorough psych nurse. mercy is always in season, thank you for nudging us that way, especially me.
I'll admit that I don't pretend to know what Bill is thinking, but my best guess is that he still entertains hopes of some kind of leadership position. A full confession might totally botch that: ironically, by being less than complete, he is less than honest, and hence less likely to be trusted, but (maybe like me if I were in his shoes) he reaches for whatever will hold him up in the raging river.
I hope and pray that Bill, and all of us make it to dry land, and into the arms of HIM WHO loves us.
Matthew 3:8 speaks of the "fruits of repentance". It doesn't list them, but in keeping with other passages they would include reconciliation (Matthew 5:24) and restitution (Luke 19:8).
Given that Bill has a demonstrated and long-term pattern of speaking words that are inconsistent with his actions, I am waiting to see the tangible fruits of repentance before I believe his words.
To do so is not ungenerous or unscriptural: Joseph tested the motivations of his brothers on multiple occasions to see if they had changed before reconciling with them.
Dear Ones,
I think I understand what you're saying and I'm grateful for your input, even though it is difficult to read at times.
I've learned a lot here and appreciate your patience with me. I once commented that "everyone does the best they can at any given moment, otherwise they would do something different" and I received a response which seemed to indicate that it was, basically, hogwash, in this case.
I've been called on my remarks several times, and while the responses stung, I could see some were right on target.
My inclination is to run and hide when I'm confronted or criticized. I cannot imagine having some of the comments I've read on this site directed at me.
I was raised in a patriarchal setting. I was taught to write in a passive tense. In addition, since I am female, I was taught not to step out of my "place". My mother was dismayed when I didn't comply with convention.
I understand what you say Bill Gothard did and I see now how many were affected by his maneuvers. I wasn't there behind the scenes, so I'm not qualified to address those things. From all I've read here, though, it doesn't look like many believe he is an honorable man. And that may be an understatement.
I do, however, appreciate Bill Gothard's effort to acknowledge some of the grievances against him. I think it is a step in the right direction.
It sounds like it isn't enough for many of you, by Biblical standards even, and I think he must he know that by now.
If Bill Gothard's motives are not sincere, then he will suffer the consequences. If he is sincere, in time, perhaps he will try again. I'm not sure I would, unless "it is mandatory", as they say at work.
By the way, to me, two months seems like a short time in the whole scope of things, but I understand how it may seem like an eternity for those who wait (maybe kind of like how slow the days seemed to pass when you were a child waiting for Christmas or your birthday to come).
Thanks again for all of your comments and I appreciate your kindness, gentleness and sense of justice.
I appreciate your thoughts, Mary Olive. I remember when you first started commenting, and I do believe you are genuinely evaluating all you read. Thanks for sharing some of your background, and your desire to hope for the best in Bill's apology. That makes a lot of sense to me, and I appreciate your perspective. I've been one who is wary of Bill's apology, but like you, I do hope for the best. I hope God changes his heart and he truly means it. Two months does feel like a long time, but you're right---it's shorter than it feels!
Thanks, Mary Olive, for 'learning out loud' as it were; for being willing to let your views change and grow right in front of everyone. I am quite sure that there are others, reading along silently, whose trajectory is similar to yours as they work through information that challenges their previous ways of thinking. I appreciate your views and your candor. You're doing just fine here!
Mary Olive June said,
"I've been called on my remarks several times, and while the responses stung, I could see some were right on target. My inclination is to run and hide when I'm confronted or criticized."
Thank you for this. I feel the same way, but have trouble owning up to it.
I sympathize, Aila! You did the best you could do in a difficult situation,as did those who resigned from Gothard's board in the scandal years.
When I was board chair of a non-profit I had the unpleasant duty of overseeing the executive director's termination. Not a founder, so that wasn't the issue, but the board had not practiced good oversight for several years and had gradually allowed the ED's behavior to get worse and worse until the organization had been financially compromised and was on the verge of collapse.
I think any board can become dysfunctional if they're not careful. There's no substitute for board members (and particularly chairs) knowing their role, seeking out truth, and accepting their responsibility for governance. Fortunately, even at the last hour, my board members did. It was incredibly painful for us all, but we did our duty.
We'll see if IBLP's board is up to what I think we all acknowledge is a grave challenge, in which they must completely depart from their past behavior, even change their past 'culture' as a board.
When I was elected chair of that organization, I discovered they were within three weeks of closing their doors (this had not been clear to the board, because the presentation of the finances was so confusing). After painful decisions, the organization is thriving ten years on.
P.L.
I'm glad your experience was better than mine. I have served on other nonprofit boards in addition to the one I described earlier. It has been my experience that there are many good hearted people who are willing to serve, but don't understand the serious nature of their responsibilities. If the organization is led by someone with a very controlling nature, he/she will intentionally mislead board members regarding what their role is.
The very problematic nature of boards is that if you can't correct a problem, it is imperative that you leave the board, otherwise as an individual you may be liable for the negligence of the organization. Many people don't realize this either, and so they hesitate to "rock the boat". The additional difficulty I experienced was that those employees who finally "had enough" also left, but there were a couple who realized their livelihood depended on the organization, so decided to stay and continued to enable the organization to survive in its dysfunctional mode. (This organization did provide a charitable service, and did not promote bad theology).
It seems very doubtful to me that those in power now at IBLP/ATI would intentionally shut down an organization that has been central in their own lives, or provides income for themselves or family members.
This is simply my perspective.
I agree with you Aila. Had I not actually had the additional power of being the chair of the board, my only choice would have been to resign. And the situation is not directly analogous to IBLP; even if their board steps up and makes painful decisions about governance the organization itself should, in my opinion, be disbanded.
Ron, thank you for all your tremendous work over the years exposing false teaching and teachers/"preachers". And your patience trying to reason with the unreasonable is beyond the call of duty! MJ started interjecting his comments recently, and in addition to struggling to write a complete sentence, he has yet to make any comments that make any sense. No amount of reason or insight will be enough for him. I would recommend that we all just ignore his rambling accusations, giving them the response they deserve...
Mockery without information is pointless.
I do much, though not all, of my typing on an iPhone.
I thank Ron Henzel for his patient interaction with Mj because I do not think Mj is beyond reach. He needs to improve his communication and reasoning skills, but some of his questions seem honest. And some of his responses are respectful. However, now that Ron has given a very full explanation of the article and how it applies to the general question of Gothard's disqualification, it will be interesting to find out if Mj is willing to agree to disagree, or merely persist in being disagreeable. (It will also be interesting to see if his comprehension of the abundant evidence increases after a few weeks of mulling these things over.) I pray that all will know the truth.
Thank you, Don!
Anonymous from Somewhere,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. They are very encouraging.
Amen to what anonymous typed. Where do we send the award to ron for giving a skilled response under difficult circumstances. Great work. Not sure if MJ will ever read Ron's work, but I'm more interested than ever. And once again, the 'package' in answering is worth as much as the content. Thanks, Ron.
And yes, the 'anointed one' attitude is widespread, and has caused untold harm across the body of Christ, the truly Anointed ONE.
Thanks, Greg!
Just a thought here. I'd like to know who I'm debating with here. How many of the following people below, who are frequent commenters here, would agree to a couple basic ideas. These should be easy to agree on though things have been said that make me wonder.
1. Jesus is the only way to salvation and the Bible is the only book that describes the way to Him. All other religions are false. They should never be united unless they completely change their teaching (in which case it would by default become "Christian").
2. All ministries should be open with their finances to show integrity as Paul was in Corinthians.
Greg R
Don
P.L.
Ron H
And anyone else.
having a busy afernoon, but I'm all on board for #2. Wish Bill and friends had seen this the same way. From what I've read, Bill's 'financial accountability' was mostly smoke and mirrors, mostly blah-blah, and little backbone. I think that was just ONE of the things that drove good men off his board, like Dr.Schultz, never to return.
1. Jesus is the only way to salvation
Totally agree with this also, but I'm going to avoid any discussion as to HOW this gets played out: that's an argument waiting to happen.
PS: are you going to answer my simple question about IBLP and teaching EXPLICITLY that it is ok to speak out against authority. With good examples as well.
See above. Waiting moderation.
IBLP is part of ECFA the most trusted independent auditors of ministries I know about. RG has looked at their form 990 and commented on their finances. No reciprocal offer to share theirs though.
Are you serious? Please tell me you're joking! RG is a blog run by volunteer former students and is not incorporated. Maybe they'd be willing to share their form 990 if they actually had one. But to do so, they'd have to actually be an established organization and have finances to report. I seriously doubt that they do. Do you understand how blogs work?
No they ask for donations and are refusing to share anything.
What kind of information could you possibly hope to glean from seeing the "finances" of an internet blog entirely run by volunteers? If you're trying to establish that RG actually pays off people to share the testimonies you read on here - testimonies that happen to be uncomfortable for you to read - I urge you to reconsider.
These discussions about IBLP and RG's role in exposing the darkness of the shaming culture within it will not proceed anywhere until you're willing to let go of this attitude of animosity toward RG and the people behind it, which, so far, you have not been able to justify. I still have yet to hear one solid reason from you explaining what's so terrible about RG. Your myopic accusations of "they won't show me their finances!" and "they blocked me!" (read: withheld my comments from being posted until they were moderated by a team of volunteers who don't make a full-time job out of this) are very flimsy, selfish, and distract from the real issue: why are you so determined to defend IBLP? Why is it that indispensable to you?
Mj,
As RG clearly states in their sidebar, they are not a non-profit organization. So they don't (and in fact can't) file a Form 990. Please do some basic fact-checking before you post things like this.
Seeing that they're a blog with fair readership numbers, it's not unreasonable to ask for donations to cover costs like hosting / web design fees from those who consume the content on a regular basis. I'm a forum administrator elsewhere, and we do the same thing for the same reason.
Time to let this go, Mj.
"Jesus is the only way to salvation and the Bible is the only book that describes the way to Him. All other religions are false. "
Here's a question: Where on IBLP's site does it say that?
Just my question. I'm sure they'd have no problem answering.
Wait - your point 1 was: "1. Jesus is the only way to salvation and the Bible is the only book that describes the way to Him. All other religions are false. They should never be united unless they completely change their teaching (in which case it would by default become “Christian”)."
My question is: Where does IBLP feature that teaching on their site?
It was my question. Just answer. Are you saying IBLP doesn't believe this?
"It was my question. Just answer." -- Is that a command?
"Are you saying IBLP doesn’t believe this?" -- No, I just asked where it was on their site. Supposing we can't read their minds and we just have to go off of what they actually say on their web site, where does their web site clearly demonstrate that they believe this? It's a simple question.
For the record, I like the idea of finding common ground. I think it can be a very helpful part of discovering how to move forward in a discussion.
I agree with 1.
I disagree with 2. as applied to ministries operating in places where evangelism or churches are illegal. I do not agree, either, that finances need to be open to the world, but typically should be to donors, tax authorities, employees, Board Members, and others with a legitimate interest. People have been fired from their jobs and persecuted because they gave money to pro-marriage campaigns. This will soon be true of all Christian endeavors. So I don't think that the identity and amount of donors should always be provided to the world. You see, the term "finance" is very broad, so I can't agree with your statement because I must take the word as you wrote it, without qualification. Paul was not just "open" he was willing to let the donors send a representative and hold the money. How did Gothard spend my ATI tuition paid for many years? Where can I find a copy of IBLP's financial statements? (look it up if you don't know what a financial statement is)
Like the ECFA.org?
What is like ECFA? This is an accrediting corganization, not an auditing organization. The audits they require (only if a member has $3 million in revenues) are CPA audits, which all contain qualifications based on what the auditors were allowed to look at. ECFA does post IBLP's revenues and expenses, debt and net assets for the past 3 years, but they only say they spent some on administration and some on programs. It also shows their non-donation revenues down about 40% from 2010. Has ATI tuition collections declined significantly? Have the seminars ceased? Do you know where I can find the Financial Statement and audit for 2012? How did they spend around $9 million yearly on "programs"? What is the form of their $85 million in assets? How much is real estate, savings, accounts receivable? How much do they spend on insurance to protect them against lawsuits for things like sexual harassment? How much do they spend on lawyers?
I'm curious to know what your motives are for posing such questions, as is the case with your continued support of Gothard. If you're trying to "expose" RG as unbiblical - or at least "unbiblical" by your definition of that word and interpretation of the Bible - by posing these sorts of questions to its readers in an answer-yes-or-no fashion, then I encourage you to direct that effort elsewhere. Gothard and IBLP have much, much more to answer for with respect to improper Biblical hermeneutics and lack of financial transparency than RG ever will.
Just seems fair that these things should apply to all.
IBLP , in its heyday was worth upwards of 90 million or more. This is a blog, there aren't even bible and T-shirt adverts on the margin like the big boy blogs: so ..... Dude ???? SERIOUSLY ?
If your concern is the fairness of things applying to everyone, then I'd be more than willing to show you a certain organization whose head imposed a great number of standards and regulations on its members that he himself purposefully avoided following.
Simple question: then why don't they share something?
There have been multiple families that have been thankful for our ministry to the shut ins. One time I took $20 from one and told him I'd buy song books which I did. But the next two times I refused. If I had taken it however I'd of made sure i told what i did with it to anyone who wanted to know.
What does IBLP teach about "fairness"?
IBLP's website states:
"absolute fairness requires that all get the same things at the same time. This is impossible...
Justice establishes guilt when God’s standards are violated. Fairness tries to remove guilt by lowering the standards...
Justice is impartial and objective; fairness is partial and subjective."
http://iblp.org/programs/daily-success/command-30-go-offenders/related-character-quality
So, Rg&f, why are you arguing for fairness, something IBLP obviously thinks is wrong?
So if Mj wants fairness in the application of prinicples of financial disclosure, he wants what is impossible, and he wants it to remove guilt and lower standards. Do you think IBLP's teaching on fairness is in error, or do you think Mj will confess his public demand for fairness and acknowledge he has been tempted to cover guilt and lower his standards?
I think IBLP's teaching on fairness is wrong, but I wanted to answer your question, Don.
Of course, redefining common words such that only the properly indoctrinated (ahem, brainwashed) understand the 'real' message is a classic hallmark of a cult (as has been stated many times in these comments.) To relate this back to the article (which was really excellent--thanks Ron!), I believe this technique is also common among those acclaimed to be 'God's anointed.'
Although one of the less egregious examples, IBLP seems to have attempted this strategy with the concepts 'fair' and 'just'. These terms are commonly defined as 'in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate' and 'based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.' IBLP doesn't actually define 'fairness' in the previously-linked article, but I find no support for their claims in the commonly used definitions given above.
Predicting MJ/Rg&f's response to IBLP's written views on fairness is above my paygrade :)
Although I'm curious what MJ/Rg&f will say next about fairness, I'm more interested in the answer to a question that's been repeatedly asked by others: what's his/her story--why is attempting to defend IBLP so important?
Recovering Grace and Freedom,
I think it is extraordinarily disingenuous on your part to be asking who you are debating here when you do not even use your real name! What are you hiding? Why don't you come out into the open as I have? I am a published author, you can find me on Facebook, and I've given my real name here.
I have already told you what I believe, so you know full well that my conservative theological credentials are above reproach. But as for your repeated demand for Recovering Grace to disclose financial information to you: why on earth would anyone do that for someone who has made the kind of sinister accusations you have here, from deep within the shadows of Internet anonymity, no less? I think that would be a very foolish thing to do, especially for someone who continues to act in such an unbiblical, un-Christlike manner.
@ RG and Freedom: and while you are at it, if you have some big cause that is so important, what is it (briefly), what is your angle, your purpose ? has Bill been grievously wronged ? Should he be reinstated ? RG has no hidden agenda, what is yours ?
To give some perspective, I see there are 5 aspects to this anointed one problem.
1) Obeying “the anointed” to the point that you can’t even leave their church without extreme torment and guilt. This was the tone of the article.
2) The resulting inability or fear of approaching the leader with questions or concerns for fear of his response.
3) The actual response of that leader to your questions
4) Your next step in taking public action against him.
5) The response of that leader after you take action
The article on this page only deals with the first 2. I haven’t even heard any support that IBLP taught or practiced that you shouldn’t approach a leader with questions, and I’ve given two documents as proof they did wholeheartedly recommend it in fact. If you’ve been to camps or seminars you know he always mingles with the crowd.
All of the “testimony” and debate that I have heard are relating to numbers 4 thru 5, his interaction in a public trial for lack of a better term. The debate is that he was unmovable in his opinions, and so he thought of himself similar to an anointed one. But what if they just failed to convince him of his error. After all the majority of the board deeply aware of all the facts sided with Gothard at that time. And again, this is 34 years ago. If he made a mistake, are people allowed to make corrections and change course? I’m not saying he did, I’m just showing to different hypothetical levels that this doesn’t mean anything.
"All of the “testimony” and debate that I have heard are relating to numbers 4 thru 5, his interaction in a public trial for lack of a better term."
Mj, there are many accounts on this website of Bill Gothard's disdainful response to those who approached him *privately* with their concerns.
I would suggest that you search these out yourself rather than asking other people here to feed you information. If you want to engage in conversation here, it is your responsibility to inform yourself.
My days of giving you more bandwidth are fast coming to a close (for which you are probably grateful)
takeaways from your recent gem:
1) if Bill is OK with Bill (hasn't 'seen' his sin yet) then what's the fuss
2)if a majority of the board (you know, the one where Bill had the power to hire and fire) is OK with Bill, then Bill is OK.
3)if Bill 'mingles with the crowd' , that's pretty much the same thing as welcoming , wholeheartedly, being questioned (this gem was hilarious, SO glad that I wasn't drinking anything near my monitor.....that MJ...you can't make this stuff up, just...wow)
4)and a little recap: it's probably OUR FAULT, because Bill just doesn't see his sin (if there's anything to be seen, of course) ..... yet.
You, MJ, are a fact finding MEGATRON, dude..
Oh My Goodness! Could not agree with you more, greg r!!
Mj,
I don't know how many times this has to be reiterated to you. This article's inclusion on RG is not meant to imply that an explicit IBLP teaching stating that Gothard is specially "anointed" exists.
In fact, it's quite the opposite.
No one would take anyone who has the hubris to make such an overt declaration seriously. No one. Especially in today's world. It's much easier to develop an organizational culture where the head is viewed as such and maintains a heavy degree of manipulative control by abstaining from laying out all behavioral expectations, speaking in "coded" language, establishing apparent correlations between the actual expectations and the Bible through a hefty amount of eisegesis, and meting punishment for failing to live up to those expectations. IBLP has done all of this and more.
How do we know this? We could go on and on about the validity of the testimony on here. I'd recommend reading Tony's story with the accompanying documentation if you want "proof," especially Gothard's vicious 19-page attack against Tony. This is pretty much the best evidence demonstrating how Gothard cuts down those who disagree with or question him. I'd also recommend reading the comments under the eyewitness accounts from actual, real people who knew the authors of the stories and can testify to their character and the veracity of their statements.
That's why we're here now. What's happening in the present is shrouded in layers upon layers of secrecy because the IBLP machine is intentionally structured to make it so. We can only gauge what is happening now by looking at what happened in the past. You can keep saying that what we're talking about happened 30+ years ago, but there hasn't been any indication that the culture has changed significantly. The materials are still the same. Gothard, once again, issued an "apology" that admitted to enough fault to allow him to retain his authority in some cursory way. And if the testimonies from those who came before us are true, then the people affected by Gothard's abuse and manipulation right now - through this very system that has remained largely unchanged - are being suppressed. Right now. We're here to validate their stories as well, to tell them that it's okay to admit that a narcissist has caught them in his web of deception and that they can experience true freedom outside of the very machine that has enslaved them.
This is what we're dealing with.
This is far more than a semantic debate about the word "anointed."
This is the intentional exploitation of another human being.
This is the complete antithesis of the character of Christ.
No matter how sugarcoated it is in niceties.
And no matter what positive testimony you might be able to find that says otherwise, a person who knows not that he is enslaved is still enslaved. But even without the testimony, there would still be ample reason to be wary of organizations like IBLP. Why? I'll tell you something.
No, I'm not an eyewitness.
No, I wasn't in Bill Gothard's "inner circle."
No, I didn't work at Headquarters or go to a Training Center.
I'm just an alumnus of ATI who started noticing behavioral patterns among my fellow alumni - patterns that aligned with those exhibited by other people who came out of other performance-based subcultures within evangelical Christianity. I wrote and published my story on RG last year ("Life Isn't a Role-Playing Game"). I wasn't paid for it or asked to do it. I just started to notice that for a young person who had zero life experience, a childhood saturated in ATI / IBLP teaching presented an ultimately unbiblical view of Christ because it ironically took the focus off Him by placing it on what I had to do to gain His approval and blessing. Perhaps that wasn't your experience with IBLP, and if so, I'm glad that's the case. But it was for many of us.
No, it was not easy for me to read the accounts on here when I first discovered this site. It's not easy to be in a place where the teaching that defined your formative years - teaching that I dogmatically defended on numerous occasions - is revealed to be the fruit of an authoritarian hierarchy that left countless shattered lives in its wake. But it didn't take long to connect the dots. After reading books about human behavior, the follies of people-pleasing, and the nature of narcissism from a few Christian authors, it all fell into place. The stories on here made perfect sense. My story made perfect sense. I just had to be willing to lay down my pride to see IBLP for what it really was - and still is.
Are you willing?
Recovering Grace and Freedom,
I think it best for me to allow those with the actual experience of being part of IBLP to answer you here. My experience with Gothard has been limited to face-to-face meetings, phone calls, emails, etc.
But I can't help from commenting on this remark from you: "If you’ve been to camps or seminars you know he always mingles with the crowd." I realize that I'm providing further evidence here for Godwin's Law (look it up), but so did Adolf Hitler! What does it prove? It certainly does not prove that he is approachable on matters that involve questioning his teachings or authority. I have heard from people as far back as 1983 on just what happens when you challenge Gothard while he is surrounded by his sycophants. His behavior in those circumstances is not what I would call a model of openness to correction.
I tend to be a critical thinker and often question people before I am convinced of their propositions. I've sat at table with Gothard and offered one or two differing opinions and he is a cold and dismissive as can be to such disagreement. He calls people like me "energy takers". Based on that little experience and the testimony of those much closer to him, it appears the Gothard is NEVER convinced he is in error. Here's the challenge: find someone who has convinced Gothard he was in error about anything he has said or written publicly and relate what the consequences were: did Gothard move closer to that person? did Gothard publicly correct his error? All you should have to do is call up Jim Sammons or someone and ask them to relate one such story. Surely that would be easy. I'll be happy to reimburse you for the phone call if money is a problem.
One irony here is that Bill knows enough, is shrewd enough, to talk a 'humble game' when called upon. He knows when to "admit his faults" or "seek counsel", but his track record speaks for itself. You cannot always gauge a person by his/her explicit words, because some people use words like they use people: they are a means to an end, and Bill is as polished at playing a religious role as Elmer Gantry. That doesn't mean ALL that he does or says is fake, but only a fool will take what he says at pure face value.
Wow the author of this article and a book on Gothard was never part of IBLP? Some here say the article applies to IBLP some say it doesn't. But all are sure IBLP is guilty while ignoring two different things that IBLP published directly countering this teaching. the article says this abuse of anointed teaching was *taught* by "some" ministries. So IBLP is clear on that one. They didn't teach it for sure.
Now it's just that this culture was at IBLP and Bill encouraged it. Thousands of people close to Gothard never caught on to the clear difference between what he taught and practiced (they were just deceived). A handful did 30 years ago and these testimonies with no direct evidence are considered golden. Everybody believes one board member but not the others.
And speaking of these testimonies, I'm an inquirer into these allegations so why send me into the vast Forrest of this website looking for this so obvious testimony that you keep referring to. Isn't it handy and in digital form so you could just copy and paste it or refer to a link as so many have?
They criticize him for not meeting with people and then talk of having meetings with him.
You speak of people trying to correct his "sin" but when you look at the issues you see they are trivial things like a mother praying to her unborn child which the scriptures *can* mean.
I'm thinking a little spec here and a little spec there paint a bad picture but when you look at the specs more closely you see they miss their point entirely or are not as big as you thought.
Oh and don't expect to see RG be open with their own finances.
Mj,
I've got to admit, when I read this comment from you after all the well-thought-out responses from everyone else who have interacted with you, my first thought was, "I'm not even touching this one."
But for the sake of those browsing here who have been oppressed by IBLP, I changed my mind.
First, how many times do we have to tell you that this article was not written specifically to address IBLP? It was republished here on RG because some may find the basic thesis to be applicable to the IBLP culture. That's. It. And even if someone didn't establish a connection between this article and IBLP, this place has been a safe haven for those who have been crushed by the weight of other legalistic, works-centric systems. They can be encouraged by it too. I don't think you grasp just how much a program like IBLP can shatter people. Not with the comments you're leaving. Not with the tone you're using. You can try to minimize the experiences of those who suffered under Gothard's abuse by deeming them "speculation," but all you're doing is basically the grown-up equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "Lalalala! I can't hear you!"
I really don't think there's going to be any way any of us here can convince you of the pure insidiousness of spiritual abuse and how it takes form in the shadows - not unless you're willing to educate yourself and read up on the subject by Christians who have actually studied human psychology and counseled people who have been broken by spiritual abuse.
Until you're willing to do that, I ask only one favor. Please refrain from referring to the stories from the poor abused women who have been used and abused by this manipulator as "speculation." You're accusing quite a lot of people - including those who can corroborate their stories - of lying, and for what? Just to maintain this reality you've constructed for yourself in which Gothard is absolved of the wrongdoing he has committed?
Unbelievable.
I assumed Mj meant "speck" when he said "spec"; meaning RG is just nitpicking.
If that's the case, then the point still stands. Diminishing these women's experiences to the level of "nits" is nothing short of disgraceful.
The author said the *principle* applied to Gothard. Exactly as I just stated.
I hope I don't Have to make every point all over again.
No, you don't have to, because I never disputed that at all. If all you want to do is stir the pot by inciting arguments wherever you go, be my guest. I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you if you're not willing to lay down your pride and be willing to see IBLP and Gothard for the twisted, unbiblical, manipulative, abusive forces they are.
The whole focus of Mr Henzel's article (as I read it) is to help the READER recognize and respond to spiritual manipulation. The focus is the READER - NOT to expose or accuse any particular person or organization of doing the manipulating, which is what you have been fishing for.
Not only was it an excellent resource, but he has gone to great lengths to expound with great insight, not to mention patience.
That the principle applies to BG or John Doe or you or me is neither here nor there, but if it's so important to make your point, let's consider it made and move on.
Many links have been given. RG has already published the many documents and has not obligation to you to make special publication or to repost them in the skinny comments to other articles. You have heard the explanations for the article and its relationship to the IBLP program. You have received testimony of persons who directly experienced many of the things discussed here and that IS direct evidence of the facts they allege. He refused meet with some (disputing your claim of his openness) and obstinately delayed meetings with others and then refused to even do what he agreed to do in such meetings when he did finally meet. I have learned all these things over the past 2 months perusing this website and reading the Venoit book. You can do the same without being spoon fed like a demanding child.
If you see no sin in Gothard writing that slanderous letter to Tony's church and manipulating Tony's excommunication without being given an opportunity to defend himself, you are willfully blind and in grave danger. You may think you see only specs but to exonerate any leader who alienates 3/4 of his staff at any time and never repents of that, ruining scores of families, while fixating on a volunteer blogging group's finances is to see only what you want to see.
If you act imitate Gothard in your treatment of young women, I feel sorry for your wife. If you are unaccountable and unteachable, I feel sorry for your children. I don't feel sorry for you if RG members never answer your silly questions again. Open your eyes, man, be responsible for the information available to you. Test the spirits and study the Scriptures. Your demand for "fairness" proves you are a hypocrite if you defend IBLP teaching as unassailable. You have proven your own character and comprehension of the Scriptures.
Why is IBLP so important to you? Why don't you find a church and come under the teaching of men who may be better than you who will disciple you and teach you discernment and mere courtesy (not to mention a little honor toward those who have been downtrodden)? At least take some rhetoric or preaching courses and learn how to construct an argument. Why do you insist on being the lone ranger in the world, you and God, showing the world the good works that Gothard has taught you to do? Why is important that anyone listen to you anyway?
If God wanted to lecture RG in total ignorance of what they are communicating, he could send a jackass to do that. (And yes, you may consider me your personal jackass!)
EXCELLENT appeal, sir. Well said, well done.
Recovering Grace and Freedom / MJ / Whoever You Are,
You wrote:
We at Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. (MCOI), have quite a bit of experience with this aspect of Bill Gothard's behavior.
Back in 1997, as we were still conducting research and working on our first article, Don Veinot, president of MCOI, called Bill Gothard's office and a left message to the effect that we had problems with his teachings and wanted to meet with him about them. He did not return the call.
A couple of weeks later Don left the same message. He did not return that call, either.
So a couple of months later—after we had made sure that Gothard had plenty of time to respond—we published our first article about his teachings in the MCOI Journal.
A lady named Sandy Rios was on our mailing list at that time, and she hosted her own program, The Sandy Rios Show, on a Chicago-area Christian radio program. No sooner had she read our article that she was on the phone with Don Veinot inviting him on the air to discuss it. As soon as that was set up, she began advertising that she would be hosting a program on the teachings of Bill Gothard.
Word about this upcoming program reached Gothard and for some reason he suddenly took interest. He phoned Sandy Rios and demanded that she cancel the show, insisting that it would be a sin to air it. Sandy referred Gothard to Don. So he called Don and told him that he could not biblically go on the air to criticize his teachings because they had not met to discuss it first. Don replied that he had contacted him twice over a space of weeks for the express purpose of having such a meeting and had given him months to reply, that the article had already been sent out, and that the program would proceed as scheduled.
Not that I believe that either Don or I was biblically required to meet with Gothard before publicly criticizing his public teachings. At the very outset Gothard was wrong to accuse us of sin, whether or not we had already tried to meet with him. His teachings were public, they had influenced countless people, and to the extent that they were unbiblical they had to be challenged from Scripture as publicly as they had been promoted in the first place. It could, in fact, have been a sin not to so criticize his unbiblical teachings.
Even so, he was given more than a fair chance to respond in a timely fashion, and he only showed any willingness to meet with us once his teachings became a topic of discussion on a radio program that could potentially reach millions.
He did phone into that show, by the way. He went from not even returning phone calls to making sure his call got through. How impressive! I guess it just shows what even he can do when he makes something a priority.
It was only after all this transpired that Gothard finally found the time to sit down and meet with us, and we did begin a series of meetings. Apparently he discovered that not only had our printed Journal article found its way into the hands of a local radio personality, but that a lot of his Seminar "alumni," IBLP followers, ATI folks, etc., were also on our mailing list. So now he was very eager to meet—primarily for the purpose of getting us to stop publishing.
After several weeks and a meeting or two, Gothard offered me a job (through one of his VPs, John Stephens)! It was not a full-time job; just the promise of pay for some writing projects, as I recall. Gee, no conflict of interest there, right? (Wink! Wink!) So now I began to learn about his manipulation techniques.
Months later he called me in without telling me why, and then presented me with an article naming me and Don and calling us "antinomian rationalists." So now I began to learn about his capacity for issuing threats—although this one was rather idiotic. Sometime after telling him to make sure he spelled my name right, I left and chuckled all the way home. He obviously did not know the meanings of the words he was trying to us against us.
Meet with people to discuss criticism of his teachings? Sure, in my experience Gothard will do that for you, provided the following conditions are met: (1) you have the capacity to publish your criticisms to other people whom he does not want to be exposed to them (he kept yammering about how he was trying to get IBLP into China and how we were jeopardizing that), and (2) he can use the meetings to either (a) manipulate you or (b) threaten you.
"It could, in fact, have been a sin not to so [publicly] criticize his unbiblical [public] teachings."
Thank you so much for your willingness to graciously, repeatedly, and publicly confront unbiblical teaching in spite of threats.
http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2008/08/22
Ron
Thanks for taking the time to answer your critic. Everyone of your answers increases your credibility, provides additional insights into the destructive behaviors of BG, and makes me wonder how BG can still have supporters.
Exactly what Aila said; no matter how MJ chooses to respond, each testimony gives a fuller, more complete picture of what the situation really was and is (and hopefully how to avoid future ones, also)
Dear Ron Henzel,
I just want to say that your above commentary about Bill Gothard presents a bias and distorted view, as does the photo of him of the cover of the book A Matter of Basic Principles authored by Don Venoit, Joy Venoit and you.
Also, the sarcasm in your above comment is not becoming. It casts you as a person who resorts to demeaning others for whatever reason you choose to do it.
Mary, take into account the complete hostility and mindless incredulity to which Ron is responding in this thread. In that light, his responses appear very patient and gentle. I too find the picture offputting, but the story the book tells should have never had to be told. "And the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome (fighting and contending). Instead, he must be kindly to everyone and mild-tempered [preserving the bond of peace]; he must be a skilled and suitable teacher, patient and forbearing and willing to suffer wrong". And: "13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." Gothard's behavior described by Ron above, accusing Venoit of sin in their first conversation, merited that creepy picture. Sorry. His good behavior did not put them to shame, his bad behavior validated their criticism, and nearly every criticism on RG.
Dear Don Rubottom,
Thank so much for your input. I think Mr. Henzel might be able to get his point across without using sarcasm and inflammatory words. I understand he's is an elder in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
Dear Mary Olive,
I understand that you disagree with Ron. However, accusing someone generally of having a distorted view (without offering any evidence to elucidate or combat the alleged distortion) does not seem helpful to the discussion. If you have evidence, please share it.
I appreciate your perspective, and look forward to your response.
Apologies for the tangent, but...
Why is 'being biased' considered an accusation? Everyone (including me) is biased; the most honest thing seems to be to recognize and acknowledge one's own bias.
Dear Emee,
I apologize. I should have qualified my statement with "In my opinion." It was not an accusation, but my opinion, but how were you to know. I was using the definition of the word "distorted" to mean "not truly or completely representing the facts or reality, one-sided, biased," which I believe is a fair assessment.
If you look at the photo on the cover of the book Ron Henzel co-authored about Bill Gothard's ministry, you will see what I mean about "distorted". Thanks for your input. I'll be careful next time.
Ok, thanks for clarifying, Mary Olive. :)
Dear Mary Olive,
I appreciate and understand your opinion, and I hope that you find my response to you both sincere and respectful. I find it easy to become defensive when faced with this kind of criticism, so I always ask the Lord to give me the wisdom I need to respond appropriately, rather than out of the need to protect my own ego.
Although it was not the first concern that you expressed, I would like to deal with the issue of sarcasm first. One thing I have learned over the years is that there are varying opinions among Christians as to the appropriateness of such expressions. Additionally, the standard dictionaries do not all agree as to the purpose of sarcasm. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), for example defines sarcasm as “The use of irony to mock or convey contempt,” whereas Merriam-Webster (M-W) defines it as “the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say especially in order to insult someone, to show irritation, or to be funny.” So where the OED only allows for mockery or contempt as a motive for sarcasm, the M-W allows for the fact that people sometimes use sarcasm simply for humor.
But since the context of my own use of sarcasm here is a Christian one, I think that it is not enough to look to dictionaries, but rather I must base my own view of sarcasm on Scripture. And when I turn there I find evidence for a sanctified use of sarcasm. And when I turn there, I find abundant evidence for using sarcasm to confront evil.
For example, as the prophets of Baal unsuccessfully beseeched their god, Elijah sarcastically taunted them:
“And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened,’” (1 Kings 18:27, ESV).
The sarcasm was obviously directed at the false prophets and not Baal himself, since Elijah did not believe that Baal even existed. Now, one might complain that Elijah was being demeaning and inflammatory, but Scripture is clear that this is an appropriate way to treat the evil of opposition to God, including the opposition of false teaching and false practice, which I believe we have more-than-adequately established in our book.
In fact, one of the responses of God to those who rebel against Him is contemptuous ridicule or mockery (which is the definition of “derision” in the following verse):
“He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision,” (Psalm 2:4, ESV).
Not long after the account of Elijah and the prophets of Baal, we read of another prophet who responded sarcastically to King Ahab, and the sarcasm was so obvious that Ahab called him on it:
“And when he had come to the king, the king said to him, ‘Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?’ And he answered him, ‘Go up and triumph; the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.’ But the king said to him, ‘How many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?’” (1 Kings 22:15-16, ESV).
This passage is understandably problematic for a follower of Gothard who has been fed his teaching on how to make a proper “appeal” to someone in authority. But instead of God rebuking Micaiah, He kills Ahab! Perhaps this will also sound sarcastic to you, but I will say it anyway: so much for Gothard’s teaching on “appeals!”
Our Lord Jesus Christ provides us with several examples of using sarcasm against false teachers, but a particularly striking one appears when we read:
“You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:24, ESV).
If you have a problem with demeaning or inflammatory language, I can certainly understand why you would have a problem with the Lord’s words here. And if we are tempted to conclude that only the Lord Himself had the right to use sarcasm, not only do we have the examples of Old Testament prophets, but we also have those of the Lord’s apostles. Paul was more than a little sarcastic when he wrote:
“For in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!” (2 Corinthians 12:13, ESV).
And I’m sure that the Judaizers, who professed to be Christians, thought Paul’s sarcasm was over-the-top demeaning and inflammatory when he wrote:
“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12, ESV).
Now there’s an image that most of us would prefer to forget! I’m sure the Judaizers were disturbed by it.
But you know what I find disturbing? And please, understand that I am not trying to come off as hostile here, and that I truly respect your opinion. But I find it disturbing when I describe acts of manipulation and intimidation that Bill Gothard tried to perpetrate against me, there are fellow-Christians out there who are more concerned about the fact that when I describe those acts I also inject humorous sarcasm to lighten the moment—and whether you believe me or not, I was only trying to be funny, not contemptuous—and yet instead of expressing sorrow over Gothard’s manipulation and intimidation, I get rebuked for using the sarcasm! Maybe it’s just me, but I do not think it is indicative of truly biblical values and priorities.
Again, I have little doubt that the Judaizers complained something to the effect that Paul “might be able to get his point across without using sarcasm and inflammatory words.” After all, he claimed to be an Apostle! How is that becoming? And, of course, such a complaint would have been simply another attempt by them to discredit him. “I mean, come on!” I can hear them saying, “How can you listen to a guy who talks like that!” So, what do you think Paul’s answer might have been?
I have an idea. I think he would have said that if he used sarcastic, inflammatory words, it was because it was necessary to fully get his point across. Like it or not, sometimes it just is. They were not designed to persuade the false teachers, but to warn Christ’s sheep. And since Paul’s words were inspired by the Holy Spirit, we know that none of them were wasted words, because they came ultimately from God Himself, so we know from that alone that they were necessary.
Now, of course, I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, nor am I an apostle. And I certainly do not compare myself with the Lord Jesus. But if we’re asking “What Would Jesus Do?” here, the answer is plain. Sometimes He would just plain let ‘em have it!
Now as for your assertion that my “above commentary about Bill Gothard presents a bias and distorted view,” correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that you are referring to my recent comment about my experiences of meeting with Gothard. The OED defines “bias” as “prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.” And its applicable definition of “distorted” here is “Giving a misleading or false account or impression; misrepresented.” Again, assuming that you were referring to my accounts from the late 1990s of my meetings with Gothard, I cannot imagine how you could possibly know whether, according to these definitions, my commentary “presents a bias and distorted view.” You would have had to have either been there, or checked with enough people who were there, before you could possibly make such an evaluation.
In fact, it seems to me that you have to have prejudged my comment—i.e., judged it without adequate evidence—in order to arrive at your conclusion. And since prejudging is simply a verb form for prejudice, and since prejudice lies at the center of the meaning of bias, it is you who are actually exhibiting bias here. Unless I am completely missing something here that you intended to express, I honestly do not know what else to conclude.
Finally, there’s the matter of the cover of our book. It was commissioned by our publisher and created by a Christian artist who had not read the book, but had received a summary of it. The artist told us that he based his artwork on our third chapter, “The Emerald City,” which begins with a description of a scene from “The Wizard of Oz,” and includes a section titled, “The Man Behind the Curtain.” So that’s why Gothard is depicted behind a partially-opened curtain. It is an allusion to line in the movie, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” which is part of a scene that exposes a fraud. Given that we present evidence in our book that Gothard has perpetrated more than one fraud on many in the church, I do not see how I can agree that the image presents a distortion. In my view, it summarizes the truths we expose in the book.
Now, I suppose he could have based his cover illustration on our first chapter, “Citizen Kane and a History of Inconsistency,” but since that chapter begins with a description of Charles Foster Kane whispering “Rosebud” on his deathbed, I can only imagine how that might have turned out!
Mary, due to something I became involved with, which involved people Ron was involved with, some years ago, I have had the privilege of talking to him, for several extensive telephone calls. I want to tell you something about Ron. He is very methodical in his research, and does the utmost to make sure he is understanding what he is researching so he doesn't mess up.
I have also read extensively of what Ron is relating (in a more abbreviated form here) of his dealings with Bill Gothard, over on the now quiescent Gothard discussion list.
I have also, more briefly, spoken with Don Veinot on the phone. Both listen carefully, and are very willing to spend their time helping those hurt by false teachings - I can testify to that.
After what Bill Gothard has put these, and others (read - circa 1980) through, and the "stuff" he's done to some of the females, and now I'm just learning about Tony Guhr, my perspective is Ron is being extremely restrained in what he is writing, and you have him all wrong. I do not see near the sarcasm in his entry that you do. Quite frankly, I find it risible for Gothard to offer him a job like that. It interests me that the savage attack of "antinomian rationalist" doesn't bother you. Bill was basically calling them lawless, unspiritual men. I've heard Ron and/or Don relate that one as well. Strange that Bill Gothard can ignore people, then manipulate them, and then start senseless name calling to demonize them, and you seem more concerned with how Ron is relating all of this, instead of shaking your head at Bill's behavior.
Ron, your thoughtful and insightful post is appreciated by so many of us. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us.
Thanks, Melody!
I'll have to digest all this next week as I'm going out of town.
Good for you. I highly encourage you to digest plenty of reading about the subtlety of spiritual abuse and the characteristics of the narcissists who perpetuate it, if you can find the time. Then, digest the question whose answer many of us have been waiting to hear: why you're so dogmatically determined to defend one of these narcissists yourself.
I look forward to your response.
Brother: please, start with digesting at least some of the archives. Get the bigger picture, hear the whole story, then you can form some informed opinion. your word for today is: ARCHIVES
Dear Ron Henzel,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. You may be correct when you said I was prejudging you. It was your tone that I resisted. Since I've not had the experience with you that Lynn CD describes, I drew my conclusions from what you've written on this site, mostly in your responses to "Recovering Grace and Freedom/ MJ/ Whoever you are."
Also, thank you for explaining how the cover for your book about Bill Gothard's ministry was chosen. It doesn't change my opinion about the illustration, but it helps me to better understand its origin.
Normally, I would not be so bold as to make such insulting comments, but when I read some of the things you wrote to MJ, I figured if you could dish it out, you must be able to take it. Please forgive me for casting you in an unfavorable light before others who hold you in high esteem. I guess I'm not one of your "sycophants."
Well played, Mary Olive! This has been much more pleasant than the distractions of the previous "debates". If we could empty ourselves of all sycophancy, we would all be better off. Glory only in the Cross, not "our man" nor "our mission", and we shall all persevere to the end.
And Ephesians informs us that that end is complete Unity of the Body under the Headship of Christ, submitted voluntarily and joyfully to the Headship of the Loving Father. We all shall stand side by side before Him in His full Light hand in hand in complete agreement. Oh Glorious Day!!
Mary Olive,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am very gratified by the fact that I have no sycophants, and I am pleased that you have not become the first one!
Actually I thought the "Emerald City" cover on the book was a tad off-putting, until I began to understand the full scope of Gothard's false teaching, and lately, his abuse of Tony Guhr, and all the young women who became his, for lack of a better term, "pets."
When that book was written, Don told me he, Joy, and Ron had access to a lot more information that they did not have permission to share. This site has revealed a lot of that information.
I joined the Gothard discussion group in 2002, and read about all the stonewalling Bill did to Don, Ron, and others. I read about how he accused Fisher of having a lust for alcohol, which is why Bill claimed Fisher questioned IBLP's teachings. Fisher had not consumed a drink for decades when that accusation was hurled at him. I read about all the stonewalling Bill did to Don and Ron. I read about all the "antinomian rationalist" comments - and many such hateful comments were made by Gothard followers against Don and Ron on that board.
Don and Ron are not lawless, unspiritual men.
At this time, with what has come out I have absolutely no problem with the cover of the book, or with Ron's tone, and his detailed answers to many objections on this thread.
The insults and allusions on my competency don’t bother me. It tells me I’m striking a nerve, like maybe I’m on to something. People are resorting to Ad hominem insults.
I started my discussion with one simple point: this article does not apply to IBLP. I’m not saying *all* that RG says is false, in that case yes I’d have to search every article. But just that this one point is wrong. By their own statements, RG is dedicated to exposing the errors of *ONE* ministry alone, not ones like it, and this article was on the tab supporting that claim. It said some *teach* this. That one ministry has clear teaching to show they don’t *teach* it. Clearly wrong.
And as usual people missed that point and repeatedly kept going back to these problems from 30 years ago to show that the *principle* existed at IBLP. I’ve looked at every link I’ve been shown and haven’t seen anything significant. Now I’m only being referred to them in general. It’s like the shell game. The evidence is always “over there”. I looked for this letter to Tony, the most recent one, but couldn’t find it.
The only new information I gleaned from the comments of the last 5 days was how difficult Gothard was to meet with his adversaries during this unfortunate event 30 years ago. And how it’s okay to use sarcasm (I agree, my article was sarcastic but didn’t use petty insults on individuals). I’ve said before that *if* Gothard did something wrong 30 years ago why are people still bringing it up today. Shouldn’t that be water under the bridge? One ancient event doesn’t show a pattern of abuse.
It was interesting what was NOT addressed. I’m really surprised after 5 days that there wasn’t more actual information discussed. No one addressed these issues at all:
1. Why are RG’s finances being hidden? IBLP is part of the ECFA.org a well known independent auditing organization for small and large ministries alike. If RG is too small to be part of it, why don’t they disclose it in other ways?
2. How peculiar it is that all discussion, testimonials, documents, etc keep going back to 1980, three decades ago.
3. How trivial the other matters are
4. The IBLP articles that refute this teaching.
5. Only a few people out of 1000’s saw these problems over these three decades
"I’m really surprised after 5 days that there wasn’t more actual information discussed. No one addressed these issues at all:
1. Why are RG’s finances being hidden? IBLP is part of the ECFA.org a well known independent auditing organization for small and large ministries alike. If RG is too small to be part of it, why don’t they disclose it in other ways?"
No one has addressed this issue? Wow, that's a complete lie. Multiple commenters, including myself, have informed you that RG is blog started by ex-ATI students. There is no 990 form or finances to report, because there is NO ORGANIZATION. It's a BLOG put together by former students. I understand that you own a Facebook page that you use to share your perspective. Why have you not offered to share your 990 form from your FB page? Perhaps you have something to hide by not offering this? Or is it because you're just a commenter using the Internet to express your opinion and you are not an organization? If the latter, you should understand why what you're asking from a massive group of ex-ATI students scattered around the country is... put simply...quite impossible.
Any ministry that asks for donations and takes in money should reveal their finances. Many people have speculated that RG’s finances are next to nil but RG hasn't even said that much.
I'd be glad to share mine: $0.0000. the facebook page is absolutely free and I haven't spent any on advertising like they offer. I obvioulsy have not asked for donations like RG has. So there is that difference. They clearly have something coming in. And if I worked for IBLP (as has been questioned on my site) it should be obvious that I wouldn't criticize them on a pretty major thing as I did in the first point in the post on my site: “I tried ATI and my children rebelled”
Sorry, I took your post on "my children rebelled" as a correction to those ATI parents who had not followed your steps to non-rebellious children. I did not see any criticism of ATI, unless the mere acknowledgement that some kids rebel is meant to show that the success promised by ATI and IBLP is fraudulent. If so, go ahead and post that on your site: "ATI/IBLP promises of success are fraudulent"
It's in the first point of the article not my comments. Basically that they should do a better job of teaching the power of the Holy Spirit over sin.
ATI should do a better job of that? Can you make clear negative statements about a Gothard organization without referring to it as "they". If that is what you mean, hooray! But you did not say it or clearly imply it, even if you thought you did.
Gothard's conviction today by the IBLP Board for inappropriateness establishes that none of 'them' do an adequate job of teaching the power of the Holy Spirit (we call that power Grace in our world) over sin. Heck they even need to do a better job defining sin to include groping young girls in a less than criminal manner! If you can't call sin sin, it's guaranteed you can't overcome it!
Oh and I wasn't just asking for a form 990 but any revealing of their finances.
why?
To any considering a reply to MJ, as I have posted before, one cannot reason with the unreasonable, especially when they just flat out don't get it.. He is unable to understand the logic of reason even if he wanted to. The proof is in the latest post of his incomprehensible conclusions.
I's say you have this one pegged, A. from S.; maybe the saddest point from MJ's posts are the frequent use the word 'trivial', in describing the events and charges over the last 30plus yrs. Well, to him all that heartache, all that wreckage is 'trivial'. What can one say in response to that ?? thanks for your attempts at reason and wisdom.
On June 12th in my original post I had given an example of trivial: mom’s praying to their unborn children. Not the incident 30 years ago. That was a separate point both then and in my post yesterday. The trivial matters were listed separately under “other” matters.
@Recov. grace and freedom: you have never, to my knowledge or memory, acknowledged that ANY of the incidents behind the dozens of testimonies are in ANY way consequencial, serious, worth both keen examination, and repentance if shown true. All your comments, as I recall, are of the type: 'why all the fuss', "this was nothing", again these are MY quotes, but YOUR inflection, and at times, express description. So now you parse the exact use of the word 'trivial' in ONE post.
Fine, work there, MJ: If I was michael jordan I would beg or buy you out from using a champion's initials.
Bingo. Your reply says it so well.
The first verse of "Amazing Grace" ends with "'Twas blind, but now I see." Many of us can sing that from our hearts. MJ / recovering grace & freedom seems to still be blind (to the errors of ATI & Gothardism) even though Recovering Grace contains SO MUCH valuable credible info.
That's a good comment. I keep finding myself wanting to type some replies to Mj but I think you are correct. My dad has a folksy expression about how it's hard to sell Hoover to a Kirby salesman. A salesman at your door is not interested in buying from you, only selling to you.
My dad was a kirby salesman.... your dad was 100% dead right. I also like Carole King's lyric: "you can't talk to a man, with a shotgun in his hand" if shotgun= total certainty in something that is false, shake well
Don't worry about me, Anonymous from Somewhere, I was not about to reply. Whoever is writing those comments is a precious person made in the image of God, but is currently continually spouting nonsense. As an online teacher once taught some of us, a person who knows how to think and reason well knows when it is foolish to engage someone in discussion. This is one of those times.
<<<<>>>>
Perhaps a thirty year old incident is still being brought up because the same things have been happening in the recent past. There is no sign of true repentance from Bill Gothard that I'm seeing.
Unrepentant sin is never "water under the bridge". Do you think the "one ancient event" defense will work on judgement day? Take King Saul of Israel for example: "Lord why are you bringing up one ancient event that happened at Endor thousands of years ago? That does not show a pattern of me doing anything that is forbidden in Leviticus."
Somehow, I don't think your argument flies recovering grace and freedom.
No one has shown with any degree of confidence that he committed a “sin” 30 years ago but just bad handling at best (hard to meet with, didn’t see his brother’s sin sooner, etc). There is testimony from others that he sinned but it is from only a handful of people that were involved, the rest didn't agree. We see repeatedly that testimony has been misused in the scriptures against Jesus, Stephen, and Paul (maybe others). We need to be very careful believing it. Paul said we shouldn’t even entertain the accusation unless there’s 2 or 3. And as I say on my site it says entertain and not condemn for a good reason. You only start the process with that many accusations. And that was at a time when 2 or 3 would have been a significant number of people in a house church. You also would have known all the people real well.
RG and freedom: you are obviously just chattering along to yourself, maybe you have fanboys and fanfirls who read your posts here. Nothing you've written above survives the volumes written in the archives. 2 or 3 witnesses ? hahahaha,
and the only Bill Gothard you've ever known was the Bill at events, the Bill at a distance, the Bill who was meeting and greeting, and selling his product (the same is true for me, but I choose to believe the testimony of those who knew Bill up close)
There are serious public admissions by Bill Gothard of serious sin in those days if you are willing to review the documents here. After informing yourself, you can then say: well the Board dealt with those, but you will HAVE to admit (and an honorable man WILL admit) that your statement "no one has shown he committed a sin 30 years ago" is completely uninformed. I am writing you to explain why I think those ancient events continue to be relevant.
But please open your eyes before you speak. You said you would carefully consider things for a week and now you are back after 2 days opining with your eyes willfully closed. A man must establish his own credibility if he desires anyone to listen to him. Repeatedly commenting in willful ignorance keeps repressing any claim of yours for an audience.
You said
"And as I say on my site it says entertain and not condemn for a good reason. You only start the process with that many accusations. And that was at a time when 2 or 3 would have been a significant number of people in a house church. You also would have known all the people real well."
So what I take you to say is that two or three witnesses only applies to a house church back in the NT days? In that case, what you're saying is the Bible does not apply to this day and age. So why are you arguing your case? According to you, everyone here including you is making a fuss over an ancient manuscript written for the first thru possibly the fourth centuries.
Don, I think I said I would digest all of this, meaning this discussion thread, next week. That was Thursday of last week and I responded Monday morning. I don't feel like I have to research everything on the RG site because I'm only saying this one article does not apply to IBLP. I've read everything that people have shown me defending their idea that it does apply. It has often digressed to other areas of concern people have and frankly I don't see much there either, certainly nothing cult like, but I'm not going there yet.
FWC. No you're entering in the middle. I say it applies but it says "entertain" for a
Reason. See my Facebook site.
Well, since you have fully reviewed all the information that you are willing to find or have been provided links for and you cannot find one significant charge against Gothard, it seems to me that you should really be directing your disgust at him: Why on EARTH would he have resigned over trivial matters raised by a secretly financed, small group who are living in the past that IBLP already dealt with 30 years ago? Why has IBLP hired an expensive lawyer to "investigate" these trivialities?
But I urge you to try to figure out why people who might be as smart as you are, including some who clearly have more first-hand knowledge and experience with Gothard and IBLP, are so mesmerized by these trivial matters. Surely all who entertain the complaints against Gothard and his teaching are deluded by demons and your only Biblical response should be: The Lord Rebuke You, Satan. Why do you argue with lunatics? And isn't it lonely to be the only sane one here?
He has voluntarily stepped down to help the ministry investigate, etc. He has admitted to wrong actions but not immoral ones. Ie he should have been more careful in how things appeared.
So there are wrong moral things?
"2. How peculiar it is that all discussion, testimonials, documents, etc keep going back to 1980, three decades ago.
3. How trivial the other matters are"
Go back to the articles of how the Gothard family handled the matter when the twisted behavior came to light with the young staff girls & Steve. I recall that 3 of the Gothard men tried to get one of the girls to marry him. Not just "one" but any "one" of the many.
What happened 30 years ago is not at all trivial. If your God given intelligence can not extrapolate conclusions from this, read mine and see if they bear witness with the same Holy Spirit that resides in you and leads you into all truth.
Assuming Bill, Steve and their Dad did in fact try to find a bride for Steve, then they can easily justify the following:
1. Abuse can be hidden by marital vows
2. Marriage nullifies prior fornication
3. Marriage nullifies prior fornication with multiple partners
4. Marriage nullifies sexual harassment
5. Marriage nullifies sexual abuse
6. Young staff women are there for my disposal
7. Young staff women can be used as leverage as a cover for sin
8. I can have multiple sex partners and if caught, I can get one to marry me to cover the guilt and any consequences
9. I can be so self-absorbed that I actually believe that a woman I violated is actually a good candidate for a wife.
10. Courting even works when sexual abuse is present. If I can get a Father's blessing, rape by intimidation is justified.
11. Relationships in marriage have no bearing to its success, only the process by which it comes together
This list could go on for days. If there is ever a reason that this "ministry" should be under scrutiny consistently for the past four decades, the way this scandal was not handled is the best one.
The fact that of the 3 men of this ministry could somehow conceive that a marriage to one of the abused (and not one in particular, just any one will do) could make this seem decent is absurd. Also proof that this "umbrella" theology is crap doctrine.
For those of you mindless followers of this umbrella of authority nonsense, consider your covering that trickles down to you. Then if you want to count your own "holes" it is no wonder you you are soaking wet and incapable of seeing that you have followed a false teacher.
By Bill's own teaching, you are under the covering of the following:
1. Bill Senior who thinks marriage to an abused young women, nullifies abuse.
2. Bill who allegedly made phone calls to father of the abused along the same lines, shacked up with your young daughters while scantily clad, made physical advances toward them and called it fatherly (when it is fatherly, it is done to your OWN daughter, not someone else's), this list for Bill could be a mile long!
3. IBLB-This is the corporate false doctrine illusion you subscribe to. All the holes in this covering are soaking you.
4. Published ATI materials you are filling your family's minds with
5. Father of the family-now start looking at your own imperfection and see where you are missing it.
Imagine the access Satan gained to your perfect little ATI families while you were trying to live a chaste life and your "authorities" were out sinning with your young daughters that they shamed you into protecting. To think too of the audacity of them blaming you for your problems, and encouraging you to confess your sins, ALL of them, while refusing to deal with their own.
That is why 30 years can pass and this still be a relevant topic. Funny too how you trivialize "all discussion, testimonials, documents, etc." while courts refer to it as evidence.
To sum up, here is what the world says about abusers. While reading this, keep in mind this is what the world uses to spot them. Christians can utilize the same warnings AND we have the mind of Christ.
There are some common characteristics of sexual predators:
-Refusal to take responsibility for actions and blames others or circumstances for failures
-A sense of entitlement
-Low self-esteem
-Need for power and control
-Lack of empathy
-Inability to form intimate relationships with adults
-History of abuse
-Troubled childhood
-Deviant sexual behavior and attitudes
-Pedophiles are notoriously friendly, nice, kind, engaging and likeable.
-Pedophiles target their victims, often insinuating themselves into that child's life through their family, school, house of worship, sports, and hobbies.
-Pedophiles are professional con artists and are experts at getting children and families to trust them.
-Pedophiles will smile at you, look you right in the eye and make you believe they are trustworthy.
Source: http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/266
Wow, what a DEVIATION. First it doesn’t show how the Gothard’s used the anointed one principle to influence others. In fact in kind of shows they didn’t have much influence on these girls. It’s just another accusation of his mishandling of the situation 3 decades ago. The speculations of “marriage nullifies fornication” etc are just your 100% pure speculation. Jesus forgives fornication. Marriage if mutually agreed can help rectify fornication but with the case of Steve it was just a huge mess so nothing will rectify it much at all. And actually your whole huge diatribe is as usual based on pure speculation based on the accusations from a very select group of people. It has the same marks as usual: focus on ancient things, speculations, believing any accuser and ignoring so many others that were involved with the events.
Mj,
You can choose to view other people's disagreements with you as a sign that you're "hitting a nerve," but based on the comments I'm seeing here, it sounds like those remarks and responses are more or less borne out of frustration than anything else. All I've noticed are, for the most part, well-reasoned answers to the questions you've put forward - responses with salient points you've willingly chosen to ignore time and time again. If you're looking for opportunities to get insulted, then try talking about this in the not-so-Christ-centered forums where the topics of Gothard and IBLP have come up. I guarantee that you will not receive the level of willingness to reason that so many people here have exhibited toward you.
Perhaps the reason why a lot of people may not be as specific as you've been hoping is because so many of the charges being levied at IBLP make so much sense in light of the nature of narcissism and the rotten fruit it bears. I can't speak for every commenter here, but there are many who have grown up in very abusive situations - situations that have been enabled by IBLP teachings. This is why we're not surprised to hear the stories that have been shared on here. Certain characteristics that define certain types of abusive people are often accompanied by other characteristics. Because it seems obvious to us, it's very easy for us to say something as general as "just read everything on this site."
For example, when you're dealing with an abusive narcissist, you're most likely also dealing with someone who's hungry for control. One defining characteristic of what many would call a "control freak" is the tendency to redefine words and phrases to fit within their parameters and preferences. This is why I've cautioned you against evaluating IBLP's teachings on the basis of what's explicitly stated. You may read in one publication that questioning or disobeying authority when said authority commands you to disobey the principles of God's Word is acceptable. When you read this, you absorb it through the definitions of those words that you believe to be accurate. However, for many in IBLP, so much has been defined - and redefined - by Gothard-sanctioned standards. "Grace" has a different meaning. "Christian living" has a different meaning. And, of course, "what the Bible says" has a different meaning. Because Gothard has used Scripture eisegetically to justify the enforcement of his own extra-Biblical preferences, there's no room to stand up to the IBLP machine under these definitions, despite the disclaimer you keep bringing up. The bottom line is that because Gothard's teachings, which are corroborated by a particular interpretation of Scripture, are viewed as Gospel truth by his followers, many people in IBLP have viewed disobeying Gothard as equivalent to disobeying God. I'll go ahead and respond to your points (again), but please keep that in mind. It has significant repercussions that extend quite far.
1. RG has absolutely zero obligation to show their "finances" to you.
2. Why does "everything" keep going back to 1980? First, it's not "everything," as evidenced by the testimonies from some of the women whose stories can be found under "The Gothard Files," some of which took place after the 80s. But more importantly than that, the reason why you don't hear anything about IBLP now is because of the insular, shame-based culture of fear it has managed to perpetuate. Again, I encourage you to look at the letter to Tony, which can be found among the documents here: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/06/the-agent-of-satan/. The fact that Gothard was willing to go to such lengths to discredit and humiliate this young man after he questioned Gothard is not only a testament to his character, but also the epitome of how the IBLP culture threatens those who dare stand against it. When many are faced with what amounts to "excommunication" and the notion that their standing with God would be jeopardized as a result of their "rebellion" against the system, they can be easily silenced into submission. And, as many others have stated, these events must still matter if their being brought to light has motivated Gothard enough to take the actions he has recently taken, regardless of what motivation lies under them.
3. "Trivial"? I'm curious to know what these "other matters" are that you consider to be "trivial." You can continue to look at the events of 30 years ago as "water under the bridge," but there are still abusive homes today that are the direct result of the implementation of IBLP teaching. This is teaching that has continued to be taught because the people who were aware of the corruption within IBLP were silenced all those years ago. This is teaching that will continue to be taught as long as Gothard continues to demonstrate that he is unwilling to engage with people outside of his terminology. Are you willing to be this callous toward the poor people who are being raised in these abusive homes? There are also patterns of abuse that have been observed and reported among churches who have adopted Gothardism. You can continue to deny this all you want, but the countless shattered lives continue to cry out, and they are doing so today, not just 30 years ago.
4. See paragraph 3.
5. There are only a few people who saw these problems because the hierarchy that defines IBLP's organizational structure allows for it. When Gothard commits wrongdoing such as, say, sexual abuse toward young women who have been sheltered enough to be more likely to accept his advances and brought up in the very teaching he has sanctioned that advocates submission to authority under parameters he has defined, it's very easy to contain the knowledge of it by limiting daily interaction to an inner circle filled with yes men and threatening those who would blow the whistle. If you're looking to an answer to why only a "few" people have been speaking up publicly, then not only do the above sentences still apply, but you're also neglecting all the people living in fear who haven't spoken up and the importance of remembering that even among those who are content, a person enslaved is still a slave.
Now that I've answered your questions, I've got some of my own for you:
1. Why are you so adamant about seeing what would amount to RG's "finances"? I still have yet to receive an actual response from you about why you're so keen on pressing this non-issue beyond "fair is fair." If you're this concerned about a tiny internet blog run by volunteers, then you should be just as equally concerned about the inner workings of Gothard's multi-million-dollar empire. Fair is fair, right?
2. Why are you so willing to spend all this time defending Gothard, and by extension, the abuse he continues to inflict?
3. Why are you so unwilling to instead stand up for the victims - those who have spoken and those who have not - who have suffered under his abuse?
The difference between MANY (but not all) of the responses here (usually it’s the shorter ones) and those of the world are really not that much different. Just cleaned up a bit to make it Kosher in a Christian blog. They use the same mean spirited, empty, and meaningless insults. The spirit is the same.
Maybe you should define what definition you are using for a term yourself. What do you mean by abuse?
1. It’s a generally accepted practice for ministries to be open with their finances like Paul was. To continue to hide them in spite of repeated calls for revealing them makes them suspicious. Isn’t the only motivation for hiding them to hide something? The suspicion of hiding them must be less detrimental than the result of revealing them.
2. One letter to one person does not substantiate the existence of an “insular, shame based culture of fear” for the next 30 years. 100’s or maybe 1000’s have gone thru even the inner group of IBLP in the last 30 years with no problem. To say this letter intimidated all these people for all this time is absurd.
The letter was addressed to one person. When I look at the letter to Tony, the LAST thing I see is this atmosphere of don’t question the authority, even back then. I see Bill going to extreme steps to try to answer Tony’s many questions. Financial firms were hired to audit the records, and many meetings were conducted. Of course you’ll say these had problems. But in the end the board, several well known ministers and even Tony’s own pastor (all people who were deeply involved and apprised of the events) sided with Bill.
This is a new topic that you brought in. This discussion was on the authority issue because it relates to IBLP itself, the latest round of accusations are of a moral nature against Gothard only. I’ve detailed on my website on why I am suspicious of these moral accusations. They are very weird accusations without even the slightest shred of evidence, very limited in number when compared to the vast numbers that have been thru IBLP, both casually and in the inner circles.
I saw an episode of Way of the Master where Ray was witnessing to a lady and all the sudden she yelled out “you hit me”. First that’s a weird thing to say. “ouch or help” would have been more appropriate. But she went to the police with this strange accusation. Thankfully someone else was filming the whole thing for the show and showed the Police and he was let off. Testimony is just way to open to falsities, as Jesus, Stephen, and Paul can attest. The courts may use it but I sure hope they are careful. We’re always hearing of stories of people being falsely imprisoned and proven innocent years later as a result of DNA testing.
3. I keep giving an example of a trivial matter and the document I’m referring to. And I keep trying to separate these from these events from 30 years ago. Two different things. See above. They are either trivial OR ancient (and now I’ll add the new one: Moral accuasations).
4 The documents that I reference do not rely on the words “grace” “Christian living” or even “what the Bible says”. The first is just common sense practical steps to resist an authority when he tells you to do something wrong. The other is about going to an authority first before going to others. It puts ministers in the same category as older persons. I don’t see how you can say these clear teachings can be misinterpreted by using these terms. It would be quite a trick to come up with some word to make all this mean the exact opposite of what it appears to say.
And you keep using the allusion that all or even most of IBLP followers see the teaching as gospel truth, etc. That would be another statement that would need to be verified by taking a broad survey of IBLP participants by an independent researcher. I know lots of them and don’t see it.
5 This is speculation based on the accusation discussed in 2 above.
Now for my questions:
1. Why I am concerned about finances, See 1 above.
2. why am I doing this. I don’t see the evidence for these accusations and want to defend the innocent. I’ve met so many people who have been greatly helped by IBLP, including myself.
3. why am I unwilling to listen to victims. See 2 above
The comments on here come across as insulting to you because not only is it difficult to sympathize with your point of view considering the mountains of testimony disproving it, but you have also been nothing short of demanding while refusing to oblige the requests of everyone else who has tried to engage with you. A few examples:
For the third time, have you read "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" by Jeff VanVonderen to at least try to understand the underlying viewpoint of those with whom you're sparring on here? Have you read every article on this site? Have you read the comments from readers who knew the authors of the personal stories shared who can corroborate them and testify to their character?
Until you're willing to oblige everyone engaging with you on the level you demand from them, the frustration people have exhibited toward you is anything but "empty" and "meaningless." Period. That's just common sense. I'll reiterate what many have already stated: you sure won't get the amount of room for opposing opinions on IBLP's own website that RG has extended to you here.
And please, spare us the "it looks suspicious when RG doesn't release their finances" argument. You are the ONLY person who has brought this up and keep doing so repeatedly. I'll repeat it: RG has absolutely ZERO obligation to share that information with you. None. Zilch. Nada. The only reason it looks "suspicious" is because you're not getting what you want. It's that simple. Perhaps the question I should have asked you is this: what are you hoping to see if RG reveals their finances to you? What dirt do you want? You can tell everyone here. You've got nothing to hide, right?
What is "abuse"? I'll paraphrase the VanVonderen definition: abuse is when Person A does not recognize the value of Person B and says, "I will use you to get what I want." And this is precisely what Gothard does. If you're familiar with the literature on here, you should have read all of the testimonies from the women who experienced sexual abuse at the hands of Gothard by now. Gothard's own teachings exhibit spiritual abuse - the misuse of the Bible to enforce personal preferences and shame others into doing what they want. You know, kind of like twisting 1 Cor. 8:21 to justify demanding that someone gives you what you want - like financial information.
It's patently obvious now that this discussion will not go anywhere unless you're willing to even entertain the slightest notion that the testimonies shared on here are true. Until then, it's pointless to talk about any of this. The funny thing is, many of us on here, myself included, grew up in ATI and/or have family members who still support the program, and we can easily believe these stories because we understand the nature of abuse. So my next question for you is this: why approach all of this with the presupposition that the testimony is all false?
Your previous responses seem to indicate that your experience in IBLP, as well as the purportedly positive experiences of those you know, drives your suspicion. Okay. Just think about what you're doing here. Are you really that callous enough to elevate your own experience above those who have been shattered by the program? Because that's what this is. You're basically saying, "I don't care what you have to say because I benefited from what hurt you. Either you're lying, or I have to admit that I was wrong. And I don't want to admit that I'm wrong." Do you see just how you're coming across to everyone else here? And in case it's not evident by now, this sort of attitude is precisely why more people who have suffered are not sharing their stories publicly. Do you know just how hard it is for these women to come forward? Do you know why some of them, even commenters on here, are using aliases instead of their real names? Have you even thought about this? Not only are they still afraid of the IBLP machine tearing down their lives like it tore down Tony's, but they're also afraid of people like you. People who will marginalize, step on their story, and dissect it, all in the name of maintaining the reality they've constructed where Gothard is completely absolved of any serious wrongdoing. Do you realize just how myopic this is?
To address a point you brought up earlier, that's why RG is dedicated to exposing the corruption within this one ministry. Because it has been as insular and closed to questioning as it's been, finding other people to validate one's own concerns has been a challenge for many until the advent of the Internet. That's the sort of environment RG hopes to provide. My final question to you is: why do you think RG is doing what it does? You've asked this of other people already, but I suspect you've already formulated an answer in your mind. Why would people on here dedicate themselves to exposing corruption if none of it existed? And if you're so willing to stand up for the "innocent" as you claim to be, why not direct your attention toward the actual victims?
Calling "many" responses worldly without specifying which ones and why is an ad hominem attack. FYI. BTW there are a few here who do not claim to be Believers, so calling them worldly is a tautology. Is this short enough for you?
[…] free from an Unbiblical Concept” (MCOI Journal, Volume 8 No. 3, Fall 2002, pp. 12-15) was re-posted by the Recovering Grace (RG) web site, which is devoted to helping people break free from the spiritual bondage caused by the teachings […]
Ron Henzel has taken his remarks over to the MCO blog, with a detailed explanation as to why he wrote the article, and how it applies to Bill Gothard: http://www.midwestoutreach.org/2014/06/19/leveraging-lunacy-how-bill-gothard-rode-a-wave-of-evangelical-goofiness/
[…] free from an Unbiblical Concept” (MCOI Journal, Volume 8 No. 3, Fall 2002, pp. 12-15) was re-posted by the Recovering Grace (RG) web site, which is devoted to helping people break free from the spiritual bondage caused by the teachings […]
This is an excellent article--and so true to life! Beware of the "anointed" minister or speaker, etc. They may be wolves in sheep's clothing. And for a Christian leader to say he is anointed just proves that he is not. True leaders from God are humble and understand their own wretchedness apart from Christ. They serve and see themselves as the least of these my brethren. Jesus gave us the model and it was not a rancher-CEO, but a humble shepherd who was willing to lose the security and prestige of the 99 to go after the 1. I don't see that a lot in the technocratic-church these days; instead, I see a lot of self-serving for power and a name. May God help us.