“Ye are the light of the world; a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.”
According to Bill Gothard, this verse clearly directs women to avoid clothing with “eye traps” that might attract a man’s lustful attention.
As a quick recap, my previous articles explained:
1. Bill Gothard set himself up as the final authority over all of his followers, teaching them that if they disagreed and “got out from under authority,” God would punish them.
2. Gothard conditioned his followers to doubt themselves and look to him for answers, deliberately cultivating this mindset in his “homeschool” curriculum, the Wisdom Booklets.
With those “basic principles” firmly lodged in his audience’s mind, Gothard was ready to take on the world of fashion.
At first glance, it might not be clear how “ye are the light of the world” has anything to do with how a woman could “trap” a man’s lustful attention by what she wears. Well, for the record, the verse also applies to lasers, the Crusades, and the authority structure in the home. It’s all laid out in Gothard’s Wisdom Booklet 15, which children from age five to twenty-five studied together with their parents.
As I said before, the sheer volume of information we had to take in was overwhelming. It’s difficult judge the merits of each resource, much less each booklet. Some of the science, history, and theology is good. Some of it is dated but unobjectionable. Other former students have skimmed through the booklets and found errors, incomplete information, and outright propaganda, especially in the Law Resource.
As for me, I now understand why I always felt exhausted and confused after trying to understand a single one of Gothard’s points. For instance, this passage from Wisdom Booklet 17:
“How can the meaning of a name affect the health of the one who understands it?
A man suffering from severe arthritis was asked by his doctor if he had any earlier experiences which had caused him to become bitter.
The patient explained that when he was a boy, his father called him “good for nothing.” By this that father gave his son a new name.
The boy purposed that he would prove his father wrong. However, the bitterness in his life damaged important relationships and he was now experiencing the fulfillment of his “new name.”
Most people tend to live up to their perception of the meaning of the name given to them. For this reason, one of the best works that you can do for others is to translate their name into motivation for Godly character and achievement.” (pg. 677, first edition)
Gothard starts with a logical fallacy, a false premise; his opening question assumes that it’s true that a name meaning affects one’s health. That settled, he then relates an anecdote that doesn’t actually answer the opening question or support the conclusion.
As a student, I often knew his conclusions confused me. But under pressure to finish each Wisdom Booklet in a month, I didn’t have time to figure it out. People like me just moved on, accepting his insinuation that bitterness causes arthritis and name meanings have mystical power.
Eventually, it became a habit to just accept what was there and move on.
So it was possible to start with the verse “Ye are the light of the world; a city set on a hill cannot be hid” and follow the wandering flow of Gothard’s logic into the realm of lust and women’s dress.
In Wisdom Booklet 15, Gothard informs his followers that “apart from your words, your countenance can be the most effective means you have to show the love of the Lord Jesus Christ to others around you. In fact, your face can actually cancel the effect of your words, so powerful are its expressions.”
He goes on to use words like “shining” and “glowing,” and explain that a sad face directs attention to yourself and away from God. By this time, most of us were drawn in. We sensed a connection between “light of the world” and “bright countenance.” From there, it was an easy step to “we should direct attention to our faces, where we show Jesus’ love to others.” And then we found ourselves taking fashion advice from Bill Gothard.
The first edition of Wisdom Booklet 15 is laughable now because of its dated sense of style. But it was fun at the time. My family got together with other ATI friends. We tested which “color season” we were, which shades looked best on us, and whether our hairstyles matched our face shape. The fun distracted us as we swallowed the poisonous philosophy that Gothard actually wanted to teach:
Eye traps
This catchy little phrase meant a great deal to ATI girls. It referred to anything about our clothes that drew a man’s eyes away from our faces. Since Jesus said that any man who lusted after a woman in his heart committed adultery with her, it was up to us women to make sure we didn’t stir up that lust.
As usual, there was a bit of truth to the idea. Men do notice women’s bodies, and women can easily get their attention with some strategic display. But Gothard wasn’t talking about plunging necklines and tight short-shorts. His standards went far beyond the normal concept of “modest dress.”
On page 625, we were given a full-page illustration of six women in tasteful (if now dated) outfits. All were wearing dresses—the ideal ATI woman never wore pants—and none of the dresses were revealing. Still, Gothard asked, “Can you identify the eye traps?”
As best I can remember, the eye traps are: 1. See-through lace on shoulders and arms. 2. Long necklace and design that draw the eye away from the face. 3. Drop waist that also draws the eye away from the face. 4. Slit in the skirt that draws the eye up the leg. 5. V-neck shirt and drooping bow draw the eye downward. 6. Patterned stockings distract from the face and draw attention to the legs. The V-shaped collar might have been an offender, too.
The message was clear, reinforced over and over throughout our teenage years: a male was a lustful creature whose sexual impulses were nearly too powerful for him to control. A female had to protect herself (and him) by how she behaved, who she talked to, and especially by what she wore.
If a man did accost or assault a woman, it was reasonable to ask, “Was she out from under authority? Was she dressed immodestly?”
After all, Jesus said it right there in Matthew 5:14. Didn’t he? Wait, where is it… Well, there’s no time to go back over it—we have to finish this booklet by the end of the month. Check your clothes for eye traps, girls, and let’s keep going.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES
An ATI Education: Introduction
An ATI Education, Chapter 1: Under the Umbrella
An ATI Education, Chapter 2: Is It Just Me?
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
Bill took his ideas of health from the book "None of These Diseases" by S.I. McMillen and David Stern. I had read the book a long time ago and it makes these sorts of connections between emotional or spiritual issues and health problems. The problem is that the book's authors are MD and made connections between things that cannot be scientifically proven. There are over 100+ types of arthritis ranging from auto-immune diseases like rheumatoid to the wear and tear of Osteo. One simple cannot and should not lump them all together and then turn around and blame bitterness. I did know people that really fed off of this thinking. The by product of all of this is that one begins to look at people that suffer from chronic diseases and you start to judge them. A child that suffered from juvenile arthritis which can occur as young a 5 is hardly going to be guilty of "bitterness". But arthritis in only one disease that is touched on. The response that any Christian should have to those that suffer from any health problem is compassion and help. What helped me the most to free myself from this junk is to look at the healings Jesus preformed in the Bible. When people came to Him, he healed them, He didn't blame them or tell them what "principal" they might have violated. It is just very simple.
"Lord, who sinned? This man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Rob, can you prove that he got these ideas from "None of these diseases"? I've seen some comparisons, so there is at least a similarity. Ever since the Vision Forum/Doug Phillips scandal broke out, the heritage of various ideas has fascinated me.
"None of these Diseases" was first published in 1963 around the same time that Bill was starting out. The book "A Matter of Basic Principals" likewise made mention of it in their chapter about Bill's health teachings. I read the book the same time period when I attended IBYC and was in the sheparding Church. I was encouraged to read it. Don V's book went into more details of the connection. It makes sense because Bill's teaching mirrors what this book promotes. I don't exactly have "proof" in that I saw Bill read it but the teachings are the same and the puzzle fits together.
To: Bert Perry & Rob War: All through the latter part of the 60s, my parents referenced the book All of These Diseases. My dad was a physician, so I assumed it was some medical book (it was on our shelf, but as a kid, I wasn't interested at the time). However, my mom referenced it as well, and both spoke of it more than any other book, of many, in our house. My parents started in with Campus Crusade, and by late 60s or shortly after were into The Gospel According to Gothard up until at least the mid-80s. So, for me, now that you've brought this up, my own childhood seems to make a connection between that book and Bill's proponencies.
Well— here it is 2023- our family was not negatively impacted by any teaching- we searched the word of God- we appreciate everything and everyone who helped us home educate. - we are so thankful for IBLP, Alert, Journey to the heart and ATII.
Here we are. Our children serve the Lord. They have fond memories of homeschool conferences and enjoyed some of the activities. They never complained about wearing a skirt ( much) or haveing to climb a wall-
My husband was wise enough to use these experiences and places as RESOURCES!
As it is. We will be having a home IBLP seminar - just for our children and their spouses, Lord Willing.
Maybe the reason we didn’t get tangled up is so many problems is because we were poor. We didn’t have a lot of resources to go to all the campus’ to get envolved! We couldn’t let our children go very far with out us( journey to the heart and Hinsdale a short time.)
You or I could make anything a “cult”! We need to be careful casting stones because we will lose ground pretty quick-
Homeschool demographics are broad, aren't they? Homeschooling attracts a broad spectrum of people ranging from the most comfortable professional class to the lowliest working class. We in the middle class participated in many ATI programs, but with mixed results. Some of our kids ended up thriving, but others struggled with serious personal problems.
Yes, coupled with sleep deprivation, a culture of fear, and isolation from any outside influences, it is easy to see how these bizarre beliefs were just accepted.
Gothard is nuts.
That's just it. There was so much build-up to these weird lessons; so much context. It's no wonder we weren't to share it with people who hadn't attended the Basic Seminar; without it, it's easier to see how nuts he and his teachings are!
LOL! My sons and daughter would have written that same comment.
These wisdom booklets so sadly show how he and others thought. Glad I don't think that way anymore.
I think it would be good to make a catalog of this type of creepy material that focuses so specifically on the female form (especially younger ones).
I think it shows a pattern of infatuation that validates the stories we've heard on this site.
At first blush it seems like the guy is uber conservative and puritanical.
Then, I start to wonder, what kind of perv would it take to get sexually distracted with 2-6? He gets way too much buzz out of this type of thing. Please tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree.
Shows that he really has some deep seated issues and perversions. You are spot on because only a true pervert would have been turned on by any of those dresses.
I don't think it's the wrong tree at all - the tree of deep-seated sexual perversion and misogyny. I think the man was obsessed with all things sexual and did his dead-level best to hide and deny it.
Unsuccessfully, I must add.
You are correct, Daniel. He came across the opposite of what was really in his heart and mind. Maybe this was in an effort to fight what he was fighting - lust.
"If I can only get the girls to dress modestly (in BG's opinion), life will be easier and I won't sin as much thus being able to keep my eye from being cut out." This type of thinking.
I am looking at the photos with new eyes now. I can remember the eye traps we were supposed to pick out. They just don't exist unless you are a single man looking for eye-traps or a very unhappily married one.
Julia, I used to be convinced that he was fighting lust by making girls cover up. Now that I've been around the block a few times, I'm not so sure. Without being too graphic, I think it's the other side of the coin. There is an obsession with discussing, controlling, modifying, etc how girls 40-50 years younger than himself dress. Control and sexuality are often strongly linked- especially in the more nefarious forms.
Unless you want to cover up those ladies with burqas, they are well-covered. Most of what Gothard pushes in terms of modesty actually causes more problems because you are always second-guessing yourself. Am I sufficiently covered? Am I creating an eye trap? (female) Am I looking at the wrong part of this woman? Why am I looking here and not there? (male).
If you want to be neurotic, follow Gothard's logic.
I have never in my life heard of eye traps. I do believe in dressing modest but I swear I have never read in my King James Bible anything anywhere about eye traps. Anyway, A really bad man will find an excuse to rape a women even if she is in full hijab of the Arab women. I'm just careful who I am around.
This kind of thinking that if a woman is covered head to foot the man won't have any problems is how the Taliban and ISIS think. It's always the woman's fault, never the man.
How does his perspective differ from a strict muslim? I think in both is a fear of sexuality, a fear of lust and a hopelessness (apart from grace) that motivates controlling behaviors in self-defense. It completely neglects that sex itself was a beautiful, God-ordained way to allow two in a covenant relationship to fully express union, to GIVE oneself to the other. In legalism, natural desire becomes the motivation to WITHHOLD from one another.
Piper describes the fall of man as creating a double alienation: I cringe at her because I sense my lust, and I fear her because I sense her desire to dominate, she cringes from my lust and she senses her own imperfect desire to dominate (or lead, or rule over) me. (God says the husbands rule is part of the curse, it is not part of the promise in Genesis 1 and 2, thus, all this male authority is a perversion of real communion and she naturally and correctly resists it.)
In sum, I hate her because she stirs up lust in me and she reject my lead. She hates me because of lust and my will to rule. This explains not only legalistic puritanicalism, but also homosexuality, "free love" and many other manifestations of disunion between the sexes.
"The woman you gave me..."
I really have no compassion for this guy, and I was only influenced indirectly!! :/
If BG is so fixated by that kind of clothing, then how would he react to bikinis (sp?)? Should women dress with scarves around their faces and heads? Why not have rules for men's wear? Men ought not cause women ( or gay men for that matter) to "stumble" just as much. Urrgh....., I think I'll watch an old episode of Martin and Lewis on YouTube now. B G's rules are starting to get to me!
He would come across way, way less weird if he would've just cut his eyes out and been done with it. Much, much, much less abusive if took that route, too.
When Jesus said "it is better to cut out your eye" he was inviting the lustful to die to themselves. Yes, it is better to cut it out, and better still to quit staring. Mortification of one's one flesh is the answer, NOT imprisoning the other person in burqas.
hey - none of those dresses are overtly sexy in any way. ...and I am from the eighties!
I'm also "from the 80s." I was a young woman in the 1980s, working as a secretary, and I very definitely wore some of those styles into the early 1990s. I was very puzzled and also entertained the first time I saw the Eye Traps material on the internet in the 2000s, because in the 1980s I viewed all the styles shown as Eye Traps to be tasteful, conservative, and suitable for the workplace or church. "Sexy" doesn't really apply here, not even to the one skirt that has a slit in it to make walking easier!
Sara, you are doing such a service by going over some of the wisdom booklets and pointing out false teaching.
I am having one problem with these great articles you are writing - I sit down to read them, get in about 20 words, and then skip down to the comments. I just can't do it.
I know the photos - they make me want to laugh at the ridiculousness of it all or cry that I was 'all in'. I was not 'all in' for myself alone but taught the children some of this stuff.
It's the words... The words taken from the wisdom booklets, I cannot handle. I sit down to read them head on - I can do this. I then begin to read and think "I can't do this. This stuff is terrible. Off base. Stupid." Top that with the memories of too many years of this.
Keep going, Sara. You are exposing lies and turning on lights.
Keep being the light of the world. In truth.
Julia, it's taken me years to be able to face this stuff head-on. That is -- years, counseling, and writing a novel. I absolutely understand. This is written more for people who don't understand what it was really like. We who were in it know all too well. Every sentence from IBLP weighs a thousand pounds to us.
Thank you for your encouragement. And keep trying, but it takes time. Healing comes slowly, I found.
Sara, I went to a couple of seminars in the 70s. It didn't go this deep, but it certainly messed me up (it was only a contributing factor to the rest of my life). Interestingly, I am writing a novel about my experiences - 60 years' worth - and I wonder how many people are writing novels because we're so messed up and we're trying to figure something out. In my novel I'm looking for grace, love, self-worth, acceptance, etc. (I'm not a writer, so this novel is an experiment of sorts!)
Part of me wants to joke that the clothes aren't just eye traps, but they've rather trapped the entire faces of those six poor women! Not only eyes, but nose, mouth, and ears are gone, too! Oh, the humanity!
Sorry, couldn't resist. I am gathering from the page numbers that a typical IBLP booklet is 40-50 pages, then? We are talking one thick tract here. And from the hints of what's inside booklet 15, hearty congratulations to Mr. Gothard on distracting too many in the Church from a real discussion of what feminine or masculine modesty ought to look like.
Or ought to BE like. "Man looks on the outward appearance": Gothard's primary field of endeavor.
I was never part of the Gothard thing (thankfully), but close family relatives were. When I heard about eye traps, I always wondered why a man's tie wasn't an eye trap for females. After all, a tie is an arrow pointing . . .
That's why I only wear bow ties! :^)
(men, keep in mind that the button band on your shirt and your fly point the same place....time to bring back robes!)
does the length of the tie mean anything?
Not fair.
Sarah - Great article.
If it weren't so pathetic, I'd relate how many conversations about eye traps we had a HQ in so-called wisdom searches. It came to the point that a woman carrying a baby with baby facing her boobs was an eye trap because by demonstrating how the baby suckled, they were making you think of the baby on her boobs, and therefore thinking of you on her boobs... Yeah. by the way, i dont have any problem with boobs, i'm a huge fan personally and think that literally the world is run on boobs instead of fossil fuels, but I digress.
The interesting point is how similiar the conclusions are that are reached about "proper" ladies attire from men operating from completely different sources. The most obvious one is the burka "buk-rah" that is predominate in islamic countries.
The perceived need to dictate a woman's dress usually originates from, or explained by, two reasons:
1. Keep from drawing the attention of sexual predators.
2. Minimize the distinguisable amount of the female form to prevent men from lusting.
There is another equally valid reason, as some people attempt to follow what they consider religious teaching, but when you peel the onion back on the ultimate source, or press scholars of those faiths as to why, it is usually one of those above two reasons.
The resulting action is however, the same for both. Distilled down, the female must change her behavior in order to prevent some undesired behavior on the part of the male. In the NT construct, where men and women are equal before God, how is this equity? Doesn't this support a system where it becomes easy to blame the woman for sexual encounters? Why don't we train our women to be able able to kick a sexual predator's a$$ instead of covering up so he won't be forced to rape her?
"We wouldn't have done X if she had been dressed modestly..." She made me sin. What's interesting is that the first words out of Adam's mouth when called to account by God were,"This woman you gave me, she made me do it."
Discussions of power relations, dominance, and manipulation aside(though fascinating to overlay on Bill's teaching), the end result is that by imparting the responsibility on the female to engage in ANY action as a guarantee of preventing undesired action on the part of the male is heretical and non-Christian (IMHO). The sermon on the mount says nothing about a woman's dress, it only talks about a man's lust.
I would venture a guess and say many the young ATIA boy eagerly turned the pages of their sister's Land's End and Talbot's catalogs with the same vorasity as young public school boys turned the pages of the playboy passed around the back of the bus.
To turn this back to Bill's words, he often recounts the story about how he watched a peep show in a sidewalk photoview booth in downtown Chicago, and how his father lamented how "he came to downtown chicago to save souls and has lost my son." or words to that effect.
This is either one of two things:
1. An accurate recounting of events.
2. Hyperbolic exaggeration to appeal to conservative fundamentalism (He has been know to do that once or twice.)
2. An outright lie.
In reverse order: 3 and 2 (while there is a long and noble history of "preacher stories") the sheer number of times he told this in very similar fashion indicate that it was either a well reheresed lie, or the truth. Most prescher stories that are exxageration tend to vary in details overtime, this didn't, so I conclude it is either a lie or the truth.
If it is 1., note a couple things:
1. He took a relatively innocous quasi-sexual experience, and implied that he was guilty for the simple act of having seen the image. Boom. Not that he even did anything with it. The fact that he saw the image was sin. Ergo, it was the act of seeing the picture (insert immodestly dressed woman) that was sin.
2. Note the extreme consequences. Seeing one image bumped him all the way up to lost. By this logic, i've lost my salvation if I happen to observe a college coed streaking as a prank. In the field of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, this is know as "All or nothing thinking": I'm either perfect or I'm a failure
And here-in lies the issue, and why Bill's teaching (and story) is anti-christian. Salvation is available to us because we ARE total failures. There is no action on the part of others that will make us any more of a failure, and there is no action on our part that will make us any less of one. As Christians, There is no action on the part of others that can make us less perfect, nor is there any action of our own that can make us more perfect.
It is only accepting God's forgiveness which was bought with the Passion of Christ, that allows us back in communion with Him, and RESTORE our pre-fallen state of perfect creation. Not a list of principles, not a red notebook, not anything we can control, dominate, or influence, only the Grace of God.
I thought the "peep show" incident with Bill occurred when he accompanied his dad to a Gideon's convention when Bill was young. If I remember it right, Bill being a younger child at an adult convention naturally wandered outside being bored. I think what is just as unfortunate was his dad response to Bill. Instead of turning it into an opportunity to talk about God's plan for marriage and sexuality, he blamed Bill and laid this guilt trip on him which seems to have haunted Bill the rest of his life. It give a rare picture of what Bill's father was like, a distant cold uncaring man that didn't meet the needs of his sons as they were growing up and instead shames them with unhealthy ideas and standards. Bill's subsequent behaviors later on in his ministries kinda looks like he never got beyond the "peep show" view of women and young girls. While Bill likes to emphasize the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus in that Sermon did not blame women for men's "lust" and that lust begins in the heart and does not begin with what someone is wearing. A perverted heart and mind is going to see a woman carrying a baby against her chest as an "eye trap", is going to be "turned on" by underwear adds and fuddy duddy clothes of the 1950's. Bill never seem to accept in himself his own sexual attractions and feelings which are normal and God given and have a purpose as designed by God. But blaming a young boy because he stumbled on a "peep show" innocently is as about as sick as the peep show in the first place.
Dave - great insight, and Sarah - another excellent article.
"i'm a huge fan" Dave, you made my day.
good analysis. But we can be fairly certain he "did something with it" because he fixated on it the rest of his life and confessed to the IBLP board, his masturbation in his 40s. (He wasn't thinking of Character Sketches then (unless his perversion is beyond what we have assumed...)
Sorry to be crass. But any analysis of BG's motivations just gets out of hand. He was a false teacher, either deluded, perverted or simply manipulative, but the result is the same: he robbed us of years, money and opportunity to love one another as Christ loves us. Regardless of internal motive, he perverted the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Well in university we were taught in psychology class that rape isn't about sex it is about power over. A man rapes to press power over on a woman. So it actually doesn't have anything to do with what a woman is wearing. This evil man will rape anything he may think is a female.
If it is #1 (an accurate accounting of events) it shows how all-or-nothin' he really is about immodest dressed women for the fact that he never updated his confession story with one of his inappropriate touching escapades.
I'm sure he only played footsie with modestly dressed women with soft curls. He had standards, you know.
Or maybe, whereas in our Bibles we read: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", his rather states: "It is good for a man to always touch women but bad, bad, bad to actually see one with his eyes."
Made me laugh!
"Hannah" - if you are out there ... praying for your family. I'm sure you are hurting.