By Dr. Harry Adams
Winter 2001 edition of the MCOI Journal
Christianity is the faith of the cross. “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”(Gal. 6:14). The sufferings of Christ obtained for us what we could never obtain by ourselves with respect to salvation and sanctification. Therefore, the Apostles’ writings abound with references to the cross, the tree, the blood, and the sacrificial Lamb. They portray Christ crucified (Gal. 3:2), as the One who delivered Himself for our sins (Rom. 4:25), who gave Himself as our ransom (Mark 10:45), who humbled Himself to the point of death on the cross (Phil. 2:8), and who will be worshipped forever as the Lamb that purchased us by His blood (Rev. 5:8-9). The benefits of the cross are manifold including (but not limited to):
- Peace with God (Col. 1:20);
- The present intercession of Christ because He has entered Heaven with the blood of His suffering (Hebrews 7:25, 9:11-26);
- Citizenship in Heaven (Phil 3:18-20);
- Deliverance from the power of sin (Rom. 6:1-11);
- Motivation for godly living (2 Cor. 5:15);
- Crucifixion of the world to us, and us to the world (Gal. 6:14);
- Victory over Satan (Rev. 12:11).
Clearly, the message of the cross is the power by which God transforms men. Pioneer missionary to the Moslems, Samuel M. Zwemer, testified to its power saying:
If the Cross of Christ is anything to the mind, it is surely everything–the most profound reality and the sublimest mystery. One comes to realize that literally all the wealth and glory of the gospel centers here … The more unbelievers deny its crucial character, the more do believers find in it the key to the mysteries of sin and suffering. We rediscover the apostolic emphasis on the Cross when we read the gospel with Moslems. We find that, although the offense of the Cross remains, its magnetic power is irresistible.
Zwemer’s experience with Moslems bears witness to the truth proclaimed by Paul: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:17-18 NIV). Never do the Apostles let us forget the power of the cross.
But Bill Gothard does. The third chapter of his new book, The Sevenfold Power of First Century Churches and Homes, is concerned with the life-changing message preached by the Apostles. In it he attempts to explain why the Apostles’ teaching was so powerful. In the preface to the chapter, Gothard asks:
What teaching could be so powerful that it commanded the “steadfast” commitment of all the believers? What training could be so effective that it equipped believers to be powerful witnesses of their faith and to be joyful in the face of temptations, trials, and persecutions? …All who heard these teaching were astonished and the lives of those who followed them were transformed.”
With this introduction, one would expect the chapter to present the apostolic preaching of the cross, but that is not the case. Gothard omits any reference to the cross. No mention is made of the sufferings of Christ, or of His shed blood. Instead, he argues the power that changed lives was a character message based upon the Sermon on the Mount. His thought is traced in the following statements:
The phrase “the apostles’ doctrine” is used only once in the New Testament. It defines the teaching that the apostles gave to the multitudes of new believers after the Day of Pentecost. … It is obvious that the teaching which the apostles gave came from the three years of training they had just received from the Lord Jesus Christ … What then was the basic content of the teachings of Jesus, also referred to in Scripture as the doctrine of Christ? “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” The teachings of Jesus are clearly stated in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
Gothard thereafter gives his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount.
Another curious feature of this chapter is the equal silence on the role of grace in transforming lives. Gothard’s sole reference to grace is when he says, “Paul combined the teachings of the grace of God with the message of the kingdom of God …” Did the Gospel of grace originate with Paul as Gothard here suggests? And does grace not play a vital role in sanctification as indicated in Titus 2:11-12 (NIV):
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. {12} It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age …”
Again, there seems to be a terrible omission from Gothard’s presentation of the Apostles’ teaching.
Any presentation of the Christian message that ignores the cross and minimizes grace is a serious matter indeed. Paul warned the Philippians about those who, while posing as Christian teachers, directed attention away from the cross:
“For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18).
So, was the substance of the apostolic message essentially a reiteration of the Sermon on the Mount as Gothard contends? And was the message of grace something added by Paul as Gothard suggests? After answering these questions, it will be possible to offer conclusions about Mr. Gothard’s presentation of the apostolic teaching.
The Apostles’ Teaching
In attempting to prove the Apostles’ teaching was based on the Sermon on the Mount, Gothard equates the biblical phrases “the Apostles’ doctrine” and “the doctrine of Christ” with it. He then asks, “What were the major themes of the doctrine of Christ that had such authority and power over those that heard them?” In the balance of the chapter, he argues that these themes were “The Message of the Kingdom” and “The Message of Character” as found in the Sermon on the Mount. Discussing the kingdom, he states that Paul combined the message of grace with the message of the kingdom, and continued to preach the kingdom up to the end of his life.
Does Gothard establish that the biblical references to “the Apostles’ doctrine” and “the doctrine of Christ” are equivalent to the Sermon on the Mount? No, he does not. The phrase “the Apostles’ doctrine” occurs in Acts 2:42: “And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” To determine more precisely what this phrase “the Apostles’ doctrine” meant, it is necessary to examine the teaching of the Apostles in the Book of Acts. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger summarizes the apostolic teaching in Acts this way:
By comparing the reports of the sermons preached by Peter and Paul and other leaders of the early church, scholars have ascertained the common core present in all of them. The following points were emphasized:
(1) The promises of God made in Old Testament days have now been fulfilled, and the Messiah has come:
(2) He is Jesus of Nazareth, who
(a) Went about doing good and executing mighty works by the power of God;
(b) Was crucified according to the purpose of God;
(c) Was raised by God from the dead;
(d) Is exalted by God and given the name “Lord”;
(e) Will come again for judgment and the restoration of all things.
(3) Therefore, all who hear the message should repent and be baptized.
What was the relationship in Acts between this core proclamation and the theme of the kingdom of God? F. F. Bruce has this to say:
“The things concerning the kingdom of God” at the beginning of Acts are identical with “the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ” at the end of the book (Ch. 28:31; cf. also Chs. 8:12; 20:24f.; 28:23). When they related the story of Jesus, the apostles proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God – the same good news as Jesus Himself had announced earlier, but now given effective fulfilment {sic} by the saving events of His passion and triumph. We may reasonably conclude that the teaching which He gave the apostles about the kingdom of God during those forty days was calculated to make plain to them the bearing of these saving events on the message of the kingdom. Luke supplies a sample of this teaching towards the end of his Gospel, where he describes the risen Lord as opening His disciples’ minds to understand the Scriptures and as telling them: “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:45-47).
Thus, we see the preaching of the kingdom by the Apostles was not a retelling of the Sermon on the Mount, but the proclamation of the work of Christ. As Paul summarized his message in 1 Corinthians 5:3-4:
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”
Likewise, Gothard errs in equating “the doctrine of Christ” to the Sermon on the Mount, quoting 2 John 9: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” The context clearly shows that by “the doctrine of Christ,” John was here referring to the teaching of the incarnation.
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son (2 John 1:7-9, KJV).
The “doctrine of Christ” is the teaching that He has “come in the flesh.” At that time an early heresy called “Docetism” was being propagated. Docetism taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, but was actually a spirit. This heresy was grounded in the belief that all things material are evil. Therefore, a sinless Christ could not have a material body. John sounded a warning against these heretics in 1 John 4:1-3 also:
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Any teaching that denies the incarnation effectively eliminates Jesus as Savior. His bodily identification with us is necessary to His mediatorial work on our behalf: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). So, the concern of John with respect to “the doctrine of Christ” had nothing whatsoever to do with teaching the Sermon on the Mount. Once more, Mr. Gothard has demonstrated how he twists Scripture to prove his point.
Grace in the Apostolic Message
When was the message of grace introduced? As seen above, Gothard teaches it was something added by Paul. However, the evidence of the New Testament does not bear this out. The Lord Jesus Christ first proclaimed grace, and it was from Him the Apostles learned this message. Luke 4:22 makes this clear:
“And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?’”
Literally, the Greek text says they wondered at “the words of grace that proceeded out of his mouth.” This can either refer to the manner of Jesus’ speaking, or the content of His speech. If the former, it means nothing more than Jesus was a very pleasant speaker. If the latter, it means He talked about grace. The latter seems to be the case given the context. Recall that in verses 18 and 19 He has just quoted Isaiah 61:1-2a:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
“Acceptable” translates the Hebrew word “rasón,” an equivalent term to the Greek word for “grace,” which is “charis” Jesus then proceeded to give two examples of undeserving Gentiles who were objects of grace (which prompted the mob to try and hurl Him from the cliff). Therefore, “words of grace” must mean He was teaching about the grace of God. Accustomed as they were to a “works-righteousness,” this amazed the audience.
The introduction to the Gospel of John also attributes the origin of the message of grace to the Lord Jesus (John 1:14-17, KJV):
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. {15} John bare witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for He was before me. {16} And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. {17} For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
Jesus was full of grace; from Him we received abundant grace (grace upon grace), and He taught grace in contrast to Moses who taught the Law.
While the Gospels do not often use the term “grace” in connection with the teaching of Christ, the offer of grace is clearly present. It is seen in parables like the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), in forgiveness like that shown to the woman taken in adultery (John 8:2-11), and in miracles like the healing of the cripple let down through the roof (Mark 2:1-12). Even in His final moments, Jesus showed grace to an undeserving thief on the cross next to Him (Luke 23:42-43). Peter certainly considered his message to be one of grace as seen in his remarks to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:7-11 where he contrasts the “grace” of our Lord Jesus with the “yoke” of the Law.
The experience of the undeserved, unmerited grace of God has a softening and transforming effect on the heart. This has already been noted in connection with Titus 2:11-12. Paul testified to the power of grace upon his life when he said, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, KJV). The thought of the loving, unmerited gift of Christ on his behalf resulted in a life of dependent faith. Later, he would explicitly attribute victory over sin to grace, not the Law: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14, KJV).
Without a doubt, all the Apostles, having learned of grace from Jesus, proclaimed His message of grace. Grace, not a better, more searching statement of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount, transformed the lives of those who believed. It still does.
Conclusion
Saint Augustine once said, “He who would give the meaning of Scripture, but does not derive it from the Scripture, is the enemy of Scripture.” Bill Gothard does not derive the meaning of the message preached by the Apostles from the Scripture. On the contrary, he imposes his own moralistic ideas on the New Testament; ignoring the cross and minimizing grace in the process. The verdict of Dr. Ronald Allen says it all: “Gothard’s use of Scripture is so suspect as to render him a poorly informed and untrustworthy teacher.”Ω
Dr. Harry Adams is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and was in pastoral ministry for over 25 years. In late 1997, he was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease, ending his pulpit ministry. He continues a writing ministry.
Republished with permission from Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.
Bible photo copyright: dennizn / 123RF Stock Photo
Very, very good article. This goes to the heart of the matter with all that is wrong with Bill Gothard and his organization.
Yes. One of the main teachings of the Sermon on the Mount was to show that sin and righteousness are matters of the heart, and that all are murderers and adulterers, because we all violate God's law in our heart. Lust is adultery, according to Jesus.
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
THAT was the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. The Pharisees and teachers of the law, didn't attain to God's standard, so how could anyone else? Our only response to the Sermon is to say, "Woe is me! I am finished! I can't save myself! Lord, have mercy!"
Gothard and ATI, however start with teaching people to look at others and discern what is in their hearts by looking at the outward appearances at airports and shopping malls. NO! And there are all kinds of commands of Christ we better obey from that Sermon! While there are some commands and precepts, the larger teaching is none of us can attain to God's standards for righteousness, not that we try all kinds of convoluted ways of eradicating lust and murder out of our hearts in our own strength.
"The larger teaching is none of us can attain to God's standards for righteousness"...Absolutely!Period.But consider the amount of damage that Gothardism has done to all of us,because the warnings Christ gave to the saducees and Pharisees have application for the latent,smoldering morass behind the façade of supremoralism Gothard already attained,and extends his invitation to us to attain.How you will know God better was how great we all knew Him when we endorsed his programs, attended his seminars, listened attentively,and tried so hard while he was molesting teenage girls;two counts of rape,threatening,emotionally abusing,covering up,hailing his qualification of revealed authority.Through big name, well known Christian pastors,teachers,dare I say Charles Stanley,even Gary Smalley for awhile,political leaders,Mike Huckabee,we had nothing to be afraid of; the whitewashed sepulchres were too white.Now people need to hear how this in its very essence is not in any way what should have been taught.It was publically endorsed;it must be publically renounced;the momentum has taken the wrong side of human nature, [pride,self righteousness,malice from attaining perfection in the flesh,while others can't judging,dehumanizing women],and masqueraded it as righteousness.Now what is the bill?What is the price we all paid?What had to be given out of our lives for the mandates Bill required?Even worse than outward harm is inward bondage;and I'm not belittling outward harm.Chrystallized hearts hardened attitudes,natural ceasing of love,affection,creativity,endorsing a "uniform" of good appearance propping up wasted vanity.
Those that denied there was a price to pay have already paid beyond what they possibly could imagine.
Yes, Lynn! I am so ashamed that I taught my children his bondage.
"Love covers a multitude of sins."
Exactly right, LynnCD. The Sermon on the Mount is NOT the Gospel and was never intended to be the sum total of Jesus's teaching. Jesus knew that His audience was not yet ready to hear the Gospel because they were still locked in centuries of legalistic teaching. He preached the Sermon on the Mount to shake up their assumptions about what constituted righteousness before God. Only once they had recognized their need could they be ready to accept God's grace and Jesus's work of redemption for them.
When you divorce the Sermon on the Mount from its context and try to make it something it's not - a theological statement of doctrine such as Paul created in Romans - you distort both it and the Gospel.
Bill's gospel is powerless because it leaves off Christ. Bill does not focus at all whatsoever on who Jesus Christ is and His death and resurrection.
Bill often in a number of talks refers to the "1st century Church" and he uses the "1st century Church" and idealizes it and then turns around and uses his summation of that time in Christian history as a club on today and that he, Bill is returning to this idealized "1st century Church". The problem is that Bill does not even check real history and facts and uses myths and romantic notions that too many by into. If one just goes to the earliest 1st four Church fathers whose writings we still have with us, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, one can easily see that none of these men teach and write about what Bill claims from the "1st Century". None of them focused at all on the Sermon on the Mount as a club like Bill has and that the Sermon on the Mount was the reason the 1st Century Christians were so "powerful". Bill is full of bogus nonsense. The answer to Bill isn't trying to debate the meaning and purpose of the Sermon on the Mount, the answer is to really look at real Christian history and the writings of those who lived at this time to realize that Bill is so far off, he left the reservation. Bill constantly refers to the 1st Century but it really is curious in that he never uses or quotes anyone from that time. The constant idea of looking back to the beginning was used by other false prophets like Joseph Smith etc and that these false prophets are returning to a great a glorious 1st Century. The reality is that the false prophets are not returning to the 1st Century but as far away from anyone or anything from the 1st Century Church.
Great comments, Rob!
Yes, Rob! Amen.
^^^*Like*^^^
double *like*! :-)
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/06/20/oregon-man-charged-with-groping-unaccompanied-minor-on-american-airlines-flight.html?intcmp=hpff
Apparently, this is not okay.
Duh.
How horrific! She should have been separated from this pig immediately, and he should have been put under some kind of surveillance.
Extra precautions should have been in place at the onset since she was a young girl traveling alone. Her father made every attempt to secure her safety. Either she was not given the extra attention her father paid for (whatever that entailed) or those responsible just did not care. Pathetic!
It just reminded me of stories I've heard on this site. Except the names were different.
Yes, for certain, reminders.... Those sexual deviants appear to be in abundance....lurking while stalking their prey....
Regarding BG: It has been over (30) years since I learned of his involvement in the coverup of his brother's immorality. That was shocking enough....even after I had distanced myself from his convoluted and dubious teachings.
However, it was just a year ago last month, via RG, that I became aware of the severe and overwhelming devastation experienced by those many young ladies following Gothard's years of predatory exploits. This was BEYOND shocking!!
I began to research the Duggar family's involvement with BG & his 'ministries' AFTER the investigation into Josh's 'poor choices' was revealed to the public. (So sad.) This lead me to RG.
"The Sevenfold Power of First Century Churches and Homes" is this like really recent, since he resigned? What is about this man that seems to blind people to the poison he teaches?
I think that book came out in the past 10 years but a couple of years before he was removed. He blinded us the same way all con men do: he keep things too busy to check him out, denied accountability as a "teacher", saying he was "an encourager", and appealing to our fears and deepest longings (putting his "principles" ahead of Christ as Deliverer). Most salesmen appeal to fear. He was a practices salesman.
Huz, I love your input. But it should be obvious by now that the temptation to a man to touch a woman is a "temptation common to man". It is not shocking but neither is acting on the temptation excusable. It is part of the dirty secret of our fallen nature and more proof that our entire person, body soul and spirit, is desperately needy of redemption.
John Piper calls the alienation of man and woman a "double alienation" because I know my intentions are impure and I cannot trust hers. And vice versa, ladies.
BG tried to control his flesh by principles, rules and fraud. It may be shocking that one so prominently preaching purity would be such a lecher, but it should not shock us.
Unlike BG, Jesus did not teach us to manage our sexual fallenness, but pointed us back to Genesis 1-2 purity and exemplified selfless love for his bride, while sending His Spirit to help us. I strongly recommend The Theology of the Body for Beginners, by Christopher West for a completely transformative view of sexual temptation and love. Nothing should shock us coming from hearts desperately wicked. And nothing can deliver us but death, burial and resurrection in Him.
To Don:
Thank you for your time and heartfelt input.
Apparently nothing should shock me, but it does. I guess I just do not like to think too intently on Jeremiah 17:9.
I have read several wonderfully informative books suggested by RG posters. Though I have others awaiting my time, I am grateful for your recommendation by author Christopher West. I ordered it today. :+)
Ezekiel 16 is pretty gruesome to read. But reading it, there is no vileness that should surprise us. This is a description of God's own grace claimed bride. But the point of the passage is not her wickedness but the nature of His Love. The key is His statement "I will restore you to myself".
From such a vantage point, I can reflect on any human evil and say: there but the grace of God go I. And I can know that more than all my best thoughts and dreams are assured not by my performance or reticence to sin, but by His overwhelming Love and Grace!
Are there any more articles like this about Gothard's teaching from this author or other authors? I am at a place of needing to re-learn correct theology after years of wrong teaching that is still ingrained in me at 40 years old. The healing has just begun. Please direct me to more articles like this. I need to learn the truth in the same ways I learned the lies. Through cognitive explanation of scriptures.
I don't know that I can direct you to the same author, but this website is chock full of articles like this one. Go under the Articles tab and click on Upon Further Review: Twisted Scriptures. It took me weeks to get through the articles and comments because there's just so much solid information. :) Hope it helps.
Sheila, in the previous article someone made a controversial comment about A Matter of Basic Principles (which Recovering Grace lists as a resource). This prompted me to get another copy of the book (I will explain below), which I am reading through. The initial chapters are about the cultural climate and various strains of thinking and belief present during the rise of IBLP, then proceed on to detail how evasive Bill was to accountability to IBYC during the sex scandal days, how he was evasive to theological accountability to men such as Ron Allen, and then it moved on from there to how he attempted to stonewall and smear the Veinots and Ron Henzel - Midwest Christian Outreach, basically.
I am re-reading the book, and they do eventually deal with theological issues, particularly on authority, and then Gothard's definition of grace, and much more.
I highly recommend reading the book. It is the total package on IBLP - the teachings and the behavior, and the lack of accountability. If you are on facebook, I would look up Don Veinot and Ron Henzel. Sunday night, I messaged them both about one aspect of what they covered in the book, and Ron took the time to link me to source materials and provided a lot of answers to some of the questions I had. When I told them I had given my book away, Don offered to send me a copy, which I quickly ordered for myself because that was the least I could do for the time they were taking just to message on fb. They are very gracious people and I cannot recommend them enough as a resource.
In A Matter of Basic Principles, as an aside during one of the chapters, they said in essence what someone else told some of us to ask when trying to evaluate any kind of teaching. The question is, "Where did he (or she) get THAT (ie - their teaching) from THIS (ie - the Bible). THAT is your starting point. If you hear a teaching, read the passage in context, and see if the teaching correctly teaches what the passage is saying, or else is a clear implication of the teaching. "Be a Berean," is what is usually said to reference the passage in Acts, where the Bereans checked Paul's teaching to see if it lined up with Scripture, or not, and they were commended for this due diligence.
You will find many examples in A Matter of Basic Principles where teaching was developed to control people. For example, Larne Gabriel has attested to what the book says about "only giving a good report." That teaching was developed to silence people from talking about the sex scandal.
I almost laughed out loud when Bill told Don Veinot he was warned by an unnamed prominent evangelical leader about Don. Don contacted Bill back and basically let him have it because he listened to a bad report. Not that Don agrees with that teaching, but it was a quintessential example of many of how Gothard doesn't practice what he preaches.
I know these are just some random thoughts, but the book is a good one, and well researched, with lots of input from many who have had first hand experience with Bill, as well as delving into the theology.
"To Lynn, I could ask the same thing about the Don/Ron's book. I am reading it and I found it to misrepresent and mischaracterized and even make false connection between Bill and the Catholic church."
I think I know where in the book you are talking about, but can you provide the page and source of disagreement? What you said gave me *no* clear idea as to why you think they misrepresented the Roman Catholic Church by what *they* said. It is understood by all that there is no exact one to one correspondence which fits Bill Gothard in any one category, btw. The book also compared Bill to theonomists, and the Seventh Day Adventist Church, but again, they acknowledged similarities, but only in some respects. Most people who study Bill Gothard, for example, knows he is Arminian, and theonomists are Calvinists.
To Larne: The following link and quote from it is not the first instance where Gothard connects cancer to being bitter. I can't find the first page any more, but it was some IBLP or billgothard.com link. However, this pretty much gives the same testimony as to what Bill thinks about people who get cancer, only this time with thousands upon thousands of unknown cases from an unknown doctor:
https://throwingoutbathwater.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/citing-sources/
"Here’s an example from The Amazing Way. Gothard is telling us how to have “total health” by relieving stresses. On page 58 Gothard writes about a doctor who was bitter over the death of his son and then developed cancer. This doctor was curious about the relationship between his cancer and his bitterness, so he carried out a study with twenty thousand patients. Gothard tell us that this doctor found a direct correlation between bitterness and cancer. He goes on to say that when this doctor “showed his research to the university that gave him his degree, they refused to examine it.”
Notice the complete lack of anything that would allow you to track down this doctor, this school or the study. We don’t know the doctors name, where he practiced, when he did this study, if it was ever published, which university refused to look at it (and why the refused to look at it); nothing." [End quote]
Again, this isn't the first time I read Bill putting forth this idea. I can't find the original link I did read that was one anecdote. One doctor doing an extensive, exhaustive interview of 20,000 people and all the things that would need to be weeded out would be so time consuming it just sounds as though it is a claim cut from whole cloth. Ie - a fabrication. And because it appears so bogus, and because he is so insistent on making this linkage to this day, which no credible research supports, I am wondering if he is trying to shift blame in the situation you are so familiar with.
Either way, the claim is far removed from what the gospel saves us from.
All you have to do to debunk that bitterness causes cancer is the thousands of very young children, babies and tots that get cancer---they are too young to have ever been bitter about anything, not having lived long enough.
This is also true with Bill's pinning the cause of arthritis on bitterness and anger. There are over 100 types of arthritis and the range from auto immune (like rheumatoid) to Osteo which is more wear and tear and injury. Children can get rheumatoid arthritis. When one take complicated diseases like arthritis and cancer that have many forms and even causes and then make sweeping simplistic claims that they "know" the cause which is usually pinned on anger or bitterness, they are practicing medicine without a license and it borders on the charlatan Dr. trying to sell snake oil.
Susan,
Bill would have an answer to that....
Bitterness of the parents, no doubt. The 'sins of the fathers being passed thru the generations'. He has got it all covered....
OR 'thinks he has'. :+( Purposely delusional??
If that is the case with us minions, what sins of the fathers caused the problems with the Gothard boys? I don't recall any leadership exclusion in the Bible in fact just the opposite. James 3:1 (ESV), "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."
Larne:
Praise God we no longer are or consider ourselves the subordinates....of such an imposter.
All three sons lead such deceitful lives....
What was the catalyst....??
A lot of diseases happen because you attend a false church and it is near to impossible to be healed if you attend a false church.
a parents sin can cause the cancer in a child.
your proof of that is? Either this is a sick joke or this is sick thinking. Either way, this is sick, untrue and twisting thinking and theology.
"a parents sin can cause the cancer in a child."
No, it actually can't. This comment represents one of the most screwed up thinking that has been promoted by IBLP. The idea that if something bad happens there must be a hidden sin somewhere. You can't conceive? Miscarriages? Search the house for hidden sinful items, such as Cabbage Patch or Troll dolls.
Believing this lie, every time there is a family illness or mishap, you will spend your life looking for the hidden sin in you and those around you that caused it. It is a prison that lacks God's grace.
Amen, Kevin!
As long as I was immersed in Gothard-thinking, I never could figure out what was wrong with Job's 3 friends! They talk just like this: there is a moral or spiritual fault behind your symptom. Someone here helped me see this is "natural religion", the same as Karma, "reaping and sowing", etc. All pagans believe in this which is why they offer sacrifices to appease. But Christ came full of grace and truth. Of course we all deserve the worst. But we are redeemed from that by Grace. Grace delivers, not moral purity or full confession. Grace delivers, not the perfection of your church. Grace delivers, not your own law keeping or restitution. And sometimes, Grace walks through the trial with us never giving us the reason for the trial. Seeking the moral reason for this or that disease is to reject the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. "Non-optional" principles? The basic principles of this world which are nullified in Jesus Christ. Destroyed on the Cross. (Remember how they said "he must be a sinner to suffer like this!") Eliminated by the Resurrection which refutes the Death that came with reaping and sowing.
Gothard was indeed that classic snake oil salesman. It is almost a certainty that this study was a fabrication. Honestly, it is hard to believe that more people could not see through this. His entire self help, success guaranteed ministry is built on a foundation of bogus anecdotal stories.
Just think how absurd such a study would be in the real world. 20,000 patients? That would be such a major undertaking. Who would reference such a study as evidence without a footnote for verification. And Gothard, ostensibly, has a PHD? Any legitimate PHD would understand the importance of citing references, and yet I've never once seen Gothard do this. We all know why he doesn't cite the source. It does not exist. Just like the families he writes about that sent their adopted children back into the foster system and miraculously were rewarded with financial windfalls. All a bunch of fabricated BS.
And how exactly could you even conduct a study in which the variable being studied is such a non-quantifiable thing as bitterness? How could you possibly objectively ascertain whether or not the patient had bitterness? On some sort of unheard of standardized bitterness scale?
Exactly, Kevin. It's not just that he doesn't quote the references, but that they don't even exist. I've mentioned before about the story he published in "Lessons From Moral Failures in a Family." There is an extended root cause analysis of a 10-12 year old boy's molestation of his sibling, with a timeline that would indicate it was written when he was still a young to mid teen. The vocabulary is a dead giveaway, while the reflection and insight are far beyond a teen's. The identified root causes are beyond absurd, and consistent with the type of personal behavior BG apparently tried to manipulate. The bottom line of the piece gives fathers a pass except a wrist slap for not spending more time with their families and being more aware of what was going on. But BG's severe mysogyny shines through as he ever so gently explains how the mother's parenting has led to disaster.
There *might* (or might not) have been a family on whom this story was based, but I don't believe for a minute that this was anything but one of many fabricated testimonials.
Kevin:
Pig-Headed Dictator....(PHD)
Remembering those 'imaginary personal accounts' conceived in an over-zealous, fanatical mind....
I do not believe there is one individual who did not briefly ponder "WHERE or WHO are these people he references....?" But we, the underlings, remained his personal amusements, prisoners of his mind games for so long.
On the 'Bitterness Scale', for his purposes, Gothard viewed all of us as having a 10+ rating.
Every once in a while, for a brief moment, I forget that I AM FREE and imagine myself suffocating & groaning under the intolerable weight of it all....
In my bible reading today (Daily Audio Bible) at the end of Romans Paul says it all;
"17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[b] and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. 19 For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." Romans 16:17-20 (ESV)
And I thought PhD stood for "piled high deep" and what is piled high deep is called human waste.
Those were the adjectives that came to mind as I read the 'PhD' mention in Kevin's post.
I surmise then that Gothard is in possession of a 'doctorate degree' (concerning some sort of philosophia.) Bill may have been in search of a 'higher level of discernment', however, he appears to have missed the mark regarding any objective to obtain spiritual direction & understanding. Success obtaining any logic within a 'branch of knowledge or discipline' certainly appears to have eluded him. I consider him to be deceptive rather than perceptive. Apparently he has no remorse with respect to his past lack of sensitivity to the needs & feelings of others. Not only has he been judgmental but tyrannical in his cruel & oppressive rulings. In my opinion, any 'PhD' he may have secured is better defined as a 'Pig-headed Dictator'.
I seem to remember someone writing here the PhD was an honorary one--maybe from his alma mater, Wheaton? (If that is the case, it is to Wheaton's shame that it has not been revoked!) Having actually earned a psychology BA from that institution, I'm not sure I've ever read a greater load of psychological and spiritual codswallop (yes, this is a technical scientific term!) than that promulgated by Gothard as "basic life principles", etc. How about "Peddling his Delusions"?
P.S. Larne, my husband is a faithful "Daily Audio Bible" listener since the beginning of that ministry. It's been a wonderful learning tool and spiritual encouragement for him and he frequently challenges others to try it for their own edification. It revolutionized his devotional life when he realized he didn't have to sit down for an hour every day with his Bible and notebook Gothard-style to truly spend time in the Scriptures and with God. This was always an area of defeat and struggle for him until he discovered DAB and had that epiphany. Thank you, Brian Hardin!
Karen,
Your husband's DAB story is my story. I'm in my second year and look forward to every day in the Word. My learning style is a combination of visual and auditory so I follow along in Bible Gateway it works for me like nothing I've tried before. I wished I found it 10 years ago when it started!
Bill has an Honary PH.D. from a non accredited college, Louisiana Baptist Universary. According to the IBLP website in 2003 they state: " Arrangements were made with Louisiana Baptist College to assist ATI students in receiving credit toward earned degrees for their past ministry experience and training". Also according to IBLP's website and coincidentally in 2004 Bill received his Honary PH.D.. I have heard other close associates of Bill have also received degrees from there too.
Larne:
Veryyyy interesting & enlightening....Chuckle. Thank you for informing us regarding the PhD facts & BG. :+)
Duh! The bitterness is proven by the disease! Simple.
:-|
LynnCD,
"Snake Oil" and potions have been sold by charlatans as long as there have been “old wives tales”. Bill has spent a lifetime repackaging the simple and free Gospel then selling back to trusting Christian for a price, Seven Non Optional Principles, the Red Notebook and the Inner Brain. Bill thoughts on cancer and this supposed doctor are just that “his thoughts.” He found a way to market his medical snake oil and obscure beliefs. In the 80s he published an obscure study done on captive Chimpanzees who had vasectomies and later developed heart disease, with no correlation to diet or other factors. Bill use that study and applied it to humans in his quiverfull teaching. The study was later debunked and Bill dropped its use.
It has been scientifically well documented that stress causes cancer. Just what is stress? Would there be any bitterness in stress cause by abuse, rape, authoritative behavior, broken promises, covered sin and the lack of justice? If so what caused the cancer stress or bitterness? Ruth’s doctor was very clear with no family history of cancer her stage four breast cancer diagnosed at 37 was most likely caused by stress. She was the least bitter person I ever knew but she was haunted by Bill and his brother’s abuse and control which lead to her stress.
In reality it doesn’t matter because God knows the truth and He will be the ultimate judge of Bill. I love Psalm 18 especially the last half and often think of Ruth and her struggle.
As the Lord held her in her final moments, He also held our hands as we watched her quietly slip away. In a long 2006 letter to Bill that allowed me to finally release my anger and bitterness I shared the story of her passing; it was in a postscript at the end of the letter.
I wrote with the help of my daughter: What this shows is God’s tender loving care of all those that love Him. He is a God of mercy and grace.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Postscript: God once again showed His caring on the night of Ruth's death. I almost didn't want to share this very private moment but it too is part of the story and one you missed out on.
Outside Seattle was having one of its typical completely gray days, overcast, light wind and occasional rain; there were no thunderstorms or frontal passages. Inside we had five CDs of Ruth's favorite songs playing back ground as Ruth was in the third day of a deep coma. The children, her mother and I were in constant attendance and we knew the end was near. In the weeks prior, dear friends had traveled in all from over the country to say their goodbyes while others flooded our phone with calls. All that need to be said was said and now we just waited. It was a very bitter sweet
time, for Ruth was soon to be ushered into the arms of her Lord and Savior with a new body free of pain but we would see her no more until eternity.
At 11:15pm on the twelfth of June 1994, Ruth took her last breath, her eyes opened and brightly focused on the area above her bed, as if to see the waiting angels, then peacefully closed. As we huddled around her now lifeless body and said our final goodbyes I heard the quiet voice of the song playing in the background;
"When peace like a river, attendeth my way;
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.
It is well... with my soul. .. It is well, it is well, with my soul. ..
Just then a great wind hit and shook the house, the dead bolted front door swung wildly opened and wind filled the house and then ..... complete silence. With tears in my eyes I stepped puzzled to the front door, outside was now quiet and still, above the house hovered a hole in the clouds with the brightest and clearest stars I have every seen shining through. It was like a mighty army of God's angels had opened the door, parted the clouds to personally take Ruth home. My mind drifted back to the music and the final phrase "It is well ...with my soul... It is well, it is well, with my soul ..." For the first time in many years it was finally "well" with Ruth's soul, she was at peace in the arms of her loving Lord and Savior ..... Yesterday in church, on the eve of the twelfth anniversary of Ruth's passing and a break from composing this letter, this same song was sung not once but twice as if God was personally reminding me that all was still well with Ruth's soul.
Too awesome for words, but I did want to reply. Thanks, Larne.
Larne,
that is so powerful, thanks for sharing this because that is so personal and beautiful, it brought tears. You have always made her sound like such a wonderful person and actually still is as she is now in heaven fully alive.
Wow, Larne. Thanks for sharing. Such complete peace in spite of what was overcome. I know you and your children look forward to seeing her.
Larne:
How incredibly beautiful.... ^i^ ^i^ ^i^ ^i^
Larne, you know as well as anybody that "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints."
I asked a question about Gothard's teaching, wondering if he was trying to absolve himself.
You gave a reply that went beyond that. In a very good way. I hope everybody reads your post script and takes it to heart for the times we need to say good bye, or when it is our own time to depart. May your words ring in our hearts at these times when a believing loved one goes home, or when it is our time to go home.
Thank you! God promises us the grace to endure what ever He allows our way and He has a plan that surpasses anything we will ever know because He knows the future. I look back and see God's hand through all of "this adventure" and not just for me. Even my anger and bitterness played a part to bring me to a better understanding of His love and grace. There is way more to all our stories and through it all I have made new friends and the old ones have grown deeper in fellowship.
Larne, thank you so much! Your testimony speaks volumes of the very intimate love and profound goodness of God in his care for us. He is so very present especially for those who suffer--and who suffer especially on account of sin against them and not their own. If we bear such suffering in faith and not in bitterness, as you both obviously through a process and with God's help have been blessed to do, then we will be open to the embodied manifestations of God's grace He longs to give us to confirm and strengthen our faith and that of all those who may be influenced and encouraged by us and our witness to that grace.
So beautiful. So comforting. Thank you Larne.
Thank you Larne for sharing with us concerning the bolted front door, wind and your description of all the stars shining through the hole in the clouds,with the mighty army of angels parting the clouds to personally take Ruth home. It is well with our souls. god bless yoiu.
Sue
Thank you for sharing that, Larne.
Regarding Bill's PhD - someone fact check me on this, but I think it was honorary and from an unaccredited university in Louisiana.
The internet buzz at the time is why in the world would he want to put up credentials like that while attempting to convince ATI families to not send their adult offspring to college.
I well remember Jennie Chancey and Brian Abshire (both used to be VERY closely associated with Vision Forum, which in turn was very closely associated with Bill Gothard) discouraging college, for women especially. Abshire was a joke in many ways one of which was one of his points was why waste college money on a woman since she was bound to be a wife and mother in the home.
Here are Abshire's words on the subject:
http://patriarchaldocuments.blogspot.com/2008/11/note-you-are-seeing-this-message.htm
"And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?"
Upon re-reading this, I encourage us to remember or learn of Charles and Caroline Ingalls and Laura Ingalls Wilder sacrificing to the point of risking their lives in order to afford sending Mary Ingalls to a 7 year college for the blind. Mary was to return to the home to be cared for by her parents until she died. She learned many practical skills a this college, but that was not the sole focus of her 7 years there:
https://www.aph.org/museum/programs/mary-ingalls/script/
"Mary could choose from several academic courses consistent with what was offered at schools for the sighted, including history, geography, physiology, natural and mental philosophy, algebra, rhetoric, chemistry, zoology, literature, civil government, political economy, plane and solid geometry, botany, and various classes in music, both vocal and instrumental. She enrolled, that first year, in political economy (economics), literature, and higher mathematics. She also took the required reading class for new students, in which she was taught to read raised print and New York Point, a raised-dot code similar to braille.
Like all the students, Mary also had to take industrial classes, so she could be self-supporting, if need be, or at least contribute to the family income. Every girl was required to spend an hour a day with the sewing teacher. If she completed the course to the sewing teacher’s satisfaction, she was enrolled in the fancy work division, which included knitting and beadwork. Other classes for girls were weaving, cane seating, and broom making."
nowadays there are many reasons for not going to college ---
the tremendous cost, graduating deep in debt, no promise of a job in the field the diploma is for and the extreme left wing politics punishing everyone who does not fully agree with the agenda and if you dare to say you are a Christian they will turn and rend you..... advice from a former teacher and Mike Rowe of dirty jobs...-find a good trade college -!
Then too, in a generation where young men see no need to marry, women do not necessarily get to choose "wife and mother" regardless of their heart's desire. Should they sit helpless or pursue the development of their God-given talents through diligent study from the best teachers available? Philip the Evangelist, one of the Seven, had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. They were not limited to domestic servitude. What Biblical prophet prophesies without a Bible education?
The first person to tell others about the resurrection was a woman, Mary Magdalene. She is sometimes called "the apostle to the apostles". The famous Mary/Martha conflict where Martha wanted Jesus to tell Mary to stop sitting and listening to Jesus, but to come back in the kitchen and help has broader cultural implications in that women were only expected to serve and not learn the Torah or scripture. By Mary sitting with the boys and listening to Jesus talk, was up ending that "tradition". Jesus then took Mary's side because "she chose the better part". So Jesus was giving approval to women sitting at the seat and learning. Likewise, Jesus and the apostles were supported "financially" by women which means that women were earning money on their own which flies in the face of the idea that women were just "housewives" 1950s style.
Lynn,
That's a really good point that you brought out- how the fact that being a wife & mother is the highest calling in womanhood is twisted by control-freaks who undermine women's contributions to the workforce. And, beyond that, to try to deprive women of the opportunity to ever even enter the workforce on a playing field level with male counterparts. It makes me wonder...... what are these control-freaks afraid of? Might it just be competition in any in every field......... posed by women?!?!? We all have to contend with other candidates a jobs who are just as prepared as we are to perform that job....... and, on that basis, it is tolerable to sometimes be the one who has to stand down while our peer gets that job instead of us. What's interesting to me in the quote supplied above is, it seems to be a point to (A) Invoke that all qualified females who enter fields are doing so as a second-best-vocation (only the 2nd-best of females, NOT a cut-below for males),&, (B) Make sure that no female has a chance in the first place to get the preparation for vocations as is stated should be available to males.
Hhhmmmm........ and I thought the Bible made clear we shouldn't presume upon the future. I guess the ones originating the patriarchal quote above won't be satisfied until every girl the world over makes the following declaration: "I am choosing God's best. And since God's best is marriage & motherhood, I am not going to becomes self-sufficient; God is obligated to supply me with a husband so I'll bank on that."
And I didn't even know that my working my way through college was Scriptural at the time, just thought it was sensible, a response to necessity. I know it wasn't as un-Scriptural as the patriarchal quote above.... what about, "Let each one bear their own load?", or "If one will not work, neither let them eat?" in addition to not presuming a course of action (or in-action) without daily accounting for the variance of God's will over out lives. Pretty Gothardite, I should say!!!!!
How is a mother expected to home school her own children if she, herself, is not sufficiently educated??
Bill Gothard tells her what to teach her children, Huz! And HE didn't need a PhD even to write the curriculum he tried to foist on an entire nation in which all children should supposedly be thereby homeschooled- all he had to do was put a fine point on such dogma as this. Qualifications for doing so? Who needs qualifications when 50% of all kids are inferior even to the other 50%? All of which are sub-human until half of them grow to become men, anyway, & the other half still relegated to sub-human status even after they reach womanhood? No wonder Gothard was content with but an honorary PhD that he bought for himself as his "ministry" was coming to a close. What would anyone who dictates the daily livelihood of the mere women & children of nations need an education for? (Or need to have any personal integrity, by the same reasoning?)
Btw the real reason these types don't want wives & mothers to have gotten any degrees is so that they have no means to get away from abusive situations that are inevitably fostered by their heresies. Gothard made an absolute haul by banking on coerced ignorance & kept on doing so by this continued lack of being under any intellectual radar as utilized by his general target-market. Until we, the kids, bucked his teaching so as to go ahead & get off to college. What an opportunistic scammer! No thanks to the heretics who set up the "theological" basis for Gothard to have done this, btw.
Nicole:
Thank you for your input.
Truthfully, I was being sarcastic. I know the answer. If you do not possess the knowledge, you certainly cannot pass it on. :+(
Nicole Gardner: "That's a really good point that you brought out- how the fact that being a wife & mother is the highest calling in womanhood is twisted by control-freaks who undermine women's contributions to the workforce."
I believe Abshire's point is money spent for education on a woman who is to be a home maker is wasted money. In my opinion, what this does is devalue the personhood, or humanity, of a woman, and to contrast that, the Ingalls family (Laura Ingalls Wilder's folks) sent their blind daughter to a seven year college where she received the best education she could for her day, including learning manufacturing products to sell or trade. They valued Mary as a human being that highly that when she became blind and they heard about this opportunity for her, they worked very hard to send her there, though she never married and probably only modestly contributed to the household income.
I admit I lost your point until you now clarified it for me..... thanks for doing so.
Also, Abshire & his ilk (among which is Gothard) who speak to discourage females from getting higher education stand to lose a lot more business from college-educated home makers than from college educated women of any other genre. Homeschool families are the choice favorite for both men to primarily manipulate, so actual education's predominance would really put a hole in Gothard's sale-boat, & would also cause awareness of Abshire's same heresy. Even if homeschool parents have no college in their own backgrounds, if they haven't bought into Gothard's discouragement of it regarding their kids, then the fact that these types are shooting down something good would become apparent.
Keep in mind, too, that Gothard formulated basic education as if his wisdom booklets & seminars were enough. Not only did he decry higher education in any form, but he nonetheless declared that parents needed to pay him to learn the basics to teach grade school-level stuff....... such credence afforded by his own higher education even though it was limited. So, parents who are -for the most part- high school graduates aren't equipped to teach what they learned to their own kids. But he's qualified to, though, because he got the degree that everyone else is wrong to get. The hypocrisy of his suppositions is mind-boggling.
I wish everyone ever attending any of his seminars (myself the most!!!) had had degrees in Bible along with anything else before we ever heard his hogwash. The vast majority of us did not. I wonder that Mary Ingalls wouldn't have blown IBLP off.....
My ex is a retired high school teacher. He did not encourage any of the kids to go to college. My son Ben has been studying for 11 years and is at Baylor University, studying Philosphy. My daughter Kate is goint for her teaching degree, graduated fom a community college, is married and has a 2 year old and is continuing her studies at Central Connecticut University. They have worked their way through college, though Ben did receive some financial assistance in the beginning.
I have a married son who is now divorced, my grandson fatherless, related to the upbringing of geting married, raising a family...then fell into a cult whose leaders told them how to live. He also attended the ministerial school in Texas {I dont recall the name of it}. No wonder his mind has been messed up.
Another son was raised to think he was going to be a husband, and that has fallen through, not getting married, and he is in a a very deep depression, has not gotten over the break up 4 years ago.
I have nothing positive to say about Gothard and IBLP. I get upset emotionally thinking back on some of those years and the garbage my kids were fed by their dad. I didn't believe in all the bunk, and still only see the negative effects, life struggles it has on 2 of my 6 children. All of the family is effected due to changes in my sons' lives, and it is a negative effect. Please keep us in prayer.
Sue
Sue, you and your family will be in my prayers today. I will pray for there to be winds of peace, encouragement, and strength sent to all of you.
Sue,
Thank-you for sharing the voice of experience. What you've said isn't only true, it's truth that was proven by the experimentation of Gothard of your family. Thank-you for having the courage to state the results. You are blessed & a blessing to be speaking the truth. I know you will continue to be blessed in this. It's God-given beauty in place of ashes.
Experimentation *ON*, not "of"!!! My typo, sorry
This is the quote I reference:
"Here are Abshire's words on the subject:
http://patriarchaldocuments.blogspot.com/2008/11/note-you-are-seeing-this-message.htm
"And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?""
Now, what this is also saying, by direct inference, is that women should NOT strive to regularly attend a home church. Because the only way a woman can attend a sermon at a FIC church is if she has no children below 6 years of age &, if employed, also has a college degree in a field strictly excluding nursing, military related, service provider-related, & in many cases, business. Because, if she does have a degree as her inroad to one of these vocations, she likely has to work Sunday mornings more often than not & may often travel. And as for the woman who has taken this heretical advice & therefore has no college education whatsoever, these HAVE to work most every Sunday morning because curtailing availability to exclude any part of the weekend means a drop from full-time to maybe 10 hours per week for the hourly wage-earner. Employers do not grant full-time hours to those who insist on time off every weekend unless it's a Mon.-Fri. employer. There are meany church-raised women who would go to church every Sunday...... if we were able. So, in the desperation to raise up women who will continue to go to church as adults, these bigots overlooked one thing........ the fact that their bigotry amounts to the well-meaning faithful not being able to attend the same church at all on a regular basis...... simply because of letting themselves be detoured by the heresy of bigots who have set up roadblocks on the way to church. Roadblocks set up on no other reason than that they say it's wrong for a woman to pursue a career. Better to figure we'll need one & strive towards one that lets us be free to go to church on Sunday mornings! At least we'll get to worship this way. Not that these types care about even their exalted married women getting the chance to an hour a week in service.
Nicole, I don't think they want women to attend church every Sunday, they just want them to serve men, whether scrubbing floors, running nurseries, working in kitchens etc. What they miss completely is that a woman is much less of a help-meet, partner, co-heir, if she does not have an education that allows her to understand, be supportive, advise and assist her wonderful husband's glorious career leading society into the millennium and leading the church into its glory (or whatever it is they think men are called to do other than be in charge of their women).
For my money, anyone who wants male-man to prosper is a fool to want woman kept ignorant. My wife's inability to understand some of my work is a detriment, not an asset to my productivity. If I can't share my work with her, who will I be sharing that part of my life with? People who think women should NOT be educated are fools.
Don,
I am a complementarian, based on my understanding of scripture as well as my somewhat experienced understanding of how I, myself, am wired. And I know that every smart leader does better when his/her underlings are best informed. After all, Intelligence is a whole branch of the military, right? And that info gets dispensed to whomever it's relevant to; when people are on your side, they deserve to be communicated with so they have resource to do what they're doing.
And btw, the bigot types don't even want to "lower themselves" so as to have quality talks with either their wives or courtship-subjects (I say courtship-subject instead of girlfriend). That's why they have their micro-worlds set up so that they only share their lives with the other good-ole-boys. Really, it boils down to having little scope of understanding of life in general & no balls when it comes to communication.
It's a sad, sad world in bigot-land; I've been there.
Don, I read your reply a while back. Last night we had on a local channel and watched some of the Ohio Supreme Court telecast. My husband watched more than I, and later on told me about a case where someone wanted 3 counts of homicide dropped to one. And there was a long (read very long) discussion on the differences between the terms "void," and "voidable," which would have had me screaming ARRGGGHHHH! had I watched it. I am not able to tolerate the minutia.
Any type of very specialized work excludes those not involved in such work. When I was a PT, I only wished to discuss such things with nurses, OTs, MDs, and other professionals if I wanted to learn something or communicate something with them.
I followed very closely Terry Schiavo's case and see you had some involvement in it, and all I can comprehend was somehow, the case was lost at the very beginning. Everything was perfectly legal after that, albeit immoral, for not allowing a second look at matters and for turning a deaf ear to witnesses to what Terry told them, also other medical testimony about her condition.
My husband is a mechanical engineer and sometimes wishes I were more interested in higher mathematics . . . and so it goes. ;-)
LynnCD, I just saw this. Thanks for your balanced perspective. Rereading what I wrote two years ago, I also confess my lack of patience and love in sharing my work with my wife. My passion for my work gets in the way of real interest in bringing others along. I am doing better with younger co-workers, but so much at home. For example, none of the things we have discussed here interest my wife. She sees it as little more than wallowing in the mire and she does not see the big Error in what we were taught. I am grateful for our PCA Church of the past 20 years that taught our 8 children Grace in place of Gothard's Works. Truth protected us even while in ATIA.
And you rightly perceive the Schiavo case. Her family's lawyers missed the evidentiary mistakes which left the killing-judge's order impenetrable later.
Hi, Don. I find that I have reached a limit in discussing IBLP, though I return from time to time to read here. Perhaps your wife reached her limit before you did. People are ready to move on on their own respective unique schedules. But in a vein similar to IBLP, I'm following the Southern Baptist Convention and the firing of Paige Patterson with interest, and am praying for biblical corrections to be made regarding women in ministry. But not everyone I speak to enough this matter is as concerned as I. We're not part of the SBC, but I didn't want my daughter studying at any college where he had influence.
Following SBC events as well. I fear any viewpoint, egalitarian or complimentarian, can be abused by one who would "lord it over". That is the problem with these tyrants who people "fear" or "worship". If men in church leadership were footwashers, women would have little need to "lead" seeing that the lives of mothers are full of such service. It is the lords, not the servants, who are falling.
Is the lawsuit progress at a near standstill? Or is news of it's progress just that scarce?
What I've read from someone in the private fb recovery group for IBYC/IBLP is the plaintiffs have retained new counsel and have until August 15 to file.
LynnCD:
As today is the 15th, I am wondering if you read any update via FB (private messages) regarding IBLP/Gothard lawsuit??
(I have an account but am rarely active using it predominantly for my personal political agenda.) Chuckle.
Should I assume that there is a group that somehow interacts via FB solely for the purpose of the lawsuit related discussion??
huzandbuz, the fb page is for general IBLP discussion, and I have heard nothing today. I will check later on.
More sad news for the Gothard camp. Does anyone know how he was associated with Gothard or IBLP? Pray for his victims.
"Kenneth Dewitt, a former Arkansas women's prison chaplain, was sentenced to five years in prison today after pleading guilty last month to three counts of sexual assault. Dewitt was originally charged with 50 counts of third-degree assault for sex with inmates....
Dewitt's religious program was associated with Bill Gothard, a conservative evangelical minister wit his own history of sexual misconduct allegations."
Full article at:
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/08/08/former-arkansas-womens-prison-chaplain-sentenced-to-five-years-in-prison-for-sexual-assault-of-inmates
OMG!!
Duggar family, open your eyes!!!!!
What comes to mind is Gothard and men like this talking about revival. And they talk of putting people under self-selected Mosaic requirements not imposed on the Church, while forgetting to apply to themselves the universal application of 2 Chronicles 7:14. Or maybe they thought they were all like King David and could take their pick of women to harass and have sex with. The Bible can be twisted by warped minds to justify sin.
This has been going on for quite some time. Dewitt resigned in 2014: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/prison-chaplain-sexual-assault-arkansas_us_568adb84e4b0b958f65c7ebb
Dewitt apparently bought into the cheesy acronym "P.A.L.", thinking that these subordinates were fair game; super convenient access for him since he was actually a superior. So the Bill/Steve thing has played out yet again- this is horrible! I admit when I 1st had issues with IBLP it was because of the deifying of human authority on a vertical level. At the time I had no idea how this same deifying of authority afforded it clout to throw weight around on the horizontal level. Quite literally, on the horizontal level, from what I read here:
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/08/08/former-arkansas-womens-prison-chaplain-sentenced-to-five-years-in-prison-for-sexual-assault-of-inmates
Thank-you for the link Larne & I will add my prayers to those offered for yet more IBLP victims. Is IBLP ever going to quit generating sexual attacks, I wonder?!?!?!?
Ok.......interesting. So Dewitt resigned, and then the truth came out, and is still coming out, as his program is associated with Gothard? Another "crack in the glass ceiling", right? I hope and pray that the new counsel and re-filing is the next step in bringing out the truth. So far it appears that IBLP/ATI is just trying to re-name itself as Family Conference and Family Connections, but the IBLP/ATI names are still there when clicking on the links. To me it looks like lipstick on a pig, but I continue to pray John 8:32 for everyone involved. They were in BC not long ago, and I have yet to know how they were received there. I have relatives who live not too far from there.
To JPU:
The 'connection' is no doubt a part of the IBLP's 'splinter group'. I viewed photos of David & Priscilla Waller at the Family Conferences.(The pics may be prior to summer 2016, however.)
Waller, employed with IBLP, did relocate to Big Sandy, TX.
Can anyone please explain anything they know of this "splinter group"? Thank-you
BTW, am really appreciating the respectful way that this website is run and the very gracious attitudes of the Moderators and contributors.
Agreed, Matt, that there are very gracious attitudes here.
To Matt Arnott:
Hi!
You can 'google' IBLP Family Conference. You may be able to glean some information as to what is discussed during these 'connections' if you read the available links. I am thinking the conferences are, at least in part, a reiteration of the dogma presented during Gothard's IBLP seminars. Apparently each several day lecture, however, has a theme.
It appears that a variety of speakers are scheduled. It just depends on when and where the conference is held.
No doubt there are more informed RG readers who will respond with additional information. (I have only attended the earlier IBYC seminars beginning in 1979.) Blessings....
Does anyone know how today went in court with the lawsuit?
I don't know how that one is going but while searching I found "Brother David" is still cooling his heels in his orange jumpsuit in this 8/8/16 update.
http://www.naplesnews.com/story/money/business/local/2016/08/08/naples-businessman-david-gothard-pleads-not-guilty-criminal-charges/88389320/
Hopefully he likes orange because I have a feeling he is going to be wearing it for a long long time.
Maybe he can ask to be relocated to a prison that sports blue and white jumpsuits.
"He feels he's done nothing wrong ..." (David Gothard)
Seems to run in the family.
"'He has the ability to read people and convince them that what he's saying is legit,' Roger Nixon said of Gothard."
The brothers were both very skilled at taking advantage of the most vulnerable and also appear to feel no shame about it whatsoever. Maybe there's room in the prison cell for brother Billy to join him? Too bad the DA that had the chance to pursue claims against Bill was not as determined as the one going after little brother David.
What a sad mess and shambles. Reading that report spoke of a life wasted. Lying, cheating, posing, conman...
My heart is heavy. And what makes it even heavier is the bilge that we were taught along these lines... Let's put David into the parent guilt trap we had to live through...
What did Dad and Mom Gothard do wrong? Why is David a lying cheat? Why does Bill Gothard think he has the answers to man kinds woes - brought to him through rhemas we should all up and follow? Why are they both conmen (do I have a true story on that one with BG!) How could these guys do this?
Easy answer - sin. Choices to be made by free willed man.
I am sure our sins and even shortcomings as parents go on down to influence our children in some way but glory to God, He can change that all. He brought me out of the miry clay of a very dysfunctional home. Our decisions lay at our own feet. I see no scripture for the blame game. "Blame your parents for a while and then get right with God."
My Mom did her halting, broken up best. God stepped in and saved this 18 year old - glory to His name. The Gothard brothers had parents that did the same.
Anyway, I hope these broken old men get right with God before it is too late. He alone is our all in all. "Look to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth. For I am God and there is none other."
(And I am not even Baptist ;) )
Julia:
I, too, find it mind boggling that not one, not two, but all three of the Gothard sons have succumbed to such dastardly deeds. Though William Sr., from what I read, was reportedly a righteous man, it does appear that he was a part of covering his sons' sins. And their mother....well, only God knows the family dynamics.
Praise God for those who have escaped sin's clutches. Time is drawing nigh....Blessings.
Where are my comments going? I hit "Add Comment" and they disappear!
I am trying to express thanks and appreciation to huzandbuz...
To Matt Arnott:
I do not know that I provided much help or insight, however, you certainly are welcome. :+) How thoughtful of you.... :+)
I 'believe' that David Waller, employed by IBLP, is a mighty force concerning these Family Conferences. Of course you can 'google' him for information if you are not familiar with this young man.
Probly David Gothard's oldest brother wants Kenneth Dewitt to get out of jail so he can go be a "P.A.L." to him, too, just like he was to all those other inmates. In which case Dewitt probly would put David in a skirt (blue or otherwise) first thing. The regulation jumpsuit just might go from orange to being navy & white........ compliments of oldest brother & Dewitt. Bill, too, might end up wearing his own preferences. But I bet he won't want Kenneth Dewitt to be HIS P.A.L.........
I think my computer does not like the "reply" button, so I will just enter writing in the general comments box from now on.
I wanted to thank you for the idea of Googling certain conference titles and individual's names. Once I got into the websites it was obvious that the same-styled teaching, language, and phraseology was all there from times past, including the links to the regular IBLP stuff, so presumably a reiteration, as you say, of the same old dogma and formulas. Interesting to note the pictures show incredibly small groups of people at these events, compared to the propaganda pics of years ago with thousands filling stadiums.
Hello Again Matt:
You are welcome. Though some of the Family Conferences may be relatively small in comparison to Gothard's former seminars, there appears to be enough of them to keep the IBLP dogma continuing.
I personally believe the indoctrination will never really cease.
It is too deeply ingrained in many families. At least some of the offspring, just like any other teaching, will then pass it along.
I do, however, see 'little indications' that a former die-hard Gothardite couple (TV personalities) are becoming enlightened.)
(Details on another post.)
Big Sandy TX Conferences 'appear' to be the largest. Some of these may be due, in part, to ALERT graduations as well as Duggar family participation.
http://www.alertacademy.com/iaa/events/family-conference/
Huz,
I certainly hope that TV personalities are becoming enlightened; I know that Chad Paine, with his then-fiancee, Erin Bates, would not mention IBLP by name. Just, "We met through a ministry that I was involved in, as well as Erin was involved in-from time to time- & we first met officially at a Valentine's Banquet in Chicago."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0OjFyslMpo
(He says this starting at 1:37 into the video).
IBLP training centers are known for annual Valentine Banquets....... & for getting otherwise isolated young people together across the miles, as in the 3 years that these 2 claim to have "known each other" even though they hadn't "met officially". Interesting to me that, for at least 3 years of his involvement in what his dad was a board member of, Chad experienced other elite-parents-of- the-elite parading their daughters by him. Of course, this "known each other" by way of this (as well as TV?) never included having actually MET. And I know that I don't "know" anyone that I have never met..... I don't even "know" the vast majority of people that I HAVE met......
I wonder if these 2 consider it a "ministry" still today....... the Bates Family logo is still being used to advertise IBLP on IBLP's "Family Connections" website. None of the next-generation families of either the Bates or the Duggar clans are lending their new surname's brand for Gothard advertising. Hopefully the newlywed Paine couple have plenty of understanding between them of what it was like being overshadowed by a cult all those years. At least neither one of them has to try & explain what it was like growing up to the other! There has to be some major mutual empathy there. And I don't blame them for not mentioning IBLP by name even at the time that they were obviously so excited to have "known" & then met each other through it. That would, as they obviously surmised, indeed have been a detraction from the attractiveness of their brand. God bless them both! And may they trust His sovereignty over their lives even though this cult's influence built up over each one of them, from childhood, so much so as to have orchestrated the rest of their lives.
If any Bates, Paines, or Duggars want to write a book about all things IBLP & ATI, (including if it's the parents who write it), I will definitely purchase such an expose.
Nicole,
I highly doubt any of the Duggar or Bates children are going to write any type of expose book. I just wouldn't plan on it. The connections between IBLP and Duggar/Bates was rather hidden on their shows. They promoted themselves as evangelical conservative Christians. One would have to dig deep to find and see the connections between both these families and Bill Gothard. Erin Bates Paine just had a baby. I also think she denied on Instegram her connections with IBLP and Bill Gothard when someone brought it up to her. I think you can Google search this. What is curious and you can also find this on Youtube is that Bill Gothard did the opening prayer at Erin Bates' wedding. Now was he there because of Erin or her parents? We will never know but I would suspect he was there on behalf of Erin's parents. You can see him in the video of her wedding on You tube if you want to look it up. Again, both the Duggars and Bates hid on their TV shows their deep connections to Bill and IBLP. The conversation on how Erin met her husband and how they presented it should not be a surprise at all.
To Nicole:
http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Erin-Paine-Denounces-IBLP.jpg
If you search, you will note that there is another post whereby one of Erin's brothers also denounces IBLP/GB. (She then encouragingly requests that her brother indicate his preferences on his own site.
And, 'reading between the lines', it 'appears' that Erin & Chad will cautiously consider future babies. After numerous miscarriages, she gave birth to Carson who celebrated his first birthday in May. Two weeks ago, they welcomed a daughter, Brooklyn.
I am encouraged regarding this young family. PTL! Chad, based on Erin's comments and photos, certainly appears to be an attentive & dedicated father as well as an extremely caring & loving husband. I truly believe he considers her a Queen in every respect.
Erin & Chad wed in 11/2013. That was prior to the internet revelation of BG's scandal in 2/2014. They may have personally invited BG to attend and speak during their ceremony.
Perhaps, as a couple, they began their own investigation once the news was released. They may have even read RG!! Though Chad & Erin may continue to adhere to many of the tenets, obviously they no longer believe nor follow the mind-numbing testimony that was once a huge part of Gothard's ardent devotees.)
As time goes on, I am certainly believing that this 'new generation of young people', offspring of parents that remain Gothard's enthusiastic admirers, will surely recognize ALL truth regarding that 'ministry'. ^i^
(Once I began a 'google' search after viewing an early episode of the Duggar family, I found it profoundly obvious that they were Gothard worshipers.)
Julia,
I agree playing the blame game is not useful. Eastern Orthodoxy looks at the whole question of sin and salvation more through the framework of disease and its cure, corruption/death and its antidote (resurrection), not so much as the overstepping of a law (as mere codes of rules) and its punishment, though the latter language is also used in Scripture. What sin really is (as opposed to sins) is more like a spiritual disease--sins (plural) are the symptoms. We have some responsibilities when we are sick, but we can't heal ourselves merely by our own will and choices, and we are vulnerable to outside influences over which we may have no control. Sometimes we are so sick and paralyzed by sin, we will find no healing unless others bring us to the Master (who first forgives our sins). We are responsible, insofar as we are able, to seek healing, apply the doctor's remedies, etc., and yet the real cure is not merely a matter of the human will, but rather a matter of the working of the Holy Spirit (grace, God's life at work in our souls as well as our physical bodies).
Looking at things from a disease model, it may be important for the sufferer to understand the family dysfunction (spiritual "genetic flaws"?) that may have predisposed him/her to be susceptible to sin in a certain way, not to figure out where to place blame, but to figure out how to reverse the wrong messages and dysfunctional patterns that led to bondage in certain sins in the first place, so that he/she may be progressively freed from that bondage. In this respect, I have no doubt Bill, Sr., played a significant role in his sons' dysfunction and narcissism. What exactly that may have been is between him, God, and his sons.
Yes. The same in all of our families. My grown children are predisposing their children to be "susceptible to sin in a certain way" as we speak just as their Dad and I did to them - but oftentimes on different issues.
So on and on it goes. Only the Physician can heal us. Set us free.
We can blame all the way back to Adam but we all carry in ourselves what he did.
Thank you for your comment, Karen.
Thank you, Julia. Even though we can see the fruit of our failings, it is good to remember about the process of salvation/sanctification, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Mat. 19:26) I realized when my kids were young, my influence (as a sinner) was strong on them, and I needed the Lord to intervene in their lives if they were to grow toward Him. So I continually give them to Him in prayer, acknowledging I don't know how to help them but He does, and He doesn't disappoint me. :-) Indeed, as is His way, He has been most gracious! "Cast your cares on Him because He cares for you." "He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it until the day of Christ Jesus." These, and others, are promises I hold onto for myself and my family members.
Ty Rob & Huz! I shall google-away in a second. But here is something good that I missed before:
http://www.christianheadlines.com/news/the-church-sexual-abuse-and-the-epidemic-of-silence.html
K, I'm going to do more research; it's encouraging to hear there's quite a bit of indication that there is a departure of ways on the part of the next generation in at least one of these TV families.
Nicole, I had read that. Church leaders, once revered, sadly but understandably, are now often viewed with skepticism. :+(
Any church leader, regardless of talent, general eptitude, & level of popularity, would win at least MY recognition of them as holding right doctrinal stance on both morality & God's justice- if they but went to civil authorities over probable sex abuse in their pews.
Not to mention all the temptations to bully the alledged victim they would save themselves from by thereby turning this kind of thing over to the "ministers of God to you for good." (Romans 13:4). It seems that God's order for the church's handling of such a thing has always countered the inevitable conflict of interest of what is aberrant to it: In-House Handling. I capitalize this because it really is a "thing" made out to be this "thing" by those who insist upon it.
If the church wasn't able to learn from IBLP's 1980's Exhibit A of In-House Handling of already mishandled sex abuse....... then exactly what kind of exhibition of high echelon jettisoning of Scripture are we waiting for? It would be nice to start letting the Bible shed some light on this whole area. Church leaders........ do you read RG?!??!? .........Or, do you even read your own Bibles?!??
Anyone want to see IN ACTION the faulty reasoning we/I learned and used and propagated? A skit but very realistic.
See Cursed Cursive Studio C on Youtube. Funny but all too real for ex-ATI.
Julia:
I located 'Cursed Cursive Studio C'. I assume you are referring to: Cursive writing & the Declaration of Independence. Most interesting.... :+) TU!!
Yes. Up to the very end when they could have "seen the light" ... "That feather is casting a suggestive shadow."
Shaking my head. Been on those witch hunts far too often in the past. Never again.
reading most of these posts/replies tends to sadden me that there is so much delight to rail upon other's errors and hope for more failure. Forgiveness is a powerful spiritual force because everything we do is accountable personally to God Who each of us will ultimately stand before. I don't spend time going on witch hunts anymore either.
A.P.,
There is much mention of & the eluding to very, very, very positive phenomenons here on RG. The articles themselves expose the truth & also counter doctrinal lies with doctrinal truth. The comments often speak of perspectives & sound judgements already enacted of such type as were conveyed through the movie "Spotlight." Do you mind stating whether or not you think that this movie depicted "a witch hunt"? Many commenters on here share what the Bible says, specifically, pertaining to sexual assault/attacks. This is much more God-honoring & hopeful than observing the current standing that IBLP has chosen to be in. It's way more encouraging & positive to read RG than to read what the mainstream media says about that cult. (Even though they're just doing their job in covering it). There's a lot of faith represented here on RG. And the Bible is way higher caliber than IBLP's M.O. or any IBLP dogma. This, & the personal input of real people, is a cut above that which most all of us are debriefing from. Just my thoughts, take them or leave them. Peace.
A.P.That the victims had a unified voice at all so that unforgiveness,anger,and other potential malevolent feelings could be vented is due to Recovering Grace.In reading some of the more brutal accounts"Heather's Story","Charloote's Story",we see behind closed doors a very calculated,very cunning,deliberate and cold autocrat/heretic manipulating,abusing,dismissing truth,thruogh half baked spiritual pleasantries,minimizing risks and requesting a return;that's right a return;to in my opinion minister the same darkness through feigned religious posturing.Does not wanting to "witchhunt",mean that what happened for forty years with former victims now speaking up from being abused,the lawsuit against Gothard,and the IBLP Machine's complicity and coverup,get a rather "justifiable" free ticket?Anger and unforgiveness,two detrimental and well known wrong responses in life certainly cannot be justified.But in playing this card,those displaying even the least bit of this,have been dismissed as having no legitimacy;and I dare say many indeed are working through anger,unforgiveness;who have been abused time and again,molested in their trusting,violated in their vulnerability,thrown away as not worthy to be considered,so the sacred alter of Gothardism can continue as not to be placated by the relevancy of justice.All of us have no cause no rights unless we are deemed "perfect".Yet there is a rather unavoidable conclusion in this violation of our humanity from the travesty of this organization;to become an automaton,a robot.We have no feelings, nothing of any value from shattered dreams,nothing that we hoped for that would have amounted to much, and no rights.Religion took them all away and triumphed over the oppressed,the vulnerable,and downtrodden.It is up to you A.P.to dismiss this site for these "violations", or perhaps work through with great difficulty an ongoing process of now having to feel some pain that a callousness has taken.
Forgiveness is a process. Healing for emotional hurts and pain comes after genuine forgiveness takes place and takes time. Only God knows hearts and thoughts. What may come out in the light deserves the healing process. Isn't there something in the Word of God not to take up offenses because grace is given to the ones involved and not to ones reporting on such. Indeed may he who is without sin cast the first stone. My prayers are for all involved. I rest my case and my thoughts. I have peace, same to you.
I'm not sure that I should be directing further thoughts that I have directly to A.P. since this once-interested party has indicated they are resting their case. I do not wish to argue, either, but, as A.P. nonetheless took issue & spoke (at a couple points in time), so do I. After all, stating new points along with one's final words is bad insurance on getting in the last word. Responding in order:
(A) The Process Of Forgiveness almost never requires forgiveness as a precursor to "healing for emotional hurts & pain." And, even if it did, why is there no mention of either God's gifts of both grace & faith as the precursor's to forgiveness? For truly, both grace & faith are bestowed by God on the wounded in order to fuel forgiveness of specific wrongs before this can ever take place. We are not All-Sufficient within our own selves, after all. And, since God is the most sensitive to sin as the one we owe it to to be holy as He is Holy, He is more wronged by sin than anyone else & so He always leads the way of forgiveness. If He did not, Who would? Or Who even could? Back to my point that there is not a regular precursor of human forgiveness to "healing for emotional hurts & pain": Why is God here labeled as Out-Of-Order for many times healing hurts & easing pain when the one suffering is yet fighting for justice? Are God's hands tied from addressing His healing to a harm done until He is unfettered by the human whom has been treated unjustly? Our God is a God of justice not by human empowerment of Him to enact such, but by His own nature. And he heals those who have been wronged. On His own. According to His own terms, not human terms, or human enablement of Himself.
(B) Not sure why only "emotional hurts & pain" are addressed by A.P. Maybe this party just came here to comment about issues unrelated to IBLP? Because my personal task of forgiving IBLP entails forgiving them for spiritual abuse enacted against 2 pastors that was then directly translated to me over a 14 year period, mutilation of the Gospel, heresy of what the Bible says about God, myself, & everyone else, sexual assaults & an attack 'justified' on the same grounds, a dead-locked mindset of 'no wrong done' in all this, retaliation against anyone & everyone saying otherwise, discovery of the same having occurred over & over to many, many others on a local level and, apparently, at headquarters as well. Even if this hadn't happened to me personally with Gothard's Umbrella teaching specifically used as a bullying tool, I would still be directly involved in the wrong done by IBLP. Because I am championed by them as "alumna" of this same teaching which was also used to sexually abuse & to otherwise abuse many others. So, since God's grace is indeed "given to the ones involved" this means grace is given to 2 & a half million alumna who were used to promote what is now exposed as a scam at the expense of our trust.
(C) Not sure why people such as myself are nonetheless classified in a segregated class of "ones reporting on such" that is divided from "the ones involved." I felt involved all 4 times I attended the seminars & invited people with me. I felt involved when I was told by Gothard on the white projector screen that I was lifelong alumna, always to be considered as such. But, I will gladly be emancipated from that involvement, as I seem to have been by A.P. Along with all the others among the 2 & a half million who never met an IBLP heavy-lifter but nonetheless experienced it's reach so strongly.
(D) Conversely, I am puzzled concerning those other than such as myself who DO get designated as "the ones involved and not.... ones reporting on such." Why are "the ones involved" "not" "ones reporting on such."?????? It seems to me, that those involved SHOULD be acknowledged for what they have reported. Rather than completely disregarded as if they had not done so. I've never seen any "reporting" on RG made by anyone not speaking of their direct involvement. Either in the testimonies or in the comments. If the reports of "the ones involved" are thus completely denied as even existing, why then bother to try to shoot down any "reporting" at all, especially by us "not" "involved"?!? It quite puzzles me to have read A.P.'s points. The main one, apparently, which is to claim as non-existent the reports of all who are "involved." Not sure that I should have blessed "peace" to whomever this person is........ then again, they obviously are in desperate need of it.
"It is a grave disservice to the spirit of a woman when she is given the subtle message that the truth of her own pain is not as important as the reputation of the one who inflicted it".This is the quote of a certain "Sarah",who had seen much at the hands of Gothard.
^Like^
Is there any recent news on developments (if any) in the lawsuit or the progress thereof? It's dragged on for what, a year and a half now?
Also, it seems like there's some sort of a gag order on RG? There have been no new postings in a long time now.
According to Alfred on DG, the next hearing is Nov 30th and that there was court activity around Sept 21 since Dr. Copley was added to the suite I think. Yes, I have wondered the same thing and maybe not a gag order but that RG has been advised by lawyers to lay low. That is all speculation on my part. I have no more inside info than anyone else. This blog continues due to our participation in commenting. HA web blog has been good about posting updates in the case as needed.
Am SO GLAD Dr. Copley is included in the suit!!! Rob, ty for that update. I really cannot stomach DG since the point in time that Alfred over there posted that there's no such thing as rape unless the female it's done to is married or is at least engaged. So I haven't been on there except one time to see that this statement was removed. Would anybody who takes a look over there kindly provide relevant info on here so wussies like me can still stay in the know? (As Rob kindly did)? The Dr. Copley thing is big news to me; thanks again to Rob.
It's not being a wussie to recognize one's limits or hot buttons and in recognizing this, to back away or not participate in something that is going to be so upsetting that one lashes out or looses emotional control. We all have hot button issues or people. In all honesty, I actually couldn't watch the presidential debates for the same sorts of reasons. I could listen, but not physically sit and watch. If I did watch, all it would have caused me is to start yelling at the TV to the amusement of my sons. Lately, I've turned more TV off on shows I normally could watch and tolerate. It takes strength to recognize one's weakness and limits or when one is reaching their emotional limit and to back away in order not to loose it.
Yeah Rob there was nothing I could say that was civil on DG in addressing that one Moderator comment. Suggesting that a psychiatrist highly experienced in trying to rehabilitate violent felons & pedophiles might be able to debunk that excuse was the only reply to it that I toyed around with. Since the No. 1 mental hang-up the professionals grapple with is their convicted client's incapacity to grasp, or at least admit, that rape is wrong. But then I didn't mention even this; we all know who's *wisdom* & *reasoning* are behind the Moderating over there, since they "talk every day." No use going where so many others have gone before & not gotten anywhere. The Doctor Is In. Many times over, help has gone in on visitations. But the patient is OUT. Far, far out. What can I say.
What are we to make of Jesus' teaching then? I know very little about Gothard but this strikes a chord with me as the classic Evangelical approach which is Jesus' teaching has no place in their theology - it is seen as "works". Did Jesus not say many times that His words are to be followed, like building one'side house on rock?
It is difficult to see what your comment relates to. Are you questioning the rejection of legalism? If one takes Jesus's teachings as rules and laws as Gothard does, you are ignoring that Paul taught explicitly that if any law could save us, there woudl be no need for Jesus to die. We are God's children because Jesus died for us and we trust in THAT, NOT becuase we do anything in conformity with his teaching (except to believe on the One Whom He sent).
There are many wonderful articles and essays on this website that explore many specifics of the works/grace dispute.
I haven't found evangelicals necessarily works oriented or grace oriented. They seem to encompass both groups, teaching grace but practicing legalism far too much. So it is difficult to understand your brief categorical statements.
I guarantee you this: you CANNOT follow the Sermon on the Mount as a "higher law" as Gothard taught. Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount to convince us that we cannot live righteously apart from HIS redemption and then only by His working and His Spirit. "Lest any man [or Gothardite] may boast."
Dear brother Don,
Your analysis above made me curious, so I checked Yahoo for "why did Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount." Here is the Best Answer (similar but not identical to yours): "The Pharisees and teachers of the law had tried to simplify God's law, making it more permissive and less demanding, and more legalistic, black and white, yes or no, right or wrong. When they asked Jesus about divorce, they wanted an easy yes-or-no answer. But in the sermon on the mount, Jesus was seeking to reverse this trend. He examined people's motives and the true meaning of obedience. When he spoke of the law being fulfilled, he meant there are no "small" sins, and a shallow understanding of the law is not good enough. He took the old concepts and took them further, showing just how impossible it is to be justified by obeying the law, and how completely we need the salvation he offers."
I don't know whether that qualifies as higher law, but it sounds pretty good to me.
Poor in spirit,
David K
We can perspire
To aspire
But that will not delete us
From hell fire.
Even though it is a race
The fuel is His grace.
Within all our good works
A twisted evil lurks
That we sway as some men lead
And what they say we will heed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRH_E2u5cGY Robin by the end of this 13 mins 32 seconds, the question of works/grace is answered. The real gospel.
Does anyone know if the lawsuit was successful in delaying IBLP from selling headquarters and moving to Texas? Are the IBLP leaders now located in Texas?
Helga I only wish I knew...... this or anything else about it. Also I have failed to keep track of which leaders broke off completely from Gothard around the time of the 1st lawsuit being filed last October. Perhaps all? I do not know. Doing so certainly shouldn't get them off the hook, though, that's for sure. Once an accessory to wrongdoing, is always having been, even when the henchmen break off.
Helga there is a clue at the very bottom of this link (you have to scroll down to the very bottom).
http://www.freejinger.org/topic/27840-bill-gothard-pt-2-more-more-damning/#comment-1237940
Thanks, Nicole. Interesting, it would seem that the move to Texas is happening at least in some form. I saw a program just the other day that talked about how Jim Jones moved his headquarters first to San Francisco and then to Jonestown in Guyana after receiving negative attention from a newspaper article. It made me think of IBLP's move to Texas.
Yeah that & this are both classic cases of changing neighbors in reaction to having NOT loved the longtime neighbor, also to realizing the fall-out in having outright WRONGED this neighbor. The problem is the neighbors, of course, hence the needful change is "the righteous one is taken away from evil." (Even though J.J. & IBLP's fleeing was/is on their own volition). How many times has THAT Scripture been thus misused, I wonder?!?!?!? *Cough, chuckle, snort, gag.*
Nicole,
It personally think this is a matter of money. The Oak Brook/Hinsdale property is probably worth way more then the Texas "Ambassador College" property. Their income stream has dried up and being spent on attorneys. If the Illinois properties could be sold for $100 million plus that could keep their salaries going for years. In the corporate world its called a Golden Parachute for the few remaining. Probably less regulation in Texas and less oversight in the Bible Belt.
That makes more sense...... but since IBLP's $$$$$$ is conned money, they should donate it & start relying on real jobs. But, if they want to spend it on attorneys in order to pretend their innocence, at least the parachute is a little smaller....... even though it shouldn't be there at all for the henchmen of IBLP. I guess some think it better to live out their earthly lives with the golden parachute they've counted on & invested in than to attend to eternity's matters.
Random thought of the day: had Jesus been working at headquarters, His private conversation with the woman at the well would have gotten Him expelled from headquarters.
Love it. This is true...
I feel very, very strongly about the backing that Discovering Grace is currently providing to the IBLP teaching that Christianity entails pursuing a way of life that excludes ALL women from the workforce. Their stance on related issues is even more disturbing. I'm sure I have not given DG enough time to have "moderated" it, but this is what I posted at around 8pm on Sunday evening the 20th. This is it in it's entirety:
"I have some things to say to you.
I say that, generally, an employed MOTHER is a scenario that society as a whole should strive to avoid. I think God’s blessing acknowledges the wisdom of this. However I certainly do not agree this applies to “wives” in general, as you’ve said, & I most adamantly argue against this applying to daughters. (“Daughters” defined as non-wives/non-mothers). Please re-refer to the link I re-post below:
illbehonest.com/patriarchy-vs-single-women-in-the-bible
If a husband whose wife isn’t raising any kids of theirs nonetheless needs her home all day while he’s at work then he has got some serious dysfunction. I can picture the Do-list now: Squeeze my toothpaste. Put a slice of lemon in the dog’s water. Water down the driveway. Iron my jeans. Chew gum & stuff it down
the yard’s mole-holes. Audit the toilet paper (making sure it’s all over-under, or under-over; whichever is “right”.) Video-tape the neighbors throwing their dog-doo across the fence. Price small-claims court filing. Price lawyers. Shovel-up poop. Save in an ‘evidence’ container. But not on the dresser. Post photo-shopped pictures & clever sound-bites on all my social media channels. Run feasibility study on running for public office. Tell your mother we’re both dead (so she stops calling). Poison the neighbor’s cats (they keep leaving paw-prints on my car. That you don’t always wash off before I leave in the morning.) Fish around for sponsors for my next golf tournament. Get liposuction (to make your presence there really worth it’s while). Roll fresh cigars. Make sure beer’s forefront in ‘frige. Better yet, run & open one to hand to me as soon as I come through the door. Imagine The Rest Of This List From Here. The End.
It is in outrageous denial of all the responsibility a mom carries out to set the same hours for every woman that good mothering requires. It implies that mothers are abdicating their role of wife by being mothers. Whereas the Bible says they are fulfilling a wife’s highest calling to submissive servant-hood by being mothers. Which is not a passive role; it is leadership over subordinate(s). If a wife is expected to simulate the type of responsibility that motherhood carries without actively mothering, then the closest she could come is by being a corporate project manager, or policewoman, or executive chef, or 911 operator, or some other capacity where people look to her for EVERYTHING. Such responsibility is, more often than not, a DUAL component TO a wife’s modeling of submission to her husband; not in conflict AGAINST it. And a woman’s submissiveness to her (potential) husband’s authority -bespoken by wife/motherhood being womanhood’s highest calling- is a capacity much better readied by daughters being employed. Daughters are not *domestic engineers* in the home, we would be the employees of the *domestic engineer*, should that be where we spend our days. Employees training for a hopeful position of *domestic engineer* in an invisible house headed by an abstract-concept of a husband who is likewise non-materialized. Very few bosses let their employees supply their contributions to the company all from an off-site location. A stay-at-home daughter is being better trained to live on completely out of relevance to an apparition (husband/kids) that her life is thus ordered in reference to. Specifications for executing wife-ing/mothering require a specialist. *Domestic engineering* is not an ideal job for an employee that can only perform repetitive tasks only amongst the same handful of people. Especially when it admittedly cannot ever become the correct setting or the unique people for which the effort is really intended (hypothetically intended). We daughters whom have been in contact with our mothers while growing up recognize that our nurturing output as single women is nothing compared to their’s. It’s squandering that example unless we are to try to measure up to this output as it was represented to us. Which, for the single woman, means full-time employment or full-time ministry. This is the only comparison that measures up; however genuine your attempts to lift up daughters by equating daughterhood with a mother-lode of responsibility, all you’re really doing is detracting from it. It’s unfortunate that anyone would make motherhood out to be less than it is on the assumption that general female capability is less than it is. I guess us single women who don’t care for motherly honor being sponged to mete some to our account are just going to have to go out & work harder. Thank the Lord, we have the right (& are only right) to use the freedom & grace He’s granted to do so, & to do it well. May it never be said of us: “We build fences to keep ourselves from committing certain sins. Soon these fences- instead of the sins they were designed to guard against- become the issue. We elevate our rules to the level of God’s commandments.” ~Jerry Bridges
There is only one other way of humanly measuring a person’s submissiveness besides gauging their productivity: Subjection to harm as an end unto itself (as opposed to suffering for the sake of productivity). Which would be utterly sick. Suffering harm that’s meted-out by so-called Christians is no substitute for productivity. Not in the economy of God’s kingdom, anyway, which is also mankind’s dominion here on earth.
In Response To Your Next Point:
I mentioned the many kids as concrete evidence of the fact that marriage impacts a woman to the core of her being, consuming & culminating everything she has/is. Even if a wife has zero kids, the rest of her life (including her eternal rewards) is heavily determined by whom she married. John 10 has Jesus defining His followers as not listening to the voice of strangers. Submissiveness is whatever listening to a particular person entails. For a wife, this is a life sentence of heeding & deeding someone else’s will, &, at times, one which is not always in line with Jesus’ will. (Not to say that a woman under no one’s will but her own always obeys God). But, the voice of her will is what GOD gave her at birth. A husband’s coming into position to override her in this is a HUMAN DECISION that he do so. All successive leadership she then has is secondarily-human in derivation from Christ’s direct headship of her husband. This is a severe concession that a bride makes. Even the PERFECTLY RIGHT Man that Jesus is did not command anyone to believe on Him & be saved devoid of any appeal to reason. “Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet they shall be whiter than snow” (Isaiah somewhere). And, REASONABLE service to render all of ourselves unto Him (Romans 12). Johnathan Lindvold is not better than Jesus. Therefore, I don’t see how he stills sees an *out* for himself in the matter of his lack of a decent appeal to his wife that she become such. Jesus treated (& still treats) His bride as though she has much more autonomy than that kind of over-simplification derides. And I certainly understand why it can only be assumed that his wife is okay with both this & his having made a romance-conduct-instruction ministry in which that story plays a prominent part. No one outside the walls of her home will ever know what she really thinks about that. In my life-group, there are 5 married couples. Any one individual of these couples could call up another & clarify this question in a minute or 2 of conversation. No one would bat an eye. Seriously.
Next Issue:
The attitude of respect you have maintained toward your wife totally counts against violence, the barking of orders, & all-around piggishness. And that’s saying a lot in this day & age. But it says no more than that. That it’s supposedly the choice of the wife to have most every one of her & her husband’s kids sounds pretty phony to me. Especially if she doesn’t have her own room with her own bed in it, adult communication outlets (& time to utilize them) apart from him interacting with her………… & a sense of decision-making-confidence along with the freedom to exercise this. God’s role of headship for husbands secures such a fellow enough play to be in the driver’s seat without him ever needing to resort to acting like a pig. I am glad to hear you are not a pig in addition to being the man of the house. And I believe you in that. However, what you’ve said about ANY wife having autonomy in such matter as family size really isn’t saying much. Would you buy it if some young lady was shacking up with a guy & claiming: “It’s okay because he respects my body & I’m keeping him from having it.” Yeah, I didn’t think you’d buy that; no one would.
Happy Thanksgiving."
Nicole,
Working mothers is a complex issue and for some reason, the evangelical community became stuck on the 1950's housewife mode as the so called "Biblical standard" but if one looks closer at the Bible, one can see that the "Proverbs 31" women described is basically a married woman that made money and worked even if out of the home. I think is many ways through the millennia that women worked, along with their husbands on the farm etc. In an agrarian society which was the norm in Bible times, women with their children were working along side the hubbies in the fields and with the animals. Jesus and the apostles were supported by the group of women that not only fixed meals for them, but offered financial support and the Bible lists there names and doesn't mention that this group of women were getting monies from their husbands. Likewise, St. Paul worked with women such as the married couple Priscilla and Aquila, Lydia that "worked" along side St. Paul. This subject is much broader and more complex than those that promote the non-working stay at home wife model. The 1950s housewife was preceded by the 1940s "Rosie the Riveter" because women ended up working in the "arsenal of democracy" during WWII because the men were all at war. This fact is often overlooked by those stuck on the 1950s. Women also began to wear pants during this time since wearing dresses was totally inappropriate for factory work. This issue of women working which I consider that all women work whether paid for it or not at home is much more complex that the simplistic ideas promoted by the stay at home mode a good chunk of evangelicals are stuck on. Many of these pastors and para-church groups that preach this the loudest employ women in their Churches and ministries or rely on volunteer work provided by women. And volunteer work is free-be work that saves these groups money. While IBLP didn't employ married women being consistent with it's teaching, they used unmarried women. So you have married men with unmarried women, HMMM, that didn't seem to work out so well for them.
Rob,
All that you say rings true, & the mention of IBLP's use of unmarried women rings doubly true. According to this ideology, if all girls can be effectively married-off to bear babies, then the only pool of them for general use is of women mostly in their pre-thirties & pre-forties. I'm 36 & it's only just now that I've started standing up to others' attempts to use me in the name of their religious ideology. My previous lack of wisdom & experience, along with no chance to be discipled by anyone (no women allowed any prominence in church except that only very, very young ones got eluded-to & paraded up front), presumed silence on all of us. I don't know which was of higher priority: That middle-aged-plus married women be suppressed & subjugated beyond making their own contributions for general edification, or that witless, naive young ones be exploited such as they were by the IBLP out of it's fetish for their sex appeal. (And believe me, the concept of "sex appeal" that IBLP types hold-to has much more to do with a young woman's cluelessness & lack of assertion than with anything else). I guess it doesn't matter which of these 2 things castigation is cast; relegating a woman/girl into one or the other of these establishes them both. Just as effectively undermining what the Bible clearly denotes as womens' self-standing working ability also undercuts all women. Mothers, too, are definitely considered a threat who need repressing. Remember, it was a married woman who went to "Meg" to express profound concern around the time that Bill was asking the board about marrying "Meg". This board member's wife was untouched by the manipulation of the other girls, who were single, & was not the threat to "Meg" that Bill had told "Meg" that all the other single girls were ("envy", you know!). So, ministry was able to be done there, by this married woman. THIS is a grade A example of what the opposition here is trying to prevent. And it is exactly what the church needs in order to become becoming of the kingdom of God.
Another thing: A while back the moderator on DG had said that one of the secretaries around the time of 1980 was supposed to be at home with her loving family. This was said in response to my saying that, after working 16 hours a day at a career, it's unfair to expect an employee to just walk away in silence when her employer pressures her for sexual favors. Moderator response over there seemed to come out of NOWHERE. But now I see where it comes from. It comes from the same mentality that the sexual pressure was rooted in; "Women are supposed to be wives; those who aren't are unhappy/unfulfilled in spite of having careers, & thus are living out second-class lives. I'm God's gift to women (along with being His gift to the world in general). So, using such women is actually ME doing THEM a favor; it's the closest they can get to marriage, which would be their only proper estate. They're already out of God's will!!!! So I'll have-at-them." I'd like to give the bird to those promoting this untrue & graceless castigation of single women. (A turkey of course I mean lol).
Happy Thanksgiving, Rob & all my other dear friends on here!!!! You've made the past year go a lot better for me & I really appreciate it.
May each of you have a Happy Thanksgiving!! November 30th is the next court date where Billy's and IBLP's request for dismissal will be argued. Pray for wisdom for the attorneys and that God will be glorified in the proceeding. He is a jealous God who demands that all honor and glory goes to Him, not to the proud and unrepentant.
Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for updating and helping us keep things in perspective. Will pray for mercy and justice. God is good.
Nicole,
Happy Thanksgiving to you too. I think the strict stay at home housewife idea and it's heavy handed promotion in the evangelical community is unrealistic. It makes a number of assumptions that are not based in reality. It assumes that all women are called to be married and have children. It assumes that women are going to marry men that have stable jobs that can support them. I t assumes that the husband can have other interests and desires outside the home but the wife can't. It assumes that the husband will never be sick and can't work. It assumes that the husband will never be disabled and can't work. It assumes that there will never be a divorce (again I am not for divorce for the record). It assumes that the married couple will have children. It assumes that the woman is the primary parent because she is at home. It assumes that the husband will never be laid off, lose the job,and have a job with health benefits. The strict 1950s stay at home housewife idea as promoted makes an a lot of assumptions about the future. The problem is that there are no guarantees about anyone's future and what will happen except that God will be with us and we should trust God.
Look at Anna Duggar. I've read a number of the rumor articles that she wants out. I have not idea if any of it is true or not. I feel terrible for her. I have no idea if that marriage will survive or not. She married him, hardly knowing him and then started having the kids. However, even if she does wants out and divorces him, I also wonder how in the world is she going to support herself and 4 very young children. All she has had is a worthless ATI education. She was raised and geared to marry, have children like a machine and be dependent on Josh. She has never worked but with IBLP stupidity. So at the moment if the rumors are true, she is very trapped in this situation and not only trapped but there are cameras rolling. The idea that girls should not have an education at all but marry off to men in arranged type of marriages with those stupid courtship rules of never even allowed to be alone just to actually get to know the person you are going to marry is a horrific trap. This isn't God's idea or plan and it is sickening.
Rob,
I agree; that particular patriarchal ideology is all heavily based on assumption. Which both the Bible & life experience tells us makes a very bad compass. What's so stupidly sad is that these assumptions have root in iniquity & self-righteousness while presuming upon God Himself to reward the same. "If a woman's uterus isn't put to use, she shouldn't be utilizing her mind or heart, either. And if her uterus does do it's job, then the only use of her mind & heart has to go exclusively toward this/those product(s) of her uterus. If it doesn't produce then she can only invest in the other product(s) of her mother's uterus. And until her own kicks in to start her life,(please note that it's not the BABY's life that considered started here, but rather HER life!!!!), she's not allowed to develop her mind & heart any other way. It's the uterus that's supposed to grow or no part of her is allowed to grow!!! I ask: what takes longer: a soul's growth-cycle (that takes a life-time) & potential for development according to the measure of the grace of God, or the 9-month gestational cycle?!? Why aren't potential mothers allowed to get a head-start on their mental, emotional, & spiritual reproductive capacities since THESE are what it takes to rear a child?!?!? What UTERUS has ever raised a child in the way that they should go?!?!? What kills me is that, here & on other forums, there's comments to the effect of: "i writ here to say i luv mister gothard bucuz hes the reson i has 19 and a half kid who has all got home-taut of me & mi godly huzband. we taking bak the world four god. mi kids an i eats no brekfast, noon-day vittles nor supper no not antil thay did all the wizdom booklet becuz i a good mama. thay lern sucksess frum mister gothard becuz hes sucksessfull godly man. thay not lik rest of god-foursaken cuntry becuz mister gothard hes a grate man." Somebody should seriously call adult protective services every time a voice like this comes like a wisp out of society's abyss. No, I didn't say CPS, I said ADULT Protective Services because ANYBODY can abuse a child due to vulnerability but it takes a cult to systematically abuse full-grown adults. And to twist Scripture so as to justify doing so.
I'm sure APS has already been called- probably by lots of people- re. Anna Duggar. The good thing for all the Duggars is that the cameras rolling inevitably provide protection & a lot of incentive for image-control that requires consideration of the kid's general countenance & opinions that hardly any other Gothardites ever get inside their homes. After the initial Gothard-handling of the molestation, having the cameras switch on right after that probably served to protect all the kids. I'm sure things would have been way, way worse due to Josh's continuing problem, Gothard's pride in him as his shining example, the the cover-up & other IBLP-type (mis)handling of the situation. Can you imagine the do-over of all Gothard's sexual assault literature that would have happened in that family if the cameras WEREN'T rolling?? Yeah they couldn't exactly do that while Meghan Kelley was sitting there. And the truth would have surfaced no matter what, with Josh being high up in politicking & all. Indirectly, the reality show kept those girls from being abused all over again by the victim-blaming curriculum. Now that this good purpose has been achieved, the only reality show I want to see from that camp is of Anna WITH OR WITHOUT Josh, 10 years from now. I want to see what she has to say about debriefing from having lived in the cult & about life (finally!) outside of it. If he's there beside her to join in saying the same, that'd be great; if not, we all know exactly where he'll be: either on Ashley Madison or in rehab.
Dear Rob,
I hope you may be interested in a success story. You are concerned about realistic family life in 2016. Yes, it is common to dismiss the young one-income family with children as unrealistic. I submit it is one of those things which are improbable, until they happen. And they do happen. Leaving patriarchy aside, they happened in our generation, and they still happen.
Mrs. K and I started in 1982 with my single income of around $40K in 2016 dollars. That is below median income, but my promotions kept pace with the babies. So by the time we had five children, my income had risen into the $60s in today's dollars. That's plenty for middle class living in my community. And by the time we had ten children in our middle age, my income had surpassed $80K. Was God just writing our script to align our single income with the number of children? Who knows? But it worked.
All along, Mrs. K had professional nursing credentials which she never used for an employer.
I guess that fits your model of credentialing women, but she never needed credentials to earn money. Mrs. K just raised our kids and loved her neighbors. We feel fortunate that our mere factual narrative sounds like gloating. But it's true.
I don't know about child-bearing machines, but Mrs.K's machine miscarried often enough to shed a lot of tears.
I don't follow the Duggars, and I hope they find the answers they need. But I doubt the answers lie in contraception and two incomes.
We both are too familiar with disabled husbands. Your story is certain to be different from mine. As Aslan said, no one is told any story but his own.
Happily ending,
David K
Brother Dave,
Yes, there are many "success" stories of families where the mother stayed at home. That's not what is at issue here. I think it is wonderful if a couple is able to manage that. What my concern is with the heavy handed view that is quite common with evangelicals that raises the 1950s stay at home mother to the status of mortal sin if not followed. The one Church is attended in the late 1970s- early 1980s had every married mother at home. To be a part of that Church, it was expected that all married women were stay at home. Then this big group of stay at home mothers, got together a lot, did Bible Studies together while the kids were at school and did other such "women" things together. There was one single mother at this Church whose husband committed suicide and she was the only working mother. This Church did rally around them in the sense of offering help and support but I think the lone working mom, doing so out of necessity didn't always have the best understanding from the big group of "stay at homes". I also rented from a widow when doing an internship who was almost nuts about working mothers. She was very obsessed with it and constantly bothering and interfering with her daughters who ended up "working" against their mother's wishes and constant nagging.
I also think Dobson likewise through the years, soften his stance on this issue, recognizing that people's lives are much more complex than simple. He started doing more shows geared to the needs and issues of working mothers.
I think and will say it again, all mothers are in essence working mothers. I think in more agrarian societies, it is more hidden because the mother is working on the farm, closer to the home. Just because the mother is working does not mean that it is a full time 9 to 5 job. Some, like myself, work part time and on off shifts where the kids are still cared for at home by the other parent. This issue again is much more complex with many variables.
Wow, Rob. You certainly hooked up with a "homier-than-thou" church! But today, the stay-at-home model would fit the homeschooling families. Those moms stay home for the practical purpose of homeschooling, more than an abstract religious principle. Your mortal sin wording is pretty strong, and I agree that their opinion carried the point too far.
And the meddling mother you describe went too far, too. Mrs. K and I have strong opinions on this topic, but we don't dare quarrel with our married daughters about it. They and their husbands must sort through those affairs without our interference.
You deserve a medal, Rob. Alongside every in-essence working mom since Eve.
Your fan,
David K
Brother Dave K.,
If I may butt into your conversation with Rob here. The story you told is likely as much of a success story due to "the answers lie in contraception" & even -possibly- 2 incomes as it has to do with the post-1982 successes you spoke of. Back then, of the many “eligible” women with whom you were acquainted, not all would have been as accomplished as your wife-to-be. You chose wisely. Statistics have made it very clear that having college degrees & having worked for employers are THE primary contributing factors of BOTH grooms and brides toward a lasting marriage (a.k.a.: it doesn’t end in divorce). Your wife spent 2 (L.P.N) to 3-4 (R.N.) doing both at the same time. Interning at a hospital has to happen in conjunction with academic medical training; it was this way at that time as well as before & after. Medical training has also always been one of the most expensive fields of study. Your wife’s parents’ investment likely resulted in their grandkids enjoying a childhood in which their mother didn’t throw screaming fits on a daily basis over problem-solving opportunities. Growing up with a skilled, self-confident mother utilizing her ability to handle a lot of responsibility, as well as with a father appreciating rather than villanizing this in his wife, had/has to have been/still be significant quality factors in the atmosphere in your home. So…….. your marital & parental success DOES have a lot to do with limiting the # of children one has so as to afford a very high-quality education to one child. Either that, or this affordance had to have come by 2 incomes; either your wife working her own way through while still getting significant contributions from her employed parent………. or else by both parents earning the means. If, instead of this, it was her own high school scholarship earnings that put her through then this was by way of her having had traditional schooling instead of being homeschooled. In which case, your marital/parental success was initially afforded through traditional schooling. “No one is told any story but their own”, but, it is also true that “No man is an island.”
I am happy for your happy ending.
Dear Nicole,
Feel free to shove your oar in, especially with kind sentiments for my happy ending. I'm sure Rob appreciates the good company.
You are more correct than you realize, but more on my side than Mrs. K's side. I was raised by a professional-class stepfather, which set me up for admission to West Point.
I'll amend my love story a bit, then you may withdraw the credit you gave me for my statistically shrewd love life. I may even qualify as statistically boneheaded.
Mrs. K had a "disadvantaged" background. She was raised by a divorced working-class mother, didn't qualify for college, so she worked her way through a Catholic hospital-based nursing school, where she earned her RN certificate. You can guess the statistical outcomes for women from backgrounds like that.
But I came to love her a couple of months before I graduated from West Point. So I sweetened my marriage proposal by writing a check to cover tuition for her final semester at nursing school.
So you're right. Plenty of traditional schooling lies behind my success story. There was Smokey Knecht with his engineering degree, then my West Point diploma, and Mrs. K's diploma from Holy Name Hospital School of Nursing.
But God gets the credit for the ten babies. Only He can do that!
I can't speak for other men, but this man is certainly no island!
Your brother,
David K
Sisters, I hear your agony and endorse your frustration, but I do not think you have to go past Proverbs 31, Lydia or the daughters of Philip the Evangelist to refute the approach that you characterize here. Once we start talking about the proper use of the uterus, I fear we jump into our own generation's cultural dialogue that may alienate us further from some Christians but does not bring us closer to Truth.
Few have a biblical view of their own sexuality. Fewer still are enabled to categorically critique the entire "evangelical community" (although as a reformed protestant I might wish for someone like John Paul II to do so). Let us tend to the revelation we have been given with assurance. "Nevertheless [despite gender differences in nature and culture], in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." Continue in His Word and we shall know the truth that will set us free!
Gothard seems to me to understand the idea of sexual abuse victims and the vulnerability they are in. It is disgusting that he uses his position of power (and knowledge of abuses) to abuse people even further. I hope he goes to jail soon, and that this cult gets closed even sooner.
Apparently the Judge had a scheduling conflict and postponed tomorrow's hearing (Nov 30th). Last I heard it has not been rescheduled.
Lord have mercy. This is driving me crazy! HOW LONG?? At least I can hope that this is because the Judge wants to grant this the attention it deserves & doesn't want his interest divided. Thank-you for the update Larne. Please tell us whenever you hear anything more....... Lord have mercy on us all & grant us patience.
My first feeling very basic and primitive;satan will postpone, manipulate facts obscure the truth,denigrate the victims,Gothard lives for this,keeping the surface whitewashed for 40years;the power even in galvanized churches inundated by his influence is to protect exposing the inner core,sad to see people channeled into being almost a sympathetic accomplice from years of lies and natural religion.Praying.These women don't deserve this;the not so obvious is trusting God's ability to maintain the ultimate disclosure while He Himself bears so much shame done to His sheep and His Name.
Some of these civil cases take years, they are fought with motions and counter motions. But remember more important God is in control and we should be praying His will be done and His name be glorified! Whether there be civil judgement it will pale in comparison to God's eternal judgement.
Larne,
The main character (& I don't mean by that that he has any character, I rather mean that he IS a character)himself may well wish to look forward to the civil trial so as to have a mental diversion from this greater judgement. He can't fake-out God, or buyout God, or out-clout God. Needless to say, experiencing eternity will be a very very very novel experience for Mr. Gothard.
Brother K.:
Additional details are interesting, thank-you for them. Statistically, what you did was the absolute opposite of bone-headed. Your wife was undergoing training as rigorous as you were. The work she did to get herself through would have involved massive patient care loads. Frail, helpless & dependent. Tons of rules, pressures & dangers in taking effectual care of 150+ lbs 'babies' basic needs. Plenty enough even without schoolwork & classwork along with it. Very smart of you to "pay it forward" so that her experience in skill & self-discipline would help divert this goodness towards children of your own. And it's true that the same opportunity that Mrs. K made-the-most-of likewise exists for kids who are from large families. What's less likely with regard to these, though, is a general understanding that an employed woman is permissible....... even necessary for personal survival/destiny-ordained-of-God. It's a good thing your wife wasn't raised Gothardite or she either never would have caught your eye or would have lacked prep for the ensuing responsibility once she did. Going from being riddled with guilt over one's "evil" desire for self-reliant employment to the huge responsibility of motherhood with nothing to put on a resume besides religiously-shot-down notions for having a job/career is not good prep for being a wife/mom. However I agree that statistics point towards kids of single mothers turning out the exact opposite of your wife. This is in part due to being raised by 'welfare moms' rather than by women like your mother-in-law. Directly as it relates to this, one reason why your mother-in-law did such a sensational job raising your wife is because she obviously had very few children (Mrs. K. only??), or, if there were others, gave them away to relatives to raise. Your wife obviously got at least a bit of attention from her in between shifts because obviously her work ethic made a big impression on Mrs. K. The fact that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" was clearly established in both their lives. Also I will add that it is not "ONLY God" who causes the creation of children. A couple of people are usually involved & sometimes what begins to happen is caused by them before God ever blesses it into becoming a productive process although their taking it upon themselves to start this was not even within His will. So no one should be implying that it's 100% up to God & the child resulting from His blessing to make good on what any couple does in this regard. Married people may limit the # of children they have because they feel they are being responsible in doing so. Like I said, making good on a couple's decision is not just up to God & the resulting child; some marrieds are already maxed-out in making good as they feel led to do in raising the kid(s) that they & their spouse already have. Like Mrs. K.'s mother did; she may not have remarried for reason of not wanting anymore kids, so that she could raise your wife to be awesome. My mom was raised by a single mother who was employed full time & my mom, likewise, turned out to be a really caring mother like Mrs. K. The fact that you two could have so many & still shed tears over the ones who went to Jesus early shows you genuinely like your kids; each & every one of them. If people have that kind of love, that's a reflection of who God is. But there's other people out there whose apparent ignorance of Who He is certainly hasn't kept them from having living souls entrusted to their (lack of) care. And this affects society as a whole. It has created cost of living that has even the good parents limiting their family size. And/or making sure both parents have marketable skills. (Even as you ensured before ever having any kids). And that is perfectly okay.
Thanks for the additional details; West Point, eh? I admit visions of Captain Von Trapp whistling for his brood come to mind. But I am sure the sound of music has floated throughout your home, since your story ends happily.
Nicole, this very question of whether God is THE author of all human life is a the root of some of the most significant philosophical questions that afflict mankind. I take the view that no conception occurs without His blessing. He is the Author of Life. In spite of our messes.
One of my greatest assurances is the belief that He did not start loving me after some biological or social accident. This was an epiphany in my life. He authored me. He wrote my code. He breathed the breath of life into me. Notwithstanding my parents careful 1950s "planning"!
Don't discount the damage being done by the legal process itself being drawn out like it has. I'm sure BG and IBLP would've preferred to put this to rest a long time ago rather than being stuck in a perpetual legal/criminal spotlight. More women (and even some male witnesses) were given the courage to step forward in that time. Just my theory, but the longer BG and IBLP are exposed to the spectre of legal peril, the longer the stories, conversations, and overall narrative is kept fresh in the public consciousness.
Dear Nicole,
What a delight to read you post! Mrs. K deserves all the credit you give her. BTW, she was one of four children. Her parents split up when she was about thirteen years old. Her siblings ended up with mixed records. Two divorced and two died in middle age. It was sad. What a mercy that some of us are spared griefs like these!
I blushed at your biology lesson, too. Yes, the rumor has reached me that lovemaking contributes to family size, so God had very willing accomplices in bringing forth children.
I had to literally laugh out loud when I got to the Captain Von Trapp part! Thanks to Mrs. K, I actually became "a captain with seven children" in 1998. Yes, there is music around my house, thanks to a sweet young woman who teaches piano lessons to the kids.
Smiles,
David K
To Brother Dave,
Mrs. K.'s parents can be grateful that she, through the Lord, made good on their initial decision. Making good shouldn't fall to just God & the child, like I've said, but it seems that in the instance of her family it's how it was. I wonder, in eternal terms, how much blame will go to the parents versus the children in instances where little good is made of a life. Prison, alcoholism, having abortion, abusiveness..... when a person succumbs to such vices, how much is due to inheriting the same such example(s)? Conversely, as in Mrs. K.'s saga, how is the credit (no blame) to be credited? Inasmuch as she was encouraged, by example or verbal or in tangible help such as your's, perhaps? For now it is an unknown. My mother never saw her father again a couple months after she turned 6. Her sister was 8 & their mother had to become employed full-time. Both have said that they "raised themselves." Latch-key kids. Really bleak. But then again, my dad & mom are still married after 42 years & my dad still marvels that my mom "settled for" him. (Not really true but is how he puts it since he openly admits he "had to lie" when she asked him if he were a Christian. "Why did you hafta lie about that?" I ask him: "Because she wouldn't have married me otherwise!" [true]. So, Dad........ become a Christian & she'll have married a Christian & you won't be a liar anymore!! DUH. But that's another story.)
Making good on the fact that each of us came into being in the staid of millions (billions) of other potential individuals is what harbingers the staggering responsibility, perhaps more so than any parents' compel to make good in the general raising their offspring, whichever persons these have made their appearance to be.
Anyway, cheers to you for getting your kids good mothering as the kingpin in well-rounded educations. And for routing any Rolf(s) off of the estate grounds whether or not they are to be found chucking pebbles at your daughter's window.
Aufweidersehn.
Nicole, you're on a roll (pardon the corny rhyme),
You made me laugh twice on a row with the Von Trapp analogy. Yes, when a man is fortunate enough to have six lovely daughters as I have, he must contend with the occasional Rolf who gets attracted.
As for your philosophical question of how credit and blame get distributed among parents and their kids, I think that answer gets withheld from us, don't you? We wouldn't be wise enough to recognize it if it bit us on the nose.
The organic connection between us and our kids is very strong. We are even told that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through his organic connection to Abraham!
Even so, your own story proves that biology is not always destiny. Your mother was abandoned by her father. That starts your family off as "disadvantaged." Your own father had to lie his way to love. (I admire him for being shrewd enough to fake it till he made it.)
Good mothering for children was far from my agenda when I was trying to woo Mrs. K (formerly Miss C). Like your father, I was just looking for love in all the right places.
Advent weidersehn,
David K
Brother Dave,
I had forgotten about the significance of Levi having already paid tithes at conception because of his great-granddaddy did so. What I'm saying next is totally off-topic, but this principle preempts any antisemitism; every child of Abraham & God by faith has BOTH to thank for inaugurating the faith that we're inducted in to. Worshiping God out of faith in the Son He provided is something we join in on only by joining this, a Jew having started it. (I'm not Jewish but find it fascinating that seeds of pro-semitism rather than antisemitism are sown all throughout the basic doctrines of the faith.
Yeah, I actually think my dad was pretty shrewd, too :) Not sure that he gets brownie points with God for that one, though. Still it's been a huge blessing to have a dad who's stayed out of religious politics (the human aspect) so that at least I've had escape from it at home.
Glad you weren't just looking for the best candidate to fill a job opening in pursuing Miss C. Much more romantic (& fitting) that you loved her as Adam appreciated Eve totally apart from any aspirations he had for her to become anything more than his wife. Did you walk her along the cherry blossoms along the Potomac in your uniform while you were dating? (Have read "It Takes A Hero" by Norman Schwarzkoff(sic) & was therein told that taking your girl out for a stroll there at West Point is quite the thing to do.)
Advent weidersehn,
Nicole G
The question should not be what causes bad results, but what amazing Grace allows good results. I cannot give my parents credit for what I would have surely messed up but for the Grace of God. I can thank them for their faithfulness, which was not of them but was the Gift of God. I must give God all the Glory. By Grace all good things come.
I dunno brother Don. I am going to take Rob's both-and attitude on this one. Credit to your parents doesn't diminish God's grace, any more than love for one of your kids diminishes love to the others. Let the credit and the love roll!
Jesus told us to imitate the lavishness of God, who "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust."
Meanwhile, I'll steer clear of probable bad outcomes as much as possible.
Your lavish and cautious brother,
David K
Dear Nicole,
I like your point about being sons of Abraham by faith. Isn't that the main point of Romans 4? At least that's how I read it. Faith is the entry point to the family of God for goyim like us. It's our graft into Abraham's family tree. What could be more on-topic for a Christian?
But back to our love topic, the traditional romance scheme for West Point cadets is a stroll along Flirtation Walk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flirtation_Walk_(West_Point)
I certainly did lure Miss C down there, about the time we indulged in our First Kiss on the old parapet of Fort Clinton overlooking the Hudson River in the spring of 1981. Here is the scene: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Clinton_(West_Point)
No, too many barren couples have learned the bitter truth that you cannot take fertility for granted. One of my daughters is among them. So parenthood may be a "job description" after the fact, but we lovers just "did what came naturally." The babies were just a pleasant surprise.
Ah, the memories,
David K
Hebrew 7 which is where one finds the comment that Levi gave tithes King Melchizedek in Abraham's loins was not so much a lesson about genetics or genetic ties but the whole chapter and those around it was about the fact that the Levite priesthood was preceded by Melchizedek who was a type of Christ and that the priesthood of Christ and it's superiority over the Levite priesthood. Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek and it precedes the Levite priesthood order. Melchizedek blessed Abraham and in essence was blessing all of Abraham's decedents after him both physical and spiritual. At one point, Jesus in His debates with the pharisees told them that God could raise rocks to be the sons of Abraham, so I think we need to put the genetic connects into prospective. Bill Gothard made a big deal about the "sins of the fathers" being passed down to the "third and fourth" generation and because of this Bill used these sorts of verses out of context to bash adoption, to put guilt on people about things their parents or grandparents might have done etc. The other side which is what Jesus encountered with the pharisees is a superiority and over confidence in one's biological heritage and the false sense of confidence it gave them. The reference to Levi in the loins of Abraham was referring to the fact that the priesthood of Melchizedek proceeded and is superior to the Levite priesthood and that the focus is Christ who is a "priest forever" in that order. The trap is taking Bible verses out of context and twisting them to mean things or say things that they actually don't.
Dear Rob,
Yet again, you are spot on. I think you captured the main point of Hebrews 7. You summarized where the orthodox consensus lies, so far as I know.
Even so, it seems improbable that our author would have used the Levi-Abraham-Melchizedek tithe illustration if his readers didn't accept the organic relation the way he used it. He was trying to make your point, not stir up controversy.
I concede that a point can be stretched too far. Maybe Gothard and others have done that on the topic of multi-generational blessings and curses, and also adoption.
As an adoptee, my central adoption-related religious problem is how to obey the Fifth Commandment? Do I honor the man who begot me and the mother who bore me? Or do I ignore them and concentrate on the couple whom caesar assigned to be my parents back in 1960? Can that really be what God was commanding from Sinai? But we need not debate that on a thread about the power of the Gospel. I think we discussed that elsewhere on both RG and DG.
Your cyber-brother,
David K
I think you are pitting the parents that raised you against the biological parents. I'm not sure why there has to be a conflict. Why can't you honor both sets, the one set that you have a biological connection to and the other that actually raised you. I'm sure the adoptive parents that raised you are the reason you were able to go to West Pointe. Just because "caesar" assigned you to them in your words, they still had to open up their home to you and take you in, raise you, put up with you, feed you, clothes you, educate you which seemed to result in going to West Pointe which is a nice accomplishment. Why can't you love and honor both? I'm not getting why it has to be one against the other. I am assuming that you biological mother was single at the time, so she was unable to raise you, she made an unselfish choice then and didn't see you as a piece of property but a baby that needed two married parents and a good home. That is unselfish love. You can love and honor both sets which is what give you uniqueness as with all adoptive children.
You're right, Rob. I didn't mean to sound ungracious. But you also mustn't dismiss a real public relations problem for adoptees. Your both-and solution is generous-spirited. But adoptive parents are often outraged when their adoptive children seek a place in their lives for the man who begot them or the woman who bore them.
Nothing so ugly ever happened to me because I was too chicken to ask questions until after Mr. & Mrs. Knecht died more than twenty years ago. But I have heard of ugly confrontations over the issue.
The Fifth Commandment constrains us to honor "father and mother" whether they abandoned you or raised you. And St. Paul commands us to render due honor to all. That would obviously include a good couple who raised a child who was not their own.
Your public relations expert,
David K
Considering that most al domestic adoptions are now open or some kind of open, I hardly think that adult adoptees that seek out their birth families are hardly going to get flack as you are describing it. I think that is more played up in your head. You also have to realize the adoptions overall has greatly changed from the 1960 when you were adopted where it was all shrouded in secrecy and mystery. Children are not the property of their parents. Adoptive parents shouldn't feel "threaten" that their adoptive children want to seek out the birth family. If there is the negative reaction that you supposedly "heard" of, it is more out of selfishness than out of love or concern for the well being of their adoptive children. At least that is my take. If my children wanted to seek out their birth families, I am all for it because it's not about me, it's about them. I'm not so sure why you seem stuck on the "honoring" parents part. Honoring parents doesn't mean a blind obedience to them. It doesn't mean there has to be a close loving relationship either. It doesn't mean a lot of things that it has been twisted into. It also means that one isn't tied to them for life. I've also known adult adoptees that have sought out the birth family only to be hurt or disappointed by them. There are good stories and bad stories in these sorts of reunions. You haven't betrayed your late parents that have raised you by seeking out the bio-family.
Too bad that Joseph, Mary's husband and step father of Jesus, did not attend one of Gothards seminars. He would have realized that adopting Jesus was not an option and could have dumped Mary while he had the chance. And I'm sure that orphans who have no living parents will be happy to know that they cannot ever be adopted within God's will. As for generational curses, I guess these slip through our redemption in Jesus Christ -- although I'm sure I read that in Christ we are of a new creation and a new generation. Yes, I'm sure I read that somewhere. But I suppose we can mess that up by bringing in a little kid to our family who may be under a curse. Teachings like these many not be the core of the Gothard heresy, but they are so utterly STUPID and destructive that the people who believe them have little or no excuse. Paul the apostle really knew what he was talking about when he warned that the time would come when people would turn away from the Truth and turn unto fables.
Yes, one of my favorite quotes comes from St. Bernard of Clairvaux which is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". It's not just stupid to come up with this, its evil lunacy. Look at the so called "courtship rules". There really is nothing about them anywhere in the Bible but the Duggars have taken Bill's teaching and turned them into shear lunacy. Kissing has been so sexualized that no kissing before marriage is now the new virginity. So the gossip columns that claim that Jinger may have been "knocked up" before the big wedding but at least her "first kiss" was after she said "i do". I'm glad the Duggar kids have their priorities right. And the big sin by Jinger may have been a "frontal hug" with the Jeremy. Oh my. So after the "I do", one can now go ahead and paste the internet on how well these kids can kiss it up. I wish all of this could be just make believe but it's not. It's sick, it's pathetic and they are on a road paved with "good intentions" leading to hell.
I actually should have quoted Jim Bob here. These kids can now "swat spit" with each other after the big "I do". What a vulgar, crude, gross sick comment. Show what he really is all about and his views really lay.
my bad, the quote is "swop spit". That is so gross.
my double bad, it is "swap spit". i oughta quit while I'm ahead. I am so sicken by the quote, I can't get it right.
You make some good points, brother David.
Even so, it is worth noting that Joseph did not adopt Jesus in the modern sense, though he raised him as a son. (Apparently the locals took it for granted that Joseph begot Jesus just like any other son.) Had Jesus been adopted the modern way, then Caesar's amended birth certificate would have denied the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed! It would have claimed that Jesus was begotten by Joseph, not the Holy Spirit. It would have denied his divine Father.
According to Caesar, Joseph would be the father, not the step father, of Jesus.
Perhaps a place of agreement among Jesus, Caesar, Bill Gothard, and us could be that child custody is one thing, and adoption is something else?
Of course there are many ways we have liberty to mess up our new creation in Christ. That is why we are commanded not to indulge in them! We get warning after warning not to abuse our liberty. Unequal yokes would be one example. That broad term could apply to marrying a spouse or adopting a son.
Do you happen to have any personal connection to adoption, or is this strictly theological for you?
Your adopted brother,
David K
I think that you have missed the entire point. I am somewhat amused at your arrogance.
Happy Hanukah, everybody!
Oh no, wait!! I take that back. We've all been told Hanukah shouldn't be observed by Christians since the Maccabee brothers supposedly didn't have the right attitude during their defensive action. (LOL.) Yet another case of self-defense being condemned to obscurity; especially regarding it's obvious reference to what's being defended against. Whether it's Antiocus Epiphanies or a modern-day pervert, we have to have the perfect attitude before we can defend ourselves or other people! Remember this now; it's wisdom that's originally compliments of Bill Gothard.
So, does anybody have a pig to sacrifice, to make up for the ritualistic desecration that the Maccabee brothers 'wrongly' overthrew? Because we can't be saying Happy Hanukah, you know. Sorry.
You do realize that Jesus did participate in Hanukah. Reread John 10 where Jesus was in the temple in winter at the dedication (which is Hanukah).
You're good at this historical stuff, Rob! That one never occurred to me.
Your fan,
David K
Settle down, Rob. You sound shaken by all the spittle. Good thing nobody is chewing tobacco.
Dryly,
David K
looks like there will be a documentary called "The Cult Next Door" done by Youngman Films coming out in January 2017. The three trailers and teaser can be found on vimeo.com/187600021. It's looks to be very well done. Or google "The Cult Next Door" by Youngman Films.
Rob
In Alfred’s DG 12/10 reply in your 12/5 post he made several statements. Privately, I have asked him not to quote me regarding several issues as he has a habit of changing or replacing my words in his public post. Words are important and they convey specific meaning. I recently privately chided him for just that.
I am not going to dissect his statements here with the exception of one word, “recovery”. In Item “1” Alfred states; “Larne made hopeful comments about Steve’s “recovery”.” First, I pray for Steve and Bill often, Bill more so, in those prayers I implore the Lord to open their eyes to the truth of their actions and to seek confession, repentance, asking forgiveness and making restitution (not necessarily financial). What I have said is, others I trust, who have talked with Steve (in the past), felt he was “repentant”. Other than two unanswered emails to his business I have not had any contact with him since June 1980 when he called Ruth’s family’s home and I answered the phone.
I truly hope and pray Steve is “recovered” but I have never used that word, Alfred has put it in my mouth. Part of the repentance process requires a change in thinking and a change in behavior, both are required for a long term “recovery”. Only God and those close to him know if that is the case. I would be “hopeful” that he has met that standard, but I do not know. Even though I didn’t use the word hopeful, my hopefulness could only be used in the same manor that we would pray for an unbeliever response to the gospel.
Rob, you recommend in one of your 12/5 DG posts the true story of Ruth is in RG’s “Ruth’s Story” and I would agree and would add the real reason we broke of contact with Bill is in RG’s “Failure to Repent: Tell it to the Church”, our June 24, 2015 letter to Bill where we broke contact based on Matthew 18:17. Alfred’s version of the scandal and Denver reminds me of an experience I had in 1970 in Korea.
I was stationed in Korea (Army) and on the weekends, I would spend time at the local orphanage. Just before I left Korea the Korean family that ran the orphanage had an appreciation dinner for several of us who volunteered. The meal was to die for, every bite was better than the one before. At the end of the meal they brought out “Dessert”, a vanilla pan cake with chocolate frosting just like my mother made.
As I shoved the first large bite into my mouth I realize I had a problem, instead of sweetened vanilla cake I realized it was dry unsweetened rice flower with the consistency of sawdust and the chocolate frosting was soy paste and I had to eat the whole thing, smile and even lie as to how “good it was”. Bill’s stories as related by Alfred are like that Korean “delicacy” to those of us that know the truth, they are a lie, unsavory and do not represent the truth. The difference in the experience is I had to eat the “cake” to be polite, but we don’t have to swallow Bill’s distortion of the truth.
One last thing David K. (who is a real gentleman) quoted C.S Lewis’ description of his first attempt at moral self-examination:
““I found what appalled me; a zoo of lusts, a bedlam of ambitions, a nursery of fears, a harem of fondled hatreds. My name was Legion.”
Few of us would be as eloquent as Lewis, but does that description of the inner man sound familiar to anyone but me?”
In Romans 3:9-10 it says: “What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;”.
Something I remind myself often is based on that verse: “We are all dirtbags, forgiven, but still dirtbags”. In Denver I told Bill and the group that, while the group all acknowledged that it applied to them too, there was no response from Bill he just sat there with an unmoved face. The look was one as if to say "speak for yourself". This I believe is the crux of the problem.
Larne
Dear Larne,
Thanks for the compliment, brother. That Lewis quote is attention-getting, isn't it? That was from my recent re-reading of Surprised by Joy. I first read it in my youth, but sometimes you have to wait until you are a middle-aged man before you appreciate the writing of a middle-aged man.
Thanks for the Romans 3 reminder. That applies, too doesn't it?
No not one,
David K
Thank-you Larne, I didn't think "recovery" was right and the idea that was being promoted over on DG that everyone turned out ok so what's the big deal was really sweeping the problems under the carpet. I also think it is lunacy that both Alfred and David K are stating that you, a pilot that worked for Bill in the late 70s is not a "first hand" witness. I am beginning to think lunacy knows know bonds. I liked the Korean dessert analogy. I had a similar experience at a dinner party from a co-worker from India and while all the food was just wonderful, one bite of the dessert almost made me want to spit it out. Very different concepts of desserts and sweets.
I was reading on another blog somewhere else an article about Hitler's personal body guard and that the body guard that lived to 2013 always promoted Hitler as a real nice guy, full of compassion on those around him, someone that loved music and art etc. Now, the body guard obviously had personal contact and got to watch Hitler up close and personal but someone that cause the death of 14 million plus all the war victims that also ran into the millions, isn't really a "nice guy". It seems like the body guard even after Hilter's suicide or ran off to Argentina was still "guarding" Hitler and his memory, trying to promote this nice guy view of Hitler. I think sometimes loyalty can become pathological and in reading about this old body guard of Hitler, I see parallels to Alfred and his defenses of Bill. It's sad really because I think Alfred is capable of much better things and Bill certainly doesn't deserve all this loyalty from Alfred. To defend Bill even "touching" any female on his staff as innocent because Bill in his head had no "sexual intent" or Bill operates in a world gone by is justifying mental illness and lunacy. Only lunatics operate in their own world and whatever they do is ok because it's ok in their head. It's the same sick excuses with the defenders of Michael Jackson, he just operates in a different world.
Don Rubottom, if you are out there, would you weigh in here? I am trying to help Rob see what hearsay means under rules of evidence as I understand them. You are a lawyer, right? I am not, but I am using the definition of hearsay which I found in the dictionary.
Rob, suppose you were my spouse. (I don't know why you would want that, but suppose you were.) I believe what you tell me in our pillow talk. You claim that your former boyfriend was a jerk compared to me. You tell me how he mistreated you when you were alone together. I believe it. But because I was not present when you were alone with your boyfriend, any claims I make about your former boyfriend's conduct toward you are hearsay.
This is not just lawyerly quibbling. This is love when it goes to court. It respects due process.
This clip from A Man For All Seasons illustrates the point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
Does that help?
David K
You are equating love with dismissing the person in favor of "due process" and you are equating sexual exploitation with boyfriend-girlfriend pillow talk stuff. I should be used to it by now but it still shocks me how shameless and heartless people have to be in order to defend Bill Gothard.
Dave,
I think your analogies are really over the top and even offensive. Please drop it.
Okay, I'm gone.
David K
1) Regarding the questions about hearsay: a)Ruth has shared a lot of her testimony in writing, and on transcripts, and what she said is not "hearsay." b) Steve Gothard was fired, and not on account of "hearsay." c) Bill Gothard has confessed to at least some of the wrongdoing regarding vis a vis the sexual harassment issues, and this is an admission of actions he did that are evil, for which he was "fired," if you will. Therefore, what is available for the outside reader to consider is not "hearsay." There are first hand accounts, and some confessions and admissions available for all to see.
2) More to the point - Alfred's whole website, with respect to the sexual harassment claims, is nothing BUT hearsay.
3) Dave, while I see your point about word definitions, you are grasping at straws, given what is available that isn't hearsay. And I agree with rob - the "pillow talk" example was offensive, from my perspective.
It is the "Projected Image"that so many Gothardites sacrifice their religious "idealism";hopes,dreams,invested emotional security;and Recovering Grace is quite upsetting,being too demanding....getting past the façade and the feigned posturing.Don't anyone now dare bring into view the abused victims,downtrodden, hapless,aggrandized into a daze from the rabble of discredited failures under "control";too ugly to see after the trauma;for down they will go in present denial,just like former days, as often as it takes for the Great and Almighty Potentate Regent-King,to eventually have his restoration.Counting the cost now,tomorrow,and on and on.Until.
For a married man to say to another married woman not in his family, "lets pretend we are husband and wife and are having pillow talk" tells you right there that someone like that isn't never going to take any of the first hand accounts about Bill and his brother Steve seriously because that person already has a corrupted view of women due to years of teaching that women are there to serve men and be ruled by them. So when their own wives are so cornered and belittled, then they look for others. And all of this wrapped up is some kind of sick example over hearsay.
Dear Rob,
Happy Epiphany on 1/6.
Fear not for your chastity, even the chastity of your ears. The only heavy breathing associated with my pillow talk is the heavy breathing of Dagwood Bumstead as he dozes on the sofa.
SNNNXXX,
David K
What part of no don't you understand, the N or the O? Your analogies are getting worst, I am asking you to stop.
I just read a newer book that I thought I would pass on that I think would be very helpful. Just published this year in October, the name of the book is "Untwisting Scriptures: that were used to lie you up, gag you, and tangle your mind". by Rebecca Davis. It is not a big book and if you have a Kindle, it is only $3.99. The author Rebecca Davis has worked with Jeff Crippen on "Unholy Charade, unmasking the Domestic abuser in the Church". She also runs a blog www.heresthejoy.com. What Rebecca does in this book is take direct aim at Bill Gothard's teaching on "rights" and bitterness and anger. She is a former Gotharite herself, attending the basic seminar starting in 1977. What she does in this book is re look at the Bible verses Bill used for his teachings in this area and as the title says, "untwists" them and demonstrates from the Bible what is really meant by a "gall of bitterness" and it isn't what Bill Gothard taught it as. I knew past people that became very tied up with "bitterness" and I've had those same people even try to convince me that I had a "bitterness" problem. It's really a bunch of sick twisted thinking so this little book is extremely helpful personally. I can't highly recommend it enough, it isn't very big but it doesn't take "big" to deliver a fatal punch to a number of Bill's (and other copy cats) teaching on rights, anger, bitterness etc. This book will definitely be referenced to again and again and anything that untwists the Bible for everyone ought to be passed on.
I disagree that what Bill taught was powerless! It worked great for me. The problem with Bill was there was one thing God did not reveal to him. God never revealed to him that the churches were false and we are in the falling away. Nor did any of you discover it!!! So I suggest you all do what the bible says and get the plank out of your own eye before you try and take the beam out of someone else's eye!!
Speaking of yet devout Gothardites who relegate any & all objections to how one was touched as being a mere “misunderstanding.” Yup, say the champions of IBLP; these are “misunderstanding”s that need to be "clarified." But not by the one whose concern weighs heavy on her soul. Of course not. Her clarifying her concern is just her airing a “misunderstanding” that she suffers from. Thus, the need for clarification remains 100% unmet even after she has voiced her concern. Because, according to an Umbrella guru, her coming forth to say what she felt uncomfortable about is no clarification whatsoever of anything. It is nothing but a misunderstanding that has reared it’s ugly head rather than being something she refuses to let herself even to think about. It casts doubt on one’s responsibility to maintain feelings of high regard for an authority figure & therefore is rebellious in nature. Such misunderstanding is to be quelled so as to not form so much as a sentence in one’s own brain! Feeling uncomfortable is rebellion. And sin is certainly not a valid thing to speak up about in request of action to halt an authority from causing such feelings to be felt! The mere fact of voicing discomfort is self-evidenced as a misunderstanding; her thoughts & feelings constitute this misunderstanding, and they are sin. If she also now constitutes a voice, she is rebelling so much so as to speak, not only to think! Actually saying how such-and-such makes her feel? This is even bigger SIN. It’s a slippery slope to think against an authority; now she’s speaking! Oh dear...... she might even ACT against! Taking action against her authority?? HER EYES HAD BETTER GET PECKED-OUT ToNight. As it is, speaking up is the hallmark of misunderstanding. Especially if it involves anything other than giving a good report of an authority figure. Had better straighten this gal out, and fast.
[Only the lie that says she has no right to determine her own feelings, let alone say them aloud, renders these thoughts of the heart as a “misunderstanding.”]
Continuing on with the lie: What’s more, her own assessment of what took place- at which point her uncomfortable feelings arose- is ALSO a “misunderstanding.” This misunderstanding of what actually took place needs to be clarified! Not by her, of course; the DG “shut-up” standard holds that she must say literally nothing about what happened. This adds a dual incentive to the insistence that she not say a word about how uncomfortable she may feel. If she has failed to shut-up, then she has thereby created a need for “clarification” by her voicing of this “misunderstanding.” Not “clarity” reached by her, of course; SHE is the one with the misunderstanding. The “clarifying” is the CORRECTING of what she recounts as having happened. This clarification is the setting straight of her thoughts & feelings about what happened. Oftentimes by saying that it never even happened. And how is this often done? By the thoughts & feelings of the one who did it to her being used as “evidence” to counter against her’s. Her perception is declared invalid by another person’s perception. Or, by saying that she since didn’t do a 360-degree insta-switch from holding her authority in high regard to go instead to hating his guts, that she must therefore have been peachy-keen on his bothering of her. It’s when IBLP's proponents say this that I think (and say) “So…… my feelings DO matter, after all. You even EXPECT me to have them!!! And condemn me for not expressing them sooner!! Too bad IBLP told me for so long I wasn’t allowed to utilize my soul that it took me quite a while to defy the Institute so as to acknowledge it myself & eventually express it to others.”
“TO REBEL IS TO THINK, SPEAK, OR ACT AGAINST AUTHORITY.”
Gothardites who promote this lie are shooting their own selves in the foot from ever being able to reasonably say that a victim’s opinion need be expressed against an authority at the time of abuse in order to establish that the authority acted abusively.
Nicole,I have read your comment 3 times trying to wrap my mind around what you're saying.You're detesting of DG is to be commended.I saw that tongue in cheek.Their redefinition of "authority",as an official status imparted to those whose sexual gender,parental status,or other pronounced {rank}?{status}? already caused them to be intrinsically almost 100 percent exempt from "misunderstandings" that need "clarification."Discovering Grace" has put all their invested time,efforts to defend Bill,in a caste system which must go on.Two major areas amoung many in the Christian life are effected by an ongoing influence of blatant lies.1.Fruit from "death"created from Gothard,and all forms of his suppressed lies where the vitims must be passive,because they are too sinful in and of themselves,having to trust anyone in the system's hierarchy,whose rank is officially "recognized."Gothard borrowed some of this material from Keswick teachings which advocate denigration of the soul to attain "sinless perfection".In other words Bill Gothard will help you crucify your soul; by not"speaking out".You have no "rights",which clearly don't apply to those in authority,but will always subtly crack the door for spiritual abuse for those not in "authority".One hymn writer,totally caught up in the Keswick movement wrote a hymn,"Oh to Be Nothing".So this is what Christianity morphed into:a caste system rejecting the feelings of the heart to attain a higher righteousness thru accepting passively spiritual abuse;and why not tack onto that physical and emotional abuse as well?As long as it comes from the right authority?What effects the body won't effect the soul!Point 2 is the subtle rendering of non-creativity;there is to be no expression of beauty,no art coming out of the soul's response to the gift of life.What could Gothard ever do Hymnistacally,poetically,artistcally,that would inspire the human soul with all that death in him.Nothing.His adherrants can only reproduce his own fruits.Shall I say it?Death.Disguised.
I think Bill Gothard is a conglomeration of different parts and pieces of different theological camps. Keswick theology or the deeper journey, higher life, "let go and let God" was bigger in the early 20th century. Dwight Moody was one of the earlier proponents. Amy Carmichael is another example. I think of only one current blogger, Frank Viola that would be considered a current proponent. Keswick came out of the Piety/Wesleyan movement in the later 1800s. It's biggest critics come from the Calvinist camp. I think what you are describing borders on gnostic idea which seemed to have crept into the movement where the emphasis on the spiritual over and above the physical or the person's soul is what is most important and as your are noting, creates a class system of Christians with those that would be nominal and those that would be "spiritual". Bill Gothard certainly emphasized that those who followed his teachings would be "more spiritual" and "better than". Bill took his triapat
views of man from Watchman Nee and based his teaching on what makes someone "spiritual" over the body and soul from Watchman Nee. I'm not sure if Watchman Nee would be considered a classic Keswick theologian even though he attended one conference. Again, Keswick theology is only found in some Charismatic circles and it's hey day is long gone. I think the better idea is to realize Bill's fundamentalist hermeneutics which is an extreme literalist used of the Bible, cut and paste to fit his own warped ideas and teaching. I read someone state that if one is going to quote a Bible verse, they better quote the four verses before and the four verses afterwards. Using this test, 99% of the Bible quotes from Bill used in his teachings will fall apart.
David P.,
I really appreciate your time given in regard of my particular pain. Considering how much you've seen in being raised die-hard IBLP (and also ATI??) I really appreciate your absorbing even more of it. What you've apparently experienced yourself & witnessed others experiencing was already bad enough as it was. I recall you writing that Bill said at a conference that he only knew of one person, (happened to be a girl), that had ever suffered. All other subordinates in the world, apparently, were only grieved as a direct consequence of such subordinate's OWN wrongdoing. I suppose he has by now similarly canonized himself as only the second such person. Oh no.... Wait..... He's never been a subordinate so of course he's ALREADY exempt. As you well observed. Anyhow, especially considering what you & others have gone through, the empathy I receive here really goes a long way. It's not as if my lot has been any worse than most others' in being subjected to IBLP heresy.
I really appreciate the description of the Keswick theology & other theologies. I feel like they elude to much higher philosophy & concepts then were ever afforded any application via the IBLP. My experience with the IBLP's application has been of it as more of a blunt bullying tool. All consideration of views to relate to God boiled down to: "Submit to human authorities (Me, Myself & I, along with all my fellow human colleagues) or you're at odds against God. Because I am Him to you." Pretty primitive. Ugly primitive, I should say........ along with all the primitive behaviors that this view fosters. I truly believe that where serious consideration of & comparisons of ways in which one ought to relate to God exist, there is indication of this person has salvation in Jesus Christ. I experience hope here. We're not minions here; we take responsibility for our own souls instead of blindly hoping in another fallible human to be directing us in supposedly holding the keys to our salvation themselves. And demanding that all others must also likewise trust the person of Bill Gothard and/or the deputies out on dispatch afforded by his teaching that install themselves as mini-Bills. I pray I will never consider my salvation as supposedly resting in such lifestyle ever again. Such as who "die daily" in crucifying ourselves with Christ need not be murdered with any allegiance whatsoever to the murderer rather than to Christ. Jesus isn't homicidal, He is life.
I meant, "any allegiance whatsoever to A murderer", not, "the". There is no murdering included in the Kingdom of God. Murder would preempt the victim's crucifixion of themselves with Christ. A murderer is not needed. Also cannot be afforded this profession in God's economy.
Nicole,I Doubt sincerely that I suffered anywhere near as much as you did.I was in my early 20's in the mid 70's when the raving craze of Gothardism hit the church.The eloquence and extent of his influence hit Time magazine,and by the middle 70's New Wine Magazine was reflecting the same viewpoints with fanfare,approval,endorsements from the podium,adoration,approbation,etc.,and I was deceived.Big Time.I made wrong decisions,was condescended to,never taken as anyone's peer and rejected.As far as this girl Gothard testified of as being the only one he knew that"suffered for righteousness' sake",that really happened.He said it in the Twin Cities Seminar Sept.1987.He was probably the one abusing her as well as stated other source.You're probably tired of my constant repetition of the phrase"now comes the afterward."People now know.A sledgehammer blow to this man's tinkertoys comes this month in Youngman Films"The Cult Next Door".I saw all 3 movie trailers.Pride,religiosity,self righteousness,have chyrstallized people's hearts,and denouncing"Gothardism",comes at too high a price to the ego that either had investments,his own inflicting of emotional,and spiritual,maybe even physical pain{please give us the gift of repentance},and denial of roles played;all sooner or later to be burned up in the fire.I never thought about this,but repentance is also a work of grace,and that's why I suspect that few ardent Gothardites will repent,because there's really nothing to repent of.Gothardism is never wrong,really,except for a few cosmetic terms revised.
God didn't reveal to Bill Gothard the churches are false. God would reveal that to someone who attended one of Bill's seminars. The seminars did have power to change peoples' lives, it wasn't powerless. I attend to agree with Bill. People may disagree with me. I can see why we need to have a lot of people in the true church so that is the reason for a lot of children. As far as the women staying home, parents are selling their kids to places like perverted Hollywood producers to get rich. LOTS of perversion out there now that really is hurtful to children like Pizzagate. A lot of children are getting MKUltraed and children need their mother at home for protection now. What Bill taught at the seminars was not powerless. As years passed what Bill did was different than was different than what was taught at the seminars. Read Micah 7:5. We are not to put confidence in a guide and so many people who attended Bill's seminars did that. There were many people who did wrong and made mistakes, actually everyone did. It is biblical for the true church to be led by men but no one has to be under anyone's domineering spirit. "Domineering" is a demon. There's a lot of domineering of women that has gone on, anyone can see that. Children were also domineered too. You don't have to remain under something like that. I have an endtime message for everyone. Rock music is satanic just as Bill said it was. It is plain to see how demonic it is! Hope you all find healing. Remember that God can use all things to the good, even the hard things in our lives.
Signed the Women of Revelation 12 who attended a Bill Gothard seminar, the only person ever to be shown the churches are demon possessed
You know Kim, you are not the "woman of Revelations 12". That person is either allegory of Israel or Mary, the mother of Jesus herself. I consider the Woman of Revelation 12 to be Mary and I hate to bust your bubble but you are not Mary in heaven having baby Jesus, you are not in heaven but on earth as very mixed up Christian and when anyone goes around claiming that they see demons in everyone else is probably dealing with a few of their own. Going around accusing other Christians of being in a false and then come on here and tell others that they need to "take the plank" out of their eye really ought to look at the mirror themselves. I'll keep you in my prayers because it looks like you need it.
^^^^^^^
May each of you have a Very Merry Christmas as we celebrate the birth of our Savior. Who through His life, death and resurrection provided an atonement for our sins. Through His Grace of His unmerited favor alone.
You too, Larne; and thank-you for another year of your long-suffering ministry to people such as I in your being a voice of the Truth (Jesus).
Someone just shared this with me:
A REAL man never hurts a woman. Be very careful when you make a woman cry, because God counts her tears. The Woman came out of a man's rib, Not from his feet to be walked on, and not from his head to be superior, but from his side to be equal, Under the arm to be protected, and next to the heart to be loved.
happy New Year everyone!
@Rob: Again I hafta click the "Like"^^^^^^^^^^ button. Happy New year to you & all the rest, too
Happy New 1Year to one and all. Next hearing January 9th at 9:30am, I'm sure Bill will be there with his "followers". "Fear not", God's got a perfect plan regardless how this works out on earth. Just keep praying for the victims, their attorneys and the judge, that God will be glorified. God reminded me of how He answers pray on Thursday night, in an absolutely miraculous unexpected way. We have a God of the impossible who we can trust!
Yes, praying a 9 day (novena) on behalf all the victims, wisdom for the attorneys and for complete justice and accountability.
All those incredibly brave women are in all our hearts right now. I cannot even begin to comprehend the coercion & total control that they were subjected to. Especially from such a young age. It is utterly mind-blowing to try to grasp all the factors of their lives by which they were jerked around by the puppeteer Bill Gothard. Their very heartstrings, in fact, were what he intentionally knotted up in his puppet strings that he wound around each one of these girls. This was jerk-dom, not God's kingdom. I pray that justice will finally be done with the truth getting judicial ratification. I also pray for these women because what they are doing takes supernatural courage. God is with them.
David P.,
Thank-you for your kind words. And your insights are always very insightful & make the connection of cause-and-effect. FYI the Umbrella dogma is nowhere in Scripture, so, as it's the flagship of the IBLP, the IBLP is W-A-Y more than a little off. I know I badly needed to repent ("to turn from") the IBLP. Even if a concept/principle IS taken straight out of the Bible, if that's all that's allowed to rule, then this Scripture still needs to be tempered with context. Except for people who just don't/won't get this particular point. For those denying what the Bible says on any particular point, whatever point this may be needs to be made & re-made, without watering it down. And those living in accord (with One Accord LOL) with a principle that is truly Biblical do not need to be reamed-out as though they had been disobedient to it. The glaring problem with the Umbrella dogma is that adherence to it has people denying clear points made in the Scriptures. Such adherence also seems to cause some screaming at those who HAVE been adhering to the Umbrella TOO MUCH........... nonetheless citing their screaming as being because the Umbrella dogma supposedly WASN'T adhered to. (Blame the practitioner, not the practice, in idolizing the practice). Problem is, the Umbrella dogma shows up, time & time again, as being most damaging whereever it is most closely followed. Case in point: In Bill Gothard's executive suites.
I just read a very well written blog article, dated Dec. 5th 2016 called "Modesty is a direction, not a line". by Fr. Matthew Schneider on the Catholic Stand. What he was writing about is that when people talk about modesty, they too often just focus on the clothes (where the line of the skirt is, thus the title) and not really the direction or the broader scope. I quote him, "It is most often talked about regarding clothes, but also refers to how we act or treat others and OUR WORDS. The direction modesty points is the direction of greater respect for our body and mind and those of others especially in the sexual area. ... Instead of asking "does this joke pass some arbitrary line for crudeness", we should ask if the joke shows respect for the human person and for human sexuality".
Considering the above, Bill Gothard is clearly an "immodest" man. He showed absolutely no respect for the girls he surrounded himself with by the repeated touching etc. that he repeatedly engaged in, going all the way back to the pre-1980 years. His devoted followers either excuse this as "affection" or "spiritual ministry" or "counseling" and/or hide their own immodesty in their hearts only to come out in sick humor and analogies over "pillow talk" and "heavy breathing". But considering that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree, is it surprising? All of which demonstrates not only lack of respect and modesty towards others but their own spouse as well. No matter what happens tomorrow in court, Bill can't escape the court of public opinion which now has him as creepy dirty old man and calling him "immodest" is putting it mildly.
Also the weird stuff about needing to actively avoid ever being alone in the presence of a "boss". This avoidance, in order to give off the "right signals" so that they don't sexually assault you. Like, I guess at work we're all supposed to say: "Sorry I can't perform that assignment because I have to give off the right signals instead of doing my job." And then our boss has to go ahead & be rid of us for insubordination & keep on "signal" testing woman after woman for Alfred in this way. Women using these chances to "give off the right signals" are preventing imminent sexual assaults against themselves!!! Every woman who gets it right is out of a job, but, low-and-behold, at least she has "given off the right signals". [Although living in garbage cans out on the street being as she's too "right" in her "signals" to accommodate a job environment. Or else we're undergoing up-teen pregnancies while our husbands attempt to engage in pillow-talk with another woman & resort to "heavy-breathing" when this does not work out well for themselves. Trust me: these had their origin in assigning a flippant tone to sexual expression. If what can take place in a bed can be have it's sanctity undermined; then sexual abuse is by inference as well. That was what was calculated as much as it was immodest.] Back to my highlight of DG philosophy: But especially sad for the girl who takes her assignments without arguing. Sad because, as the "boss" winnows through everybody, he now has somebody who DOESN'T give off the the "right signals"!! This one, being as "wrong" as she is, actually goes ahead & takes the assignments he gives her! So of course SHE hasn't put herself off the job. She's on the job! For assignments that the "boss" orders her. After all, she didn't "give off the right signals", so she's deserving of whatever he expects her to take from him. And, when she can't take it anymore & finally does object to what's happening to her?!?!? Just tell her it was all because she signaled wrong. All along, it was all her fault. She could have signaled right, after all; it was up to her. Then she wouldn't be left doing as the "boss" orders her. My question is: What kind of signal is the "boss" indicating in going through candidates until he arrives at someone who DOESN'T give off the right signals?!? Pushing through and discarding, because the "right" ones default themselves out, by thier having "signaled right". So the seeker-boss keeps doing this weeding-out until he gets what all the "right signal" women turned off from, finally landing on someone who DOESN'T "signal right". And this 'look-'til-you-find' approach of the seeker-boss doesn't show signals of his own?!?!? If "signalling right" catalogues a person, then maybe all the signals he's sent by assigning the classifications means something, too. Take away the double standard here & see what's REALLY signified by this kind of rating of women.
In light of the court hearing for Bill this morning I thought my Daily Audio Bible reading was appropriate. Pray that God will be glorified and know that regardless of the outcome, God will be the perfect judge when we meet Him face to face. He will know the intent of the heart.
Matthew 7:15-27
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Do you know what happen today?
The following was passed on to me.
"The hearing went very well. The judge went ahead and gave an official ruling. Out of all the counts only the aggravated criminal sexual abuse counts were dismissed. No plaintiffs were dismissed and the case will now move forward into written discovery. The plaintiffs are very pleased with the outcome and appreciate your prayers as the next phase begins".
rob war,
Hiya. I had the date & time on my calendar, and, I, too, am wondering about the outcome. IF, indeed, there was a 'Hearing'..... This is dragging on so long, you never know. I have searched numerous sites for info, but NADA...
I am wondering IF Alfred posted anything....
<
There is a new article on Discovering Grace about the hearing that provides more details.
Yes, Alfred did.
Playing the usual spin doctor?
Yes, this was not a victory for Bill and IBLP but all they have to crow about is that Dr. Copley was dropped from the case with regards to sexual assault. But Ruth herself has not dropped from the case, she is still one of the plaintiffs against Bill and IBLP. I don't think Dr. Copley was a main part at all and dropping the charges doesn't mean that they didn't happen which is how Alfred and the other are spinning this. What I find totally incomprehensible is the admission and spin on Alfred's part that Bill was touching all these people but because Bill is just some "old fashioned" kinda guy and "in his mind" he had "no sexual" intent so everything was ok. So he is admitting NOT denying that Bill couldn't keep his paws off of girls and women. Totally unbelievable. And the other last spin is that poor old Bill's feet hurt from standing and talking all day, so he took his shoes off to relax his sore tootsies and encouraged others to relax as well. UNBELIEVABLE! I wish I almost could make this all up but this is what Bill's ardent supporters have twisted themselves into. I'm not sure if these are the defenses Bill is going to use in court but having his defenders out there saying these things doesn't make Bill look any better but a ton worst.
Rob,
It's amazing how Billy Graham who was raised in the same era as Bill(and even earlier plus southern) was not plagued with this same "old fashioned" touchy feely "grandfatherly" mentality. Even with more access to power brokers and celebrities, his 65 years in the ministry was clear of all scandals and accusations. He lived up to the ministerial requirements of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. His legacy is untarnished and I'm sure has a "few" rewards waiting in heaven. 215 million attended his live crusades in 185 countries, plus who knows how many on TV & Radio and untold salvations and rededications. Six decades of being awarded the most admired person award from Gallop. He lives out his final years in peace and grace, waiting to meet his Savior, with I'm sure no regrets.
Not only that Larne, but when Billy Graham went to the hotel room as he traveled, he had his staff first go in the room to check it out and make sure that there were "no surprises" in the room after he entered it. He also would not even step on an elevator alone with any other female that was not from his own family. I think Billy Graham's high standards that he held to throughout his life paid off in that, yes he lived an above board moral life that no one can question what so ever and he desires the title of "America's pastor" and is universally loved and admired by all Christians everywhere.
I've missed you, HuzandBuz!!! I thought you were still following RG though. Good to "see" you here again.
Larne that is the result I expected but it is SO GOOD to have it come to pass!!! Amen for the truth!!!
Hey Rob maybe the judge has a daughter!! And maybe when "take-your-daughter-to-work-day" comes around she'll be right there at the courthouse! In cognito to Bill, of course; he wouldn't be able to wrap his brain around a dad helping his daughter to aspire to her aptitude that's as high as the dad's. Thus he could never conceive of the dad actually having a daughter follow in his shoes for a day. Then, when Bill, wearing just his socks, pads on over to her to flatter her, invite her to sit with him in the cafeteria, go fetch items for him, be his energy-giver, etc., less proof needed! The judge will save so much time!!! He can then just short-cut the Pick-Up-Artist-Bill part of the discovery phase. But then again, I don't think the judge really needs any additional information to what has already piled up.........
I'm also sick of these type of creeps "spinning it" as if it's the pervert just being benevolently affectionate. Bestowing the "favor" of their grasping hold of their victims & their rubbing on these victims because these subjects "needed me". In the creeper-mind-set, he's somehow "God's gift to women", and, "I never thought of myself in doing what I did at all". When really what's done is spawned in total narcissism. While yet claiming to be others-centered. "They needed it from me." "Only I am qualified to give it to them." "They're the only ones who thought of it as sexual in nature because I know I'm immune to such feelings myself. It's why I do it all the time to everybody; because I'm immune to the feelings I arouse in others by what I do to them." "They imagined everything that I did was romantic because I'm such hot stuff, certainly not because I ever perceived THEM as being AT ALL attractive; I was just doing my duty of affection on them! I was the one favoring THEM. It's my calling. I couldn't help it if I was telegraphing romantic vibes as it happened. The girls just love me. THEY love me, because I'm just me. THEY love, while I'm just being sexy, lovable, attractive, irresistible me. That's just me." This co-dependency of the pervert is exercised all throughout his creepiness toward those whom he fancies to be in love with him. He projects on to them what all he feels he means to them. He does this before he creeps on them, he does it while he's creeping on them, he does it after he's creeped on them in saying "It's all their feeling, while I'm just being myself." As if the PERCEPTION of 15 plaintiffs are instead just unaffiliated emotions, conjured up by them in connection to his handling of them, but without any causation by his handling. Yeah, right. And as if all his grasping, yanking & rubbing were just an outflow of his personality with no choices involved on his part. "It's just me." No emotional or otherwise egotistical agenda. Just him being him. Untouchable. Can touch anybody else all he wants, but he's untouchable. Or....... maybe not. Not so much anymore, at least.
Sorry about the soap box, but that whole "shoes off" show you say that Bill put on put me in mind of how these creeps spin things.
Yes,
I totally get it. The problem is that Bill was not showing "old fashioned kinda guy" behaviors. The "old fashioned kinda guy" is someone that opens doors for ladies, lets the women go first, gets up and offers his seat to a woman that gets on a bus or train. In other words "ladies first". If a guy want to help someone cross the street or step off a curb, then he offers his elbow and it is the woman's choice to take it. It isn't the other way around. Then Alfred coughs up two pictures of men kissing a woman's hand. One of them is a lithograph from the 17th century immoral and godless French court. The other is Nancy Reagan who was the wife of the President of the US and was being greeted by a head of state and it is more about honoring her as the wife of a head of state. That has nothing to do with "old fashioned kinda guy" behaviors. What is even more curious of the "kissing" pictures from Alfred is that Bill has made a "vow" of never kissing anyone till his wedding day which doesn't look like it will ever happen for him now. So I'm not sure how hand kissing pictures prove Alfred's defense that Bill is just some "old fashioned kinda guy". Likewise, considering his over the top obsessive courtship teachings that regular when couples can hold hands and hugs etc. etc. it's totally out of step with these "courtship" rules. So I'm not sure if Alfred is saying Bill went around and kissed the ladies hands because he is just an "old fashioned kinda guy" or not. But Bill has made a big deal of his "vow" and that no kissing before the "I do" is now the new virginity. I look at the screwy Duggars and the big deal they make of following these courtship rules and if Jeremy and Jinger broke them by a "frontal hug" at one point or not. It's beyond reality and all of this is now lunacy in action.
Bill is famous for saying, "I've never kissed a girl." To my knowledge, he's never said he's never kissed a woman ... or a slut ... or a tramp ... or a whore.
Narcissists' claims are almost always illusory.
Rob, you are so right & so funny at saying it!
Maybe the reason he hoarded over a $100 Million in $$$$$ and assets was in hopes of buying himself a mail-order bride. That was probably his fall-back plan for when in case he couldn't access any more teenagers to turn into interns. (The board of directors finally cut him off from the underage girls, darn it! And from those only a fraction of his age, also. So....... BUY a trophy female!!!) Except not now. It wouldn't do him any good to try at this point; nobody would kiss him, not for a hundred million dollars! There just is not enough money in the world for some things. He's probably too busy making-out with a mirror, anyway.
I highly doubt that Bill ever intended ever to marry anyone, even a "mail order bride". Marriage does require (or at least should) some sort of maturity and ability to give one self to another. These sorts of behaviors by Bill kinda reveal a man that isn't able to do that. According to Alfred and I would assume that he is correct on this, Bill does not have any money, it is all wrapped up in IBLP. Considering that they have left Chicago and are now consolidated at Sandy Hook and cut staff and are selling off properties, they may have millions but they are also loosing millions as well. Despite the recent comments by Alfred and his side kick over on DG, this suit really isn't about getting money out of Bill or even IBLP but about seeking justice. Looking for $50,000 from a multi-million dollar (or use to be) ministry is not really a lot of money. If the plaintiffs were seeking to squeeze IBLP of it's millions (or former millions) the monies would be much higher.
Sandy Hook?
The place in Texas, I thought it was called Sandy Hook.
IBLP relocated to the small town of Big Sandy.
It is located in the eastern part of Texas in Upshur County. The town has a total area of 1.7 square miles.
(I find the overall demographics to be very interesting.) The 2014 census indicated the population to be 1,374 w/the median age at 35. Females outnumber the males by a small margin. Only about 13% are non-Caucasian.
:+)
Giving the benefit of the doubt here (and it's an extreme leap of a one) just for the sake of humoring the whole "he's just 'old fashioned'" defense, let's assume for the moment it was all just "benevolent touching" or whatever spin Alfred is leading the charge with. However "positive" the motives, it's still grossly insensitive, inappropriate, and I dare say, arrogant, to apply these seemingly "old fashioned" standards of relating to women of 1-2 generations younger than you. "Oh, that's just the way he is" is a polite way of saying "deal with it!" or "get over it!".
"But Mr. Gothard, that makes me very uncomfortable!"
"Too bad, that's just the way I express myself!"
All while forcing people around him into his preferred paradigm and mode of expression.
Yes, exactly correct. Likewise, the other part of the spin that Alfred has stated more than once is that Bill operates out of his own "old fashioned" world. That is the same spin that by the friends of Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson was in his own bubble or world and didn't realize or understand that having boys over for sleep overs and everyone got into bed together which included Michael was wrong and inappropriate. If someone is that clueless that they "operate" in their own world, either they are seriously mentally ill and delusional or they are so stuck on themselves and selfish to the extreme. Likewise, Bill not only forces others around him into his preferred paradigm but he is basing this paradigm on his delusions of what a "old fashioned kinda guy" really is.
Rob,and David,I made my mind up I was never going to visit DG website.I did. You are doing a commendable job in parring counterblows with Alfred who at last got the ascribed power to counter argue spin,redefine intentions;et al admirers,supporters.So how were these incidents with girls always in private,late hours,behind closed doors,etc.?Was it because he was afraid we would misinterpret these altruistic motives?And what say these motives are again misinterpreted upon reading these girl's accounts of him blackmailing dismissal towards families already financially strapped if they dare speak a word against Bill's so purely altruistic motives,and send the abused or family members home to be replaced by another with the ongoing process still intact and unchallenged?Heather's story;an emotional rape in itself.You guys even getting your comments undeleted by that bully surprises me,but the deliberate bashing of countless helpless naïve,and vulnerable females by a master craftsman of orchestrated half truths into an insidious travesty of all human rights and dignity is a doggone more bull than I can take.This man defies all definations of evil,as his calculated planned perversions for temporal gratification are spinned off by sickening mental gymnastics,whitewashed by natural religion.He's not through, he's only started to show the wickedness suppressed,and to keep it going with unchanged heresies.
Thank-you David P! But the other Dave was the one that looked up the real links about Dr. Copley and it was other blogs that mention his name, not RG even in a four year old article. Sometimes one of the biggest victim of Bill Gothard is the one that doesn't realize he is being used by Bill and his devotion and loyalty manipulated to such a degree that what in really is an intelligent man with a good heart comes up and out with the most off the wall defenses and ideas. I really almost can't believe it or make it up. That five year old article that is buried here on RG that by now most everyone has forgotten about, using pseudo names was brought up and coughed up by Alfred as being Dr. Copley. Yet his defense of Dr. Copley has only made him look even worst. I'm not sure why Alfred feels the need to defend his honor but Dr. Copley is a big boy, he can put his pants on and step up to the plate defending himself like a real man.
And yet here,
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/03/a-matter-of-basic-principles-a-review/#comment-6157
Matt.S.:Iknow you read the article"The Early Years",1965-1979,and"The Scandal".There is some kind of mechanism in me that dulls the depravity of Gothard's heinous acts,and the coverup by what Larne Gabriel called the IBLP"Machine".It may be that I am too rational,and consider reason as a deterant to bad behavior,coming from a reasoning based"natural religion"promising behavior change and modification.Totally wrong.Lie of lies.Comprehending deliberate, calculated acts of shall I say rape,sending vulnerable women,[girls?]"to be absolutely,totally isolated from any active sympathy,emotionally processed by tailored spiritual abuse,heresies,eventually raped[7,maybe more]; the witnesses denigrated"A Messager of Satan" to Guhr,because of his documented testimony,kicked out of his own church.....shall I go on?"My young ladies would not be silent if something were amiss in this department".Moral depravity remains smoldering, unchanged in its essence beneath the superficial spiritual façade,waiting for another opportunity.I can say honestly,how dare anyone understand what really went on inside the parameters and spectrum of this systematic hideous empire that we would want to perpetuate one more second.Be slapped around emotionally battered.I've got three beautiful daughters.
If it is just a "naive lack of perception," then why would a wife need to pound it out of him? And wouldn't that be a wife going against her headship?
^^^^^^^^What David & David P. just said^^^^^^^^ True that!
A friend just shared this with me and this is for anyone that has suffered under patriarchal "men are superior" nonsense. It comes from William Golding a British novelist, playwright and poet (1911-1993) and is for all the ladies here.
"I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men. They are far superior and always have been. Whatever you give a woman, she will make greater. If you give her sperm, she will give you a baby. If you give her a house, she will give you a home. If you give her groceries, she will give you a meal. If you give her a smile, she will give you her heart. She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her. So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of ****!"
Now this is a guy who gets it! Sorry about the crude edge to this but sometimes it takes a little edge to answer authoritarianism abuse of men towards women that Bill et. al. taught.
Actually, there are two men who really understand woman:
"I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men. They are far superior and always have been".
This phrasing has been attributed to Sir William Gerald Golding.
Author of 'Lord of the Flies'.
If you give her sperm, she will give you a baby. If you give her a house, she will give you a home. If you give her groceries, she will give you a meal. If you give her a smile, she will give you her heart. She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her. So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of ****!"
Erick S.Gray
thanks, its a current meme being passed around on Facebook and it attributed to Golding with his picture but not surprised there might be others.
:+)
I wish that, even as this suit unfolds, that The IBLP board would contact all 2 & a half million alumna to inform them of the resources available here on RG. Even though they want to suppress the facts of what Bill Gothard did to these girls, they could still do the right thing of making known the cult recovery resources found here. The theological comparisons on RG clearly debunk Basic Seminar lies in favor of inductive Scripture interpretation. Even I can see that. The responsibility of the board in this matter is so obvious due to the obviousness of all their false teachings laid bare by the truth. I found this site a couple years ago for the 1st time so I know there are way more IBLP survivors out there who are hurting & haven't found RG yet even though they need the help available through it's theological comparisons. I wonder if, as part of a sentence being handed down, IBLP could be court-ordered to contact all of their alumna to provide them with RG's link. Then at last the abuse wreaked by theological error could be stopped & all be provided adequate resource for proper healing from the blatant abuse of theology that then wreaked more interpersonal abuse by this twisting of theology. I'm pretty sure there are thousands if not millions still alive today who could really use this help. And maybe they don't yet know of it.
Does anyone have any more info on the Trump nominee Sonny Perdue for Agriculture. Apparently, he is a long time supporter of Bill Gothard and IBLP?
Did you read the recent article on him at Homeschoolers Anonymous?
Yes, wondered if anyone here knew more.
Came across a brilliant quote:
"Those who love to be feared fear to be loved"
St. Francis de Sales.
Seems to fit
In one aspect, though, Gothard really did demonstrate a whole plethora of "loves"- in the form of using "love". All kinds of people, in all kinds of ways: romantic affection, showing fatherly interest, doing-this-for-your-own-good, etc. He used to love, using being his definition of loving; he loved to use. This co-dependency on his subjects was/is much greater than if he had ever received love from a free agent; accepting love from autonomous individuals is not the addiction of a control-freak. As it was/is, Gothard's impositions on those in his life had to have been his version of doing crack. Crack is an object. People were/are objects to him.
funny stuff:
xatiguy.blogspot.com
been inactive for a long time, but hilarious ....