If a woman doesn’t cry out when she’s raped, God holds her equally guilty with her attacker.
This biblical mandate is familiar to every student and parent who went through Bill Gothard’s Wisdom Booklet #36.
Reading it as a bald statement like that, it’s hard to believe that a thinking Christian would admit to believing it. But what most non-ATI (Advanced Training Institute) people don’t realize is that before a family got to Wisdom Booklet #36, they would have completed Booklets #1–35.
Before that, they would have attended a week-long Basic Seminar and another week-long Advanced Seminar. Then there were the regional conferences and “apprenticeship opportunities.” As ATI families, we were continually taught to rethink everything according to Gothard’s worldview.
The re-education began months or even years before we ever got to that claim in Wisdom Booklet #36. Against the right backstory, even the most outrageous claims seem to make sense.
When trying to explain what it was like as a Gothard follower, it’s hard to communicate the sheer volume of information that we had to take in. At a seminar, there was never time to pause and reflect on what he said. We were furiously writing answers in our workbooks, forced to ignore the dozens of Scripture references he listed, overwhelmed and exhilarated by the entire experience.
Later, as the foundation of our education, we read the Wisdom Booklets — thousands upon thousands of words about random, unconnected subjects. Each section started with a point, ranged widely over several other claims, and ended up at a conclusion that Gothard said was God’s, with a Bible verse tacked on to seal his claim. It was an intensive and bewildering way to approach God and life.
Further isolating us and our worldview, Gothard made it almost impossible for outsiders to see IBLP (Institute in Basic Life Principles) and ATI materials. He warned families not to lend them out, because people who hadn’t been to his seminars wouldn’t understand them correctly. Years later, even for students like me, it was hard to go back and check what we actually learned against what we remembered.
Recently I gained access to nearly all of the original Wisdom Booklets (plus several of the updated second editions). I thought I would summarize each one to show exactly what Gothard taught us. Halfway through the first few pages of Wisdom Booklet #1 (out of 54), I realized I couldn’t do it.
Gothard defies easy summarizing. He uses hundreds of words to prove a single point. His explanations and logic are twisty, working around the obvious message of Scripture to support his own claims.
So, instead of trying to summarize, I’m going to take highlights from the Basic Seminar Textbook and several Wisdom Booklets. My point isn’t to discuss their theological merit; Recovering Grace has featured many excellent authors who did a better job than I ever could.
My purpose is to show how so many well-meaning Christians came to Gothard thinking, “I am excited to know God better,” and ended up nodding as he said, “God holds a woman guilty if she doesn’t scream when a man rapes her.”
It’s not an impossible journey to that hateful God. Especially not with Gothard to lead us every step of the way.
Wisdom Booklet 36 – Law Resource
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES
An ATI Education, Chapter 1: Under the Umbrella
An ATI Education, Chapter 2: Is It Just Me?
An ATI Education, Chapter 3: Thou Shalt Not Trap the Eye
An ATI Education, Chapter 4: The Law of Grace
An ATI Education, Chapter 5: We the People Under Authority
An ATI Education, Final Chapter: Guilty Silence
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
Sara Roberts Jones spent six years under the teachings of Bill Gothard, and fifteen years unlearning those teachings. She and her husband homeschool their four children with a strong emphasis on grace and cultivating their individual giftings.
More posts by Sara Jones
JM, I could care less whether or not you think ...
December 16, 2024 Then I have to rule that you have no evidence for ...
December 16, 2024 Alfred isn't going to put that on his blog and if ...
December 9, 2024 I can easily say that Alfred hasn't denied it, bec ...
December 9, 2024 Alfred denied directly to me she and Sacred Honor ...
December 4, 2024 When did Alfred or Holly deny that she was Mormon? ...
December 4, 2024 Facts are this JM, Alfred denied when directly con ...
December 1, 2024 Interesting you bring up the Jinger/Jill controver ...
November 25, 2024 Here is the facts JM, Holly is a Mormon, part of ...
November 20, 2024 Because she isn't a fraud. I'm sorry that bothers ...
November 18, 2024 JM, let me be very clear to you. Holly is a fraud. ...
November 13, 2024 I don't disagree that that action is what should h ...
November 13, 2024 I have a very long-term view of Bill and IBLP whic ...
November 12, 2024 Some would say the posts here are just spin and fa ...
November 12, 2024 Curious that you would bring up "Charlotte" becaus ...
November 3, 2024 I have seen the Amazon series, and I've seen the r ...
October 29, 2024 Did you ever watch any of the Amazon series? The s ...
October 25, 2024 Yes, it does. Claims must be addressed because the ...
October 24, 2024
Sara, I applaud your effort to attempt to break down the mountain of teachings we received! I look forward to the rest of the articles.
It is hard for an outsider to understand the gradual yet intense brainwashing we received. I was 8 when we began ATIA, so I definitely did not have the tools to filter out the good, accurately Biblical teachings from the false teachings. I didn't stand a chance!
Michelle Duggar just came out and stated that wives are suppose to be "sex slaves" to their husbands so no matter how she is feeling, the wife is suppose to submit to any and all sexual demands of the husband. Your timely piece here supports how a Christians come to an Islamic view of women, men and sexuality. Since the Duggar girls didn't cry out, they are to blame or tempted Josh. (But according to them, they were sleeping and didn't know what he was doing which is pretty hard to believe someone doesn't wake up when being fondled). It is so sordid and sick but the road to hell is paved on step at a time with "good intentions"
It is totally intended for us to be passive,rocked to sleep;Rob War mentioned in her comment that the road to hell is paved "one step at a time",with "good intentions".Never question the "good"Gothard gave us,but since I believe it came from the tree of good and evil,comes the evil!In a metaphor,I will "cry out"{!},for even though I am a man,we were all spiritually raped by Gothard,and his support crew,the IBLP "machine"as Lorne Gabriel has well said.So I'll use Gothard's own words against him,in a symbolic way.When we become passive in Gothard's caste system,its "spiritual". To"cry out",implies protest when he has our best interests already in mind.Gothard represents the greater good,the cause worth your self effacement,you have no rights;but then on the flip side of the Gothard coin,when pride and self righteousness become subliminally factored in I am no longer your brother,but your competitor.Its my attainments my qualifications,my accomplishments,and what do you have that matches that?All a result of atia,from the tree of good and evil.
It's very much an elitist "The emperor is wearing no clothes" conundrum. Only the elite and enlightened can understand this system, so those who don't understand probably are not on their way to heaven. In fact, they might have rock records under their beds. In fact they might appear to the world as being the type of people who might listen to rock records, which is by far the most evil of all.
If you are not able to BE good, at least APPEAR to be good by wearing your Navy and White and smiling. That's good enough.
I keep looking for the "Like" button. If you can't BE good, at least APPEAR to be. I was never in ATI or a Gothardite, but I've seen this at times, and it's such a desperate fail. Makes me think of a recently-canceled television show, too.
Thank you for taking the time to research and write about this issue Sara. It is probably one the main questions people ask me and what I have a hard time explaining. At face value a lot of the claims and teachings sound crazy but unless you lived it you have no idea. I'm looking forward to reading and sharing what you have to say!
Yes. It was the "slow fade" that caught us. It helps me get back a little self respect knowing I may not have jumped feet first into the manure pile but rather got used to the smell slowly. Either way, manure is manure. Just wish I hadn't gone to the barn.
"At a seminar, there was never time to pause and reflect on what he said. We were furiously writing answers in our workbooks, forced to ignore the dozens of Scripture references he listed, overwhelmed and exhilarated by the entire experience."
Looking back, I believe this was completely intentional. A redirection. Taking notes as fast as you can, meanwhile your brain is absorbing what is being said without the chance to question or analyze.
Yes!!! I never thought of it like that until now!
Typical way cults operate. Keep you busy and deprive you of sleep and possibly food to make you more open to their "teachings".
I had to attend the basic seminar in the early 1980's. Fortunately for me, my family did not dive into all of this nonsense. I can remember up early to go to school (hour bus ride both ways because I went to private school), rush home get ready to be at church to get the church bus downtown from the suburbs, three hours of taking notes and listening to BG ramble and then home by 11:30 or midnight. Only to repeat again the next several days.
That was rough on me as a teen, I can't even imagine trying that at this point in my life.
I can't stand false theology and/or in the name of Christ, so I make it a point to expose the false teachings of Gothard as much as possible.
Looking forward to reading the articles to follow. I was in my early 20s when first exposed to a Basic Seminar at Ocean Grove, NJ. Although I would never encourage anyone to follow Bill's teachings now, being at Ocean Grove in June, near the beach. great times of fellowship with friends, I still have good memories of those seminars. Once having realized how wrong many of Gothard's teachings were, I realized that so many things were taught in such a way that if you did this . . ., then you would be more spiritual. And who didn't want that? Unfortunately, "this . . . " was a false teaching and lead down a road of legalism and wrong teachings.
I am thankful we never made it to that wisdom book! We did ATI with our kids in elementary grades for three years and I could no longer stand it as a Mom and neither could my hubby.So controlling and the education had so many gaps and holes in it! Thankfully, in the years since,we have been in churches where real truth was taught with grace. I know looking back with wiser eyes I am amazed how so many of us were bamboozled and fooled.
Ok, somebody help me with this.
I was talking to a Christian friend about victim blaming etc, and I brought this up. Neither of us can figure this verse out.
What I'm trying to understand is, the verse actually does say the woman is guilty if she doesn't cry out. Not necessarily equally, but still guilty.
http://bible.com/59/deu.22.23-24.ESV “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."
Does this mean that, while not entirely correct, this statement in the WB is about correct?
I should add that I was in ATI since age 7, and my family in IBLP since 1998, if not earlier. My friend had some exposure to IBLP, but was never in ATI.
In jewish society betrothed meant as good as married so any hanky panky with someone else before marriage was considered adultery...i.e. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when it was found she was pregnant with Jesus, thus Joseph wanting to divorce her but he was told in a dream not to "put her away".
The language of the verse probably is intended for when an engaged woman carries on with a man not her intended and the scripture was probably a warning of what would happen when a woman engaged to someone else met with another man on the sly.
If you read the verse, "because she did not cry for help though she was in the city," and discern the intent, this is talking about a woman who could have cried out and gotten help -- because this was within the city -- but who did not. The failure to cry out is presumed to indicate her consent under the law. But to take this verse and turn it into a hard fast law that states that if a woman doesn't cry out that it automatically means she is giving consent is utter nonsense. God looks at the heart -- this is a law under the OT. What if a girl is so terrified she cannot cry out? What if she is so completely controlled by the situation? You see, these kinds of interpretations by Gothard are typical -- there is NO discernment of the heart of God or of His intent, but just a conclusion drawn from a legalistic reading.
Some translations say "rape" assuming a statutory rape type situation. That confuses people like Gothard. The translation you quote shows the cas is infidelity during the betrothal and should be no more upsetting than the death penalty for adultery. In fact, mercy is shown because she is given the benefit of the doubt if the act did not occur in town.
Our culture cannot comprehend a truly chaste society. But God does not condone anything else. His Law is intended to show what chastuty looks like. We fixate on the punishment because we can't imagine conforming to His ways. To the pure, all things are pure.
Well said Don.
This passage (vs23-27)has two elements to the law:
- When dealing with a betrothed (in that culture, a relatively young) woman, the presumption of innocence is preferred. Vs 27 establishes this by saying that a woman raped in the country cried out. How can it be known that she cried out when no one else was there to hear her? This doesn't make sense unless taken as a legal standard asserting that the woman it to be presumed innocent. Since it can't be proven she didn't call for help, she is assumed to have called for help.
- But, in a city (that is, in a area where she would definitely have been heard if she called for help), then she is culpable. Either she feared the threats of the rapist more than she cared about her husband's wife being violated, or else was a willing participant. Either way, under the law she was guilty. In short, in a city, not having been heard crying out is legal proof that you didn't.
Some things to note:
This law about crying out is for a very particular case. It applies to betrothed women only. Not married, not unmarried/unbetrothed. Trying to apply it to all cases of sexual violation is pure BS. Another case of BG twisting Scripture into a pretzel.
It presumes certain cultural things which don't apply today. For one, it presumes that "crying out in a city" is almost certainly going to be heard. Yet most of us live in homes where we could scream and scream inside our our house and our next door neighbors are quite likely not to hear us (particularly in colder weather).
For another, it presumes a view of sex and marriage which doesn't hold at all today except for the most extreme. Note that the man is not being killed because he raped. In fact, if he had raped a woman who was not married or betrothed, then the penalty would simply have been a fine or having to marry her. No, he is being killed because of what he did to his neighbor's - he violated his neighbor's wife.
So, to say that this is a guideline
a. which is for all cases of a woman being attacked
b. which has meaning in a culture where views of sex, rape and marriage are so radically different
is pure poppycock.
Is he going to teach that a rape victim (if she is not married) should end up marrying her rapist?
Or less radical, is he even going to teach that betrothal is equivalent to marriage?
If not, then he is just cherry-picking and twisting.
As we have reflected on this, I think BG taught this because he was assaulting these women "in the city" as in there were other people around. In his twisted thinking, they did not scream for help so it was their fault or at least they were agreeable, thus deflecting any responsibility from him. Either it relieved his guilt or people then would not believe anyone who did finally complain. We think it was all premeditated the conscious.
HM,
I agree. I think that Gothard premeditated it and it was no accident that he taught that they were to blame if they did not cry out. These girls were sexually molested, but his grooming was such that they certainly would not have cried out. The steps were very incremental and he probably had a very good idea, from experience, that it would not be received that way. For one thing, he built trust with them. If the touching made them feel strange, the probably blamed themselves for feeling that way, and even if they did get to the point were they could sense that he was aroused, this too would have been their fault from the teachings, for the way the tempted him. For many of them it must have taken a long time to realize that something was very wrong about the interaction, and when it did occur, there was likely a lot of self blaming.
And then there is the whole Mat 18 teaching, that was focused on after the 1980 sex scandal. I believe this was very effective in silencing many who might have spoken out. Even today, many of the followers insist that the girls are handling it wrong and not using a Mat 18 approach. As if an underage girl who is molested by her counselor is somehow obligated to personally confront him about being "offended" first. There is no way that Mat 18 was intended to be applied to victims of sexual assault. Even so, as a testament to the undeserved Grace that Gothard and IBLP have been given, Mat was followed, many, many times, over the course of decades. With individuals confronting Gothard individually, in groups and now to the Church.
To your point, the teachings reflect a level of calculation and planning that is extremely disturbing. This was not a man who messed up with a momentary impulse reaction. Years of thought and planning are manifested in his trespasses.
Sara, this was very enlightening. It helped me to understand how I could be so gullible. It was one item at a time - one seminar, one Knoxville week, one Wisdom Booklet. Even the name of those booklets should have been a clue to the elitist views... The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
This article is very powerful in the insights given. Thank you for writing it and I thank God that He used you to help me understand just a little bit more...
We raised 4 children right up to adulthood in ATI. We are sad we did. Your last sentence sums up how I could turn the God of love into a God of hateful rules. I am sorry I followed BG and they way he thinks. I would rather think the truth.
In reading that scripture I figured it meant that the woman did not cry out because she was wanting to be with the man. Not that she was being raped and so scared she would not cry out.
or gagged or knocked out or incapacitated in some way or threaten with death if she screamed or no one was able to hear her if she "cried out".
Bill's view of this verse shows how out of step he is with traditional and historic Christian views that rape victims are innocent and have not sinned. I wonder sometimes what he learned at Wheaton College to come up with some of his views. The horrible case of Kitty Genovese where a woman was repeated stabbed to death even though 38 people that were her neighbors heard her and watched it happen and did not either intervene or called the police. Bill makes a huge and mistaken assumption that if someone just screams while being attacked, that it will stop or someone will come to the rescue is badly mistaken. The Kitty case demonstrates that this way of fighting back is not so full proof. Again Bill is more in line with Islam than Christianity and his teaching is sick. "rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom and physical and moral integrity ... that can mark the victim for life" CCC 2356. Rape victims have not sinned, the sin is on the abuser, not the victim. Immorality lies in the act of the will of the abuser. The fact that Bill repeated counseled girls and women that have been violated that they were to blame is criminal and beyond anything Christian.
JUST my perspective and hypothesis, rob, but I'm pretty sure that there was very early and very severe family malfunction that shaped BG's foundation far more significantly than Wheaton ever had the chance to.
For example, look at the "dire consequences" that Sara listed in Part 1 of this series that was published today. I've annotated {male} vs <> contributions.
~~~
Many husbands have acknowledged that {their motivation for spiritual pursuits} can be quickly <> from their wives.
When a husband {gives a command to his family} and the wife <> to carry it out, many consequences may occur.
First, the father may attempt to give the laws himself. Very often, however, he is {not sensitive to the needs and responses of the children}; thus, he may be {too harsh or demanding}. The wife will then <>, and the children will sense a divided authority.
Meanwhile, when the wife <>, she will feel inadequate and inferior. She may try to compensate for these destructive feelings by withdrawing, reacting, or looking outside the family for her approval and fulfillment. (WB 15, pp. 615-616, first edition)
~~~
You can go through ANY of BG's teachings and see the exact same pattern. When the root cause of any problem stems from a male, it's *almost always* because he didn't enforce his own authority over his wife or some other woman. This is about the only thing BG ever is seen to seriously berate a man for. Occasionally a man's contribution to a problem may stem from his necessary absence from the home while he's working (or whatever else he may be up to), which causes him to be unaware of a brewing situation. Of course, since the noble cause of employment is causing an innocent ignorance, a simple wrist slap is usually enough to correct the problem. Once in a while we see some other benign deficiency, such as a lack of sensitivity (as here), again, wrist-slap degree. On the OTHER hand, there is no end to female culpability for anything from incest to a flat tire. You can be sure if something IS a man's fault, there's a deeper level on which it's a woman's fault. That's a commonality among ALL I've ever read of BG's teachings and very dubious "case studies."
So when everything is either a woman's fault or a man's fault for not exercising his authority over a woman, I'd call that misogyny. I'd say BG has a deep-seated (like down to the toenails and seeping from every orifice) case of it. I think it was there long before Wheaton or anyone else could influence it any other way. I think anything he picked up at Wheaton or anywhere since has had to conform to this life view that I believe developed from some very early "falmunction" in his family of origin. In spite of his tales of a "fine" family. The misogyny is primary; his theology is secondary, and HAS to mesh with the primary. So if the verse of the day is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son ...," "... He makes me lie down by still waters," "Jesus wept," or whatever - the interpretation and application MUST conform to the pre-existing basis of misogyny.
I hope I've made adequate disclaimers about what is speculation. That BG is misogynistic isn't very speculative, but my theory of where it stems from is influenced by my 25+ years of experience with another "fine" family. There is obviously no proof in speculation, but it sure does make things "set better" when you can see a possible explanation for things that are this bizarre.
Thanks so much, Sara, for taking on this series.
Oh no, so sorry! I annotated with brackets that deleted the text in between! I will re-post here with different symbols and hope for better results.
~~~~~~~~
JUST my perspective and hypothesis, rob, but I'm pretty sure that there was very early and very severe family malfunction that shaped BG's foundation far more significantly than Wheaton ever had the chance to.
For example, look at the "dire consequences" that Sara listed in Part 1 of this series that was published today. I've annotated {male} vs ++female++ contributions.
~~~
Many husbands have acknowledged that {their motivation for spiritual pursuits} can be quickly ++destroyed by negative attitudes or lack of enthusiasm++ from their wives.
When a husband {gives a command to his family} and the wife ++fails to work out the proper procedures++ to carry it out, many consequences may occur.
First, the father may attempt to give the laws himself. Very often, however, he is {not sensitive to the needs and responses of the children}; thus, he may be {too harsh or demanding}. The wife will then ++try to compensate by being more lenient than she should be++, and the children will sense a divided authority.
Meanwhile, when the wife ++does not fulfill her function in the family++, she will feel inadequate and inferior. She may try to compensate for these destructive feelings by withdrawing, reacting, or looking outside the family for her approval and fulfillment. (WB 15, pp. 615-616, first edition)
~~~
You can go through ANY of BG's teachings and see the exact same pattern. When the root cause of any problem stems from a male, it's *almost always* because he didn't enforce his own authority over his wife or some other woman. This is about the only thing BG ever is seen to seriously berate a man for. Occasionally a man's contribution to a problem may stem from his necessary absence from the home while he's working (or whatever else he may be up to), which causes him to be unaware of a brewing situation. Of course, since the noble cause of employment is causing an innocent ignorance, a simple wrist slap is usually enough to correct the problem. Once in a while we see some other benign deficiency, such as a lack of sensitivity (as here), again, wrist-slap degree. On the OTHER hand, there is no end to female culpability for anything from incest to a flat tire. You can be sure if something IS a man's fault, there's a deeper level on which it's a woman's fault. That's a commonality among ALL I've ever read of BG's teachings and very dubious "case studies."
So when everything is either a woman's fault or a man's fault for not exercising his authority over a woman, I'd call that misogyny. I'd say BG has a deep-seated (like down to the toenails and seeping from every orifice) case of it. I think it was there long before Wheaton or anyone else could influence it any other way. I think anything he picked up at Wheaton or anywhere since has had to conform to this life view that I believe developed from some very early "falmunction" in his family of origin. In spite of his tales of a "fine" family. The misogyny is primary; his theology is secondary, and HAS to mesh with the primary. So if the verse of the day is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son ...," "... He makes me lie down by still waters," "Jesus wept," or whatever - the interpretation and application MUST conform to the pre-existing basis of misogyny.
I hope I've made adequate disclaimers about what is speculation. That BG is misogynistic isn't very speculative, but my theory of where it stems from is influenced by my 25+ years of experience with another "fine" family. There is obviously no proof in speculation, but it sure does make things "set better" when you can see a possible explanation for things that are this bizarre.
Thanks so much, Sara, for taking on this series.
Elizabeth, you do make good points. I should clarify that this passage was taken from a much (much) longer discussion in the Wisdom Booklet about the different roles in a family. So there were other sections directed more at the father. When I get a chance, I'll see what it says. But yes, the primary job of a man was to be in authority, and a woman was only ever in a supportive role.
Thank-you Elizabeth for your insight. Yes, Bill's personal family dynamics probably did play a role in his teaching and how he came to it. Unless, we have the testimony and honesty from his other siblings, none of us will ever truly know what went on in his childhood to prove or disprove anything. Bill had a very robotic and mechanical view of just being a person. This permitted his teaching, not just the views of roles of husband and wife and children. My comment on what he might have learned in his theology classes at Wheaton had more to do with his overall interpretation of scripture and how he used the Bible to support his teaching. Wheaton college is usually seen as the standard of evangelicalism and produced the likes of Billy Graham, Jim Elliot as well as Bill Gothard. There is obviously a big difference between Billy Graham and Bill Gothard. Wheaton College was also the place that Bill did start his seminar in the form of classes in the evening there. I am sure Bill's hermeneutics was not really taught there at Wheaton in the 1950s and Bill did seem to move into fundamentalism instead of staying with standard evangelical type of hermeneutics.
My other thought to your comments about his family life and how he came up with his robotic views I theorized might have more to do with Bill's own either undiagnosed learning disability (he repeated 1st grade, struggled as a student) or even some kind of Aspergers type of autism. Both would and could cause oneself to see the world and others as robotic and mechanical and then he would read and use the Bible in a robotic and mechanical type of way. Someone that has a break down in understanding the nuances of human emotions and feelings is going to end up viewing family relationships and roles without the dynamics of love, feelings, emotions. He himself was never able to connect to someone to marry but his own sexual desires then came out in extremely bizarre and immature ways. Growing up in the 1930-40, there wasn't the research and help for these types of children but I think his own families rigid religious views wouldn't have looked for help either.
Rob, I once also encountered someone with pronounced narcissistic qualities like those manifested by Gothard. Being somewhat knowledgable about Asperger's and Autism Spectrum Disorder, I, too, briefly considered whether this might be a factor until it dawned on me as I was reading about narcissistic behavior, a narcissist who is a successful manipulator is actually a very skilled reader of other people and a skilled performer/actor. This is the exact opposite of people with Asperger's or Autism, who cannot read people and are socially awkward and usually blurt out the first thing that comes to their mind in a social situation, even when it is highly inappropriate because that's really how they feel or think (perfect replication of this aspect of Asperger's in TV drama would be the main character Martin in "Doc Martin"). Such people don't have an artful or manipulative bone in their body. Skilled manipulator and the social handicap characteristic of folks on the spectrum are mutually exclusive conditions.
According to descriptions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it is thought to develop quite early in childhood when a child's need for unconditional love and empathy go unmet and instead he must perform or behave in a certain way to obtain any approval or affirmation he gets. This leads to deep-seated insecurity in the person's sense of self-worth and creates a bottomless chasm of emotional need for admiration and to be thought of as a hero. Any highly legalistic religious upbringing can create this kind of environment. Because NPD develops so early in childhood, it is very deeply ingrained in the psyche and notoriously difficult to treat.
Good point, Karen, and I agree totally. Add misogyny to the presumed NPD and think of the possibility of severe malfunction, since similar to NPD, misogyny likely stems from early childhood influences. Personally, I think his behavior can only be understood in light of him having severe cases of both. Otherwise, we're just left throwing our hands up and saying, "Wow - I just don't understand how he could ___!" There are too many right now that will say, "I don't believe he would ever ___, no one could possibly be that bad." (We could all name at least one by name, right?)
I'm really not trying to armchair-diagnose and FIND the root cause as much as I am trying to understand how one man can do and teach and control and sell what he has done and taught and controlled and sold for many years.
And of course, trying to make sense of it in terms of root causes or whatever may have been done TO him doesn't EXCUSE any of his behavior - he is solely responsible for his own actions. And although I think he is certainly a pitiful and shameful character, don't mistake that as feeling sorry for him, either.
Just calling 'em as I see 'em. It's helped me keep my sanity, and I don't say that lightly. Hoping to help others understand a teeny bit better.
Thank-you Karen, for your insights. I think we are playing "arm-chair" Psychiatrists here but trying analyze Bill Gothard and what made him tick is important. I am looking as I type this at DSM V, publishing 2013. Under personality disorders it starts out with this "An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectation of the individual's culture." "This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas: 1. cognition, 2. affectivity (emotions), 3. Interpersonal functioning and 4. Impulse control". In looking at Narcissistic on page 327, yes he does have a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and lack of empathy. Bill also fits many of the characteristics of Obsessive-compulsive (page 329) which is a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, control and scrupulous. I would guess Bill is probably a mixture of these things and more. I also think his outlook is also colored by his evident LD from his childhood. Looking at some potential type of autistic traits. www.mkdowney.com/charactersitc.html which has some interesting characteristic such as excellent rote memory (Bill always emphasized this as begin a big part of his learning), very detailed oriented applies same level of detail to every situation, literal language (read and taught the Bible in a literalist way, did not see the allegories, similes etc of scripture), perfectionism, his limited wardrobe of navy blue suites. etc. I just theorizing that how he came to his theology and literalists use of scripture might have more to do with his mindset and psychology that he never overcame growing up and crystalized as an adult.
It is worth noting that the opacity of Gothard's writing (I read through a bit of Wisdom Booklet #1 recently) is regrettably matched by a number of other "fundagelical" writers--it resembles little so much as a badly written textbook of the type I suffered through in school. "Let's pack in as many bits of information as we can without paying attention to the overall narrative", that sort of thing.
Now I am not an expert in DSM--the best I can claim is that I got pretty good at warning my sister-in-law that her husband's manic episodes were coming when his counselors did not appear to figure it out--but remembering my trauma in school from that sort of thing, I cannot altogether discard the idea that it's part of control tactics.
Which, alas, are all too common in the fundagelical circles I otherwise love.