About the author
More posts by Moderator
Waiting on Theological Clarification from IBLP
After Bill Gothard was deemed disqualified from ministry by his Board of Directors in 2014, a number of theologians and church leaders called on the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) to evaluate the teachings that are “at least partly responsible for the recurring moral failures of Bill Gothard and other IBLP leaders.” This call was posted on a website named IBLPopenletter.com. IBLP leadership was made aware of the letter through direct contact.
The open letter states: “As fellow servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, we, the undersigned, challenge the acting President of IBLP and the Board of Directors and other ministry leaders, to biblically evaluate the core teachings and claims of the IBLP materials in partnership with a doctrinally sound and apologetically qualified seminary.” Anyone who agreed with this challenge was able to add their signature.
Since the posting of the open letter, Dr. Tim Levendusky officially assumed the presidency of IBLP. Yet President Levendusky and the IBLP Board of Directors have remained silent on this important challenge. They have not clarified IBLP’s stance on these points. Rather, they continue to let the disqualified Bill Gothard speak for them.
Here is Gothard’s response to the open letter, along with the signatories’ request for clarification from Gothard. We invite our readers to cite specific IBLP materials that state IBLP’s long-held stance on these teachings, and over time we will attempt to update this post with images of the various teachings.
| Response to An Open Letter
by Bill Gothard |
Response to Bill Gothard
by IBLPopenletter.com |
|
| Thank you for your concerns about the Biblical accuracy of my teaching. Although your letter was addressed to the current leadership of the Institute, I believe it would be appropriate for me to also give a response since I am the one who developed and taught it. I would be very pleased to receive from you any comments on what I have written because I want to make sure that I am Biblically accurate in what has been taught. | We thank you for your response. We understand that you are not representing the leadership of IBLP but have written solely as the individual who developed and taught most of the teachings which are in question. Although at first blush the paper you have sent sounds orthodox, in nearly every case the responses skirt the actual issue or question and in some cases is completely opposite of the official teachings in the books, booklets and verbally communicated in the seminars. These are issues which have been brought to your attention by Dr. Jay Adams, Dr. Earl Radmacher, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., and others over many decades without any actual repentance, retraction or anything other than cosmetic changes in the teachings or materials. Does your paper reflect repentance and retraction of the original teachings and is a following through of point 10 of the agreed upon 11 points of arbitration? (these are enumerated on pages 84-90 of A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life)?:
What follows from this point is our section-by-section response to your paper, utilizing your section headings: |
|
| 1. Umbrellas of Protection and Chain of Authority I believe that all authority comes from God and He delegates limited authority to government leaders and to parents (Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-14, and Ephesians 6:1-3). We are to honor these authorities but we are never to obey them in participating in evil. It is for this reason that Scripture puts the qualifier, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1a). Those in authority must give an account to God on how they used their authority (II Corinthians 5:10). We in turn are instructed to use our power of influence by praying for all those who are in authority (I Timothy 2:1-3).When it comes to marriage and church leadership, a husband is to lay down his life for his wife (Ephesians 5:21-33) and elders are to be servant examples to the flock (I Peter 5:1-5). Jesus said, “whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (See Matthew 20:25-28). |
1. “Umbrellas of Protection and Chain of Authority” This is central and core to IBLP teachings and is described in the material and teachings as an umbrella of protection. If one gets out from under the umbrella they are in rebellion and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. A few questions arise here. First, do you believe this? If so, are you willing to submit to the authority of the Church which is the Body of Christ in a hearing by the local church or a Council of Churches, a hearing called for the purpose of examining the charges of ungodly behavior and contrary doctrine which are outstanding against you?Second, as Dr. Earl Radmacher stated so clearly in his 1983 Letter this view is unbiblical and disastrous:
|
|
| 2. Do We Merit Grace? In no way do I believe or teach that we merit the grace of God. God’s grace is free and unmerited. We cannot work for it or become worthy of receiving it. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Paul further affirmed this important point when he wrote: “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace…” (Romans 11:6b). |
2. “Do We Merit Grace?” IBLP materials and teachings define grace in the Basic Seminar as, “The desire and the power God gives us to do His will – joyfully.” In the year 2000 IBLP released the document, Definition of Grace which declared that “unmerited favor” is a “faulty definition.” It went on to state, “In the Old Testament, those who found grace possessed qualities that merited God’s favor. [Emphasis ours]”__ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or__ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| 3. Does Faith Come by Visualization? Faith does not come by what we visualize but by the Word of God. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).The words of Scripture are not understood by the natural man, “neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14b). Therefore, Paul prayed that God would give us, “the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling…” (Ephesians 1:17b-18). |
3. “Does Faith Come by Visualization?” To our knowledge no one has claimed IBLP teaches that “faith comes by visualization.” Rather we have claimed that you define faith as the activity of visualizing. It is immediately obvious that to define faith as any type of human activity automatically makes it a work, which not only destroys the biblical teaching about salvation, but also contradicts what the Bible says specifically about grace, since Paul wrote concerning salvation: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace,” (Romans 11:6).Biblical faith, on the other hand, is properly defined as personal trust in the truth of what God has revealed. Thus saving faith is personal trust in the facts of the Gospel. As J.I. Packer put it, it is:
Thus faith is something that passively receives. It is not an expending of human effort, but a confidence in the effort that God has expended for us. The act of visualizing, however, requires an expending of human effort. It is not the mere passive reception of a vision, but the human effort of forming a mental image. Defining faith in terms of this effort transmutes faith into a work. Thus your response skirts the issue and ignores the problem which is IBLP’s basic definition of faith in both the Basic and Advanced Seminar textbooks, as follows: Basic Seminar Textbook P. 150 “Faith: visualizing what God intends to do in my life.” Advanced Seminar Textbook P. 356, is “Operational Definitions. Faith: Visualizing what God intends to do.” __ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or __ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| The next topics are not “core teachings” of the ministry but I will respond to them: | ||
| 4. Is Circumcision A Moral Requirement for Christians? Circumcision is not a moral requirement for Christians. Circumcision was established by God with Abraham as a sign of His covenant, “between me and you and thy seed after thee…“ (Genesis 17:9-11).The fact that circumcision is not a moral requirement for New Testament believers was settled during the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. A certain sect of the Pharisees which believed on the Lord said that it was necessary to circumcise believers and to keep the law of Moses. The counsel debated this teaching and rejected it (See Acts 15:5, 25-29). |
4. “Is Circumcision A Moral Requirement for Christians?” It may be true that these are not “core teachings” for IBLP but as it happens this particular one is a core teaching of the New Testament. This issue was point 9 in the 2002 arbitration meeting. The Basic Care Bulletin 11- How to Make a Wise Decision on Circumcision states:
According to this circumcision is non-optional for a Christian parent and those who might think about choosing against it “have no Scriptural basis to do so..” The booklet goes on to outline “The Basic Elements of a Scriptural Circumcision Ceremony,” which are: “1. Provide a Certificate 2. Schedule the Circumcision 3. Determine the Wisest Procedure 4. Invite Special Witnesses 5. Plan the Ceremony” It moves on to the “Suggested Procedure for a Scriptural Ceremony” which includes “1. Recognize the Guests 2. Tell How Circumcision Began 3. Recognize the Eighth Day 4. Emphasize Moral Purity 5. Explain Heart Circumcision 6. Pray for the Child 7. Sign the Certificate.” (see images below) At the end of the 2002 mediation meeting between IBLP, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. with Dr. Norman Geisler as the moderator and Modern Reformation Magazine as the neutral observer and reporter, this issue was also discussed and no retraction was made. At the end of the meeting you told Ron Henzel and Don Veinot that if a parent circumcises their new born son his future spouse will not get Cervical cancer and if we know the right thing to do and do it not for us it is sin. This again made circumcision a moral requirement for Christians for according to this view, not circumcising is sin. The Apostle Paul devoted an entire book, Galatians, to this particular issue. This was so “core” that in Galatians 5 the Apostle Paul that those who teach circumcision and the embracing of circumcision as a moral requirement and/or something to improve one’s spiritual life causes that believer to “fall from grace” and to “be severed from Christ”, that this puts the person practicing circumcision as a religious ceremony and moral requirement under “the curse of the Law” and the teacher places himself under the curse (Gal. 1:6-10). In Galatians 5 he went so far as to wish that those who were teaching this very thing would emasculate themselves. This one teaching alone should disqualify any teacher or organization from teaching in any confessing church! __ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or __ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| 5. Must We Obey Levitical Dietary Commands? The answer is “no.” The Levitical dietary commands apply to the law of Moses which was given to the Jewish nation: “I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine” (Leviticus 20:24b-26). |
5. “Must We Obey Levitical Dietary Commands?” Your clear response of “No” to any requirements or demands of the Law of Moses is most refreshing. However, as it applies to the Law’s restrictions in eating pork products, your answer in this this paper is contradictory to a well-known forty year history of your tight restrictions against eating any pork products and your teaching and preventing other believers from eating pork products. Would you be prepared to explain the basis for your rejection of eating pork when served to you at special and private dinners where you were a guest of Area Chairmen or other events? (Area Chairman, Portland, Oregon). Would you be prepared to acknowledge as wrong and doctrinally confusing, your insistence for many years, that NO pork products should be eaten or served to your staff at headquarters in Oak Brook, that NO pork products should be served at any Area Committee meals/lunches during Seminar events?Would you be prepared to acknowledge as wrong, sinful, and damaging, your personal insistence and pressure to Tony G and his family, to cease raising pork because of it being unbiblical to both raise it and eat it? This request has been made to you often and recently again, with NO response from you to it. We would like to publish your response to this personal question put to you over the years.Bill, would you be willing and so bold as to offer some assistance to the Duggar family (which are close friends of yours) so they can also experience your (new) freedom to eat pork and allow others to do so? (See : “To Pork or Not to Pork, That is The Question “ and “Why don’t the Duggars eat pork? “) Of course, everyone is free to choose what they would or should eat but that is different than what has been the operating and teaching position of IBLP for over 4 decades on this issue.__ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or__ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| 6. Obedience to Levitical Marital Practices About forty years ago I pointed out some medical benefits of these laws. Since then, I have concluded that it is not my place to tell married couples how to run their marriages. Instead, I encourage them to study these Scriptures for themselves and come to a mutual agreement under the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit on how they should be applied. |
6. “Obedience to Levitical Marital Practices” This was point 8 of the issues discussed in the 2002 mediation meeting and the one which most shocked Eric Landry of Modern Reformation Magazine. If IBLP has since abandoned this teaching since 2002 and if this reflects public repentance and retraction of the original teachings and is a following through of point 10 of the agreed upon 11 points of arbitration that is welcome.__ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or__ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| 7. Did Jesus Sin? If we say that Jesus sinned, we must also say that His Heavenly Father sinned because Jesus did nothing of His own will but only that of His Heavenly Father. He testified, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise…I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:19b, 30). Jesus was, “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15b). |
7. “Did Jesus Sin?” No one has suggested that you teach that Jesus sinned. As you are aware, the question is a tool which has been employed to test IBLP’s teaching on “Umbrellas of Protection.” It was mostly recently posted as the question “Is Jesus a Sinner According to Bill Gothard’s Teachings?“ which consistently applies the definitions and claims to the life of Jesus as taught in the Basic Seminar. It demonstrates that since Jesus isn’t a sinner then the teachings on “Umbrellas of Protection/Chain of Command” are unbiblical.__ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or__ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
Baton image copyright: Inspirestock International/123rf.com
All articles on this site reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Recovering Grace contributors or the leadership of the site. Students who have survived Gothardism tend to end up at a wide variety of places on the spiritual and theological spectrum, thus the diversity of opinions expressed on this website reflects that. For our official statement of beliefs, click here.
Bill Gothard Chain of Authority circumcision Did Jesus Sin? disqualified Duggar eating pork faith by visualization grace IBLP IBLP board IBLPopenletter.com Institute in Basic Life Principles Levitical dietary commands Levitical law merit grace recant Recovering Grace RecoveringGrace.org repentance the desire and power Tim Levendusky umbrella of authority umbrella of protection
Thanks for this side-by-side. It is very helpful. B.G.'s responses clearly appear to be means of avoiding his admitting any error ever. He must sustain the false front at all costs.
Who was it that talked about whitewashed tombs?
Another set of lies masqueraded as sincerity.Lie to protect the lie;reimplement the lie.
The points of the open letter just scratch the surface of Bill's teaching and all he did in response is quote Bible verses back which is probably all anyone is going to get from him. I think another way of confrontation would be to have Bill explain where he got his ideas from (other that the Bible), what early Church fathers can he point to that taught the things he taught, why does he have such a machanical view of God, a fatalistic view of God both of which line up more with Sunni Islam than historic Christianity. Why does he emphasize "success" over faithfulness to Christ and His teaching. Bill just didn't come up with this system on his own readings, fastings, meditations and rhemas. Quoting Bible verses at him is only going to get Bible verses back and doesn't cut to the core of his theology. He can't claim that he isn't a theologian because he is. He can't claim that he isn't a psychologist because he is. He can't claim he isn't a counselor because his seminars are totally based on "biblical" counseling.
Excellent points here a Rob.
This is exactly why I've found it so frustrating to dialogue using Scripture with people who twist it - to engage on a level where, for the enslaved, words and their definitions have been completely reworked to accommodate their point of view. Until that reality is deconstructed, it's practically pointless.
It appears he still has some powerful influence over the institute to be able to be a spokes person for them.
I would like them to be pushed to speak because they are at the reigns and new and impressionable people are joining. They deserve to have this board be responsible for the ship they are steering and what is being taught at their watch!! If they can't explain and dissect the teachings they have no business at the helm for indeed they WILL be accountable here or beyond.
Thank you RG for your outstanding integrity, steadiness, and maturity in character and in scripture as you trudge forward.
Many are indebted to you.
You can post this again on New Year's Eve 2015. We'll still be waiting by then.
Wow! So the 'breaking research' on the benefits of circumcision and of abstinence in marriage which was being taught by Bill himself as well as others in ATI leadership even as recent as the mid-2000s he had 'already abandoned?' It's a shame that he is remaining opaque and not at all transparent. It also must mean that he did not support the certificate of circumcision he published in ATI Basic Care materials to be signed by the local rabbi in order to document the event. This entire discussion isn't even an issue in 80% of the Christian world (globally). IBLP theology is among the worst that I've seen in the churches and organizations of which I've been a part.
This may not sound especially gracious, but I would surmise that Bill needed to not be spending time trying to fit the Scripture around his theories.
Faith makes an interesting discussion in most groups, I think. It seems that the biblical definition of faith is a good place to start--we don't need to invent our own starting definition. I'm from a background where the definitions and teaching on faith would disturb a good number of ATI people, so maybe that's why I think we should allow the Scriptures to define it.
Frankly, I think Bill's response is hilarious -- simply because it is so insincere, although in keeping with his track record of 50 years. Bill acts as if he is completely unaware of what he is going to be ask. He acts as if he has never been challenged on his teachings. I would simply say that after decades of continual appeals from other Christian leaders, and after decades of digging trenches around his teaching -- not to mention God's own dealing with him -- Bill Gothard has proven that he loves darkness rather than light. He will have to answer to God because there is no room in him for the Truth. I'll leave the rest to God.
I was happy to see that there are those outside of ATI/IBLP circles, as well as those of us whose lives have forever been changed by these false teachings, who want answers. I am glad BG is being questioned as to his theology. It is all important for those who are still in or are entering this false way of thinking. ATI should be shut down so as to avoid the hurts that thousands of families have already experienced (I speak that which I know).
I have one LOOMING thought:
Theology questioned, others entering the fray here to seek out answers, BG give some semblance of rebuttal...
What about the girls? What about the women? What about a predator being treated as a man with false doctrine?
What about girls/women having their personal space invaded, being defrauded, treated as objects of his, even abused and in the name of prayer and confession? I think we stray here from the outcome of this terrible doctrine - the abuse of people - spiritually, mentally, and yes, even physically.
What about the young men told to stay aloof as they watched Mr. Gothard walk around differing Training Centers with his harem? ...the precious young people being forced to work far too much with little to no pay... the parents being duped by BG HIMSELF as to the welfare of their children "if they will send him/her up to headquarters"... lies right to the face of parents "I am just being like a father figure" ...the coerced confessions (with details) kneeling in front of the office couch - alone with Mr. Gothard.
Our philosophy dictates our theology. His has proven deadly to the hearts and minds of so many. Thank you for bringing the philosophy/theology of this man to light. Please continue to do so.
The chart of similarities in the womens' stories (put together by RG) proves that the predator/sexual tendancies are a serious side of Mr. Gothard that needs to be dealt with. This kind of behavior does not tend to just 'go away'.
In all Christian love, I so hope he comes to true repentance. I do not envy him - this has all become so public. That seems to be God's way many times - "that which is done in secret" and "be sure your sin will find you out." Terrifying, indeed.
May he kneel in front of the couch...
I find his answers very bizarre. It is as if he believes that if he makes a statement with confidence that it will make it true. As has been written about previously, this was his teaching method. The problem for Gothard is that he has volumes of material out there that contradict his answers to these questions. Does he think that he can just get away with this kind of statement about what he taught regarding marital Levitical practices?:
" About forty years ago I pointed out some medical benefits of these laws. Since then, I have concluded that it is not my place to tell married couples how to run their marriages. Instead, I encourage them to study these Scriptures for themselves and come to a mutual agreement under the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit on how they should be applied."
Who does he think he is fooling? One only need to open to page 173 of the Advanced Seminar Textbook:
In the context of obedience to Jesus' command to love God and love thy neighbor as thyself Matt 22:37-39, Gothard goes on to state:
"A person may think he is a loving partner by things he says or does, but God's law is much more precise and accurate in defining what is loving and unloving."
The next several pages go on to instruct about our need to abstain with our spouses in order to fulfill the law and to show that we are loving, chock filled with the standard Gothard anecdotal examples of successful results and miracles that happened when couples followed his teachings.
Make no mistake about it, this was a teaching. Suggesting that one is to do this in order to follow the command of Christ, regarding loving one another, is very far from suggesting that couples read Scripture and then mutually agree for themselves how they should be applied.
Yes, it certainly was a teaching. I sat in a discussion group listening to everyone talk about it in a BAsic seminar follow up course....my best friend and prayer partner bit, and 2 years later was divorced. Her husband left her because of that teaching!! And it was still being taught while we were in ATI...We were told it was "Biblical".
To Anon:
I distinctly remember reading that the Duggar patriarch practiced this tenet. Chuckle.
If I recall correctly, the abstinence was to be 'put in place' beginning just after the birth of the baby. Was it (40) days if the birth produced a boy child and (30) days if the couple was blessed with a girl?? (Somewhere in the archives I have some of my IBYC/IBLP materials.)
If this is the prevailing application at this time, I am thinking Jim Bob Duggar has reminded Ben (Seewald) and Derrick (Dillard) of this Gothard proclamation. :+(
When being right is more important than being in relationship, the most "loving" thing one can do is to insist that everyone agrees with us.
(I commented on the wrong article! This is where I meant to put this)
The latest articles on RG got me to thinking, since they were about taking the teachings of IBLP and putting them to the test by pastors, seminaries, ANYone. It's just amazing how things were set up to completely ignore and disengage the local church from the picture in the Christian life, and to pull the Christian away from his/her Pastor in an authority or mentor role.
In everything that IBLP does/did, there's no effort made to arm the Pastor to teach the materials. Everything was a seminar that you went to outside your church. Material wasn't given to Pastors to go over and internalize before passing to their congregation in their own teaching. Pastors were given videos to watch WITH their congregations. Pastors were never encouraged to teach from the materials. The result of course being that pastors everywhere, when presented with objections to the material, simply replied "well you'll have to take that up with Bill!".
With IBLP materials, it's always just expected that the Pastor of a congregation is just gonna step aside and play a video.
In fact, even in the Life Study Groups, when BG found out that people were doing more than just reading through the book and watching the video, he threw a fit.
Yes, for all the emphasis on authority, IBLP/IBCY as a para-church group "undercut" genuine Church teaching authority. That has been a repeated problem with all these teaching "ministries", they are outside of any genuine Church, there is no over site that has any real authority and too many take their theology and ideas from them. From a number of testimonies here, it seemed like the people that really delved into this teaching were unable to connect to any real church and bounced around from church to church or caused church splits with other like minded people. But, Bill did received and looked for pastoral support especially in the early IBCY years for his seminars. I would like to see more articles and testimonies from those pastors, the ones that supported and promoted the seminars and now regret their involvement.
That's my experience with them.
They were flooding the church I attended. And the pastor was actually quite supportive of Gothard's materials.
But it's all or nothing with them. And the pastor had a life-long dream of starting a Christian school at the church. They tried to undercut it from day one. When it didn't work, they left. (I left way before then: two church splits in one lifetime was enough and I didn't want to see #3.)
The church is now about the size it was before they all showed up. And the school was started and is doing quite well.
To Rob War:
"I would like to see more articles and testimonies from those pastors, the ones that supported and promoted the seminars and now regret their involvement."
To me, this is at least half of the continuing problem of what was 'once the dynasty' of Bill Gothard!! Where were the many pastors who should have discredited the volumes of 'Gothard's doctrine'?!?!?!
Actually they have had conferences that were just for pastors. I think they did make an effort to avoid the problem of laymen getting excited about preacher-specific suggestions and pressuring their preacher over things he didn't want to do.
Thank you for this article. Whether it is a small crack or a growing of an already existing crack in this "glass ceiling" it is progress. I'm glad you mention the Duggars. Strangely enough, their willingness to go public with their lives has been the beginning of a lot of healing. Without that, there would not have been triggers in minds of those who have tried to "forget what is behind" and therefore finding each other and starting up RG.
Can BG answer for the fact that many parents have over-sheltered their adult sons and daughters(especially daughters) to the point where they felt they could not do anything without their permission?(the article Once a Child Always a Child comes to mind) Can he answer for those who were scarred by the adoption teachings and abused, or sent back, their adopted children? And I'm sure I, or others, will think of more.
Keep it up, RG.
Thank you for mentioning the article Once a Child Always a Child - there was a lot I could relate to there.
This is so evil. You're trying to take the word of God and corrupt it. Everything Bill Gothard did was unbelievable and God inspired. You people are trying to take away everything he taught which was from Gods word. That is most evil
Bayne,
I'm a little confused when you say "Everything Bill Gothard did was unbelievable". Do you mean that you don't believe anything Bill taught? But you then say "God inspired". So if that's the case you must be saying that God inspired him to play footies with his secretaries, or stroke their hair and face, or have them sit on his lap or next to him in the car on a bench seat real close, or hold their hands during walks or allude to multiple women about marriage, or lie, should I go on. To me, saying that is "God inspired" is blasphemy. So I don't misunderstand or offend you, just what do you mean?
Larne
I think you'll find that those who wish to continue defending Bill Gothard at this late hour find themselves with very little ground to stand on, if any.
I say this not to mock but as an honest description of my impression of the matter. Some people will probably stick around to the bitter end, choosing to believe they are standing faithfully for the cause of an innocent martyr. It's not so different from arguing with someone who believes in a geocentric universe or a flat earth: no amount of objective evidence will ever be convincing to them, and no matter what evidence you raise they will always have a response.